fore, can be drawn as to territorial claims from any assertion of the West India Company to exclusive rights of trading.

Another result of the constitution of the Colonial Government as being in the hands of a trading company is to be noticed in its important bearing upon the evidence in the present case. Owing to the fact that the Company was engaged in commercial business, as well as in governing a colony, and that its representative on the spot was not only the Colonial Governor, but the business. agent of the Company, his reports and correspondence describe the course of events with a minuteness and detail which would never be found in the archives of an ordinary Government colony. This correspondence is open to inspection, and has been examined and in large part offered in evidence by both parties. It is so full and detailed that it may almost be said to give the daily record of every event, even of minor importance, in the history of the colony; in some cases it is actually a daily record. It follows that where no mention is to be found in the Dutch archives of an alleged event of importance, it is well-nigh conclusive evidence. that no such event took place. Especially as to questions of settlement and political control it may be safely assumed that, whatever other persons may have imagined, there was no such thing as Dutch settlement or Dutch control beyond that which the Dutch archives indicate. If, therefore, the Governor of Cumana or Guayana reports that a rumor, as was now and then the case, of some important act of the Dutch, by way of making settlements or exercising control, had reached his ears, it may safely be assumed that the rumor was without foundation unless it is confirmed by the Dutch archives. It is impossible to read these latter at any point without being struck by their minuteness of detail; and no event, the record of which is omitted in the archives, can be proved in the present proceeding by the mere rumor from another source of its occurrence.

The Spanish Colonial authorities, on the other hand, reported little to the Council of the Indies that can be called a record of

current events, certainly nothing with reference to the course of trade. Substantially everything that we have on this subject, even as to the trade of the Spaniards themselves, comes from the Dutch archives. In 1750 the Spaniards were coming down the Cuyuni in such numbers to trade in Essequibo that a Committee was actually appointed to report a plan by which they could be induced to defer their traffic until they reached the lower Essequibo, where the Company's warehouse and principal plantations were situated. (B. C., App. II, p. 68.) The Spanish trade in hides, tobacco and live stock with Moruca by way of the Barima was likewise a very extensive traffic, carried on wholly, in the later periods, by Spaniards. But as to these two facts, proved conclusively by the Dutch records and of such vital importance in this controversy, not a word is to be found in the Spanish archives. The reports written by the Colonial Governors were always of a general character, in the nature of extended dissertations upon the general welfare of the colony, and it was only when some special occasion arose for it that they dealt with passing events at all. In the construction of these general reports the Governors dealt largely with subjects which they only knew from hearsay, especially in reference to any movements of the Dutch. Under these circumstances, no conclusion is to be drawn from a failure to refer to any given occurrence, for such occurrences, unless there was special occasion for doing it, were rarely or never reported.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE DUTCH TITLE CONQUEST.

The Dutch title, to such possessions as they had in Guiana in 1648, was acquired by war; is a title by conquest and was confirmed and perfected by the Treaty of Munster.

In the British Case (p. 21) it is said:

"In 1581 the Dutch had formally renounced the sovereignty of Spain, and the war then raging between the two countries continued till 1648, with an interval of partial truce from 1609 till 1621."

The Dutch then entered Guiana while they were in a state of war with Spain, a war for independence on the part of the Dutch, and, on the part of Spain, to reduce its rebellious subjects and to re-establish its sovereignty.

If the Dutch were the victors, all Spanish territory actually held by the Dutch at the close of the war became theirs by conquest-the title to be perfected by a treaty of peace.

If Spain was victorious, the attempt to introduce a new state would fail; there could be no treaty, for there would be but one sovereignty. Spain's old title and sovereignty would be reestablished, and Essequibo would be a Spanish colony.

It may be said that to allege a Dutch title to Essequibo by conquest from Spain is to assume a prior Spanish title. We reply that the manner and circumstances of the Dutch occupancy and the cession taken from Spain were a recognition by the Dutch of Spain's prior right.

