SCRUGGS Fallacies of the British "Blue Book" on The Venezuelan Question A A y 2 \ ^ \ ^ 1 u b F 2331 B7 S43 Fallacies of the British ''Blue Book' ON The Venezuelan Question, By William L. Scruggs, Legal Adviser of the Venezuelan Government, and Special Counsel before the Boundary Commission. McGixi, & Wallace, Law Printers, Washington, D. C. v^cs^ ^\^tvrx*"' FALLACIES OF THE BRITISH "BLUE BOOK'' ON THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION. The British Blue Book of March, 1896, entitled "Doc- uments and Correspondence relating to the Question of Boundary between British Guayana and Venezuela," is perhaps as clever a presentation of the English side of the case as the facts and circumstances would admit. True, it seems to have greatly disappointed the English people ; but its faults and failures are chargeable less to the advocate of a bad cause than to the inherent weak- ness of the cause itself. In so far as its mistakes were foreshadowed or adopted in Lord Salisbury's note of November last, and subse- quently by a published synopsis, they have received due attention already.^ There is, therefore, no necessity for going over that part of the ground again. There are, however, some additional statements in the Book which may be thought worthy of notice. They may be briefly summarized as follows : 1. That " prior to 1596, the Spaniards had established no settlements" in Guayana; and, inferentially, that no part of the country was then in their possession ; 2. That in 1648, at the time of the Treaty of Miinster, "the Dutch settlements" extended westward to the Orinoco and southward beyond the Cuyuni; and, in- 'In a pamphlet by the author, entitled "Lord Salisbury's Mistakes," submitted to the Boundary Commission. fcrentially, that the whole of Giuiyana, with the possible exception of the Garoni valley, was a Dutch possession ; 3. That up to 1723, the Spaniards had bnt one settle- ment in Guayana, and that was at Saint Thome on the Upper Orinoco ; and, infcrentially, that the Lower Ori- noco, including its immense delta, was under Dutch do- minion ; 4. That up to 179G, the Spanish settlements were lim- ited to "a few Capucliin Missions and two villages above the old town of Saint Thome; " jind, infcrentially, that the Dutch held all the balance of the territory east and south of the Orinoco; 5. That this Dutch occupancy, which is claimed to have extended to the Orinoco Delta and Point Barima, " was known to the Spanish Government," which, how- ever, interposed no objection, or at least " failed to dis- possess " the Dutch ; and 6. That " subsequently to 1706, Great Britain lias con- tinuously remained in possession, and her subjects have occupied further portions of the territory to luhich the Dutch had established tJieir title." Whilst these assumptions arc wholly unsustained by historical evidence, or even by the very citations and "extracts" produced in the Blue Book, they shall be treated with all due deference and with the utmost fairness. The following propositions arc nowhere denied, even in the Blue Book, viz. : 1. 'i'hatni 1108, Cohunbus, sailing under Spanish Com- mission, was the first discoverer of the Gulf of Paria and the Orinoco Delta; 2. That in 1 100 Alon/.o dc Ojeda, a Spanish subject sail- ing under Spanish Commission, was the first discoverer of the Atlantic coasts of Guayana ; that he skirted the entire coast from the Orinoco to the Marowine and beyond, landing at many pLaces and taking formal j^jossession in the name of the Spanish Government; 3. That in 1500, Vicente Yaiiez Pinzon, another Spanish subject, likewise sailing under Royal Commis- sion, was the first to explore the Orinoco Delta, taking formal possession of its numerous estuaries and islands, including Boca dc Navios and the island of Barima, in the name of his sovereign. 4. That in 1531 Diego de Ordaz, another Spanish sub- ject, was the first to explore the Orinoco River, which he ascended as far as the mouth of the Meta, taking formal possession of both banks and of its numerous affluents in the name of his sovereign ; 5. That it was this same Ordaz who received from the Spanish monarch the first European Charter of lands and government in the territories thus discovered and ex- plored ; and, 6. That these first discoverers, explorers, and grantees complied with all the requisite formalities of interna- tional law, as that law was then recognized and under- stood, necessary to invest title in the King of Spain.' These are historical facts so universally accepted that it seems almost superfluous to burden this paper with ponderous citations. When, then, and under what circumstances, did Spain