The Case for Venezuela further cites the jour- Venezuelan Case, 10 nal of Cabeliau to show that in 1598 the Spaniards had begun to make a road 200 miles into the interior. The passage immediately preceding shows that the proposal to make this road was brought forward in view of the failure of all 15 previous efforts to penetrate to the interior. It is clear, however, that the road was never made. The Spaniards never had the men for a work of the importance indicated; and, moreover, in a Report of the Council to the 20 King of Spain, dated the 29th July, 1615, it is expressly stated that Fernando Berrio, who succeeded his father as Governor of Santo Thomé in 1597, merely made some attempts at settlement of little permanence or importance. 35 P. 41. British App. I, P. 43. British Counter- Venezuelan Case, p. 41. British Counter It is not denied that the Spaniards held the bank of the Orinoco at Santo Thomé; but they Case, App., p. 9. held nothing else. A statement such as that attributed on page 41 of the Venezuelan Case to King James I is of no valuc as evidence against documents such as those produced in the Appendix to the British Case. With regard to the coast to the east of the 40 Orinoco the Case for Venezuela fails to show any Spanish act of occupation before the Dutch took possession. Absence of Spanish Occupation East of the P. 42. Venezuelan Atlas, p. 76. The Venezuelan Case alleges that a Spanish Venezuelan Case, explorer in 1553 ascended the Essequibo and 45 descended on the other side to the Amazon. The only authority cited is an early Spanish map on the face of which is a legend stating that an Arawak cacique had done this. The map cannot be earlier than the seventeenth century, because 50 it shows two Spanish towns in Trinidad; but this island was first settled by Berrio about British App. 1593, and as late as 1615 there was, according p. 4. British App. I, p 44. p. 42. Venezuelan Case, p. 43. It is not denied that in the last years of the sixteenth century the Spaniards, like the English and Dutch, frequented the rivers as far as the Essequibo for trade, and especially to get cassava for bread. The accounts of Raleigh, Keymis, and 10 Venezuelan Case, Masham show this. The passage cited from De Laet carries the matter no farther. He is merely citing Masham and the date, 1591, is probably a mistake for Masham's 1597. The alleged "expedition" of Ibarguen (Domingo de Vera) 15 to Essequibo in 1597, after the failure of his colonizing expedition, is shown by his letter to have been only a visit, very probably to Venezuelan Case, get cassava. The inclosure in the communication p. 43. of the Duke of Lerma (1615), referred to by the 20 Government of Venezuela, is the only indication that the Spaniards ever did more than visit Essequibo for trade. For this purpose they depended on the goodwill of the Arawak Indians; but these became hostile in 1618, and, as already 25 shown in the British Case, the visits of the Spaniards to Essequibo were finally put an end to in 1619. British Case, pp. 23, 24. Venezuelan Case, P 43, p. 242. It is said, however, in the Venezuelan Case, that Fort Kijkoveral in the Essequibo was 30 originally built by the Spaniards. This allegation is made on the strength of certain marks on the keystone of the arch, suggested by Hartsinck to be the arms of Portugal; but, as the Portuguese were never in the Essequibo, General Netscher 35 in his "Geschiedenis van de Kolonien Essequibo, &c." suggested that they were probably those of Spain. As a matter of fact the whole British App. VII, of the masonry of the fort is Dutch, and the marks on the keystone are not armorial bearings 40 at all. The keystone will be produced to the Tribunal of Arbitration. If there ever had been any Spanish Settlement to the east of the Orinoco, it is incredible that it should never be mentioned either in the copious 45 contemporary histories of Herrera and Simon, or in the very complete series of documents preserved in the archives at Seville and Simancas. No Spanish officer appears ever to have claimed credit for the foundation of any such settlement, 50 or to have been called to account for its abandon Absence of Spanish Control. ment. The truth is, that Spanish vessels bound for the Indies made straight for Trinidad, described in 1604 as the entry to the Indies, and any settlement on the coast to windward of that 5 point would not have been tenable. The last section of the chapter now under consideration purports to show