His Majesty's Government concede that Major Studer was naturalised as a citizen of the United States, but proof should be produced that the five heirs-at-law, as the persons who would benefit by the award, are of that same nationality. No such evidence is produced. The husbands of Mrs. Joaquim, Mrs. Sturrock, and Mrs. Mugliston were, or are, all British subjects. It is a well-settled rule of international law that to justify the presentation of a claim by a Government, on behalf of the descendants of an original claimant the heirs must be of the same nationality as the ancestor, and must also have been so throughout the intervening period. This question was considered at length and decided in the Stevenson case which came before the British Venezuelan claims Commission at Caracas in 1903. A copy of the Umpire's decision in that case which reviews. all the authorities at length forms Annex 6* to this Answer. The facts of the Stevenson case are as follows: J. F. K. Stevenson, a British subject, settled in Venezuela in early life. In 1855 he married a Venezuelan citizen at Port of Spain, Trinidad. By her he had twelve children, ten of whom were born in Venezuela and two in the British dominions. In 1869 a claim was preferred on his behalf by Her late Majesty's Government before a British-Venezuelan Claims Commission which sat in that year. The claim was on that occasion withdrawn, without prejudice to its future presentation if such should be necessary. The claim remained unsettled and was therefore again presented to the 1903 Commission. Meanwhile the claimant had died, and it was therefore presented to the later Commission on behalf of his heirs-at-law. By English law both the widow and all the children were British subjects. By Venezuelan * P. 104. law the widow and ten of the twelve children were Venezuelan citizens. It was held by the Umpire that the Venezuelan law prevailed. It was also held that the claim on behalf of the widow and ten of the children failed as they were of Venezuelan nationality. The claim was allowed only in respect of the two children who were British subjects and did not enjoy Venezuelan nationality, and the award was therefore limited to twothirteenths of the sum due by Venezuela. His Majesty's Government submit that the claim on behalf of the representatives of Major Studer fails, and should be dismissed. (a.) As against His Majesty's Government-because the recognition of the Sultan Abu Bakr as ruler of Muar had no connection whatever with Major Studer's claim, which, if valid, arises out of property rights alleged to be unaffected by a change of rulers. (b.) As against the Government of Johore— 1. Because the grant made by Sultan Ali was subject to, and must be construed in accordance with, the Malay law then prevailing in Muar; 2. Because the grant made by Sultan Ali operated only as a permit to Major Studer to clear and cultivate unappropriated lands in Muar, and conferred upon him no title to lands other than those so cleared and cultivated; 3. Because no unlawful invasions or deprivations of Major Studer's land by the ruler of Muar or his servants are established; 4. Because Major Studer was never deprived of any land to which he had a title. If such land was lost, it was by voluntary abandonment; 5. Because neither Major Studer nor his representatives have exhausted such legal remedies as were open to them or were placed at their disposal, and it would therefore be inequitable that an award should be pronounced in their favour; 6. Because there is no proof that those who will benefit by the award are citizens of the United States. 2. Papers relating to Malay land tenure- No. 1. Extracts from "The Law and Customs of the Malays Extracts from "Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca," by T. J. Newbold. London, John Murray, 1839 .. No. 5. Extract from a Minute on Land Tenure in Malay States on the Peninsula. by W. E. Maxwell, 1877 3. Agreement between Sultan Ali and Tunku Silawatong— No. 2. Letter from Silawatang to the Resident of Malacca. No. 3. Letter from the Resident, Malacca, to Silawatang 4. Mining concession granted by Sultan Ali to J. G. Davidson, 5. Correspondence as to the reconciliation of Sultan Ali and the No. 1. Governor Sir A. Clarke to the Earl of Carnarvon, 6. British-Venezuelan Claims Commission, Carácas, 1903. Decision 7. No. 1.-Telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies 8. Correspondence relating to the cultivation of tobacco in the 9. Extract from the United States Consular Reports 10. Correspondence relating to Mr. Van de Leeuw 11. Correspondence relating to the Nordanal (Johore) Rubber 12. Extract from "A Report upon Agriculture in the Federated F ANNEX 1. Memoranda by Mr. R. J. Wilkinson. No. 1. The Studer Claims. ACCORDING to Malay customary law a permanent title to land can only be acquired by occupation and cultivation. Ancient written titles are said to have been met with in Kedah, where Indo-Chinese influence has been at work for centuries, but in Southern Malaya (including Muar) they were non-existent. In the second half of the nineteenth century foreign adventurers—mainly Europeans and Chinese-began to apply to Malay ruling chiefs for concessions of all sorts. These adventurers often asked for and obtained written evidence of the agreements arrived at, but the documents in question formed no part of Malay administration and were never land-titles in our use of the word. Any Malay could grant them; and a pretender or claimant was always more ready to sell his birthright than a bona fide ruler to whom foreign settlers meant trouble. Every written concession has to be judged on its own merits and cannot be taken as conclusive or even prima facie evidence that the grantor was in a position to give effect to its terms. The Studer claims are based on a document given by Sultan Ali, titular ruler of Muar, to Major Studer of Singapore. The value of such a document is limited necessarily to the rights that the Sultan himself possessed over the lands he conveyed away. A Malay ruler has no power to dispossess existing owners of property; his authority, such as it is, only extends to unoccupied areas. Waste land occupies a very important position in Malay customary law. To the cultivator the jungle is a no-man's-land where he can snare game, collect jungle-produce, and fell timber for his own use, while its immense extent furnishes him with an unlimited reserve for fresh cultivation. He has enjoyed these rights from time immemorial; and even at the present day his privileges are respected in forest regulations and in the creation of special "reserves for native holdings." In one sense therefore the jungle was communal property. But the revenue derivable from wastelands-e.g., from the taxation of strangers who collected jungle produce or wished to open up new plantations— |