(A 
 
 r 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 bOM ItM 
 
 H 
 CO 
 
 O 
 Q 
 
BANCROFT 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Theo M. Crook CollGction 
 
. ' 
 
 ^^^^<^-- U^^-yU^^-^fi-i^ 
 
 TO THE 'LONDON TIMES." 
 
 BY 
 
 DOCTOR RAFAEL I SEIJAS, LL.D. 
 
 (Translated from the Spanish.) 
 
 ^ 
 
 {* 
 
 ATIlANTA, GA.: 
 
 Franklin Printing & Publishing Company-, 
 
 Geo. W. Harrison, Manager. 
 
 1896. 
 
TO THE 'LONDON TIMES." 
 
 BY 
 
 DOCTOR RAFAEL^SEIJAS, LL.D. 
 
 (Translated from the Spanish.) 
 
 Atlanta, Ga. 
 
 The Franklin Printing and Pdbi.isiiingCo. 
 
 Geo. W. Harrison, State Printer, Manager. 
 
 1896. 
 
13 nv o fl 
 
 C 
 
n t (b ^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following is a translation of an article which appeared in 
 the Diario of Caracas, of the 25th November last. It is from 
 the pen of Doctor Rafael Seijas, the eminent Venezuelan 
 jurist and diplomat, and is a fair and dispassionate presentation 
 of the merits of the boundary dispute between that country and 
 British Guiana. Although the paper antedates the President's 
 special message of December last, and the subsequent unani- 
 mous acting of the U. S. Congress in harmony therewith, it is 
 none the less interesting at this time, when the people of this 
 country are eagerly seeking reliable information touching the 
 
 antecedents of the Venezuelan case. 
 
 William L. Scruggs. 
 January, 1896. 
 
^ \ \ (^e> 
 
 TO "THE LONDON TIMES." 
 
 In the ''London Tiincs' of October I2th last we find, under 
 the heading of "Enarland and Venezuela," an editorial 
 wherein its author discusses the pending boundary question 
 between said countries. 
 
 The high standard of the Times, the credit it enjoys, its 
 importance, the interests represented by it, and the inspira- 
 tion it receives in certain cases, oblige us to regard this publi- 
 cation as an important one and its editorial utterances as 
 well worthy of consideration. \ 
 
 We shall, therefore, ignore other English publications and 
 discuss this one with the intention of making clear to impar- 
 tial minds whatever value it may have in view of its ante- 
 cedents. 
 
 The publication in question has been occasioned by a com- 
 munication, mentioned as a very lengthy one, from the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States to the Government of Great 
 Britain,* in which it is claimed that the history of the dispute 
 is given and the principles directing the policy of the United 
 States in such cases are expounded. It is claimed that such 
 historv has been drawn exclusively from Venezuelan sources ; 
 that it could not be answered without careful consideration of 
 the facts and principles stated in it, and that in accordance 
 with the traditions of Lord Salisbury's administration, it will 
 receive all due consideration. Telegrams of later date assert 
 that this communication has been sent to the Crown law 
 officers for consideration. It may be reasonably inferred then 
 that there is no truth in the probably absurd report, published 
 by ill-informed newspaper men, stating that Lord Salisbury 
 heard it read with impatience, his irritability going so far as to 
 interrupt the reading of it. 
 
 * Mr, Olney's note of July last. 
 
6. 
 
 The Times, while pretending to give to England the right 
 which is Venezuela's in the boundary question, ingeniously 
 admits that the question has two sides, viz.: a question of 
 right, and a question of transaction and convenience. It 
 is argued that as Holland's successor by right of conquest. 
 Great Britain is entitled to all the possessions of the former in 
 Guiana, and that the fixation of the limit of this area is the 
 point that has been in discussion for a century; that in 1795 
 the English took possession of it for a second time, and that 
 under their supervision its limits were settled ; that a British 
 Lieutenant-Governor described, in 1804, the western limit 
 somewhat vaguely as " being in the Spanish establishments on 
 the Orinoco ; and that lately arguments and documents have 
 been collected to prove the eastern extreme limit of the Span- 
 ish establishments and a# the same time those of the Dutch 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 We must observe at this juncture, that if the Dutch Colony 
 of Guiana was twice in the hands of the English by right of 
 conquest, restitution was made by them to the former by the 
 Treaty of Amiens in 1802, the third article of which says: 
 
 " His British Majesty will make restitution to the French 
 Republic and its allies, to wit : H. Catholic Majesty and the 
 Batavian Republic, of all the possessions a?id colonies that belonged 
 to them respectively and that may have bcoi occupied or conquered 
 by British forces during the zuar, exception being )nade of the Isla?id 
 of Trinidad and the Dutch pcssessio/is i/i the Ceylon Islands. 
 
