grasp of a country upon her native-born citizens is not peculiar to Venezuela; she has able and powerful contemporaries. Indeed, if the umpire is not misinformed, the honorable claimant Government for a long time denied the right of any of her subjects to expatriate themselves, however anxious they might be to do this and however solemn might be the proceeding which invested them with their new nationality. This holding as to the effect of the law of 1873 prevents the necessity of entering upon the discussion of the claim put forward that once British citizenship has fully attached no succeeding law of Venezuela could be allowed to take it away. The effect of this holding is to decide that British citizenship never attached to Mrs. Stevenson by consent of Venezuela and in a manner to affect her interior policy, only while Mrs. Stevenson remained the wife of Mr. Stevenson. In the opinion of the umpire, then, the widow of J. P. K. Stevenson, from the moment of his death and during her entire widowhood. is, and as to Venezuela has been, a Venezuelan. Logically, he holds to the same effect concerning the children of the late J. P. K. Stevenson who were born in Venezuela.

The reasons which control the umpire in his decision as to the citizenship of the widow of Mr. Stevenson and of the children born in Venezuela do not apply to Juan and Guillermo, both of whom were born in Trinidad. They were born on British soil of a British father and of a mother who, by virtue of her marriage with a British subject acquired his citizenship, which remained until the death of her husband.

It is not claimed that they were born in itinere nor under other circumstances negativing the general rule. Hence they are of British origin. origin. It remains to determine whether in virtue of anything which has transpired since their birth they have lost their British nationality and their right of intervention by the British Government in their behalf

Juan, in 1896, was an amanuensis in the office of the city secretary or city clerk in the city of Maturín at a small monthly wage. This was when he was 23 years of age. He is shown to hold no other civil position or to have participated otherwise in the affairs of Venezuela.

Guillermo, in 1898, when he was 17 years of age, was an aid-de-camp on the staff of one of the generals of the Venezuelan Government. It is not shown that he ever held any other position, civil or military, or in any other way mixed in the affairs of the National Government.

They were not Venezuelan citizens by birth. This they admitted. By the constitution of Venezuela they who are alien born can only obtain citizenship through naturalization. They have never been naturalized. Service in military and civil life is in no sense an equivalent for naturalization. It confers no citizen privileges or benefits. It confers no right upon them to claim of Venezuela the immunities and protection of a citizen. It permits no claim on the part of Venezuela for compulsory service by them. By the treaty of Great Britain with Venezuela, as British subjects they were especially exempt from all military demands and requisitions in property and person. Such service as is here shown might suggest on their part a leaning toward Venezuelan citizenship, but it would be no more than a suggestion. It certainly was not so forceful and suggestive as a formal declaration of intention to become a citizen as is provided in the United States naturalization laws. According to Van Dyne's Citizenship of the United States, page 77

"International claims commissions to which the United

States has been a party have universally decided, whenever the question has been presented, that mere declaration of intention gave the person no standing before a commission as a citizen of the United States."

See also Moore, International Arbitration, pages 2549, 2550, 2553. See again Van Dyne's Citizenship, pages 78-81, wherein observe the claim of George Adlam v. The United States, before the Claims Commission under the treaty of Washington, May 8, 1871, between the United States and Great Britain, which is a case very much in point. The same case is also found in Moore.* These two sons are not Venezuelans. They were born British subjects ; they are still such. They have not broken their neutrality by acts opposed to the Government. They have been lawabiding and helpful, not harmful, to the land of their domicile. The claim in question had its origin in a British subject, J. P. K. Stevenson. At his decease it came by descent to the widow and the legitimate children of Mr. Stephenson. As held by the umpire herein, it lost its original status in regard to the widow and children born in Venezuela. It retains its original status in the persons of the two sons, who were born British subjects.

