discussed, and considered by the British representative as foreign to the present controversy;

XXII. Whereas on the 30th January, 1909, the representatives of the High Parties interested in the matter signed a Declaration at Berlin, having, in accordance with the Agreement of the 1st July, 1890, recourse to His Majesty the King of Spain to designate from amongst his subjects a lawyer to decide as arbitrator the affair relative to the demarcation of the southern frontier of the British territory of Walfisch Bay in accordance with the procedure laid down in the same Declaration;

XXIII. Whereas by the Royal Decree of the 7th March, 1909, published in the Gazette of Madrid of the 12th of the same month and year, His Majesty the King of Spain deigned to appoint the undersigned to exercise the functions of arbitrator alluded to in the preceding paragraph, the acceptation of which functions was verbally notified by the undersigned on the 19th of the month and year above mentioned at a meeting held at the Ministry of State at Madrid in the presence of the Minister of State and of the German and British Ambassadors

XXIV. Whereas on the 29th November, 1909, and therefore within the space of twelve months laid down in Article 2 of the Declaration of Berlin of the 30th January of that year, the Ministry of State transmitted to the undersigned the memoranda in which the German and British Governments state and support their respective claims with regard to the question in dispute between them, the German memorandum being accompanied by four annexes containing authenticated copies of documents inserted in it and the British memorandum by a full-scale copy of Mr. Wrey's map already referred to;

XXV. Whereas the German memorandum, after reciting the history of the question, classifies the arguments in support of the claims advanced in it and the statement made of them, dividing them into various groups designated by as many letters in alphabetical order; examining in the first group, marked (A), the official statements of Captain Dyer interpreted in accordance with the usual technicalities and the topographical conditions of the territory of Walfisch Bay; dealing in the second, marked (B), with the official statements of Captain Dyer considered in the light of the economic circumstances of the population, native and white, of the said territory, and further with what Rooibank, Scheppman's Dorp, and Ururas and their mutual connection are or imply; the third group, marked (C), being devoted to showing the discrepancy between the British views before and after 1885, with regard to the drawing of the boundary and to fixing the facts which favour the German views or claims, and to the consideration of the information obtained about them; discussing in the fourth, marked (D), the demarcation carried out by Mr. Wrey and the question of how far it is binding on Germany from the point of view of international law; formulating in the fifth, marked (E), the questions put by the German Government to the arbitrator; and com

pleting all the arguments contained in the preceding groups by an appendix containing some British documents and a criticism of some of them;

XXVI. Whereas in the first group, marked (A), it is alleged

That the word "plateau" employed in Captain Dyer's Proclamation always expresses the idea of a "high plain," and designates besides in the present case, having regard to the text of the said Proclamation, a district included in the territory of Walfisch Bay, by the eastern frontier starting from Scheppmansdorf;

That both conditions are fulfilled, if it is understood that the plateau in question is the Namib, since this is in actual fact a high plain situated to the north-east of Scheppmansdorf;

That the British magistrate at Walfisch Bay, Mr. Simpson, alluded to the Namib, when on being questioned before the "Mixed Claims Commission for Angra Pequeña and the West Coast," he stated in a declaration of the 16th April, 1885, that he had crossed from Rooibank to the River Swakop by the plateau";

That the Governor of Cape Colony, Sir Hercules Robinson, also employed the word "plateau" to designate the Namib, since, in a letter of the 24th September, 1885, addressed to Colonel Stanley, he had expressed the desire that the limit of the plateau between Scheppmansdorf and Rooibank should be accurately defined;

That the portion of the bed of the River Kuisip comprised between Scheppmansdorf and Ururas, and considered by the British Government as the plateau alluded to in Captain Dyer's Proclamation, neither complies with the condition of being a high plain (since it is a watercourse of lower elevation than the Namib and the dunes which serve as its boundary) nor with the condition of being included in the territory of Walfisch Bay by the eastern frontier starting from Scheppmansdorf;