 As in this Treaty of Peace there is no confirmation in favor 
 of the English of the conquest of Dutch Guiana, but, on the 
 contrary, its restitution to its former owner is agreed upon, it 
 is evident that the English have no reason to lay any claims 
 to it on account of said act of war, nor any right in dating the 
 acquisition of that territory from 1795. 
 
 It was by the Treaty of London dated on the 14th of April, 
 1814, that England received a portion of the Dutch Colony of 
 Guiana, to wit: "the settlements of Demerara, Essequibo and 
 Berbice," which, according to Article ist of said treaty, 
 were excepted from the stipulation of restitution made therein, 
 
and the completion and full cession of which to Her Britannic 
 Majesty was confirmed in the second paragraph of the first 
 additional article, in consideration of certain engagements con- 
 tracted by England in favor of the Sovereign Prince of the 
 Netherlands. This is the only title that Great Britain can lay 
 claim to, since the conquests not confirmed by the Treaty of 
 Peace have no legal value whatever. 
 
 Neither in this pact, nor in that of 1802, nor in any other, 
 has the territory possessed by Holland ever been defined ; 
 moreover, no one gives those boundaries which " TJie Times'' 
 asserts were defined under English supervision. 
 
 We cannot understand how the English, who were not then 
 the owners but the military occupants, could have the power 
 to increase the territory, nor to fix the boundaries with other 
 nations, which under no circumstances can be made ex parte 
 but only in accordance with the rightful adjacent possessor or 
 by a lawful award. If the English succeeded the Dutch, they 
 must have acquired the lattter's own rights and at the same 
 time remain bound to all obligations contracted by them. 
 Now, the Treaty of Miinster, of 1648, by which the Dutch 
 usurpations of Spanish territory in America were legalized, 
 prohibited the Dutch from navigating or trading in towns, 
 villages, establishments where there were markets, fortifica- 
 tions, or castles, or in any other possessions of the other con- 
 tracting party. 
 
 It is only since 1880 that the English Government has pre- 
 tended ''by virtue of old treaties zvitli the native tribes" and "sub- 
 sequent cessions made by Holland," to draw a boundary line 
 beginning at a point on the mouth of the Orinoco west of 
 Point Barima, following a southerly course to the Imataca 
 Mountains, thence to the northwest through the Santa Maria 
 Highlands just south of Upata as far as the chain on the east- 
 ern border of the Caroni, thence to the south as far as the great 
 range of the Guiana District, and to the south again as far as 
 the Pacaraima mountains. 
 
 But what was the date of those " treaties " made with the na- 
 tive tribes? Which were the lands obtained from them? By 
 
8 
 
 what authority did they aHenate said lands? We have been 
 unable to find out. No trace of them are discovered in any of- 
 ficial collection of Great Britain's treaties. 
 
 We were ignorant of the fact that before the first restitution 
 of Dutch Guiana to the Netherlands in 1783, or at the time of 
 the second in 1802, or during its military occupation by the 
 English since 1803, the latter territory had been incVeased by 
 the alleged Indian cessions. 
 
 There is, however, an indisputable point, viz: neither Lord 
 Aberdeen, nor Lord Granville, nor Lord Rosebery, nor any^ 
 other Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain has ever 
 made mention of any other titles save those obtained from 
 Holland. 
 
 It is stated that Sir R. Schomburgk, in 1840, defined the 
 boundary line known by his name, which divides almost in two 
 equal parts the territory now disputed by the Governments of 
 Great Britain and Venezuela ; and that the subsequent agree- 
 ment of 1850 was a contract between both Governments to re- 
 gard as neutral the territory of the disputed area, which, until 
 a decision upon their mutual pretensions was arrived at, should 
 not be usurped by either of the two parties. 
 
