Venezuelan International Law. 79 



Spaniards, so that the country was free of them '* from 

 " the Andes to the Orinoco /"' Why the Orinoco^ and 

 not, the Essequibo ? It is clear, at the same time, that 

 the Liberator did not dream of making the outrageous 

 claim, of late asserted by his countrymen, to the left 

 Bank of the Essequibo. He, only claimed up to Fort 

 Moruca, " not included." 



A statement is made by the Venezuelan Foreign Office 

 as to Moruca, that is so misleading that it cannot be too 

 thoroughly examined. It refers to the year 1840, and is 

 as follows : — 



" 1840. — In September or in 06lober of this year an 

 " Englishman was tried for having killed an Indian, and 

 <* his lawyer having proved that the crime had been 

 ** committed in the Moruco, this was enough for the 

 "tribunal of the Colony to declare, itself without juris- 

 " di6lion in the matter, the crime having been committed 

 " on foreign territory. Mr. Florentino Grillet, 

 " Governor of Guayana, informed the Government of 

 '• this faft in a remarkable note about limits, dated the 

 '• 23rd of August 1841 ; and in it he affirmed that 

 " there were still to be found in the Moruco, the 

 " remains of the palisades of the fort which the Spaniards 

 " had ereCled on said river: he doubtless referred to one 

 " of those that Don Felipe de Inciarte was to have 

 " ere6led in 1780." {Venezuelan International Law, 

 174]. Taking the latter part first, it must be observed 

 that Governor Grillet was cruelly misinformed as to 

 the Fort at Moruca. Any palisades there, were remains 

 of the Dutch post, whence the Spaniards were severely 

 repulsed on the 19th of January 1797. The Spaniards 

 never had a Fort at Moruca, and never captured the 