That the impropriety of applying the word "plateau" to this part of the bed of the Kuisip is recognized by the British commissioner, Mr. Philips, when he says in his report of the 23rd February, 1889, that the use of the word " 'plain" to designate the country referred to "would have been more satisfactory as a technical term and less open to misinterpretation";

That Mr. Wrey expresses a similar opinion when he says in his report of the 14th January, 1886, that the word "plateau" is an erroneous term as applied to the tract of land situated between Rooibank and Ururas;

That therefore the interpretation of Captain Dyer's Proclamation held by Great Britain implies the supposition that he made a mistake in the use of the most elementary geographical expressions which, in view of his profession, must have been familiar to him; whilst the interpretation put on it by Germany assumes that the text of the Proclamation is entirely correct, except for the confusion of Rooibank with Rooikop, and that the

supplementary report, although less clear, leaves hardly anything to be desired;

That the intentions of Captain Dyer, to which his second letter or communication of the 14th September, 1887, refers, cannot be taken into account to decide the question unless they were expressed in the official Proclamation;

That as to the indication in the said report that the plateau is situated above Rooibank, this new word "above" is intelligible as referring to the Namib, which precisely is situated "above" Rooibank;

That if Captain Dyer had desired to include in British territory the flat pasture-land towards Ururas, as Mr. Wrey's demarcation includes it, he should have said so explicitly in his second letter when he had before him every kind of map;

That according to Captain Dyer's report dated the 12th March, 1878, the fact that there was in the coastal region no fixed point which could serve as a natural boundary was the reason which, combined with the wish of the colonists, led to the interior of the country as far as Scheppmansdorf being included in the annexation, because this place was considered as one of the fixed points of the line which was to bound the territory of Walfisch Bay on the land side;

is an

That in the said report the words, "this place . oasis," referred to Rooibank, and not to the plateau or to the part of the bed of the Kuisip between Rooibank and Ururas, because the plateau cannot be called "a place," nor a strip arbitrarily taken in the bed of a river be designated by the word "oasis," above all, when the vegetation on it is less luxuriant than on other contiguous strips;

That to carry out the desire of Captain Dyer to include in the annexation a territory where water and pasture were to be found, there was no need to go as far as Ururas, but that it was sufficient to draw the frontier from Scheppmansdorf, all the more so as between that place and Ururas, according to the evidence of the missionary Boehm, the pastures ordinarily end at the bed of the river, as it is always bare and grassless, although covered with trees;

That when in Captain Dyer's report the inclusion of the plateau "and Scheppmansdorf to the south-east" is spoken of, these words can be understood in a double sense: either that Scheppmansdorf limits the territory to the south-east, or that it is situated to the south-east of the interior plateau; and, finally.

That the phrase "including the plateau," contained in the Proclamation of Annexation, and reproduced in the report of the same date, is a phrase simply used by Captain Dyer with the object of explaining the motive and manner of annexing a part of the interior of the territory which he incorporated in excess of his instructions and in accordance with his own views;

XXVII. Whereas in the second group of arguments, marked (B), it is alleged on the part of the German Government :

That Captain Dyer, in deciding to annex a district containing fresh water and pasture, only had regard to the interest of the white colonists resident at Walfisch Bay, without considering at all the convenience of the native population, especially that of not dividing the so-called "grazing commonage" of Rooibank, used by the inhabitants of Scheppmansdorf, since there is not the slightest allusion to it in his explanatory report, although he might have given it as a further reason in justification of his breaking his instructions;

That from the whole context of the Proclamation of Annexation is deduced the intention of establishing in the neighbourhood of Scheppmansdorf not a vague boundary pending further decision, but strict and absolutely precise limits as required by the instructions emanating from Captain Purvis, which directed Commander Dyer to fix in the Proclamation of Annexation, after consulting with Mr. Palgrave, the exact quantity of territory which was to be annexed;