 We believe ourselves authorized to protest against this dic- 
 tatorial assertion in regard to the dividing in halves of the dis- 
 puted territory, and equally authorized to affirm that the 
 Schomburgk line of 1840 represents the total pretensions of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 The commission given by Her British Majesty to Sir R. H. 
 Schomburgk was to draw the chart of the limits between British 
 Guiana and Venezuela and to mark them out. We have before 
 us the chart attached to the pamphlet then published under the 
 title of "Sketch of a Map of British Guiana by Sir Robert H. 
 Schomburgk. " Three lines are shown on it, one pink, one 
 green, and one yellow, with the explanation that the first one 
 shows the "boundary as claimed by Great Britain , " the sec- 
 ond one "the boundary as claimed by Venezuela, ''and the 
 third shows the Brazilian pretensions. 
 
 The same color lines are found in the German work pub- 
 lished in Leipzig, in 1841, by O. A. Schomburgk under the 
 
9 
 
 title of "Travels of Robert Herman Schomburgk during the 
 years 1835 to 1839 in Guiana and the Orinoco, according to 
 his Reports and communications to the London Geographical 
 Society, with a prologue by Alexander Von Humboldt, ac- 
 companied by some of his works on certain important astro- 
 nomical positions in Guiana. " 
 
 In these charts nothing is said about either extreme, me- 
 dium, or minimum pretensions of Great Britain ; only one is 
 mentioned ; at that time she had no others. 
 
 As a palpable proof of this, there stand the instructions 
 given on March i8th, 1840, by the celebrated Lord Palmer- 
 ston, who was not an ignorant person nor could he be called 
 impartial when treating of the interests of his nation as judged 
 by his own countrymen. 
 
 From the newspaper "The Argosy" of Demerara, Vol. 30, 
 number 752, issued October 12th, 1895, ^^'^ transcribe the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 " At this moment, when the Schomburgk boundary line is 
 being violently discussed, it will be of interest to read the fol- 
 lowing communication taken from a Parliamentary paper 
 dated May iith, 1840, as it gives the real object of the trav- 
 eler's work :" 
 
 " Foreign Office. 
 
 " March i8th, 1840. 
 
 " Sir : — Viscount Palmerston has ordered me to acknowl- 
 edge receipt of your letter of the 6th inst. and the enclosed 
 copies and extracts from communications annexed thereto from 
 Mr. Light, Governor of British Guiana, relating to the con- 
 venience of entering into such an agreement with the Govern- 
 ments of Brazil, Venezuela, and Holland as would accurately 
 define the limits of British Guiana. 
 
 " Referring to that part of your letter in which it is stated 
 that Lord John Russell deems it important that the limits of 
 British Guiana be investigated and agreed upon, if possible, 
 and that Mr. Schomburgk's investigations in those parts have 
 made him particularlv apt to be useful in case the services of 
 a person familiar with the geography of British Guiana be re- 
 
10 
 
 quired to fix the limits of the British territory, I must sav that 
 the proceeding that Lord Pahnerston would suggest for the 
 consideration of Sir John Russell would be that a map be 
 drawn of British Guiana in accordance with the limits de- 
 scribed by Mr. Schomburgk ; that a report be sent containing 
 a minute description of the natural characteristics, defining 
 and constituting the questioned limits, and that similar copies 
 of said map and reports be submitted to the Government of 
 Venezuela, Brazil, and Holland as an exposition of British pre- 
 tensions. That in the meantime an English commissioner be 
 sent to mark the boundaries in the territory, in order to desig- 
 nate by permanent posts the boundary line thus claimed by 
 Great Britain. Then it would devolve upon each of these 
 Governments to present any objection they may make against 
 these limits, with an exposition of the basis of their claims, and 
 then Her Majesty's Government w6uld give the answers 
 deemed just and proper. " 
 
 Although the course recommended was a most extraor- 
 dinary one, yet it was, in part, followed in 1841, and it was 
 due to the well founded complaints of Dr. Fortique, Minister 
 of Venezuela in London, that Lord Aberdeen ordered the re- 
 moval of such marks, which, according to his explanation, did 
 not constitute a true boundary, but only a pretension of what 
 Great Britain claimed to be the limit. 
 
 If the first part of the plan was complied with, let us state 
 at this juncture, that this cannot be said of the second part. 
 We have examined all the matter that has been printed in this 
 connection, and we have failed to find the suggested report of 
 the exposition of Great Britain's titles. We have found, how- 
 ever, repeated proofs to show that this was concealed from 
 Venezuela, to which country only vague assertions, devoid of 
 particulars whatsoever, have been made and reiterated in writing. 
 
