there is no better illustration of the truth that nations and individuals are affected in the same manner by like causes than is often furnished by the beginning, progress, and results of a national boundary dispute. we all know that among individuals, when neighbors have entered upon a quarrel concerning their division-line or the location of a line fence, they will litigate until all account of cost and all regard for the merits of the contention give place to a ruthless and all-dominating determination, by fair means or foul, to win; and if fisticuffs and forcible possession are resorted to, the big, strong neighbor rejoices in his strength as he mauls and disfigures his small and weak antagonist.
it will be found that nations behave in like fashion. one or the other of two national 174 neighbors claims that their dividing-line should be defined or rectified in a certain manner. if this is questioned, a season of diplomatic untruthfulness and finesse sometimes intervenes for the sake of appearances. developments soon follow, however, that expose a grim determination behind fine phrases of diplomacy; and in the end the weaker nation frequently awakens to the fact that it must either accede to an ultimatum dictated by its stronger adversary, or look in the face of war and a spoliation of its territory; and if such a stage is reached, superior strength and fighting ability, instead of suggesting magnanimity, are graspingly used to enforce extreme demands if not to consummate extensive conquest or complete subjugation.
i propose to call attention to one of these unhappy national boundary disputes, between the kingdom of great britain and the south american republic of venezuela, involving the boundary-line separating venezuela from the english colony of british guiana, which adjoins venezuela on the east.
venezuela, once a spanish possession, declared her independence in 1810, and a few years afterward united with two other of spain’s revolted colonies in forming the old 175 colombian federal union, which was recognized by the united states in 1822. in 1836 this union was dissolved and venezuela became again a separate and independent republic, being promptly recognized as such by our government and by other powers. spain, however, halted in her recognition until 1845, when she quite superfluously ceded to venezuela by treaty the territory which as an independent republic she had actually owned and possessed since 1810. but neither in this treaty nor in any other mention of the area of the republic were its boundaries described with more definiteness than as being “the same as those which marked the ancient viceroyalty and captaincy-general of new granada and venezuela in the year 1810.”
england derived title to the colony of guiana from holland in 1814, by a treaty in which the territory was described as “the cape of good hope and the establishments of demerara, essequibo, and berbice.” no boundaries of those settlements or “establishments” were given in the treaty, nor does it appear that any such boundaries had ever been particularly defined.
it is quite apparent that the limits of these adjoining countries thus lacking any mention of definite metes and bounds, were in need of 176 extraneous assistance before they could be exactly fixed, and that their proper location was quite likely to lead to serious disagreement. in such circumstances threatening complications can frequently be avoided if the adjoining neighbors agree upon a divisional line promptly, and before their demands are stimulated and their tenacity increased by a real or fancied advance in the value of the possessions to be divided, or other incidents have intervened to render it more difficult to make concessions.
i shall not attempt to sketch the facts and arguments that bear upon the exact merits of this boundary controversy between great britain and venezuela. they have been thoroughly examined by an arbitral tribunal to which the entire difficulty was referred, and by whose determination the boundary between the two countries has been fixed—perhaps in strict accord with justice, but at all events finally and irrevocably. inasmuch, however, as our own country became in a sense involved in the controversy, or at least deeply concerned in its settlement, i have thought there might be interest in an explanation of the manner and the processes by which the interposition of the united states government was brought about. i must 177 not be expected to exclude from mention every circumstance that may relate to the merits of the dispute as between the parties primarily concerned; but so far as i make use of such circumstances i intend to do so only in aid and simplification of the explanation i have undertaken.
this dispute began in 1841. on october 5 of that year the venezuelan minister to great britain, in a note to lord aberdeen, principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, after reminding the secretary that a proposal made by venezuela on the 28th of january, 1841, for joint action in the matter of fixing a divisional boundary, still awaited the acceptance of great britain, wrote as follows:
the honorable earl of aberdeen may now judge of the surprise of the government of venezuela upon learning that in the territory of the republic a sentry-box has been erected upon which the british flag has been raised. the venezuelan government is in ignorance of the origin and purport of these proceedings, and hopes that they may receive some satisfactory explanation of this action. in the meantime the undersigned, in compliance with the instructions communicated to him, urges upon the honorable earl of aberdeen the necessity of entering into a treaty of boundaries as a previous step to the fixation of limits, and begs to ask for an answer to the above-mentioned communication of january 28.
