New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-07

boundary between Spain and Dutch Guiana.
ENGIAND's EXTREME CLAIM IN 1886.
The dispute arose again In 1896. appears from the
official note OF the British Minister in Caracas dated
May IA of that year. addressed to the venezuelan
Government Moreover, 1t IS very well known tha'
even as late as 1896 Englands extreme claim as
the successor In title of Holland did not extend be
yond Cape Nassau and the Pumaron River IL IS
true that what was known as Dutch Guiana ma, nau
been ta b e' nSsh had d made settle
ments on the surinam River. But in the time Of
by the Dutch in retaliation for the British capture
and occupation Of the Dutch settlements IN North
cesson OF all the British possessions In Guiana IN
exchange for those Of Holland in North america a.
territory In Dutch Guiana. and Dutch Guiana was
then now limited to the settlements cede ,eo 10
Holland by Spain by the treaty OF Munster IN l6ts
The temporary military occupations by me BrN,
sh OF Dutch Guiana in 1881 and 1876 to which Lopd
appears from subsequent treaties between the TWO
Sf The oa Of
by the treaty OF Utrecht OF lib England coVenantea
limits OF their domnons in America they stood
In the time OF the Catholic King Charles III OF gio-
when Charles ii died II is manifest from the official
correspondence and maps Of that period that the
was then the River Essequibo; and that the Esse-
qubo continued TO be regarded as the legal boundary
OF that year. That Dutch Guiana was then limited
to the four establishments or settlements OF Surf
needs to be pointed out All seosraphers agree that
the province OF Berbice extended from the surinam
from the Berbce 10 the Demerara River. and that
OF Essecpiibo extended from the Demerara to the
Essequibo River
DUTCH AGGRESsIONS REPELIED.
That the Dutch did make in violation Of the treaty
OF iGis spnsmodc attempts to extend their limits
beyond the Essequibo IL not denied. They
tabiished two temporary fortincatons the left
bank Of the Pumaron near its mouth. and attempted
to found settlements near Cape Nassau. But these
aggressIons were always repealed by the spanIards.
fortiications on the Punaron had been abandoned
BY the PIh IN Tn as from Of the oa
Of that year. Ana this Is confirmed by Dutch testi-
mony OF the most unimpeachable character. as may
bc by reference to tho note OF Dutch official,
Mr.. Six. OF 1874. addressed TO the Spanish Minister
IN Holland. In 1903 the three settlements or col
onics OF Essequlbo. Bcrblce and Dcmerara capitu-
lated successfully 10 the English who later on prob
ably held military possession OF the whole of Dutch
Hut by the final treaty OF peace which followed
IN 1914 England agreed to restore to Holland within
the period Of three months all the colonies
factories and establishments" therein. except only
the three settlements OF Demerara. Essequibo
and Rerbice." These TO Toe disposed OF by a
complimentary convention to be NEGOTIATED es,
IN the sixth and ninth articles of the treaty Of
peace" OF May. 1874 by that supplementary con-
venton.' which is dated August Is. 1914. Holland.
In consideration OF certain sums Of money to be
advanced by England under the conditions therein
three settlements named. but no more.
Here. then. have the source, and the only
legitimate source Of England's present claim to
territory in Guiana. That II is expressly limited
TO the three settlements" named as they stood on
August 49, 1874, Is manifest England is therefore;
justly entitled the successor OF Holland TO all
The within Int I bur not n one oo OF
ground beyond. Holland never had nth settle
ment" or colony between the hsseanipo ana ma me
1t was coded to England by the supplementary
convention Of august 49, ~ Nor has IT. there oie ever
Spain Colombia or Venezuela. Nor could there
have rn any bs umn@ S Smnon Of the so
could not have been conveyed by them even had
they attempted 1t. which. however. nowhere APP
pears.
THE sCHOMBURGK LINE DIsCREDITED.
In view OF these facts so easy Of verincaton. 1t
seems almost incredible that Lord Salisbury should
assert that Mr. (afterward Sir RoberO Schom-
burgk did not discover or invent any new bounda-
RES in making out his capricous divisional line
Of 1910. Schomburgk did not himself take this view
London In that year. For he therein says he fol-
lowed. not tho historic limits. but those which
lie ' assumed English possession Of the lower Esse
quibo. and then by contested rule seldom At
tempted to be apped claimed rs Tor England agnn sne
beyond this and drew a tentative line. including
are are in the eastern watershed OF the ornoco That
his caprcious line was promptly disclamed by the
the Demerara Colonial Government and that it
was. In fact. obliterated and a now one proposed
facts too well known to admit OF controversy. And
yet Lord Salisbury makes the astonishing state
ment that while Mr.. Schomburgk was engaged
In this survey the Venezuelan Minister at London
had urged Her Majestys Government to enter into
treaty OF limits" and that "as soon Her
Maiesty's Government were In possession OF Mr..
Schomburgk's reports the Venezuela Minister was
Informed that they were In position to commence
negotiations.
Now the truth IT, DR., Fortlque. the Venezuelan
Minister at London. acting under SPECIFIC instruc-
lions from his Government, made 1t condition
precedent TO any negotiation OF boundary that the
.so-called "Schomburgk line" be not only dis
claimed but obliterated. even though 1t was then
alleged by Lord Aberdeen to represent nothing
M. eYtr m ~ q n