 But to return to our theme, namely ; that until recent date 
 there has been but one pretension of Great Britain, we will add 
 that strong proof that such was the case lies in the fact of the 
 negotiations conducted by Senor Fortique and Lord Aber- 
 deen. It is a fact that to the propositions made bv Venezuela 
 
11 
 
 for the demarcation of limits by the Essequibo, Lord Aber- 
 deen answered on the 20th of March, 1844, by making an- 
 other proposition for a line starting at the coast, at the mouth 
 of the Moroco, and ended by stating that such a transaction 
 would entail the abandonment or cession in favor of the Re- 
 public of tJic territory comprised bettveen the moiitJi of the Moroco 
 and the mouth of the Amacuro and the range of mountains where it 
 has its source. 
 
 Had England deemed her rights more extensive, surely- 
 then would have been the proper moment to make it known in 
 its full extent, in order to enhance the merits of her " cession." 
 But as she limited herself to what has been said, it is but 
 natural to infer that she had no further pretensions; and that 
 a statesman of Lord Aberdeen's astuteness could not have for- 
 gotten in this matter the interests of his nation. 
 
 A similar charge should be made against Lord Granville, 
 who, upon his refusal to accept the frontier line as proposed 
 by Dr. Jose Maria Rojas in 1881, and proposal to substitute 
 for it another starting from a point twent3'-nine miles from the 
 mouth of the Barima to the east, was silent upon the further 
 increase of British territory. 
 
 Lord Rosebery would have made the same error, when, in 
 his first administration in 1866, he proposed to General Guz- 
 man Blanco to divide in two equal parts the lines drawn by 
 Dr. Rojas and Lord Granville, but to leave the mouth of the 
 Guaima river in English territory, as he attached great impor- 
 tance to the possession of this point, the cession of which by 
 Venezuela to be compensated to by cession of territory in an- 
 other part of Guayana. 
 
 It was in 1890, when, for the first time, Venezuela was in- 
 formed that Great Britain had three lines, viz.: the Schomburgk 
 line, which was then declared as not subject to discussion; an- 
 other line including the mining district of Yuruary, which 
 might be submitted to arbitration; and, lastly, a third line 
 called "extreme limit," which Great Britain was ready to 
 abandon, moved by friendly considerations, etc. 
 
 It is pertinent here to call to mind the fact that the Schom- 
 
12 
 
 burgk line, adopted as the definite boundary since 1886, is not 
 the same as that shown in Schomburgk's former maps, but an- 
 other which takes in considerably more of the Venezuelan 
 territory, as remarked by Senor Marco Antonio Saluzzo, Min- 
 ister of Foreign Relations, in the preliminary exposition to 
 the " Libro Amarillo " {Yellow Book) submitted to Congress in 
 1 89 1, when the old frontier line and the new one attributed to 
 Schomburgk were contrasted. 
 
 It seems very strange to us that an engineer, after having 
 spent five years in exploring that territory, should have only 
 such uncertain results that a total change should be necessary 
 in the contents of his pamphlet in order to give the advantage 
 to the Government which employed him. 
 
 Instead of those numberless proofs which Her Britannic 
 Majesty's Government claims to have of their rights, there 
 has been, up to the present time, only an advertisement pub- 
 lished in the " London Gazette'' of October 22d, 1886, wherein 
 it is proclaimed that : 
 
 " Whereas, The limits of British Guiana, Her Majesty's 
 Colony, are in dispute between Her Britannic Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment and the Government of Venezuela; and, whereas, Her 
 British Majesty's Government has been informed that the 
 Venezuelan Government has granted, or is about to grant, cer- 
 tain concessions of lands, within the territory claimed by Her 
 Majesty's Governments, such titles will not be recognized nor 
 admitted, and any person taking possession of said land, or 
 pretending under said titles to perform any rights, shall be 
 deemed guilty of trespass according to the laws of the Colony." 
 It is added that in the Library of the Colonial Office, in Down- 
 ing street, or in the Office of the Secretary of the Government 
 of Georgetown, Demerara, British Guiana, "there may be seen 
 a copy of a map showing the limits between British Guiana 
 and Venezuela as claimed by Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 In 1890 it was declared to Dr. Modesto Urbaneja, agent for 
 Venezuela, that Her Britannic Majesty's Government could not 
 admit as satisfactory any arrangement wherein the territory 
 
13 
 
 lying within the line drawn by Sir R. Schomburgk was not 
 admitted as English possessions; and to Dr. Lucio Pulido, who 
 succeeded Dr. Urbaneja, it was said that: " Her British Maj- 
 esty's Government could not allow its rights to the territory 
 lying within the line explored by Schomburgk to be disputed." 
 
