It is admitted that there was a good deal of discussion as to establishing such a Post 25 on the frontier with the Dutch, either at the junction of the Yuruari and Uruan or at that of the Cuyuni and Curumo. There is also a note to one copy of Marmion's Report made. in 1793 which suggests that a beginning had 30 been made with a new town in that neighbourhood, although by a slip the MS. speaks of the junction of the Cuyuni with the Orinoco. It is inconceivable that, if the Post had had any existence, there should not be some docu- 35 ment directly referring to the fact. Yet no such document has been found, nor do the papers relating to the Reports of Aloys and of Olazarra in 1813 give a hint that any Post had been constructed. 40 The declaration of José Blanco appears to conclusively negative any suggestion that such a Post existed in 1817. The alleged site on the southern bank of the river, opposite the mouth of the Curumo, first 45 appears on the Map of Codazzi (dated 1840), who marks "antiguo fuerte." This map seems to have been used by Hebert, and accounts for his location of the site; and it may be assumed that Sir R. Schomburgk in his Map of physical features accepted the same evidence of a Post which he had not specially investigated. British Counter British Atlas, The only map of authority which purports to 5 insert the real position of the fort or Post is that of Bauza (1841), which is reproduced in the Case, Map No. 5. Appendix to this Counter-Case. This map refers to the Map (which has not been discovered) by General Murillo (the Spanish Agent or peace10 maker in the war of rebellion), and on that authority places the alleged Spanish Post at a long distance west of the Cuyuni. Arrowsmith's Map of Colombia (1834) also has the mark of p. 37. a fort almost exactly in the same position. These authorities completely destroy the suggestion that any Spanish Post was ever located south of the Cuyuni. To this evidence may be added that of the tracing of the Mission area found in Sir R. K. Porter's 20 collections, on which a "fortaleza" is marked on the north side of the Cuyuni, near its junction with the Curumo. 15 No further statements of any consequence 25 impairing the Dutch rights to the whole region between the Essequibo and Orinoco are made in this chapter of the Venezuelan Case, with the exception of two statements on p. 153. 30 66 35 It is alleged that there was British Counter- Alleged Spanish control in the interior. a great growth of Spanish population and spread of Venezuelan Case, Mission villages not only as far as the Curumo itself, but far into the interior of the Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin and even beyond, into the Potaro region and as far as the headwaters of the Siparuni." p. 153. It is also alleged that the entradas or expeditions of the missionaries into unsettled lands for the purpose of converting the Indians, and bringing them back to reside in towns and villages were constant "throughout the region Venezuelan Case, p. 153. 40 west of the Essequibo, from the coast far into the interior, even beyond the Pacaraimia Mountains." Both these statements are denied, and have no foundation whatever in fact nor is any evidence adduced by the Venezuelan Government in 45 support of them. The Boundary Commission informed the King of Spain that no part of the territory between "the girdle" of the Orinoco and the sea had been penetrated nor any progress made therein by the Jesuits. The exact extent of the Capuchin British Counter- Fallacy of the Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, pp. 155, 156. Missions and the position of their furthest cattle farm is known, and no other missionaries ever attempted to enter the country. pro Certain conclusions are set forth at pp. 155 and 156 of the Venezuelan Case, purporting 5 to be an exact statement of the extent of the territories belonging to the Netherlands and to the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. The 10 positions of fact embodied in this statement are too extravagant for detailed comment. It is boldly stated, without the slightest evidence, that Dutch access to Cuyuni and Moruka depended upon Spanish permission, while to Spain is 15 attributed a breadth and magnificence of dominion which even the realization of the paper schemes of such sanguine Lieutenants as Centurion, Abalos and Marmion would not have conferred upon her. Not one of the conclusions at 20 the end of this chapter of the Venezuelan Case is justified by the evidence, and they are all, without exception, denied by Her Majesty's Government. In conclusion, it appears that, at the time of 25 the cession of Guiana to Great Britain, Mission occupation extended only about 50 miles from the banks of the Orinoco, and that the furthest point to which the missionaries had reached was the cattle farm at Tumeremo, far to the west of 20 the line which was afterwards identified with the name of Sir R. Schomburgk. "The story of Dutch remonstrances is one of Spanish 10 aggression and assertion of sovereign rights in the territory now in dispute, followed by repeated protests of the Dutch, and Memorials to the Spanish Court, all of which were treated with contempt, answered only by a continuance of these aggressions, by further acts 15 of political control, by further grumblings on the part of the Dutch, by further complaints to which the Spanish Government did not deign to reply, and by final acquiescence by the Dutch in the inevitable." The ideas conveyed by this paragraph are 20 entirely opposed to the facts. "Spanish aggression" there was, in the sense that there were occasional raids upon Dutch territory. "Assertion of sovereign rights or political control" by Spain in the territory now in dispute there was none. It 25 is quite true that there is an absence of any official admission by the Spanish Government of the justice of the Dutch Remonstrances and that in many cases no definite answer was obtained. The attempt, however, to build upon this founda30 tion the theory that there was final acquiesence by the Dutch in Spanish pretensions is preposterous. The Dutch remained in possession of what they claimed and the fact that they did not succeed in obtaining from the Spanish diplomatists formal admission of their rights in no way lessens the significance of this result. 35 40 any This position will be illustrated by a few observations on each of the Remonstrances referred to in the Venezuelan Case. On p. 157 of the Venezuelan Case it is stated that "the first recorded Remonstrance" was in Venezuelan Case, p. 157. Alleged Remonstrance of 1746. Venezuelan Case, p. 157. 1746. In that year the Government of the From this it will be seen how unfounded is The facts with regard to the Remonstrance of 1759 have been given in detail in the British Case. The Spanish Government had recourse to its usual dilatory tactics, and it is quite true that 40 the Dutch did not succeed in obtaining compensation for the outrage which had been committed. What is more important is that they reoccupied and held the Cuyuni, and the Spaniards, who had immediately evacuated it, never renewed the attack. The Venezuelan Case says that the only answer to the Dutch Remonstrances was a "continuation of the very acts that brought them forth." Then 45 |