178
lord aberdeen, in his reply, dated october 21, 1841, makes the following statement:
her majesty’s government has received from the governor of british guiana, mr. schomburgk’s report of his proceedings in execution of the commission with which he has been charged. that report states that mr. schomburgk set out from demerara in april last and was on his return to the essequibo river at the end of june. it appears that mr. schomburgk planted boundary posts at certain points of the country which he has surveyed, and that he was fully aware that the demarcation so made was merely a preliminary measure, open to further discussion between the governments of great britain and venezuela. but it does not appear that mr. schomburgk left behind him any guard-house, sentry-box, or other building having the british flag.
with respect to the proposal of the venezuelan government that the governments of great britain and venezuela should conclude a treaty as a preliminary step to the demarcation of the boundaries between british guiana and venezuela, the undersigned begs leave to observe that it appears to him that if it should be necessary to make a treaty upon the subject of the boundaries in question, such a measure should follow rather than precede the operation of the survey.
in a communication dated the 18th of november, 1841, the venezuelan minister, after again complaining of the acts of schomburgk and alleging that he “has planted at a point on 179 the mouth of the orinoco several posts bearing her majesty’s initials, and raised at the same place, with a show of armed forces, the british flag, and also performed several other acts of dominion and government,” refers to the great dissatisfaction aroused in venezuela by what he calls “this undeserved offense,” and adds: “the undersigned therefore has no doubts but that he will obtain from her majesty’s government a reparation for the wrong done to the dignity of the republic, and that those signs which have so unpleasantly shaken public confidence will be ordered removed.”
no early response having been made to this communication, another was addressed to lord aberdeen, dated december 8, 1841, in which the representative of venezuela refers to his previous unanswered note and to a recent order received from his government, which he says directs him “to insist not only upon the conclusion of a treaty fixing the boundaries between venezuela and british guiana, but also, and this very particularly, to insist upon the removal of the signs set up, contrary to all rights, by the surveyor r. h. schomburgk in barima and in other points of the venezuelan territory”; and he continues: “in his afore-mentioned communication of the 18th of last 180 month, the undersigned has already informed the honorable earl of aberdeen of the dissatisfaction prevailing among the venezuelans on this account, and now adds that this dissatisfaction, far from diminishing, grows stronger—as is but natural—as time goes on and no reparation of the wrongs is made.”
these two notes of the venezuelan minister were answered on the eleventh day of december, 1841. in his reply lord aberdeen says:
the undersigned begs leave to refer to his note of the 21st of october last, in which he explained that the proceeding of mr. schomburgk in planting boundary posts at certain points of the country which he has surveyed was merely a preliminary measure open to future discussion between the two governments, and that it would be premature to make a boundary treaty before the survey will be completed. the undersigned has only further to state that much unnecessary inconvenience would result from the removal of the posts fixed by mr. schomburgk, as they will afford the only tangible means by which her majesty’s government can be prepared to discuss the question of the boundaries with the government of venezuela. these posts were erected for that express purpose, and not, as the venezuelan government appears to apprehend, as indications of dominion and empire on the part of great britain.