 Later on a line was indicated to Dr. Lucio Pulido, " starting 
 from Point Mocomoco and the river Guaima, and touching at 
 the west the Amacuro river; that the frontier line (thus proposed 
 in exchange or compensation) should follow the course of the 
 Uruan (Yuran) river, from its junction with the Cuyuni, and 
 could be extended to the Usupamo range and to the Riconoto 
 range of mountains." 
 
 At the last moment. Dr. Lucio Pulido was informed by ofifi- 
 cial communication that: " Her Britannic Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, desirous to negotiate directly with the Venezuelan Gov- 
 ernment for the establishment of a frontier reciprocally 
 advantageous and approaching as near as possible the natural 
 boundaries, would extend to the southeast the line proposed 
 by Sir Thomas Sanderson, starting at the Mocomoco cape, and 
 that they would desist from all pretensions to any compensa- 
 tion on account of the restitution of the mouths of the Orinoco 
 and adjacent territories." 
 
 In the last negotiation entrusted to Senor Tomas Michelena, 
 Lord Rosebery modified the proposition for arbitration made 
 by the Venezuelan agent, pretending that he should agree to 
 the following: " That the disputed territory lies west of the 
 line marked in the map sent to the Government of Venezuela 
 on the 1st of March, i 890, and east of a line to be drawn on 
 the said map, starting from the rise of the river Cumano, then 
 following its course and the upward course of the river Arina 
 along the Usupamo range." 
 
 The acceptance of this proposition would have been to 
 legitimize the ever-inc reasing usurpations of the British, and 
 to leave open to discussion the possession of a territory 
 never before disputed to Venezuela. Senor Michelena very 
 naturally refused most energetically and with weighty rea- 
 sons to accept such unheard of pretensions, and, notwith- 
 
14 
 
 standing his review of the antecedents of the question, among 
 others the last promises made to Dr. Pulido, he could not move 
 Lord Roseberv from the attitude he had taken, and the only 
 reply obtained from him was that Senor Michelena's argu- 
 ments "left no opening for an}" acceptable agreement." 
 
 Such is Great Britain's attitude at the present moment. 
 
 Venezuela could never have consented to recognize Eng- 
 land's ownership of the disputed territory, because such a 
 course would imply the renunciation of its sovereigntv and its 
 independence, thus remaining under the rule of another 
 nation, its equal in law. 
 
 Between private individuals, one of the contending parties 
 cannot end a litigation by simply awarding to himself the 
 rights concerned, but must go to the Courts of Law in de- 
 mand of a verdict which he is bound to respect and abide by. 
 
 Nations, however, have no common superior ; hence the 
 necessit}- of ending their controversies between themselves by 
 mutual consent, either emanating from direct negotiations or 
 from the verdict of an arbitrator which they agree to accept 
 as an obligation contracted by a formal preliminary agree- 
 ment. If between individuals no power to dictate is permis- 
 sible, much less will this apply to nations. 
 
 For this reason Venezuela places no value whatever, either 
 upon the original " Schomburgk line," nor on the second line 
 of that name, which was unknown to her until 1890. Far 
 from accepting either, she protested against the first from the 
 day in which she became aware of its existence, and obtained 
 from Great Britain the order for the removal of the posts 
 erected to mark said line. Venezuela has protested against 
 the acts oppressive to her rights performed by the English 
 Government and by the Colonv of Demerara, and has also 
 taken other steps conducive to the preservation of said rights. 
 
 Can this be the offense that has exhausted the patience of 
 Great Britain? 
 
 Since when has the fulfillment of the most sacred duties, 
 the defense of one's own territorv. been considered a crime? 
 
 We are accused of ingratitude when we are reminded that 
 
15 
 
 Mr. Canning aided in the creation of these nationalities in 
 order to re-establish the European balance of power! 
 
 We acknowledge that Great Britain then served the cause 
 of justice by refusing to enter into the plans of the " Holy 
 Alliance" against the spirit of innovation of the century; and 
 by opposing the projects of Spain to reconquer her colonies in 
 America; this being done by concurrence with the United 
 States which had already proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine, and 
 by entering, as did the United States six months previous, into 
 a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with the 
 Republic of Colombia. 
 
