New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-01

A SUMMARY OF THE REPORT MADE TO
THE PRESIDENT.
NOVELTY AND DIFFICULTY OF THE woRK-IN-
vEsTTGATIoN OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
THE COMMISSIONS PART IN SET


|
dent yesterday, opens with reference to Its oreani
cation by the election of David J. Brewer as presi-
dent and Severe Mallet-Prevost as secretary, ana
mentions that at the outset the Commission was
confronted with the fact that Its work was oo'h
novel and difficult. While the boundary line, whose
true location the Commission were caiieu upon 10
ascertain was a matter Of Importance. In It's ui'i-
mate determination, to both Venezuela ana Great
Britain Neither Government was consulted or TOOK
part in the creation OF the Commission. or In the
selection Of Commissioners Each of them might
have ignored Commission as the result vi
merely voluntary movement on the part OF Na''o
in no way personally interested In the TERRITORIAL
| question Yet we felt that while neither Govern
ment was bound by what should ascertain ana
report each might be willing TO assist In our WORK.
and might DO possessed Of evidence OF great Vaiue'
not easily at least obtainable from other sources
We therefore addressed a communication 10 the
Secretary of State with view of Its presentation
to the two COVE -nments so directly intereste" anu
tho Commission expresses its pleasure In ADDING
that during the entire life Of the Commission each
of the two governments has manifested IN a most
sgreeab BILE and satisfactory manner us desire " hep
us in our Investigations
The Commission also refers to the aid given 1t by
Individual citizens in furnishing Information that
seemed likely be Of assistance In the determine
tim NJ the boundary and warmly expresses Its APP
probation Of services rendered by numerous genie
men eminent in the line of historical ana a'i'i
ouarian researches who furnished IL Win 'ui.' "'
maps books geographical papers ana otfNr uocu-
ments bearing directly on the subject OF i'qui!'
Tho LIST of names prominently mentioned III ihis
part Of the report includes those OF Justh "ih'o''
librarian of Harvard College; John rrahRih june
SON professor of history at Bro"n UNIVERSITY anu
George L. Burr professor Of history AT Corheii
University, recognized authorities In antiquarian
researches who carefully examined certain MS
torical questions and prepared papers which accom-
many this report Professor Burr especially, mas
been of great service having given 10 'he Ooih'hs
sion a years labor, part of which was IN the eN-
animation of original documents In Hoiiah" ana
London. -,
we were also assisted" says the report. ''by
Professor James c. Hanson. of the Wisconsin state
University I'm the examination OF coliecuoh oi'
maps and charts belonging to that INSTITUTION anu
nv Dr DE HAM of Johns Hopkins University. In
the matter Of translations Of Dutch documents ana
the examination Of the archives in Holland. While
no formal paper was prepared by either OF these
gentlemen TO be incorporated In our reports their
services were none the less Of great value ana de-
serve especial mention
The report continues. in part as follows; The
confusion apparent the face Of the maps even Oh
tho later ones suggested a general lack OF geo.
graphical knowledge. and II was deemed important
that we should have map promptly prepared ex-
messing the latest results Of all researches ana ex-
aminations Accordingly we applied to the ON
cials in charge Of the Geological survey ana Oh 'e
Hydrographic ONCE. who promptly placed at our
disposal all the material in their possession ana
also nersonallv rendered great assistance
..In the matter of historical investigation there
were questions as TO actual settlements. "hen ana
whore made by which nation, how long contin-
ued and the acts Of dominion exercised IN cohhec'
ton with such settlements over contiguous terri
tory This opened wide field for investigation
which Included examination into the spanish
settlements on the Orinoco from the time or the
o1t he ctt n IhOmc
,eoo the Dutch settlements on the Essequibo and
the Pomeroon the Spanish missions east OF the
Imataca Mountains In portions OF the tuyWh
BASIN and the temporary establishments or the TWO
nations In various parts OF the disputed territory
also the several efforts Of the two nations 10 exer-
else dominion and control over the Indians residing
in those districts to carry trade and commerce
with those Indians and the long series of efforts
on the part Of each 70 check and destroy the as-
gressive and what was supposed to be the unwar-
raned efforts Of the other nation to acquire foot
hold in the territory
The Commission refers to the necessity, In addi-
ton to its researches into historical works and
works of travel, Of insight into diplomatic cor
respondence bearing directly indirectly. probably
or possibly upon the question before 1t, and says:
THE treaty Of Munster, while 1t contained con-
frmation by each nation TO the other OF the places
etc Of which 1t was in possession. did not name
| those places and did not define the boundary be-
tween the possessions Of the two nations, nor in
! terms Indicate any rule by which such boundary
could be defined; neither. on the other hand. did it
provide for future convention or treaty for the
/ determination of such boundary 1t seemed posi-
| ble II not probable that there were existing GER
| tain international rules generally understood and
accepted Of sufficient application to settle the true
| boundary between the possessions OF the two ma
| tons Impressed with the conviction that such
might have been the thought of the two nations In
! this convention. deemed It important to examine
/ frpat on Ia
I This treaty Of Munster. It must be borne In mind.
! was signed century and a half after the discov-
! cry OF America. at a time when, as a well-known
| fact European nations had established many set
/ Elements within the limits Of this continent and II
I is not unreasonable TO suppose that by that time
some rules for the delineaton of boundary had be-
! come recognized. and not improbably that these
| two nations when confirming to each other their
respective possessions. had such rules in mind as
sufficient to fix the boundaries thereof. In pursu-
! ance Of this, we examined and discussed all the
available treatses on international law from Vattel
TO the present time, In their bearings the ques-
ton before us.
I'm the course Of such examination our attention
was directed to the fact that questions OF this kind
! entered into the discussion between the United
States and Spain in reference TO the settlement Of
| the boundaries between what now Louisiana
! and Texas, and also betw zen this country and
Great Britain in respect to the boundaries between
our Northern possessions and British Columbia.
We examined at length the correspondence be-
tween the representatives of these respective ma
tions concerning these matters with view TO as
| pertaining, II possible the opinions of those ma
tons some extent interested In this controversy
as 10 the rules for determining questions of bound
| airy.
1T was developed by such examination that there
are certain rules In respect 10 the del!mtation Of
| boundary which had been generally acquiesced in
| by all nations and may be said 10 have therefore
become a part Of international law; other rules
whose validity was denied. and OF which therefore
It could only be safely said that 1t is doubtful
whether they entered into the thought OF the two
nations In making this treaty: and still others