relinquish her possessions in Guayana ? Before proceeding to the consideration of this query, perhaps it may be as w'ell to state in passing (especially 'Justin Winsor, " Nar. & Crit. Hist. America: Span. Explorations & Settlemts. in America from the 15th to the I7th Centuries," Vol. II., p. 1.33 et. neq.: Irving, " Life of Columbus," &c.: Also Hackluyt So. Publi- cations : also B.ancroft, Caulin and others. since it is strangely omitted in the Blue Book), that as early as 1528, in order to follow up Ojeda's explorations, the Spanish Emperor agreed with a Dutch mercantile house " to protect a colony to be sent out by them " to the northeastern coast of Guayana ; and that this was the origin of the Alfinger expedition of 1530, which, how- ever, came to naught.' The next year, 1531, an expedition inland, by way of tlio Orinoco, was fitted out from Spain under Ordaz, who penetrated to the valleys of the Cuyuni and Yuruary. This became the only foundation for the pretended dis- covery of the fabled El Dorado, sixty years afterwards, of which Sir Walter Raleigh speaks.^ ^ In 1534 the Dutch made an attemi)t to penetrate the interior of what is now Venezuela. The expedition was headed by George of Spires, but was under tlie imperial sanction and patronage of the King of Spain, who was tlien also titular Emperor of Holland. Spires started from Spain with 400 men, landed near where the present city of Coro stands, penetrated some 1,500 miles into the interior, and returned with the few survivors in 1538.^ In 1549 Ursua, a Spanish subject, who had superseded Armendariz, another Spanish subject, obtained command of an expedition and founded a town in Guayana, fjxr in the interior; which, how(;ver, he had to abandon in 1552, owing to the hostility of the Indians. According to the most reliable clironiclcs of the time, Ursua ascended the Rio Negro, passed through the Casiquiari channel to the Orinoco, and thence down the Orinoco to the Atlantic ^ Karl Kliipfel, Bib. des Literarischen Verens ; Stutgart, No. XLVII : Kliinzenor, Arith. der Deuuschen an der Entelckung : Von Kloo's Die We.sler : Augsburg, etc., etc. '^ Works, pub. by Ilackluyt Society : Justin Winsor, "Spanish Explora- tions," vol. II., .'J70. •'' Winsor, vol. II. See, also, all the standard histories and geographies of Colombia and Venezuela, by Ilestrepo, Caulin, and others. Ocean.' Thus, as early as 1549 the Spaniards had com- pletely circumnavigated the whole of Guayana. In 15G8, the Spanish Government niap})ed out the country, and appointed Pedro Mahxver de Silva and Diego Fernandez de Serpa as Governors ; the first over the ))art west of the Orinoco, the second over the eastern section from the Delta.^ The compilers of the Blue Book assert that in 1505, " Dutch settlements were formed near the mouth of the Orinoco." But it was precisely in 1595 that Sir Walter Raleigh made his first voyage to the Island of Trinidad, and thence through Boco de Navios up the Orinoco to the mouth of the Caroni. He reported that, after first over- coming the Spanish force at Trinidad, he ascended the great river as stated, where he found " theSj^aniards had previously traversed the whole country ; " that they (the Spaniards) had heen " cruel to the Indians;" that he " made friends of the Indians," and told them ho had come to deliver them from their Spanish conquerers and oppressors.^ In 1596, Raleigh sent Captain Keymis, a companioii of his first voyage, to renew the search for the fahled El Dorado, " with a view of planting a colony." Keymis returned to England in June of the same year and re- ported that " the Spaniards already occu})ied the country, and had established settlements at the mouth of the Caroni " and at " other places " with men sent out from Spain.* In June, 1017, Raleigh fitted out another exj^edition of 11 vessels and 431 men, his son, Walter, and Captain ^ Winsor, vol. II. ; Bancroft, Cent. America, II., 61 ; also the Spanish colonial historians. ^ Winsor, II., pp. 585-6 ; Certified MS. copies of Spanish Archives, at Seville, now before the Commission. ^Raleigh's Works, Hacklyut ed.; Winsor, vols. II. and III.: also Span. Colonial Archiv. *Ib., id. e Keymis being of the number. The expedition was resisted by the Spaniards at St. Thome, in which en- gagement young Walter was killed. Ke3'mis continued the search for the fabled El Dorado, but was met and defeated by the Spaniards before he had proceeded very far southeastward, in what is now the mining region of the Yuruary. He returned to St. Thome for reinforce- ments, but became despondent and committed suicide. The next year (161(S) Raleigh was beheaded at tiie in- stance of the Spanish King, who had been offended at these meddlesome incursions.' And yet it is gravely asserted in the Blue Book ^ that in 1590 " the Spaniards did not then hold any part of Guayana;" and a carefully-selected (I will not say garl)led) "extract" from a letter of Don Roque de Montes, the Spanisli Colonial Treasurer at Cumana, is produced to prove this.