in a reply to this note, after referring to the explanation of the purpose of these posts or 181 signs which lord aberdeen had given, it was said, in further urging their removal: “the undersigned regrets to be obliged to again insist upon this point; but the damages sustained by venezuela on account of the permanence of said signs are so serious that he hopes in view of those facts that the trouble resulting from their removal may not appear useless.” the minister followed this insistence with such earnest argument that on the thirty-first day of january, 1842, nearly four months after the matter was first agitated, lord aberdeen informed the venezuelan minister that instructions would be sent to the governor of british guiana directing him to remove the posts which had been placed by mr. schomburgk near the orinoco. he, however, accompanied this assurance with the distinct declaration “that although, in order to put an end to the misapprehension which appears to prevail in venezuela with regard to the object of mr. schomburgk’s survey, the undersigned has consented to comply with the renewed representation of the minister upon this affair, her majesty’s government must not be understood to abandon any portion of the rights of great britain over the territory which was formerly held by the dutch in guiana.” 182
it should be here stated that the work which schomburgk performed at the instance of the british government consisted not only in placing monuments of some sort at the mouth of the orinoco river, upon territory claimed by venezuela, but also in locating from such monuments a complete dividing-line running far inland and annexing to british guiana on the west a large region which venezuela also claimed. this line, as originally located or as afterward still further extended to the west, came to be called “the schomburgk line.”
the orinoco river, flowing eastward to the sea, is a very broad and deep waterway, which, with its affluents, would in any event, and however the bounds of venezuela might be limited, traverse a very extensive portion of that country’s area; and its control and free navigation are immensely important factors in the progress and prosperity of the republic. substantially at the mouth of the orinoco, and on its south side, two quite large rivers, the barima and the amacuro, flow into the sea. the region adjacent to the mouth of those rivers has, sometimes at least, been called barima; and it was here that the posts or signs complained of by venezuela were placed.
the coast from the mouth of the orinoco 183 river slopes or drops to the east and south; and some distance from that river’s mouth, in the directions mentioned, the essequibo, a large river flowing for a long distance from the south, empties into the sea.
after the correspondence i have mentioned, which resulted in the removal of the so-called initial monuments of the schomburgk line from the barima region, there seems to have been less activity in the boundary discussion until january 31, 1844, when the venezuelan minister to england again addressed lord aberdeen on the subject. he referred to the erection of the schomburgk monuments and the complaints of venezuela on that account, and stated that since the removal of those monuments he had not ceased to urge lord aberdeen “to commence without delay negotiations for a treaty fixing definitely the boundary-line that shall divide the two countries.” he adds the following very sensible statement: “although it was undoubtedly the duty of the one who promoted this question to take the first step toward the negotiation of the treaty, the undersigned being well aware that other important matters claim the attention of her majesty’s government, and as he ought not to wait indefinitely, hastens to propose an agreement 184 which, if left for a later date, may be difficult to conclude.” it is disappointing to observe that the good sense exhibited in this statement did not hold out to the end of the minister’s communication. after a labored presentation of historical incidents, beginning with the discovery of the american continent, he concludes by putting forward the essequibo river as the proper boundary-line between the two countries. this was a proposition of such extreme pretensions that the venezuelan representative knew, or ought to have known, it would not be considered for a moment by the government of great britain; and it seems to me that a diplomatic error was made when, failing to apprehend the fact that the exigencies of the situation called for a show of concession, the venezuelan minister, instead of intimating a disposition to negotiate, gave great britain an opportunity to be first in making proposals apparently calculated to meet the needs of conciliation and compromise.
thus two months after the receipt of this communication,—on the thirtieth day of march, 1844,—lord aberdeen sent his reply. after combating the allegations contained in the letter of the venezuelan representative, he remarked that if he were inclined to act upon the 185 spirit of that letter, it was evident that he ought to claim on behalf of great britain, as the rightful successor to holland, all the coast from the orinoco to the essequibo. then follows this significant declaration:
but the undersigned believes that the negotiations would not be free from difficulties if claims that cannot be sustained are presented, and shall not therefore follow se?or fortique’s example, but state here the concessions that great britain is disposed to make of her rights, prompted by a friendly consideration for venezuela and by her desire to avoid all cause of serious controversies between the two countries. being convinced that the most important object for the interests of venezuela is the exclusive possession of the orinoco, her majesty’s government is ready to yield to the republic of venezuela a portion of the coast sufficient to insure her the free control of the mouth of this her principal river, and to prevent its being under the control of any foreign power.