 This treaty gave English commerce unconditionally the priv- 
 ileges of "the most favored nation " ; the equality of the flag 
 was stipulated. Englishmen enjoyed the same privileges as the 
 Colombians as regards succession to goods and chattels of all 
 kinds and denominations, either by sale, donation, exchange or 
 by bequest or otherwise, according to the administration of jus- 
 tice. Several franchises, or exemptions, were granted to 
 them ; and English and Colombian vessels were given equal 
 privileges, the latter being required to be built in Colombia, 
 which country was still in its infancy. Besides, England's con- 
 currence was promised to aid in the abolition of the slave trade 
 which the Supreme ' ' Junta " of Venezuela had voluntarily sup- 
 pressed since 1810. So hastily was this treaty concluded that 
 the clause referring to its duration was omitted as well as other 
 stipulations that have not yet been added to it, and it still sub- 
 sists without any change after seventy years, which, according 
 to Lord Granville, has made it obsolete. When Venezuela re- 
 newed this treaty in 1834 it was left just as it stood. 
 
 Since then Venezuela has accepted other pacts or agreements 
 proposed by Great Britain in regard to postal conventions, ex- 
 tradition of fugitive criminals from the English West Indies, 
 pecuniary claims, and, above all, the treaty of 1839 ^" regard 
 to the abolition of the slave trade. By this treaty, the Repub- 
 lic agreed to maintain in force the Colombian law of 1825 de- 
 claring this trade an act of piracy punishable by death. In ad- 
 dition to all this, Venezuela, confiding in an illusory reciprocity, 
 granted to England the right to visit in times of peace her 
 
16 
 
 merchant vessels, a concession she has solicted in vain from 
 other nations, notably from France and the United States. No 
 limit was fixed to this agreement. 
 
 Venezuela has duly appreciated the personal co-operation 
 given, during her war of independence, by brave Britons who 
 generously shed their blood for their love of liberty, and 
 O'Leary, MacGregor, D'Evereux, Minchin, Chitty, Wilson, 
 Fergusson and many others, are the names of those who rest 
 among our heroes in our National Pantheon. 
 
 Colombia carried its magnanimity to the extent of admitting, 
 without the careful and proper investigation made indispensa- 
 ble by the repeated and enormous abuses made under the then 
 prevailing circumstances, the claims for money, arms, ammu- 
 nition, equipments and other supplies obtained in England for 
 the needs in the struggle against Spain. Venezuela is even 
 now paying, with the utmost promptness, what remains of that 
 debt, which has been increased by subsequent loans, and the 
 present Government is so careful upon this subject that not 
 only the current dividends are paid up but at the same time 
 arrears caused by the Revolution of 1892 are being settled by 
 the payment of large sums of money. 
 
 English capital has been very profitably invested in the 
 Caracas and La Guayra Railway and other railroads, also in 
 works of improvements at La Guayra and in mines situated in 
 Venezuelan territory. 
 
 The above mentioned facts ought to be more than sufficient 
 to inspire Great Britain with a desire for the peace and progress 
 of Venezuela, even putting aside the commercial relations be- 
 tween the two countries, which give employment to several 
 lines of British steamers. 
 
 The Republic of Venezuela has given numerous proofs of its 
 desire to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain, but it 
 is the latter who opposes this end. 
 
 England advanced surreptitiously upon Venezuelan territorv, 
 but since 1884 she has carried on her plans openly. Since then 
 she has entered into forbidden places; has appointed commis- 
 saries; raised the English flag upon buildings; has taken prisoner, 
 
17 
 
 brought to trial and punished a Venezuelan official; has sent 
 to that territory armed police to proclaim British Sovereignty 
 by posters affixed to the trees; has issued decrees prohibiting 
 commerce and the patrolling by the Revenue Cutters of the 
 territorv between Barima and the Amacuro; has included these 
 places under the jurisdiction of the Government of Demerara; 
 has authorized the developement of mines comprised within 
 the territorv of the Republic, and has continued performing in 
 the territories thus invaded other acts of jurisdiction. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, the British Legation in Caracas declared 
 in 1850 to the Venezuelan Government that Her Britannic 
 Majesty had no "intention either to occupy or to encroach upon 
 the disputed territory"; and then asked and obtained from the 
 Venezuelan Executive a similar surety, thus entering into an 
 agreement effected by diplomatic notes. 
 
 Great Britain, even after her advances upon the territory 
 since 1884, which de facto made the agreement void, has never- 
 theless deemed this agreement as in force. It was not until 
 1893, when, for the first time, information was conveyed 
 through Senor Michelena that the situation existing by virtue 
 of this agreement could not be restored, as Venezuela had 
 violated its provisions. 
 