^ But even this carefully-selected extract proves just tlie contrary. The writer says he had "instructed Captain Felipe de Santiago" of tlie Spanish service to " ascend the River Orinoco and arrest two Englishmen whom Raleigh had left there" as spies and informers, and " to advise the Indian chiefs not to admit or receive any foreigners except Spaniards;" that tiiese instructions were faithfully carried out; that the only surviving Englishman had been arrested, and that the Indians were warned against the intrusion of " any more foreigners." He closes by recommending better facilities for navigating the Orinoco, as it was the great fluviatile highway to western and southern Guayana and the other Spanish provinces. If the Spaniards were not tiicn in actual possession of the lower Orinoco, and in fact of the whole of Western Guayana, how were they • Winsor, " Nar. and Crit. Mist.," vols. IT. and III., and the authoritips them cited. » Page 4. Blue Book, A pp., p. 50. able to arrest the only foreigner found there, and to warn the Indians against similar spies and informers in tlie future ? In 1619, two Spanish colonial military expeditions were sent out from St. Thorme to the Esequibo and Vervice Rivers to punish the Aruacas. The last of the two was entrusted to Captain Geronemo de Grados, and was composed of but thirty soldiers; yet it marched right through the whole region, by way of Baruma to the banks of the Esequibo and returned, without once en- countering any Dutch or other European settlements or forces; and no mention is made of any having been even heard of. ' It is stated^ that "early in the 17th century various Dutch Companies (afterwards merged into the great West India Company) were employed in colonizing Guayana, and had established several settlements there before 1G14." But all these. trading Companies were merely private commercial corporations. Not one of them was ever, in any sense, a State. Not one of them ever possessed eminent domain. Moreover, up to 1648, they were all under Spanish allegiance, as was Holland itself. Therefore any grants they may have made con- veyed no sovereignty and jurisdiction. Nor can any temporary inability of Spain or her colonies to ade- (juately defend the Orinoco Delta and the coast west of tlie Esequibo against pirates and smugglers (Dutcli, Eng- lish, or other), be deemed an " abandonment " of domain and jurisdiction. In 1671 the Island of Trinidad and the Orinoco Delta being threatened by the Dutch and Caribs, the Home Government was recommended to cause an inspection 1 •' Noticias Historiales de los Couquestas de Tierra Firma ea las Indias Occadentales," by Fr. Pedro Simon, etc., etc , 1626 : See Bogota ed. of 1882, Chap. XXX., p. 401, et. seq. 2 Blue Book, p. 4. 8 of the most important forts, and to fortify the island itself against possible attack. It was also recommended that an additional fort be established at the narrowest part of the Orinoco, as the Dutch were " said to be " already " near the entrance of said river." But why this should be gravely cited in the Blue Book to show that the Spaniards had " abandoned " the Orinoco Delta, is difhcult to conjecture! The Caribs and other native Indian tribes had often Ijeen incited to insurrection by the Dutch and English during the seventy years' war which ended in the general peace of Westphalia. The Dutch, and afterwards the English, made annual presents to these savage tribes, sought alliance with them against Spain, and finally claimed to have established some sort of "Protectorate" over them. But, in reality, this so-called " Protectorate " never amounted to anything, as we shall see farther on. It certainly conveyed no eminent domain and jurisdic- tion. The Dutch never claimed that it did.' At the time of the general peace of Westphalia, (1G48,) the Dutch had four " establishments" or " settlements," as they were alternately termed, on the Atlantic coast between the Corentyn and Esequibo rivers. By the treaty of that date, usually referred to as the Treaty of Miinster, these four " establishments " were ceded by S[)ain to Holland. The first extended from the Corentyn to the Surinam ; the second from the Surinam to the Berbice ; the third from the Berbice to the Demerara ; and the fourth from the Demerara to the Esequibo. The cession embraced no others.'