source of the Noel Meto, in the north, and of the Noel Bilomi, in the south.

* * *

A disagreement first arose in the north: The map (see annex III) signed in 1904, at the same time as the convention, bore the name Kelali accompanied between parentheses by the word Keli. The Dutch delegates maintained the word Keli meant on the summit of Mount Kelali, a particular point, situated to the west of the Noel Meto between two "peaked" rocks, and which had been indicated by the natives of Tumbaba (Dutch) as the boundary between them and the natives (Portuguese) of Ambeno; according to the Dutch Commissioners this point is a "magnificent" natural boundary which nearly follows the limit described on the map of 1904. The Portuguese commissioners, on the contrary, propose "to follow some thalwegs in the country to the east of the line proposed by the Dutch delegates, starting from the same mete" placed at the source of the Noel Meto. The commission decided to survey the two lines and to leave the solution to superior authorities. In the southern part, on the Bilomi river, the commissioners state, in their session of June 17, 1909, that they followed west to east the course of the Nono Nisi (or Nise), then the course of the Noel Bilomi, and that they now "reached the spot (where the commission of 1899 had terminated its work) where the survey must be continued to the north." That point had been designated in the convention of 1904, Art. 3, Numbers 9 and 10, and on the map annexed, as the confluence of the Noel Bilomi and the Oe-Sunan. "The four delegates state that at that place there are two affluents coming from the north, but neither is called the Oe-Sunan."

The Dutch delegates then explain that the country situated between the two affluents is called Sunan, that moreover they do not recognize any affluent of the Noel Bilomi bearing the name of Oe-Sunan and that none exists; thus they insist the frontier line be surveyed toward the north, starting from the point designated on the maps of 1899 and 1904. The Portuguese delegates observe that a river called Oe-Sunan or Oil-Sunan, which is not, it is true, an affluent of the Bilomi, exists farther to the east and has its source "hard by the Bilomi."

The commissioners unanimously decided to survey the two lines, "starting from a point" indicated on the maps of 1899 and 1904, and "where the commission of 1899 terminated its work," that is, the line proposed by the Dutch delegates in a northerly direction and the line desired by the Portuguese in an easterly direction (session of June 17, 1909. First Portuguese Case, page 27).

At the session of June 21, 1909, and during the course of the survey of the frontier line proposed by the Portuguese delegates in the easterly direction ascending the Noel Bilomi river, "the four delegates state unanimously that they have not met an affluent (of the Noel Bilomi) called the Oe-Sunan." The Dutch Delegates observe that the Bilomi has changed its name, in this region, to which their Portuguese colleagues answer "that the Bilomi river still exists, but that, following the native customs, it bears the name of the country it crosses." Finally and above all, the Portuguese delegates observe that a short distance from the Bilomi, on the north bank, is one Mount Kinapua, on the opposite slope of which is a river bearing the name of Oe-Sunan, and which flows north. It would suffice to follow the course of that river, then to ascend the Noi Fulan river and finally to connect the source of the latter with the source of the Noel Meto already recognized by the mixed commission.

The Dutch delegates declare it useless to proceed to a reconnaissance on this river, for Mount Kinapua and the boundary that would result from the Portuguese proposition would be outside the territory which was disputed in 1899; Mount Tasona figures on the map of 1899 on the extreme eastern limit of the Portuguese claims of that time, claims which the treaty of 1904 threw aside; thus there could be no question of a boundary going still farther east.

The labors of the mixed commission were suspended and the question, brought within the domain of diplomacy, gave place to a long exchange of correspondence between the cabinets of The Hague and Lisbon.

This correspondence ended in the agreement of 1913, entrusting the arbitrator with the commission of deciding, according to "the data furnished by the parties" and "on the basis of the general principles of international law, how ought to be fixed conformably with Article 3, Number 10 of the convention concluded at The Hague, October 1, 1904 * * the boundary starting from the Noel Bilomi to the source of the Noel Meto." See annex D, page 41.

III. THE PORTUGUESE POINT OF VIEW

The principal arguments invoked by the government of the Portuguese Republic in favor of the thesis supported by its boundary commissioners can be summarized as follows:

1. At the point where the work of the 1899 boundary was stopped,

and where, according to the treaty of 1904 and according to the map annexed thereto, the Noel Bilomi should receive an affluent with the name of Oe-Sunan, it is recognized by common agreement that no affluent by that name exists.

2. There exists, on the contrary, farther to the east, a river Oe-Sunan, which is not, it is true, an affluent of the Bilomi, but which takes its source on the north slope of Kinapua Mountain very close to the river Bilomi; on Mount Kinapua there is a mete proclaimed by numerous native chieftains as having served as the recognized boundary between the Portuguese Ambenos and the Dutch Tumbabas. From the same Mount Kinapua a brook runs toward the Bilomi, and these two watercourses seem to continue each other from the summit. According to the native chieftains, the course of this river Oe-Sunan is the historical and natural boundary between the Portuguese Ambenos on one side, and the Dutch Tumbabas and Amakonos on the other side.

