The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-03-07

evidence. and FOR tho clearness OF the
conclusions" This gives no sort Of sur
prise 10 those who are familiar with sir
Frederick Pollock's book. The Gazette
says
.arhe statement shows the Dutch occu-
patton of the coast OF Guiana up TO inc
mouth of the Ornoco, such possession
implying the right OF ownership 10 the
Hinterland (back country. which right II
Is shown. the Dutch exercised IN mo
sixteenth century. The early Dutch maps
give the northwest boundary as starting
from Barima Point and going northwest
ward inland. roughly parallel 10 the OH
noco. to The confluence Of the Caronl ana
Orinoco According to the map which de
Lisio prepared for Louis XIV. in La, the
dclimitation OF the district and the Dutcn
boundary from Barima Point Is identicai
with the present British claims.
sir Frederick Pollock proves that tho
Spanlards were never established IN
Guiana proper until they overran part
OF the British territory TO the Cuyuni IN
1853 He establishes beyond question that
Holland vigorously protested whenever the
Spaniards entered the Cuyuni Valley; that
Spain had no answer to these protests, ana
that anyway, she never claimed us
ovrcrshlp. But the states general twice
in 1853 and l7Gl. demanded Icparation Tor
Spanish violation Of the Dutch territory
on The Cuyuni.
Dutch corrosponceIc &c is cited assert
ing ownership OF tho entire watershed OF
the Essequibo, laying great stress upon
ri..hts to the Cuyunl. where the Dutch
had gold diggines and forts, and win
those Indian tribes they had Intercourse
Tor one hundred and NIFTY years.
"The Spanish correspondence quoted
shows that the government rejected the
advice of Governor Cumana 10 push the
Dutch out Of Cuyuni.. The government
declared that the proposals. Were too au-
dacious. as they attempted 10 show that
Guiana was more extensive than was
actually the case.
THE Dutch archives have been so wei
kept that Sir Frederick Pollock was able
10 establish an irrefragable case FOR the
British ownership Of the Cuyum basin.
though there is no adducihle evidence as
TO how far the Dutch held the country
between the SchomDurgk linc and the
Oriuoco"
These statements as 10 the Dutch asser-
ton in 1159 and 1863 of a right 10 the
Cuvum Valley in COMMUNICATION TO the
Spanish Government and SPANS practical
concession Of the claims are set ont in
Lord sa isbury's letter 10 Mr.. Olney, ana
we repeatedly directed attention TO Them
when the correspondence was made pub
lie There Is nothing IN the case but
question Of fact as to whether these state
monts are true. II the Dutch did. i'm fact,
claim against Spain I'm 1850 and 1863 that
the valleys of The EsseQuibo and the
Cuyuni were Dutch territory, and 81. in
fact. Spain did concede the claim. then
there IS nothing whatever IN the Yene-
zuclan case and our commission Will be
sure io report that the territory in dis
puto belongs 10 England.
We do not hesitate 10 shy that we shall
rejoice if this happens. We take no part
az Dot I'm the general clamor against Eng
land as n robber and q and-Rrabber A
hundred years ago that charge could un-
doubtedy have been made against her.
But the England of one hundred years
ago and the England of today are two
very different things. For sixty or seven
~ years ENGLAND has been pure. demcc-
acy iu fact. though not in name, and
she has been ruled 10y the enlightened
thought a. hcr people. which las been tne
most ou.pHtcned thought That this world
has cyet known. Ia that time Der rule, botn
in England and in her colonies 1--WE do not
take In Ireland. whose case must Doe
judged by sclO. has been a model OF
wisdom. nmness and Justice. II, in sct-
films hcr disputes with savage communi-