^ Indeed, there were then no others in existence. There had been frequent preda- tory raids into the Orinoco valley, as there had been in other parts of what is now the Republic of Venezuela ; but there were certainly no permanent Dutch " establish- >l'08t, pp. 14, 15, 16, 17. ~ ■^ Treaty of Miiuster, Oct. 24, 1648, Art. V. 9 iiieiits " west of the Esequibo River, or, at the very farth- est, west of Cape Nassau and the Piiniaron/ The citation of the Treaty of Utrecht, of 1713, was {)rohably an inaclvertance on the part of the compilers of the Bhie Book. That treaty, so i'ar from streiigtliening the English case, is almost fatal to it. In that treaty England obligated herself (Article VIIL), to " aid the Spaniards to recover their ancient possessions," in Guay- ana as in other })ortioiis of the West Indies and the Americas, " as they stood in the time of Charles II.," that is, as they stood from 1G61 to 1700 ; that is, as they stood just 23 years before the enforced temporary " aban- donment " by the Spanish forces of the coast between the Esequibo and Orinoco, upon which so much stress seems to be laid by the compilers of the Blue Book. The correspondence between the Governments of Spain and Portugal, of 1753-4, is cited to strengthen the English case. The correspondeuce, however, shows nothing be- yond an ctfort on the })art of Sjiain to arrange with Por- tugal (who owned adjacent territory) to rid the Spanish and Portuguese Guayanas of Dutch interference with the Indian tribes, whom they were constantly inciting to insurrection and pillage. Spain had become so exas- perated at these meddlesome interventions, and at the frequent raids into Spanish territory by Dutch adven- turers and freebooters, that she had well nigh resolved to try to find some means of ridding the whole Atlantic Coast of them.^ The refusal by Spain to permit the Dutch to fish at the mouth of the Orinoco, in 1758, has been often cited in support of the Venzuelan claim, but never before in 1 Reynal, Hist. Indies ; Dalton, Hist. Brit. Guiana; Depon's Voy., III.; Noire, Ueog. Works; Myer's Geog. II.; Bolingbroke, Voyages, &c.; Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana ; Caulin, Hist. Nueva Andalucia. See, also, certified copies of MSS. Cor. Colonial Archives, Saville, during 16th and I7th centuries, now before the Commission. ^Archivo General de las Indias. Seville, 131-2-17, Certified Copies, etc, before the Commission. 10 support of the British contoiitioii. Just why it should have been cited by the compilers of the Blue Book is not clear. It is certainly against them. The same is true of the otticial correspondence between the Dutcli Ambassador and the Spanish Government in 1778. It clearly establishes the fact of Spanish dominion on tlie lower Orinoco. Tiiere had been some very destruc- tive raids, claimed to have been retaliatory in character, though not authorized by the Spanish Goverimient, u[)on the Dutch "establishments," not anywhere near the mouth of the Onnoco,for the Dulch had none there, but on the upper Ese(|uibo. It was one of these, which seems to have been particularly destructive, that con- stituted part of tlie Dutcii Ambassador's complaint. lie was assured, in reply, that orders would be given to pre- vent such occurrences in the future, and to " leave the Dutch alone" in their recognized settlements.' In 1788, the Conhdential Agent of the Spanish CJov- ernment in Guayana recommended that no more timber be cut on tlie lower Orinoco; and this fact is cited ^ to show that the Dutch were then " in possession " of that region ! But it may well l)e asked. Why such a recom- meudtition if the S{>aniards were not then in actual pos- session? True, the reconnnendation was made for pru- dential reasons. The forests were about the only " safe- guard and l)arrier against tlie Dutch," and their Carib allies, who would otherwise " see our nakedness and attack us." Apjirehending raids by these people, the Spaniards thought it ])i'U(lcnt to leave the forests standing. But tiiere is certainly no evidence of a purpose to " abandon " the lower Orinoco. On the contrary, even the very meagre and partial extract pi'oduced, shows that the Spaniards were preparing to defend the country against ' Archive de las Indias: Seville: MSS. : Certified Copies before the Commission. ■''Blue Book, pp. 17, 18. 11 possible attack; and wlieii the letter is read as a wliole, it proves just the reverse of the British contention.' So, too, of the report of Antonio Lopez de la Puente, in 1788, respecting the defences of the Cuyuni and Ynruan valleys.