frontiers to their own advantage, the danger inherent in the proposed change may be formidable.

It appears to me that under these circumstances it will be wiser, until our experience of international arbitration is greater, for nations to retain in their own hands some control over the ultimate result of any claim that may be advanced against their territorial rights. I have suggested arrangements under which their interests might be indirectly protected, by conferring on the defeated litigants an appeal to a Court in which the Award would need confirmation by a majority of Judges belonging to their nationality. I do not insist on this special form of protection. It would be equally satisfactory and more simple to provide that no Award on a question of territorial right should stand if, within three months of its delivery, either party should formally protest against its validity. The moral presumption against any nation delivering such a protest would, in the opinion of the world, be so strong that no Government would resort to such a defence unless under a cogent apprehension that a miscarriage of justice was likely to take place.

Mr. Olney himself appears to admit the need of some security of the kind; only he would restrict the liberty of refusal to the period immediately preceding the arbitration. I do not in any degree underrate the value of his proposal, although, if it were adopted, it would require to be modified in its application to Great Britain in order to suit our special constitutional usages. But it would not meet the case of errors committed, from any cause, by the Tribunal, which, in the case of a claim to inhabited territory, might have such serious results to large bodies of men.

I apprehend that if Mr. Olney's proposal were adopted as it stands, the fear of a possible miscarriage of justice would induce the Government whose territory was claimed to avoid all risk by refusing the arbitration altogether, under the plea, which he allows, that it involved their honour and integrity. The knowledge, on the other hand, that there still remained an escape from any decision that was manifestly unjust would make parties willing to go forward with the arbitration, who would shrink from it behind this plea, if they felt that, by entering on the proceeding, they had surrendered all possibility of self-protection, whatever injustice might be threatened by the Award.

I have no doubt that if the procedure adopted were found in experience to work with tolerable fairness, the rejection of the Award would come gradually to be looked upon as a proceeding so dangerous and so unreasonable, that the right of resorting to such a mode of self-protection in territorial cases would become practically obsolete, and might in due time be formally renounced. But I do not believe that a hearty adoption and practice of the system of

arbitration in the case of territorial demands can be looked for, unless the safety and practicability of this mode of settlement are first ascertained by a cautious and tentative advance.

I have to request that your Excellency will read the substance of this despatch to Mr. Olney, and will leave a copy with him if he should wish it.

Sir J. Pauncefote.

I am, &c.,

SALISBURY.

SIR,

Mr. Olney to Ma. Bayard.-(Communicated to Foreign Office,

May 19.)

Department of State, Washington. May 8, 1896.

I HAVE received from the Commission appointed "to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana" a communication, copy of which is hereto annexed.

I fully appreciate the right of the British Government to ignore the request of the Commission for such references to documents as will enable it to verify the statements of the British Blue Book. It will be quite impossible, I think, for this Government to find any fault if the request is not acceded to. Yet, bearing in mind the manner in which the present effort of the United States to settle this long-standing boundary question is now regarded by the British Government-that it has been characterized in the highest official quarter as an endeavour to ascertain the truth in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government-I do not feel at liberty not to bring the request of the Commission to the immediate notice of that Government. The object of the Commission in such request is unmistakably apparent upon the very face of its communication. While setting on foot an original and independent investigation of the source of knowledge, it desires such references to authorities cited as will at once facilitate its work, and at the same time make it certain that nothing confirmatory of the British contention is by any inadvertence overlooked.

You will communicate this despatch, with its exhibit, to Lord Salisbury, by reading the same to him at the first opportunity, and leaving a copy should he so desire, a copy being herewith inclosed for that purpose. I am, &c.,

T. F. Bayard, Esq.

RICHARD OLNEY.

SIR,

(Inclosure.)-Mr. Brewer to Mr. Olney.

Office of the Commission appointed" to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana.” Washington, D.C., May 6, 1896.

I BEG to call your attention to the following situation :—

A vital question before the Commission is whether there was ever any actual Dutch Settlement west of the Pomeroon, and especially at or near Barima Point.

The claim is broadly made in the British Blue Book: "That by 1648 the Dutch Settlements in Guiana extended along the coast the whole way from the River Maroni to the Barima." The corollary from this, of course, is that the Treaty of Münster confirmed the title of the Dutch to this entire territory-a corollary that is sought to be enforced by the claim of the subsequent, if not continued, occupation.

In support of this contention, it is stated in the Blue Book that, "in 1684, the Dutch Commander of Essequibo recommended that a strong little post should be established at Barima in place of the small watch-house that already existed there." It is again stated that, "in the same year (1757), the Spanish Commandant on the Orinoco complained to the Dutch authorities of disorders at Barima, showing that the Dutch then had jurisdiction there." And, again. that "in the same year (1764) the Dutch West India Company, in a Memorial to the States-General, declared that the Colony of Essequibo comprised that district of the north-east coast of South America which lies between the Spanish Colony of Orinoco and the Dutch Colony of Berbice, and was intersected not only by the chief River Essequibo, but also by various small rivers as the Barima, Waini, Maroco, Pomeroon, and Demerera, wherefore also it bore the name of the Colony of Essequibo and dependent rivers."