That the place called Rooibank, near Scheppmansdorf, which designates the country surrounding a spring, near a red vein of granite which crosses the Kuisip, is of an undecided character, its extent depending on individual views and on the greater or lesser quantity of pasture used for the cattle belonging to persons residing there, it being understood, until it is expressly stated otherwise, that the boundary between Rooibank and Ururas is half-way between the wells which give names to the two points;

That the mention in Captain Dyer's Proclamation of the place called Rooibank has no bearing on the question of boundaries, since "the Rooibank" spoken of in it is not a place or settlement, but a hill or a large rock some distance from the Kuisip;

That, on the contrary, when it was a question of establishing a fourth fixed point in the description of the south-east corner of the annexed territory, Captain Dyer (who intentionally avoided the use of the expression "Rooibank," the indefinite character of which was known to him through his relations with the natives) had mentioned Scheppmansdorf expressly twice, a name which expresses neither less nor more than the mission station situated in Rooibank, consisting of two houses near together;

That there can be no question of a village in the district of Scheppmansdorf, and that this name only indicates that when the station founded by the missionary Scheppman in 1845 was consecrated, there was a hope, which was afterwards not realised, that a native hamlet would be formed round it;

That the British assertion that the territory of the tribe of the Topnaars extended as far as Ururas and ought not to be divided or split up, as it would be if the frontier were drawn in the position claimed by Germany, is refuted by the circumstance that the Topnaar Hottentots are really nomads living along the whole course of the Kuisip right into German territory, at least

as far as Hudaob, whence it follows that the territory of the said tribe was divided after the annexation of Walfisch Bay, whether the frontier was fixed at Scheppmansdorf or Ururas;

That "the village" and "grazing commonage" of Scheppmansdorf repeatedly cited by Great Britain, assuming that the latter extends to Ururas, do not really exist, since, with one very special exception, life in common in the manner suggested by a village does not correspond with either the character or the mode of living of the Hottentots, nor can there be any question of grazing commonage without the antecedent condition of a juridical community to which it could be attributed;

That the British supposition that the pretended grazing commonage at Scheppmansdorf ought to have been included in the annexation, since otherwise the "inhabitants of the village" would not have shown satisfaction at it, as Captain Dyer expressly says they did in his report of the 12th March, 1878, is a supposition founded on an incomplete quotation of the passage in the report, which alludes not to the "inhabitants of the village of Rooibank," but to natives whose habitual residence is not stated (" summoned from some distance"), which natives, on the other hand, if they displayed joy at the act of annexation, did so in any case, given their fondness for Cape brandy, on account of the entertainment in which they took part and not because the ceremonies, of which the entertainment formed a part, were intelligible to them;

That the declarations made by the witnesses, Mr. Simpson and the Rev. J. Boehm, in 1885 before the mixed commission on the subject of the grazing commonage of Scheppmansdorf or Rooibank, the meaning of the name Awahaus and the identity of Ururas and Rooibank were full of contradictions;

That, in proof of this, on comparing the said declarations, it is noticed with regard to the first that the witness Simpson states successively that "he does not believe that any community was indicated by the name of Rooibank” (answer to question 384), that "if the grazing commonage includes all the plateau it would include Ururas (answer to question 395), and that "the commonage of Rooibank extends to Ururas, where a certain number of Bastards have gardens given by Mr. Palgrave and the magistrate who was the witness's predecessor, which Bastards were in the habit, when the grass was finished at Rooibank, of sending their cattle along the river to Ururas, considering it as the pasture of Rooibank" (answers to questions 408 and 409);

That, with regard to the second, the witness Mr. Simpson declares that the place called Awahaus is designated by the name of Ururas (answer to question 381), whilst the witness Boehm states that Rooibank is the translation of the Namaqua name "Awahaus" (answer to question 421);

That, with regard to the third, Boehm declares that Rooibank, Ururas, and Scheppmansdorf are near one another (answer to question 422), and declares afterwards that Rooibank or