This line A-C was established by the treaty of 1904. (See map annexes I and II.)

4. Point C of this line is not disputed; it is located on the north coast of the Island of Timor, at the embouchure of the Noel Meto into the sea, the course of which river was substituted in 1902-1904 for the course of the Noel Boll Bass river, located farther east and claimed by Portugal. The course of the Noel Meto, of which the thalweg was to serve as the frontier as far as the source, was recognized, is not disputed, and a mete was set contradictorily at its source.

* * *

5. Point A at the southern end of the line agreed on in 1904, is the point where the boundary work was interrupted in 1899. This has not been disputed seriously by Portugal, who twice in the first Case uses the words: "It can not be denied that the line starts from point A, to which the proces-verbaux of the negotiations refer (p. 10). It is not disputed that the frontier concerned does not start from the point where the surveyors of 1899 were hindered from going any farther" (p. 15). To dispute the location of point A would again put in question the boundary of the lower course of the Bilomi downstream from that point; now, that part of the frontier was settled definitely by Number 9 of Article 3 of the treaty of 1904; moreover, point A was marked contradictorily on the official maps of 1899 and 1904 (see annexes III and IV).

6. Starting from point A the negotiators of 1902-1904 found themselves confronted with two proposals. One, the Portuguese proposal, consisted in ascending the Noel Bilomi river as a frontier in an easterly direction as far as Nunkalai, then directing the frontier to the north, through Humusu, finally striking the source of the Noel Boll Bass spilling into the sea east of the Noel Meto (line B-D). The other, the Dutch proposal, said A-C line, consisted in striking north from point A as far as the sources of the Noel Meto. The negotiators clearly and categorically repudiated the first Portuguese survey to accept the second line A-C claimed by the Netherlands; on the map annexed to the treaty of 1904 they granted to the Netherlands both banks of the Noel Meto upstream from point A, at which the boundary runners had stopped their work in 1899 (see maps III and IV).

7. The description of this line A-C in the treaty of 1904, Article 3, Number 10, the maps contradictorily sketched in 1899, and on which the negotiators of 1902 deliberated, and finally the official map annexed to the treaty of 1904, mention an affluent at point A as properly form

ing a boundary in a northerly direction, to which all parties gave the name of Oe-Sunan from 1899 to 1909. Today all parties agree this affluent really bears the name of Kabun or Leos. Another river subsequently discovered about six kilometers farther east bears the name of Oe-Sunan according to the Portuguese, and rises north of Kinapua, a mountain situate very near the north bank of the Bilomi. The existence of this Oe-Sunan stream is contested by the Netherlands, in their second Case, following two recent reconnaissances: this alleged Oe-Sunan really would be called Poeamesse or Noel Polan.

In the mind of the arbitrator it is impossible that this other Oe-Sunan river, if it exist, could have been the one the negotiators of 1899 and of 1902-1904 had in view, for

(a) It is not an affluent of the Bilomi;

(b) The frontier proposed by Portugal at this period and mapped by common agreement in 1902-1904 was, starting from point A and proceeding easterly, to pass through Nunkala: then through Kinapua and west of the source of this new river called Oe-Sunan by the Portuguese; (c) Both banks of the Bilomi upstream to the east of point A having been granted to the Netherlands in 1904, the affluent that is to serve as a frontier in a northerly direction cannot be sought upstream and east of point A.

General principles for the interpretation of conventions demand that account be taken "of the real and mutual intention of the parties without pausing on inexact expressions or terms which possibly they have used erroneously." It is true that the parties erred in giving the name Oe-Sunan to the affluent coming to point A from the north, but this is the only affluent (then erroneously called Oe-Sunan) which, in the harmonious thinking of the parties, was necessarily the point at which the frontier ought to leave the Noel Bilomi to proceed north, and not any other river to which the Portuguese give the name Oe-Sunan and which would be located six kilometers farther east. In other words, the thalweg of the river today called Kabun or Leos is what ought to serve as the frontier from point A north.

8. Starting south from the source of this Kabun or Leos river (wrongly called Oe-Sunan from 1899 to 1909) the frontier, according to the tenor of Article 3, Number 10 of the treaty of 1904, ought "to cross Nipani and Kelali (Keli) as much as possible" to reach the source of the Noel Meto to the north.

The boundary proposed by the Portuguese would go completely

around that region designated under the name of Nipani on the official map of 1904 and according to that map situated near the source of the Kabun or Leos; the frontier would be several kilometers distant from Nipani in an easterly direction. Even if, as does a Portuguese map which has no character because being contradictorily acknowledged, one gives the name of Nipani to a region located much more to the north, east of the sources of the Noel Meto, the frontier claimed by Portugal would not the more cross Nipani, but would go around it to the north.

The treaty of 1904 prescribes the crossing of Nipani "as much as possible." The survey suggested by the Netherlands runs along the western part of Nipani and is nearer to it than the survey proposed by Portugal.

9. Portugal objects that the line due north and south between the sources of the Kabun and the Noel Meto rivers would parcel the territory of the Ambenos, granting part to the Netherlands and part to Portugal; this parcelling would be contrary to the treaty of 1859.