As authority for these statements, reference is simply made in a general way to the Hague records; no documents or extracts from documents are given.

These general statements upon which the British Government apparently bases its right to Point Barima find no recognition, so far as we have yet ascertained, in the works of standard historians of the Colony, either English or Dutch. In fact, the most eminent of these historians, General P. M. Netscher, in summing up the whole controversy in an article published during the present year in the Tijdspiegel," seems to have found nothing in the Dutch archives to support the British contention.

Whether the Dutch really occupied Point Barima in 1648 or not, it would seem from a quotation given by General Netscher,

taken from the archives of the Zeeland Chamber, that by 1680 at the latest such occupation, if it ever existed, had ceased, and that the point had been definitely abandoned.

The latest of the English historians of the Colony, Mr. Rodway, goes so far as to seem to put into the mouth of the Dutch West India Company not merely a refusal to establish a post at Barima Point, but the significant reply that "the Orinoco was too far away to be safe; if the Dutchmen went there the Spaniards might want to go to Essequibo." (Rodway's "History of British Guiana," vol. i, p. 36.)

In view of the above seeming contradictions between the statements of the British Government and those of standard historians, it seems to us of the utmost importance to ascertain the precise wording and purport of the passages relied on by the authors of the Blue Book, and to ourselves have a thorough examination made of the Dutch archives. With this end in view, we have concluded to send Professor George L. Burr to Holland to make such an examination. It would assist him materially if the British Government would furnish him with a reference to the documents upon which the statements of the Blue Book are based, and it has occurred to us that there would be no impropriety in your communicating a request through our Ambassador at London to furnish such information.

Professor Burr's address will be: Care of the United States' Minister at the Hague.

R. Olney, Esq.

I remain, &c.,

DAVID J. BREWER, President.

SIR,

The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Foreign Office, May 22, 1896. I SENT you in a despatch under date of the 18th instant some observations upon Mr. Olney's communication to you with regard to the subject of general arbitration.

As it is possible, however, that we shall not see our way to surmount the difficulties which still separate the views of the two Governments in regard to the larger and more general question, I propose in this despatch to convey to you proposals for the settlement of the Venezuelan dispute which I should be glad if you would submit to the Government of the United States, acting as the friend of Venezuela in this matter. From the first our objection has been to subject to the decision of an Arbiter, who, in the last resort, must, of necessity, be a foreigner, the rights of British colonists who have settled in territory which they had every ground

for believing to be British, and whose careers would be broken, and their fortunes possibly ruined, by a decision that the territory on which they have settled was subject to the Venezuelan Republic. At the same time, we are very conscious that the dispute between ourselves and the Republic of Venezuela affects a large portion of land which is not under settlement, and which could be disposed of without any injustice to any portion of the colonial population. We are very willing that the territory which is comprised within this definition should be subjected to the results of an arbitration, even though some portion of it should be found to fall within the Schomburgk line. With that end in view, we propose the following basis of settlement of the Venezuelan boundary dispute:

The

A Commission to be created by agreement between Great Britain and the United States, consisting of four members, namely, two British subjects and two citizens of the United States. above Commission to investigate and to report upon the facts which affect the rights of the United Netherlands and of Spain respectively at the date of the acquisition of British Guiana by Great Britain.

This Commission will only examine into questions of fact, without reference to the inferences that may be founded on them, but the finding of a majority of the Commission upon those questions shall be binding upon both Governments.

Upon the Report of the above Commission being issued, the two Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela respectively shall endeavour to agree to a boundary-line upon the basis of such Report. Failing agreement, the Report, and every other matter concerning this controversy on which either Government desires to insist, shall be submitted to a Tribunal of three, one nominated by Great Britain, the other by Venezuela, and the third by the two so nominated; which Tribunal shall fix the boundary-line upon the basis of such Report, and the line so fixed shall be binding upon Great Britain and Venezuela: Provided always that in fixing such line the Tribunal shall not have power to include as the territory of Venezuela any territory which was bonâ fide occupied by subjects of Great Britain on the 1st January, 1887, or as the territory of Great Britain any territory bona fide occupied by Venezuelans at the same date.

In respect to any territory with which, by this provision, the Tribunal is precluded from dealing, the Tribunal may submit to the two Powers any recommendations which seem to it calculated to satisfy the equitable rights of the parties, and the two Powers will take such recommendations into their consideration.

It will be evident from this proposal that we are prepared to accept the finding of a Commission voting as three to one upon all