^ He recommended that the Caribs be l)revented from going to the Dutch settlement on the Esequibo, lest the Indians should tell the Dutch of the condition of the country, and they should attack the 8|)anish settlements on those rivers. Here is certainly no evidence of "abandonment." Again, it is asserted^ that "the entire absence of any control by the Spaniards over the territory in question is further shown by a Report of Don Miguel Marmion, the Spanish Governor" of Guayana, in 1788. But even tlie seven lines extract (in translation) adduced,^ fails utterly to support this assertion. While the certified copy and correct translation of the original Report as a whole,^ dated August IG, 1788, tell quite a different story. If in 1790, as intimated in the Blue Book, the Dutch and the Caribs were again making raids upon the Span- ish settlements in the interior, it was but natural that, the Spanish Colonial authorities should refuse to estab- lish a " new settlement," near Tumeremo, unless the Home Government would agree to establish and main- tain an additional military post " to prevent robberies l)y the Indians and Dutch."® II. England acquired title to what is now known as British Guayana in 1814. Her previous militar}' occupations of ' Certified copy of original MSS. before the Commission. 2 Cited in the Blue Book, p. 18. ' Blue Book, p. 17. ' rb., id. •'No. XVIII., Archive General de Indias : Seville : C, 131, S. 2, B. 17 ; now before the Commission. " Archive Confidencial, Caracas, 1790-6; certified copies before the Commission. tliG country (in 1781, 179G, and again in 1803) conveyed no title, as has been many times shown.' Whatever title she may have claimed or acquired by those military occupations, was swept away by the treaties of peace which followed.^ By the supplemental treaty of 1814,3 Holland ceded to England " in full Sovereignty," and for a monetary consideration, the three " Settlements of Ber- bice, Demerara, and Esequibo," as the limits of those " settlements " had been recognized by the Miinster Treaty of 1G4S, as they had been interpreted by the Treaty of Aranjuez of 1701, and as they stood at the time of the cession of 1814. There have been no additional cessions to England since, either by Holland, gpain, or Venezuela; and it has been many times shown that the native aboriginal tribes had no authority to make any such cessions.* It follows, then, that the alleged " marking out of boundaries" by the British military authorities in 1790^^ was purely an ex parte arrangement, and amounted to nothing. Plainly speaking, it was merely an unjusti- fiable aggression upon Spanish territory by a military and naval power which Spain was not at that time in a position to successfully resist. There is not the slightest evidence that Spain, if cognizant of this aggression, ever assented to it for a moment. Nor does it anywhere appear, even from the docu- ments cited in the Blue Book, that the Dutch were, at any time from 1G48 to 179G, in the " uninterrupted pos- session " of a foot of territory west of the Pumaron River. Indeed, there are very grave doubts whether they ever, at any lime, held any permanent or " uninterrupted " ' " Lord Salisbury's Mistakes," pp. 2, 3, 4. -Treaty of Amiens, Mar. 25, 1802 ; Peace of May, 1814; Treaty of Aug. i:i, 1814. •• Art. I. *" British Aggressions, etc., or The Monroe Doctrine on Trial," pp. 11-15; Wliait. I>ig., vol. I, sec. 7. ■•Blue I'.ook, p. 19. IS possessions between the Pumaron and tlie Esequibo. The evidence on this hitter point is somewhat conflicting ; hut the weight of testimony is that tlie Eseqnibo was regarded as tlic true divisional line between the Dutch and Spanish possession, and that any Dutch intrusions west and south of that river were constantly (and gen- erally successfully) resisted by tlie Spanish authorities. Even the documents and extracts cited or produced in the Bhie Book fail to sliow to the contrary. They show merely that while the Dutch and Caribs had made fre- quent raids upon the Spanish settlements and missions west of the Esequibo, and that even the Orinoco Delta was sometimes infested b}^ bands of alien smugglers and pirates (mostly Dutch) who incited the Indians to insur- rection and pillage, the domain and jurisdiction always remained with Spain. The official Report by Don Felipe de Requena, of -Tuly 29, 1802, is cited in the Blue Book' to prove that the Dutch held possessions on the Cuyuni and Caroni rivers. The document, when read as a whole in the original text, shows nothing of the kind. Even the partial and care- fully selected " extracts " in the imperfect Englisli trans- lation, as produced;'' fail to establish the British contention on this point. It is there stated merely that tiie