zuelan Government will recognize the justice and expediency of the decision which you are instructed to communicate to them."

The declaration of the British Government is most important as an admission that all but special and necessary jurisdiction is prohibited by the Agreement of 1850 in the disputed territory.

It is an admission that the exercise of such special jurisdiction, arising from the necessities of the situation, and to prevent the country from being an asylum for criminals, should not have any effect in establishing control, whichever party happened to exercise it.

CHAPTER XVIII.

NATIONAL SECURITY.

We summarize here the conclusions which we have thus far reached.

1. That Spain discovered Guiana and, by a first and timely settlement of a part for the whole, perfected her title to the whole of the geographical unit known as Guiana.

2. That, if Spain's discoveries, settlements and armed expeditions are held to be inadequate to complete her title to the whole of Guiana, they are certainly effective as to all of the disputed territory.

3. That even if Spain's inchoate title had not been perfected when the Dutch occupied the mouth of the Essequibo, she had not abandoned that region in fact, and no presumption of an abandonment had then arisen; and the Dutch entry-even if a peaceful one-was premature and wrongful.

4. That, in fact, the Dutch entry at Essequibo was not an attempt to appropriate lands believed to be open to peaceful settlement, but was an act of war-the forcible appropriation, in war, of territory known to be claimed by Spain, and as to which Spain's purpose to hold and to settle was well known.

5. That, by the Treaty of Munster, the Dutch title by conquest to the places then actually possessed by them in Guiana, was confirmed by cession from Spain.

6. That the treaty involved the concession that what was not given to the Dutch was retained by Spain, and that, when the limits of the Dutch possessions were marked, the territory beyond -to the north and west-was Spain's territory.

7. That, at the date of the Treaty of Munster, the Dutch were not in the possession of any part of the disputed territory.

8. That the Dutch could not thereafter acquire title to any part of the disputed territory save by prescription, and that a public, continuous, adverse, undisputed, actual and firm occupation, under a claim of right, for fifty years was necessary to perfect a title by prescription.

9. That there was never any such occupation by the Dutch of any part of the disputed territory; every attempt at occupation being protested and resisted by Spain; and every such attempt having utterly failed, except the settlement in the PomeroonMoruca region.

10. That the exclusive political control which the Tribunal is given an option to consider as the equivalent of adverse holding, must have the characteristics of an adverse holding which we have enumerated, and that no exclusive political control was ever exercised by the Dutch over any part of the disputed territory unless perhaps it be on the Pomeroon. In the close neighborhood of the Moruca post such a control was exercised, but it was protested and resisted by Spain in every way that was open to her-as has been every attempt to make settlements or to assume control of the disputed territory.

11. That the Agreement of 1850 cut off all titles by prescription or political control, and established a neutral status in the disputed territory; that all acts of Great Britain since are wholly ineffectual to extend her territory or to confirm her title.

12. That, whether the Dutch title is rested upon conquest, cession or prescription, it is a strict and limited title, in behalf of which the rules as to constructive occupation cannot be invoked. The conqueror gets only so much as he firmly holds; the grantee only what is granted; one who prescribes, only what he has actually appropriated. None of these can invoke against the party from whom the title is wrested any rule of constructive occupation, such as the rule of natural boundaries, of water shed, of middle distance, or any other rule that is rested upon such considerations as safety or convenience, or geographical unity and

the like. These rules rest upon the theory that the contending nations have equally meritorious and original titles, and cannot be used to extend a grant, or to aid a disseizor.

But Great Britain denies that the Dutch territories in Guiana were in any way derived from Spain. She expressly disclaims any title by conquest, or by cession, from Spain. A title by prescription is tentatively put forward, but the territory to which it is applied is left undefined, and it seems to be denied that this prescription is used to cut off a prior Spanish title. prior Spanish title. It is rather prescription in the sense of occupatio. For the British contention is that Spain had no title whatever, either to the lands in Guiana originally occupied by the Dutch, or to those "great extensions" afterwards made by them; that all of these lands were terra nullius, subject to be freely appropriated by any nation; that, therefore, the Dutch may claim for their settlements the same broad effects-as to their constructive limits--that can be claimed for those of Spain, the discoverer and first settler. If the prescription set up is used to cut off a prior Spanish title, this would hardly be claimed. The convenience and security of a disseizor is not taken account of. Now, while this contention of Great Britain is utterly unsupported by the facts, and directly contradicted by the official declarations of her grantor, made before the grant, and directly to her, we ought, perhaps, to discuss briefly the boundary question upon the basis of this contention.

Upon the theory of the British Case that the actual settlements of Spain in Guiana did not have relation to the whole of that province, or to the whole of the disputed territory, but only confirmed her title as a discoverer to such parts of it as were actually occupied by her leaving all other parts open to the occupation of the Dutch-and that there was an implied abandonment by Spain which must prevail even against her expressed intent to occupy the whole, what are the rules of law as to the limits that will be allowed to the Dutch settlements? Are they to be fixed upon a basis that admits a constructive possession of vast unoccupied

areas, upon a basis that allows to the Dutch all of the equitable extensions that may be clained for the settlements of the discoverer?

May the second comer, for instance, claim one-half, or even more if a natural boundary suggests it, of the territory that intervenes between his settlements and those of the discoverer? If in this unoccupied, intermediate space, there is a region that is equally necessary to the safety of each settlement, has the discoverer and first comer no preferential right? Are the intendments of law, as to the extent of an occupancy, to be given their full scope in behalf of the first comer and exhausted before the rights of the second comer can be considered, or do they enter in parity of right? Or is it true-as seems to be claimed by the British Case—that all of the equitable intendments and constructive extensions are to be allowed to the second comer? May he extend his limits so as to close the access to the discoverer's settlements and to command the entire interior possessions of the discoverer and reach to the very heart of his settlements?

May the second comer not only claim a middle line, but extend himself, by construction, to the fenced possessions of the discoverer and first settler?

Given, settlements by the discoverer on the Orinoco, and by the second comer on the Essequibo, may the second comer make the Orinoco the line of division? Is the discoverer to be treated with severity, and the one who followed in the road he had opened, with liberality? The rules suggested by the British Case seem to imply all this.

In the British Counter-Case (par. 9, p. 136) we have the statement:

"There is no distinction between the first and second comer beyond this that, as already stated, the first comer has a right within a reasonable time to take possession of his discovery; otherwise the same rules apply to the original possessor as to the person taking subsequent possession."