3. The same native chieftains include in Ambeno all that region comprised between the river Oe-Sunan on the east, the river Ni Fullan on the north and the incontestibly Portuguese territory of Oikuossi-Ambeno west of Mounts Kelali and Netton. On a private map published at Batavia the name Ambeno is found inscribed altogether in that part wrongly claimed today by the Netherlands.

4. The treaty of 1859 rests on the principle that native states should not be separated, parcelled out; the boundary line proposed by the Netherlands cuts the Ambenos' territory and would deprive those natives of their pasture and garden lands that are located to the east of the frontier and in Dutch territory.

5. Nothing proves that the boundary to be effected ought necessarily to commence where the work of bounding had been suspended in 1899, following hostilities among the natives, and marked on the maps at the confluence of the Bilomi and the Oe-Sunan brook, which in reality does not exist at that spot. There are two affluents at that spot; the Kamboun and the Nono-Offi. Why follow the course of the Kamboun to the north rather than that of the Nono-Offi, which comes from the northeast and spills into the Bilomi at that point?

By the maps of 1899 and 1904, in the opinion of the Portuguese Government, it was desired to give the boundary commissioners only "a drawing designed to fix ideas, and a vague and simple indication of what ought to be settled later."

The true intention of the signatories of the treaty of 1904 was to

follow the course of the Oe-Sunan, where it is in reality, that is to say, farther east. Thus, in the sense of the treaty, nothing hinders ascending the Bilomi to the point nearest the source of the true Oe-Sunan, a source so near the course of the Bilomi that it is almost an affluent.

6. The line proposed by the Netherlands, which according to the treaty of 1904 ought "to cross Nipani and Kelali (Keli) as much as possible," does not cross Nipani but touches only Fatu Nipani, that is to say, the western extremity of Nipani. Hence it does not correspond to the program of 1904.

7. The line proposed by the Netherlands does not constitute a natural frontier, while that suggested by Portugal follows water-courses nearly all the way.

IV. THE DUTCH POINT OF VIEW

The principal arguments of the Royal Government of the Netherlands may be summarized as follows:

1. The treaty of 1859 did not prescribe in any imperative way that native territories ought not to be divided or parcelled. On the contrary, it assigned to Portugal "the state of Ambeno wherever the Portuguese flag is raised there," thus sanctioning not only the division of a native state, but precisely the division of the very State of Ambeno, and that in the following terms: "The Netherlands cedes to * Portugal that part of the state of Ambeno which for several years has flown the Portuguese flag."

More than this, the treaty of 1859 could have been, and has been modified effectively by the subsequent treaties, treaties which alone ought to be taken into consideration today in those places where they have modified the treaty of 1859.

2. No uncertainty exists as to the point where the boundary commissioners of 1899 stopped. That point served as a basis for the negotiations of 1902, and was marked on the map (annex III) signed at that time by the negotiators of the two countries as to be adjoined to the draft of the treaty. That draft of 1902 became the treaty of 1904. From this point and no other begins line A-C, admitted in 1902 as properly placing the frontier (map annex I). That line A-C extends from this point north as far as the source of the river Noel Meto, and the frontier ought then to follow that water-course as far as its embouchure into the sea in the north.

The location of the source of the Noel Meto was recognized contradictorily in 1909: a mete was placed there by common agreement. The discussion concerned only the survey between that source and point A situate at the spot where the commissioners stopped in 1899.

3. On the official map of 1899 (annex IV), as on the official map of 1904 (annex III), an affluent, to which, by an error that the Netherlands does not contest, has been given the name of Oe-Sunan, is represented as coming from the north to the point in question. This river, which in reality bears among the Tumbabas the name of Kabun, and among the Ambenos that of Leos, corresponds wholly to the intention of the contracting parties, which was to follow, beginning with point A, an affluent coming from the north in the direction A-C. The error of name has the less significance since very frequently in that region the watercourses have several names, or change their names, or bear the name of the country they traverse: the region east of Kabun, or Leos (the Oe-Sunan of 1904) has, according to the Portuguese Government, the name of Hue-Son, of analogous sound, and, according to the Dutch commissioners, that of Sunan, which explains the error of the commissioners.

4. The native chieftains of Amakono (Dutch) declared (mixed commission, session of February 21, 1899) that their country comprises all the region "situated between the Oe-Sunan, Nipani, Kelali-Keli, and the Noel Meto (on the west), the sea of Timor (on the north), the Noel Boll Bass, the Humusu and Kin Napua summits (on the east), Tasona, the Noel Boho and the Noel Bilomi (on the south)." Now the western frontier here described and indicated in 1899 as separating the Amakaros (Dutch) from Ambeno (Portuguese) is precisely that sanctioned by the treaty of 1904. The Oe-Sunan which figures there can be only the water-course to which mistakenly but by common agreement this name was given in the official maps of 1899 and 1904, that is to say, a watercourse situated west of the disputed territory, and not the pretended Oe-Sunan now pleaded by Portugal, which is situated on the eastern frontier of the disputed territory. Hence this is the very water-course, no matter what its name, situated to the west of the said territory, which the parties agreed to adopt as a boundary.

The proof that Portugal could not have had in view in 1899 and 1904 the eastern stream to which it now gives the name of Oe-Sunan, is furnished by the fact that in the session of February 21, 1899, its commissioners proposed as a boundary a line starting from the point where