Dutch and French had, many decades before, founded settlements on the Surinam and Cayana rivers ; that the Dutch had sub- sequently advanced up the Esequibo River ; and the ap- prehension is expressed that they " might," in the course of time, advance still further, by way of the Cuyuni and Caroni rivers, to the Orinoco itself, and " take joossession of the lower part of this great river " — thus clearly assert- ing, by necessary implication, that at that very time (1ritish (Juayana in the early part of the 19th century" are cited to ])rove this. They however prove only that tlie Garibs and other hostile tribes had, at diff'erent times, been in " alliances " witji the Dutch, who had been in the ' App. n., p. 154. ' I'.liif I'.ook, p -l-l. 15 habit of making them " annual presents." There is ab- solutely nothing to show that any Dutch " Protectorates " of the Indians ever really existed. But even if they had existed (which nowhere appears), liow were they transferred to England by the cession of ISl-l ? Nothing is therein said either of " Protectorates " or of the office of " Protector of Indians." The cession was specifically limited to the three "Settlements of Berbice, Demerara, and Esequibo." Surinam was be- yond the limits of the three " Settlements " named ; there- fore Surinam remained a Dutch possession. Indian Protectorates (if there were any) were beyond the limits of the three " Settlements " specified; therefore, Indian Protectorates (if there were any) remained to the Dutch. The destruction of a Spanish Mission in the interior of Guayan.i, by the Venezuelan Revolutionary forces in 1816, and the Executive Decree of General Bolivar, of 1817, are both gravely cited ' in support of the English contention. The first named proves nothing ; the second [U'oves too much. The Venezuelan patriots were then in the midst of their long struggle for independence. They were at war with the mother country, and war meant the destruction of the enemy's strongholds and stragetic points wherever and whenever that was possible^ The Executive Decree of General Boliver named General Sucre to be " Governor of the old Fort of (Tuayana," and likcwiM to be " Military Governor of the Orinoco to the old moutli," thus showing conclusively that the whole region of the Orinoco, from the Delta upwards, was under the effective jurisdiction of the Venezuelan revolutionary government as the successor of Spain. It is stated in the Blue Book (p. 24) that Venezuela " declared her individual independence " in 1830 ! Ven- ezuela " declared her individual independence " July 5, 1 Blue Book, p. 23. 16 1811. She had maintained " her individual indei)end- ence" up to 1819, when she became a constituent mem- ber of the old Colombian Confederation. In 1830 she withdrew from that compact of union and resumed her separate nationality. It would seem that even a super- ficial knowledge of Spanish colonial history, or the slightest acquaintance with the terms of the compact of 1811), ought to have been sufficient to prevent such a ludicrous historical blunder as this. Recurring to the sul)ject of Indian " Protectorates," documents are cited in the Blue Book ' to sustain the assumption (made on page 24) that England, as the suc- cessor in title of Holland, exercised jurisdiction " for a considerable distance up the rivers Esequibo, Mazaruni and Cuyuni " as late as 1831. The assumption is not . sustained even by the carefully selected "extracts" pro- duced. Briefly, the case is this: A murder had been committed by an Indian beyond the immediate limits of the Esequibo " settlement." He was arrested and brought to trial before the British colo- nial authorities. The venue was admitted to have been beyoiul the limits of the colony, and in a region inhab- ited by Indians. The murdered person was likewise a resident Indian. But it was held that the old Dutch " Protectorate of Indians " had extended over that i)ar- ticular region, and that this "Protectorate" had de- scended to the English. The accused was accordingly tried and convicted; but he was almost immediately released on appeal. Why? Because the evidence at the trial had disclosed that the so-called " Protectorate" was a myth. A former official of the Dutch colony (Van liyck, by name), testified that he had " lived forty years " in the colony, and had held the office of " Protector of the Indians;" that in that cai)acity he had always acted "only as mediator," never as a magistrate; that he had »Aii|.. II., pf). 