THE A XGL 0- YEXEZ I EL A N B UN DA R ] ' DISF UTE 1 43 



with the Amakuru and tlience along the midstream of the Amakuru 

 to its source in the Imataka Ridge and thence in a southwesterly di- 

 rection along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains 

 opposite to the source of the Barima and thence along the sunnnit of 

 the main ridge in a south easterl}' direction of the Imataka Mountains 

 tt) the source of the Acarahisi to the Cu3'uni and thence along the 

 northern bank of the River Cuyuni westward to its junction with the 

 Wenamu and thence following the midstream of the Wenamu to its 

 westernmost source and thence in a direct line to the summit of 

 Mount Roraima and from Mount Roraima to the source of the Cotinga 

 and along the midstream of that river to its junction with the Takutu 

 and thence along the midstream of the Takutu to its source, thence 

 in a straight line to the western point of the Akarai Mountains and 

 thence along the ridge of the Akarai Mountains to the source of the 

 Corentin called the Cutari River." 



In this award are involved two things: first, the sovereignty of a 

 tract of countr}^ claimed by two nations ; second, international arbi- 

 tration as a mode of settling such disputes. As to the first, the 

 award is clear, sharp, and decisive, though it will be contrary to gen- 

 eral experience if difficulties of interpretation do not arise when the 

 line is surveyed. As to the second, viz., the international arbitration 

 of such questions, this is strengthened by a unanimous award, but 

 weakened by the absence of a written opinion setting forth the facts 

 and principles upon which the award was reached. As the common 

 law has grown up and been established by the opinions of great jurists 

 dealing Avith great cases, so here was, it seems to me, an exceptional 

 opportunit}' to expound and establish principles of international laAV 

 that would be most helpful in the future. The award is obviousl}^ the 

 verdict of a wideh' disagreeing jury, which finally com})romises on a 

 line satisfactor}' to none. Such a decision concludes the particular 

 dispute, but affords little lig])t for the future. 



In theory, })rinciples of international law control; in fact, compro- 

 mises control. The award is on its face a compromise. Moreover, on the 

 day on which it was published there was cabled to America an inter- 

 view with Justice Brewer, in which the reporter quotes him as saying : 



" Until the last moment I Ijclieved a decision would i)e quite impossible, and 

 it was only by the greatest conciliiition and mutual concessions that a compro- 

 mise was arrived at. If any of us had been asked to give an award, each would 

 have given one dlH'cring in extent and character. The conse(iuenceof this was 

 that we had to adjust our different views, and linally to draw a line running 

 between what each thought rigid." 