In the mind of the arbitrator, this objection is not established in the sense that already in 1859 a "part " of Ambeno was placed incontestably under the sovereignty of the Netherlands. Besides, in the course of the negotiations from 1899 to 1904, contradictory declarations of the natives were produced, the Dutch Amakonos and Tumbabas claiming the disputed territory, and the Portuguese Ambenos claiming it from their side. Thus the alleged parcelling is not demonstrated. More, it was understood in the conferences of 1902, on the observation of the first Portuguese delegate himself, that there was no need to be extensively preoccupied with the pretensions of the tribes who frequently displaced each other and passed successively from the territory of one of the states to that of the other. The objection that the territories even of one tribe ought not to be parcelled could not be entertained by the arbitrator, for it would need to have been presented during the course of the negotiations from 1902-1904; at this time it is too late, because the treaty of 1904, all that the arbitrator had to interpret Article 3, Number 10, makes no mention of any intention of the parties never to divide native populations; on the contrary, that treaty ran the boundary line according to the conferences in the course of which it was understood that considerations of that kind ought not to be preponderant.

10. The summit line proposed by the Government of the Netherlands between the source of the river Kabun (Leos) to the south, and the source of the Noel Meto to the north, is sufficiently natural to be sur

veyed on land without great practical difficulties. It offers the advantage that the water-courses uniformly descend from that summit line toward the territories placed wholly under Dutch sovereignty. The survey suggested by the Portuguese Government, on the contrary, would attribute the upper and the lower part of these several streams to different sovereignties.

11. In a general way, in fact, the demand of Portugal reproduces completely, for all the territory between the Noel Bilomi to the south and the Noel Meto to the north, the line that that state claimed in 1902 and abandoned at the end of the conference of 1902 and in the treaty of 1904. If the present Portuguese claim were established, it would not be explained why the Netherlands in 1902 made a sine qua non condition of the rejection of this Portuguese demand. Conventions between states, like those between individuals, ought to be interpreted "rather in the sense in which they can have some effect than in the sense in which they can produce none." The Dutch threat to break off the negotiations in 1902 would have meant nothing if the intention had been to grant Portugal precisely the territory claimed by the Netherlands as a condition for agreement.

12. Finally, if we take the point of view of equity, which it is important not to lose sight of in international relations, the summit line proposed by the Netherlands is not contrary to equity, in the sense that Portugal will receive more territory than it had reason to hope for according to the theoretical line A-C, to which she consented in 1904, before the land could be explored. Line A-C is wholly inside the territory that will revert to Portugal; the Portuguese Republic, in fact, will receive a better share than it ought to expect there (see map appended VII). If, on the contrary, the eastern survey suggested by the Portuguese Government were adopted, the Netherlands could rightfully allege that they were being deprived of almost all the territory which theoretically was granted to them in 1904 as compensation for abandoning the enclave of Maukatar in the center of the Island of Timor and in compensation for abandoning Dutch claims to the whole of the Ambeno "enclave."

Consequently,

The arbitrator, considering the two treaties signed at Lisbon, April 20, 1859, and June 10, 1893, and the treaty signed at The Hague October 1, 1904 between the Netherlands and Portugal for the boundary of their respective possessions in the Island of Timor;

Considering the compromis of arbitration signed at The Hague, April 3, 1913, and notably Article 2 thus couched: "The arbitrator, relying on the evidence furnished by the parties, shall decide, governing himself by treaties and the general rules of international law, how, conformably with Article 3, Number 10 of the convention concluded at The Hague October 1, 1904, concerning the boundary of Dutch and Portuguese possessions in the Island of Timor, ought the boundary line to be fixed, starting from the Noel Bilomi, as far as the source of the Noel Meto;"

Considering the diplomatic notes designating the undersigned as arbitrator through the application of Article 1 of the compromis;

Considering the first and second Cases deposited in due time by each of the high contracting parties, as well as the maps and documents annexed to the said Cases;

Considering the statements of fact and of law formulated above under Numbers I to VII;

Considering the convention signed at The Hague October 18, 1907, for the pacific settlement of international disputes; makes the following

AWARD

Article 3, Number 10, of the convention concluded at The Hague, October 1, 1904, concerning the boundary of Dutch and Portuguese possessions in the Island of Timor, ought to be interpreted conformably with the conclusions of the Royal Government of the Netherlands for the boundary, starting from the Noel Bilomi, as far as the source of the Noel Meto; consequently it will proceed to the survey of that part of the frontier on the basis of the map scaled at 1/50,000 annexed under No. IV of the first Case deposited with the arbitrator by the Dutch Government. A reproduction of this map signed by the arbitrator is appended as annex VII to the present award of which it shall be an integral part. Expenses, fixed at 2,000 francs, have been deducted from the sum of 4,000 francs consigned to the hands of the arbitrator in execution of Art. 8 of the compromis of April 3, 1913; the remainder, or 2,000 francs, shall be remitted in equal shares to the two parties, and receipted, at the moment of the notification of the award.

Done in three originals, of which one shall be deposited and receipt therefor taken by M. the Secretary General of the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, with His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands as notification