that Spain maintained an effective control of Guiana and repelled the attempts of other nations to dispossess her. 10 With one exception, however, the acts of the Spanish Government which are referred to show no more than that Spain retained and defended the Orinoco from Santo Thomé upwards. The exception is the raid upon the Dutch plantation 15 on the Corentyn in 1613. This, however, did not check the enterprise of the Dutch, and no more destroyed the Dutch title to the coast than the three raidings of Santo Thomé in 1618, 1629, and 1637 destroyed the Spanish title to that 20 district. The Spanish strength in the Orinoco itself is, moreover, unduly magnified by a partial citation from the journal of Cabeliau. The passage in full is as follows, but the Case for Venezuela 25 omits the words in italics : "We travelled to the place or hamlet where the Spaniards dwell, which is named S. Thomé, the Governor of which is Don Fernando de Berreo and Marques of Weyana, the River Worinoque and the whole 30 coasts being still unconquered as far as the River Marignon or Amazonas, and they are thereabout sixty horsemen and 100 musketeers strong, who daily attempt to conquer the auriferous Weyana, but cannot conquer the same either by the forces already used, or by any means of 35 friendship, since the nation named Charibus daily offers them hostile resistance with their arms, which are hand-bows," &c. But the weakness of Spanish influence, and the narrowness of the area over which it extended, is not merely to be inferred from the 40 lack of proof to the contrary. It can be shown affirmatively that even before the Treaty of Münster, to the knowledge of the Spaniards, Dutch influence and occupation extended to the Amakuru, and in spite of orders to the Spanish 45 Commanders to put an end to it. This evidence, however, can be most conveniently introduced in dealing with Chapter V British Counter- of the Case for Venezuela, entitled, "Early Post, p. 34. Dutch Relations with Guayana, 1597-1648." Venezuelan Case, p. 57. Venezuelan Case, p. 57. THIS Chapter, which ranges over the whole period from 1581 to the present time, does not appear to call for any detailed notice in this place. The main allegations contained in it are, so far 10 as is necessary, sufficiently dealt with in other Chapters of this Counter-Case. The mention of Isekepe and Bauwmerona in the Charter of 1674 in no way implies that there had been any retrogression of Dutch influence in 15 Guiana. They are mentioned in the Charter only for the purpose of emphasizing the principal points of trade in the territory of the Company. The discussions on the provisions of this 20 Charter referred to on p. 57 of the Venezuelan Case were discussions as between the Company on the one hand and inhabitants of the Netherlands eager for fresh avenues of trade on the other. They cannot be read as suggesting any 25 doubt as to the limits which the Dutch might hold as against Spain. 66 Spain had discovered and explored America; she 15 had discovered, explored, taken possession of, and settled Guiana; she held undisputed control of the Orinoco, and of that coveted interior whose famed wealth had been the cause of so many foreign expeditions uselessly undertaken, and of so much blood 20 uselessly spilt; the key to that interior was in her hands alone; into the great interior Cuyuni-Mazaruni basin she had pushed her roads and extended her conquests; and the entrance-the only entrance--to it, over the gentle rolling savannahs of the Orinoco, was 25 in her keeping; the Essequibo itself she had settled, cultivated, and fortified; for the moment she had left its mouth unoccupied, thus permitting the Dutch to trade there; upon the restoration of peace she gave them a title to territory which up to that time they had 30 held as mere trespassers." "The extent of this grant cannot be difficult to define the entire Dutch Colony, if indeed it might be dignified by such a name, consisted of a body of two or three dozen unmarried employés of the West India 35 Company, housed in a fort on a small island, and engaged in traffic with the Indians for the dyes of the forest at the time when the Treaty was signed, they were not cultivating an acre of land. This and an establishment on the Berbice were the only Dutch 40 Settlements in Guiana in 1648. Neither then, nor at any time prior thereto, had the Dutch occupied or settled a foot of ground west of their Essequibo Post." Venezuelan Proposition. Venezuelan Case, |