IN presenting to the Arbitral Tribunal the Counter-Case on behalf of Great Britain, Her Majesty's Government desire to call attention to the fact that the Venezuelan Case contains a 5 number of references, particularly in the notes, to the Report of the United States' Commission. and to the Report of Professor Burr presented to that Commission. It must be borne in mind that the statements 10 contained in those Reports and the inferences founded thereon are not in any way binding upon the Governments of Great Britain or Venezuela, and must be tested by the evidence by which they are supported, Moreover, since those Reports were prepared, 15 a large number of documents bearing on the case and a great body of evidence have been collected. These documents and this evidence were not before the United States' Commission. 20 Her Majesty's Government have therefore abstained in this Counter-Case from discussing the passages cited from the Report of the United States' Commission and of Professor Burr, and 5 have confined themselves to commenting upon the statements made in the Venezuelan Case and the evidence referred to in that Case or contained in the Appendix to it. CHAPTER I. This Chapter deals with Chapter II of the Venezuelan Case, pp. 13-34, "GEOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE DISPUTED TERRITORY." British Atlas, p. 4, Venezuelan Atlas, P. 1. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 14. Venezuelar Case, pp. 13 and 24. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 28. Venezuelan Case, pp. 13 and 34. The territory in dispute is alleged by the Venezuelan Case to be divided by natural features into four clearly defined and naturally isolated regions, two on the coast and two in the interior, each of which is said to be more easily 15 entered from the side of Venezuela than from that of British Guiana. The two coast regions are described in the Venezuelan Case as follows: "That which drains directly into the Orinoco below the junction of that river with the Caroni,” **** "which for convenience may be called the Orinoco Delta Region." 20 |