196 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION 



against it was recorded in either branch of Congress. On Jan- 

 uary 4, 1897, the commission was appointed, and consisted of five 

 persons, viz : 



Hon. David J. Brewer, one of the justices of the Supreme Court 

 of the United States ; Hon. Richard H. Alvey, Chief Justice of the 

 Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia ; Mr Frederick R. 

 Coudert, a distinguished member of the New York bar, who had 

 acted as counsel for the United States in tlie Bering Sea arbitra- 

 tion case ; Hon. Andrew D.White, historian and diplomatist, and 

 Dr Daniel C. Gilman, a learned geographer, president of the 

 Johns Hopkins University. This commission organized by elect- 

 ing Mr Justice Brewer president and Mr Severo Mallet-Prevost, 

 of the New York bar, as secretary. 



Upon this commission were laid two duties : first, to investigate, 

 and second, to report. Obviously investigation was first, not 

 merely in order, but in the amount of labor involved and in im- 

 portance. In the early sessions of the commission the whole 

 subject was canvassed, and the work of investigation planned, 

 organized, and assigned.. Professor George L. Burr, of Cornell 

 University, a painstaking and accurate historian and linguist, 

 was sent to Holland to investigate the Dutch archives. Later on 

 he was joined there by Mr Coudert, of the commission. For 

 assistance in the preparation of maps and in geographical in- 

 vestigation, application was made to the U. S. Geological Survey. 

 To this work I was assigned, and from January to May, 1896, 

 gave to it such time as could be spared from Survey duties. In 

 May, 1896, 1 was, however, detailed to the service of the commis- 

 sion, and continued to serve on this detail till the close of the com- 

 mission's labors and the publication of its results in June, 1897. 



When, in November, 1896, it was made known that Great 

 Britain and Venezuela had at last come together and had agreed 

 to submit their dispute to arbitration, the commission found itself 

 set free from the need of pronouncing judgment. As the con- 

 tending parties had themselves agreed to submit their differences 

 to an arbitral tribunal, it was obviously for that tribunal to pro- 

 nounce judgment. Moreover, as Mr Justice Brewer had been 

 chosen as a member of the arbitral tribunal, it was obviously im- 

 proper that he should pronounce judgment in advance of his 

 sitting with that tribunal. The commission accordingly decided 

 to withhold any conclusions it might have reached and to pub- 

 lish only its investigations. Thus the facts gathered have become 

 public property. The investigations undertaken were unfinished 