 If this violation took place before Great Britain had re- 
 leased herself from her obligations she should have complained 
 of said violation and demanded the fulfillment of the agree- 
 ment or else denied it in case her claim was not heeded. 
 
 Be it as it may, either such agreement is yet binding, and 
 then Great Britain by her conduct has violated it, or it has 
 become void, and in that case Venezuela is not debarred from 
 occupying what she considers her own territorv. 
 
 Venezuela has consistently and persistently protested against 
 these encroachments, and demanded the evacuation of the 
 disputed lands ; but Great Britain, instead of evacuating them, 
 has claimed them as her indisputable property, not subject to 
 arbitration, and advanced unheard of pretensions to other por- 
 tions of Venezuelan territory, which last, however, she graciously 
 agrees to submit to arbitration. 
 
18 
 
 We are now told that the historical British rights have been 
 strengthened by the recent possession of the territory. We 
 well know the value the English give to this, their old saying 
 that ''possession is nine points of tlic Imi'," having become a 
 proverb. 
 
 But justice cannot admit that the mere fact of holding a 
 thing is equivalent to the ownership of it. If there be no 
 owner, such proceedings may obtain the force of proprietor- 
 ship, but not, however, if there be an owner, or if the owner- 
 ship be in dispute, which is an equivalent case. 
 
 Let us pass, then, the argument of ownership by right of 
 occupancy. 
 
 In regard to a cession, let us state that such an act implies 
 the performance of an agreement to such an end, and no such 
 agreement exists between Venezuela and Great Britain. Nor 
 is there room for the argument of right of conquest, as this pre- 
 supposes a war which has not taken place, much less confirma- 
 tion of such rights by a final treaty of peace. 
 
 Such possession could not be admissible even as obtained 
 by prescription, since, according to certain opinions, it is not 
 recognized bv the Laws of Nations, and according to others 
 it onlv applies to immemorial prescriptions. In the present 
 case, such prescription is alleged to have begun in 1884, that 
 is, eleven years ago. 
 
 At all events, the possession preceding the prescription must 
 be a legitimate one resulting from deeds that could be trans- 
 ferred. 
 
 Force, clandestine acts, and uncertainty make it void. 
 
 This British possession by prescription falls under the head 
 of force ; and to quote the writers: "One century of unlawful 
 possession is not sufificient to obliterate the defects such j)osses- 
 sion may have had in its beginning." 
 
 It is well known that even in the case of legitimate posses- 
 sion, any claims of a former owner against it, are a hindrance 
 to such possession, thus destroying the presumption of abandon- 
 ment, which certain writers endeavor to show is involved in it 
 and justifies it. Venezuela has never abandoned her territory ; 
 
19 
 
 nor has she been neghgent in this matter. Her direct claims 
 since 1841, made to the British Government, and to the Gov- 
 ernor of Demerara, her persistency, her continued protests, 
 have echoed all over the world. 
 
 The essential requisite of prescription is its peaceful charac- 
 ter ; possession based on violence is not admitted, no matter 
 how old it may be, as the farther back it dates, the deeper the 
 wound inflicted upon the law. There are those who think that 
 this right of might changes the condition of affairs ; that it war- 
 rants the prescription, but only in case that after cessation of 
 compulsion the dispossessed owner, being at liberty to claim 
 his rights, fails to claim them and remains passive. 
 
 This has not been, nor is it now, Venezuela's case. 
 
 Violence prevails and threatens to continue and extend itself 
 more and more. "The Times" states that the terms which 
 Lord Aberdeen might have accepted in 1848 would have been 
 impossible in 1850; that the agreement of 1850 was insufficient 
 in 1880; that in 1886 the necessity for proclainung the absolute 
 right of Great Bfitain to all the territory iiicbided zuithin the 
 " ^chomburgk line'' became evident; that they still claim as the 
 heirs of Holland the extreme limit of the flow of all the rivers 
 entering into the Essequibo ; but that there is a disposition to 
 submit to arbitration the frontier between this limit and the 
 " Schomburgk line "; that no question derogatory to British 
 jurisdiction could be admitted, but that in a few years no arbi- 
 tration can be admitted upon any part of her rightful boundary 
 line ! 
 