lord aberdeen further declared that, “with this end in view, and being persuaded that a concession of the greatest importance has been made to venezuela,” he would consent on behalf of great britain to a boundary which he particularly defined, and in general terms may be described as beginning in the mouth of the moroco river, which is on the coast southeast of the mouth of the orinoco river and about 186 two thirds of the distance between that point and the essequibo river, said boundary running inland from that point until it included in its course considerably more territory than was embraced within the original schomburgk line, though it excluded the region embraced within that line adjacent to the barima and amacuro rivers and the mouth of the orinoco.
this boundary, as proposed by lord aberdeen, was not satisfactory to venezuela; and soon after its submission her diplomatic representative died. this interruption was quickly followed by a long period of distressing internal strifes and revolutions, which so distracted and disturbed her government that for more than thirty years she was not in condition to renew negotiations for an adjustment of her territorial limits.
during all this time great britain seemed not especially unwilling to allow these negotiations to remain in abeyance.
this interval was not, however, entirely devoid of boundary incidents. in 1850 great excitement and indignation were aroused among the venezuelans by a rumor that great britain intended to take possession of venezuelan guiana, a province adjoining british guiana on the west, and a part of the territory claimed by 187 venezuela; and the feeling thus engendered became so extreme, both among the people and on the part of the government of the republic, that all remaining friendliness between the two countries was seriously menaced. demonstrations indicating that venezuela was determined to repel the rumored movement as an invasion of her rights, were met by instructions given by great britain to the commander of her majesty’s naval forces in the west indies as to the course he was to pursue if the venezuelan forces should construct fortifications within the territory in dispute. at the same time, mr. balford hinton wilson, england’s representative at caracas, in a note addressed to the minister of foreign affairs for venezuela, indignantly characterized these disquieting rumors of great britain’s intention to occupy the lands mentioned, as mischievous, and maliciously false; but he also declared that, on the other hand, her majesty’s government would not see with indifference the aggressions of venezuela upon the disputed territory.
this note contained, in addition, a rather impressive pronouncement in these words:
the venezuelan government, in justice to great britain, cannot mistrust for a moment the sincerity of the formal declaration, which is now made in the 188 name and by the express order of her majesty’s government, that great britain has no intention to occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute; therefore the venezuelan government, in an equal spirit of good faith and friendship, cannot refuse to make a similar declaration to her majesty’s government, namely, that venezuela herself has no intention to occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute.
the minister of foreign affairs for venezuela responded to this communication in the following terms:
the undersigned has been instructed by his excellency the president of the republic to give the following answer: the government never could be persuaded that great britain, in contempt of the negotiation opened on the subject and the alleged rights in the question of limits pending between the two countries, would want to use force in order to occupy the land that each side claims—much less after mr. wilson’s repeated assurance, which the executive power believes to have been most sincere, that those imputations had no foundation whatever, being, on the contrary, quite the reverse of the truth. fully confident of this, and fortified by the protest embodied in the note referred to, the government has no difficulty in declaring, as they do declare, that venezuela has no intention of occupying or encroaching upon any portion of the territory the possession of which is in controversy; neither will she look with indifference on a contrary proceeding on the part of great britain.
189
in furtherance of these declarations the english government stipulated that it would not “order or sanction such occupations or encroachments on the part of the british authorities”; and venezuela agreed on her part to “instruct the authorities of venezuelan guiana to refrain from taking any step which might clash with the engagement hereby made by the government.”
i suspect there was some justification on each side for the accusations afterward interchanged between the parties that this understanding or agreement, in its strict letter and spirit, had not been scrupulously observed.
as we now pass from this incident to a date more than twenty-five years afterward, when attempts to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary controversy were resumed, it may be profitable, before going further, to glance at some of the conditions existing at the time of such resumption.