168-177. ~ ~~ ~" 17 " no authority to compel attendance ; " that he, in fact, " had nothing to do unless they (the Indians) chose to call on " him as " mediator ; " that he had " no authority over them ; " that he " never had any authority to inter- fere " with them, and certainly no jurisdiction over them ; and that he was merely "authorized to give them pres- ents," and to cultivate them " as finends and allies."^ It is gravely stated^ that some time about 1831, Pro- testant Missionaries, from England, visited and preached the gospel to the natives on the lower Mazaruni and Cuyuni rivers. It is even hinted that these Christian teachers erected preaching stations and chapels there. The same is true to-day of American and English Pro- testant teachers in various parts of Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, but it has never before been intimated that this fact transfers domain and jurisdiction to the Ameri- can or English Governments ! Til. In May, 1836, and again in September of the same year, Sir Robert Ker Porter, the British Diplomatic Agent at Caracas, addressed a formal note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, requesting the Venezuelan Govern- ment to establish and maintain buoys and beacons at the very places on the main estuary of the Orinoco, including Point Barima, now claimed and forcibly held as British territory. And it is admitted^ that this fact was known at the British Foreign Office, certainly as early as 1842, if not before. But now, sixty years after this formal request was made, and at least fifty-four years after it is admitted to have become known at the ^ Even if the facts had beea otherwise, it would be a work of superer- ogation to prove that " Indian Protectorates " on this continent by any European power other tlian the original discoverer or its legal successor, are absolute nullities. Wharton's Digest, Vol. I., sec. 7. -Blue Book, p. 24. 3 Blue Book, p, 26. 18 Foreign Office, Her Majesty's Government gravely dis- claims and disavows this official act of their duly ac- credited representative. Moreover, it is seriously as- serted ^ that " the Venezuelan Government never returned any reply " to sir Robert's official request. Turning, however, to page 245 of the Blue Book itself, we find there reproduced, in somewhat defective translation, a formal official reply by the Venezuelan Government, dated June 15, 1836, promising compliance with Sir Robert's request. It may be added that, after some delay, this promise was complied with, and that the buoys and beacons were there in 1886, when the English took for- cible possession of those places in open violation of repeated pledges. Up to 1839, not a single map could be found on which was traced a divisional line west of Cape Nassau. A few of the maps of that and anterior dates gave Cape Nassau as the starting point, and the Moroco River as the line. A very much larger number gave Cape Nassau as the starting point and the Pumaron River as the line. Others, still more authentic, including Myers and other eminent P^nglish geographers, gave the western estuary of the Esequibo as the starting point, and the river Esequibo itself as the true divisional line. 8o that, up to 1839, the only territory in dispute was, at most, the narrow strip between the Moroco and Esequibo rivers. Venezuela's title to the vast domain southward of this had never once been called into question. In 1840 Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Schomburgk was emi)loycd by Her Majesty's Government to " survey and mark out" the frontier boundaries of British Guayana. It was i)urely an ex-jmrte arrangement. Venezuela was not asked to participate in it, nor was her assent solicited. It was then, for the first time, that "a map was pre- pared" in accordance with the Schomburgk survey, 'Blue Book, p. 2G. 19 which extended the British claim to the Lower Orinoco and to the Lower Mazaruni and Cuyuni rivers. This capricious line (still known as " the Schoniburgk line "), represented not an absolute, but only a possible, future claim by Great Britain. It was professedly established " only as a preliminary measure " to the negotiation .of boundary treaties with " adjacent countries." In case those countries should make " any objections," then " Her Majesty's Government " would "give such answers as might appear proper and just." ^ Venezuela did make " objections." She not only objected, but remonstrated and protested. She not only remonstrated and protested, but refused, absolutely, to enter into any negotiation of a boundary treaty so long as that capricious line should be allowed to stand.^ Finally, the " Schomburgk line " was explicitly dis- claimed, and its marks and posts ordered obliterated or taken down.