From the testimony received from the respondent Government since the umpire returned from the United States of America, there appears, casually, a statement that Juan had deceased recently. Since no reference is made to this fact by the representative of the respondent Government, the umpire has a right to assume that such Government regards the incident of his death not to disturb the status fixed in him at the time of the presentation of this case to the Mixed Commission. The Chopin case, found in Moore, International Arbitration, page 2506, is full warrant for such a conclusion. Such would be the opinion of the umpire independent of the Chopin case. It meets the requirements, viz: (a) British citizenship at the time of the origin of the claim; (b) British citizenship at the time of the presentation of the claim before the Commission. When thus presented, a right to recovery vested in those then having a lawful claim.

The decision of the umpire is therefore unaffected if since then Juan has deceased.

The claim of the widow and of the children, who are held herein to be Venezuelans, is disallowed without any prejudice to their rights as Venezuelans before any proper tribunal. Under the Venezuelan law of distribution, as it was at the time of the death of J. P. K. Stevenson, the widow and the children each take an equal share of his estate. There are, then, thirteen equal shares into which this claim is divided. Two of these shares are allowed. For a portion of the time covered by this claim the legal rate of interest in Venezuela was 6 per cent; for the remainder of the time it was 3 per cent. Beginning at the time the claim was presented to the Claims Commission of 1868-69 interest has been calculated at the legal rate. There is no proof that the respondent Government had been informed previously of the claims of 1859 and 1865. Those of 1869 originated after the convention creating that Claims Commission. Certainly the respondent Government could make no compensation until a claim had been duly presented, and hence it could not be, until then, in default. Interest as damages begins only after defualt.

The award will be made for £8,940.

ANNEX 7.

No. 1.

Telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to- the Governor of the Straits Settlements.

(Urgent.)

(Sent 5th February, 1914.)

TELEGRAPH at once whether purport of Studer's letter to Colonial Secretary, 11th January, 1879, is correctly given on page 105 United States Memorial. If it enclosed whole of Browne's letter telegraph whether passages not included in extract printed on pages 104 and 105 are of any interest.-HARCOURT.

No. 2.

Telegram from the Governor of the Straits Settlements to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

(Received, Colonial Office, 2:33 P.M., 6th February, 1914.)

YOUR telegram 5th February letter sent by Studer must have been private as there is no official record of it, and it was answered privately. Do not believe that Studer sent Browne's letter as his letter same date Browne's from Malacca and Smith when replying did not refer to it. Page 284 refers to Browne's letter as exhibit perhaps with Foreign Office see your Confidential despatch 11th February 1897.-YOUNG.

[788-18]

L

ANNEX 8.

No. 1.

Letter. Colonial Office to Mr. H. N. Ridley, F.R.S., C.M.G.
Sir,
Downing Street, 29th January, 1914.

I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Harcourt to inform you that the claims to be dealt with in the course of the forthcoming session of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Pecuniary Claims Agreement with the United States of America include one by the heirs of the late Major Studer, formerly United States Consul at Singapore, in respect of a concession in the territory of Muar (now part of Johore) granted to that gentleman by the late Sultan Ali in the year 1877.

2. In the papers presented by the United States Government in support of the claim it is stated that 60 piculs (8,000 lbs.) of tobacco were grown on land within the limits of the concession in the year 1879 and shipped to Rotterdam and that the first shipment of this tobacco, representing the greater portion of the total quantity of 60 piculs, fetched in Rotterdam between one and one and a half guilders a pound and passed readily for Deli tobacco.

3. It is understood that while Director of Gardens and Forests in the Straits Settlements you had occasion carefully to examine the possibility of growing tobacco on a commercial scale in the Malay Peninsula. Mr. Harcourt would be much obliged if you would favour him with any observations which you may have to offer on the statements mentioned in the foregoing paragraph having regard to the information obtained and conclusions formed in consequence of that examination. He would also be glad if you could state the area of ground required to produce 60 piculs of cured tobacco.

4. I am to enquire whether you would have any objection to your reply to this letter being laid before the Arbitral Tribunal, if it should be considered advisable to do so.

Sir,

Letter. Mr. Ridley to the Colonial Office.

7, Cumberland Road, Kew, Surrey, February 6, 1914.

IN answer to yours of January 29th, 2665/1914, I have examined records of the average returns per acre of