 According to this, if since 1892 no check had been given to 
 British intrusion, the Colony of Demerara might extend as far 
 as the south of the town of Upata and the range of mountains 
 on the east side of the Caroni, her extreme limit, according to 
 old treaties with native tribes and subsequent cessions made by 
 Holland, although in 1890 they graciously receded from this 
 extreme claim in favor of Venezuela, and arbitration was adopted 
 for an increase made in the already altered Schomburgk line. 
 
 This would be a very convenient means of settling boun- 
 dary questions : By ordering the arbitrary erection of posts 
 to mark the boundaries and to serve as a means of opening a 
 
20 
 
 controvers}' on rights with the contiguous owner ; then closing 
 the discussion without listening to the other party's argu- 
 ments ; and later on to state that such boundaries are definite 
 and cannot be removed. This same proceeding might be ap- 
 plied to the new line open to arbitration and finally to the ex- 
 treme pretension which was only claimed, to be abandoned 
 later on. The threats of "The Times" seem to point to this. 
 
 In reference to the Monroe Doctrine "The Times" says 
 of it that its most ardent admirers had not believed that it 
 could be applied to the establishments already in existence 
 when it was proclaimed ; that Great Britain has no pretensions 
 to a new territory but only to what Holland possessed, from 
 whom she took them by conquest, and that this is the point to 
 be determined ; tJiat if it zvcrc not conchisivcly sJioiv/i that these 
 limits are not as extensive as have been elainied by successive Eng- 
 lish Governments, then there might be grounds for a contro- 
 versy taking said Doctrine for a basis, and to find out its true 
 value, as it lacks the sanction of international recognition, 
 though it be popular on the American Continent. 
 
 This hypothesis just suits the circumstances of the discus- 
 sion. Venezuela maintains that Holland did not possess all 
 that territory that England claims as its successor. This as- 
 sertion is based upon countless proofs. England has advanced 
 her stations along the borders of the Orinoco as far as the 
 Amacuro. Here we hav^e an argument contrary to Great 
 Britain's pretensions. General P. W. Netscher, a Dutchman, 
 in his history of the Colonies of Essecjuibo, Demerara and Ber- 
 bice, jjublished in 1888, after having made an inspection of 
 the official archives of his country, emphatically affirms that 
 the Netherlands did not extend to the Amacuro, not even to 
 the Barima, and that the pretensions of the English heirs ujjon 
 this point are not founded. 
 
 Other authorities also agree that in 18 14, when the cession 
 of the Colonies was made to England, the Dutch had no pos- 
 sessions west of the Essecjuibo. 
 
 We shall only add in regard to "the Yuruan incident," that 
 Venezuela does not consider as British ]:)Ossessions the terri- 
 
21 
 
 tory occupied by an English station on the right margin of 
 the Cuyuni opposite the Yuruan debouchure, even if it be in- 
 cluded within the so-called second " Schomburgk line." If 
 the Republic protested so loudly against the first line of that 
 name, and obtained from Lord Aberdeen, in 1842, the remov- 
 al of the posts, how could she accept the second line extended 
 in a manner as capricious and unjustifiable as the first? 
 
 In this grave conflict, Venezuela has appealed to her sisters 
 on this continent, and particularly to the United States of 
 America. On all sides she has had the sympathy of friendly 
 Governments, and public opinion has made known through the 
 proper channels its friendly feeling for her. The joint resolu- 
 tion passed by the American Congress as suggested by its 
 President, and the American press, which for the last few 
 months has been unanimous in favor of the peaceful and hon- 
 orable solution of this controversy, all give manifest proof that 
 the merits of Venezuela's cause are such that she has the sym- 
 pathies of all, which fact, the English both in the mother 
 country and in the Colony of Demerara cannot but recognize. 
 
 Great Britain as a first-class power, with certain interests in 
 Venezuela, would have a more exalted position should she, 
 obedient to the voice of Justice, retrace her steps taken since 
 1884, and place the matter upon the same basis of the discus- 
 sion initiated in 1 84 1 by Lord Aberdeen; continued by Lord 
 Granville in 1881, 1884, and 1885, and with Lord Rosebery, 
 during his first administration in 1886. By this means the 
 friendly relations between the two nations would be renewed, 
 and with them the profitable intercourse dependent upon them, 
 and the disputed territory in its entirety would be submitted to 
 arbitration as it should be without excluding that portion which 
 Great Britain has declared to be her own and the possession of 
 
 which she enjoys since 1888. 
 
 Rafael Seijas.