^ Her Majesty's Government then indicated Cape Nassau as the starting point of a divisional line. Under these circumstances, it may well seem incredi- ble that, forty -three years later, the question of boundary being still unsettled, and the Agreement of 1850* still in force, that the discarded " Schomburgk line " should be revived and claimed by Her Majesty's Government as an absolute boundary within which no proposition look- ing to peaceful arbitration would be entertained ! It is even more incredible that in order to sustain this un- tenable position, there should be produced a carefully selected and very misleading " extract " from a letter 1 Lord Levesen to Mr. James Stephen, March, 1840 ; see " Official Hist. Discus., etc., on Guayana Boundaries," 1896, already before the Com- mission. 2 Dr. Fortique to Lord Aberdeen, Nov. 18, 1841 ; also, same to same, Dec. 8, 1841 ; also, same to same, Jan. 10, 1842, 3 Lord Aberdeen to Dr. Fortique, Jan. 31, 1842. * See Lord Salisbury's Mistakes," pp. 7,8. 20 dated July 15, 1839, addressed to the Marquis of Nor- luaiiby by Governor Light of Demerara.^ Elsewhere in the Blue Book,^ it is stated that Vene- zuela's first formal " claim that tlie territory of the Re- public extended to the Esequibo" was made in 1844. The first formal claim to that limit was put fortli as early as 1822, as has been shown already,^ and that claim has been persistently and consistently maintained ever since whenever the question came up for discussion. That portion of the Blue Book covering the period from 1850 to date, seems to have been anticipated by Lord Salisbury in his note of November last ; and since all the points therein have received due attention already, it is not worth while to go over them again. There is, however, one feature of the British conten- tion, not liitherto very prominent, yet ever lurking in the back ground, which is of the gravest import. If the recent " inspired " utterances of the London court journals are to be credited, it is now conceded that the capricious " Schomburg line " will have to be abandoned. That line is no longer claimed as an absolute limit, within which no proposal for arbitration can be enter- tained. But it is contended that all " settled districts " within that line, or even those beyond it, must be ex- emp)ted from arbitration. Her Majesty's Government no longer claims " indefeasable title" to the soil. It is stated only that " British subjects " are settled there, and that Her Majesty's Government must protect them in tlLeir interests ! It has been many times shown that every British settlement west of the Esequibo, whether large or small, ^ Blue Book, App., p. 81. Compare this " extract " with certified copy of the original, now before the Commission ! 2 Page 27. 3 " Lord Salisbury's Mistakes," p, 1 ; MS. Instruc. to Colombian Min- ister at London, 1822 ; " Official History of the Boundary Dispute," etc. 21 was placed there over the protests and remonstrances of the Venezuelan Government. ' And it has been quite as often shown that every such settlement, large or small, west of the Moroco and southward of the Cuyuni was planted there in open violation of the Agreement of 1850. ^ It has been likewise pointed out that nearly two years after the British forces had taken possession of Point Barima and the Amacura mouth, the Colonial Government of Demerara warned British settlers there that they could expect no protection, or any compensa- tion for losses, in case the boundary question should- be finally decided in favor of Venezuela.^ In view of these facts, this latest phase of the British contention may well excite apprehension. If mere de facto British " settlements," however illegal in origin, are to constitute a basis of British claim to domain and juris- diction in one part of Venezuela, they may do so in other parts of the Republic. If in any part of Venezuela, then why not in any part of any other Central or South American State? And if the principle is to be admitted with respect to all Central and South American States, why exclude any one of the territories or commonwealths of the United States of North America? William L. Scruggs, Legal Adviser of the Venezuelan Government, and Special Counsel before the Boundary Commission. ^ " British Aggression in Venezuela, etc." IV., pp. 15-24 : " Official Hist., etc., Boundary Discus.," I., II., III., IV., V., VI., VII., : Also correspondence between General Blanco and Earl Granville, and his successors, pp. 81-1(38. "^ lb., id.: also, "Lord Salisbury's Mistakes," pp. 7, 8. ^Ib., id., p. 7. fi UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY F/ AA 000 925 610 THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DAT STAMPED BELOW. Series 9482