It is not necessary that Spain's title should have been a perfected title, or that the places seized by the Dutch should have been at the time in the actual occupation of Spain. It is enough that the Dutch entered in war to seize and appropriate Spain's title-whatever it was by force, and at the close of the war took by treaty a release of that title. As against Spain, the Dutch limits must be

determined by the rules applicable to a conquest, and by the terms of the treaty of peace. The Dutch entry in Guiana was an act of war, not the peaceful appropriation of lands believed to be unappropriated, and, by the treaty of peace, the Dutch asked and took a transfer to themselves of Spain's title to Essequibo, which they had seized in war and then held.

Spain's title was appropriated by conquest, and was extinguished only so far as the actual Dutch occupation extended. The Treaty of Peace runs in those terms, and implies that a title to the territory ceded was derived from Spain, and that beyond the cession the territory was Spain's. In other words, that prior claim or title in Spain, which is necessary to give the Dutch acquisition the character of a conquest, was conceded by the Dutch. They expressly set up a title to their New World possessions based upon conquest from Spain, in the New Netherland controversy, as we shall see. Spain claimed the Essequibo territory and defended that claim by arms. The Dutch, by arms, effected an appropriation of Spain's claims, and so were able to set up, as they did, the Spanish title against other claimants.

They cannot say they took nothing in Essequibo from Spain, either by conquest or cession. Spain parted with her title-deprived herself of the right to recover Essequibo - and the Dutch, while holding that title, cannot free themselves from the limitations that attach to it.

Until the treaty of peace was signed and Dutch independence recognized, Spain's right to take--if she could-every foot of territory possessed by the Dutch, must be conceded. In the Treaty of Munster the Dutch distinctly recognized the fact that Spain, as sovereign of revolted Portugal, had still a title to "the places in Brazil," though they were then as much in the effective control of Portugal as Essequibo was in the control of the Dutch. By that treaty they took an absolute assignment of Spain's title to Essequibo, and a conditional assignment to "the places in Brazil,"

both at the time in the occupation of provinces of Spain that had revolted and declared their independence.

The war between Spain and the States General was waged with a bloody intenstity in the Low Countries, but it was not limited to that region. The Dutch carried it into the distant possessions of Spain; sent out their fleets to capture Spanish Colonies, to harry the coasts of Spain's distant possessions, to destroy her commerce and to seize her ships. This from Brodhead gives a comprehensive sketch of these military operations:

"The Company laid waste Bahia, which, independent of the incurred damages, cost the King of Spain over ten millions to recover it; and, also, captured, plundered, and destroyed Porto Rico, Margarita, Sancta Martha, St. Thomas, Guiana, and sundry other places;

Took and retained Pernambuco, and Tamarica, whereby the King of Spain hath lost over a million and a half of yearly revenue.

Prevented the Portuguese, by the continual cruizing of our ships on the coast of Brazil, from bringing over their sugars and other prod

uce.

Also, captured his fleet from New Spain, and thrice made prize of the rich Honduras ships; took, moreover, in divers parts of Africa and America, over a hundred of his vessels, most of which had full freights, including several of his best galleons; and burnt and destroyed nearly as many, if not more, that had ran ashore." (Brodhead, Docs., vol. i, p. 63.)

Even the truce of 1609, as the British Case admits, was partial" and not effective. The Dutch knew that Spain claimed Guiana; that she was engaged in settling it; that she was drawing from her American colonies the wealth that enabled her to continue the war; that some of her treasure-ships rendezvoused in the Orinoco, and that in the interior of that province there was believed to be a fabulous store of gold. Guiana was a vulnerable and exposed point. The Spanish garrisons were not strong, and a "sedem belli " there offered great opportunities to harass Spain and to divert from her treasury to the Dutch treasury a great store of the precious metals. It also offered an opportunity to cripple and appropriate the trade of Spain to the