creditors, etc., were American citizens. On the contrary, in response to the query in the Chilean case, as "to whom and in what proportion is to be given what Chile has to hand over," it was answered: "In view of the principles of international law thus announced and acted upon by the nations of the world, as set forth by the leading jurists and as interpreted by the diplomatists and the courts of the great nations, namely, that diplomatic intervention is a national act, taken by one nation against another for injuries suffered by the one at the hands of the other (either immediately and directly or because of injuries to the citizens of the one), and that the fund received by the one from the other is a national fund in which the parties injured, no matter who they may be, have not an enforceable right or interest, such fund being and constituting a fund which may be expended or distributed as the sovereign directs, it can be with certainty asserted that the question of the disposition of the fund which shall be paid by the Government of Chile to the Government of the United States by reason of the award of His Majesty is a question in which the Government of Chile can have no interest whatever, since the Government of Chile is paying the sum, not to the claimants, but to the Government of the United States, and when it is so received the fund is, not only under the law of nations but under the municipal law of the United States as well, 'a national fund' to be distributed as the proper authorities of the American Government shall determine." (United States Counter Case, p. 191.) And as respects the specific query as to the alleged Chilean heirs and creditors, the United States counter case made reply: "The Government of the United States is not advised of the existence in Chile of any heirs of any of the partners of this firm. If any such heirs exist they may, upon the making of the award, present their claims before the proper American tribunals, which will give to them a full, fair, and impartial hearing, and pronounce a judgment in accordance with the principles of law and equity which may be found to exist. These remarks apply likewise to the creditors, though the Government of the United States has reason to believe that an amicable adjustment has been made between the company and the Chilean citizens who are creditors thereof and that the rights of such creditors have been by this arrangement fully and satisfactorily protected" (p. 192). It would seem that this position received the implied sanction of His Britannic Majesty, who, in the face of this admission that there were in fact Chilean creditors who would participate in the award, and that there might be Chilean heirs, made the award without any inquiry as to the nationality of the ultimate recipients, merely finding that a certain sum was equitably due to the representatives of the firm of Alsop & Co. The legal representatives of the claimants in the Alsop case are now in the process of distributing the portion of the award due each claimant in accordance with law. Large sums have already been paid to Chilean creditors and although, as forecasted in the American counter-case, no Chilean heirs have as yet appeared, so far as is known, it is understood that the legal representatives of the estates of certain of the claimants will in the course of the orderly distribution of these estates, pay other sums to heirs in the third generation who are not American citizens. CONTENTS. APPENDIX. Page. 1. Extracts from "Political and Statistical account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca," Vol. 2, by T. J. Newbold, London. John Murray, 1839. 2. Extracts from "British Malaya, an account of the Origin and Progress of British Influence in Malaya," by Sir Frank Swettenham, K. C. M. G., late Governor, &c., of the Straits Colony & High Commissioner for the Feder- 3. Extracts from the Debate in the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, with regard to the Muar succession, December 7, 1877. (This debate constituted one of the enclosures in Governor Sir C. F. Robinson's letter to the Secretary of State, of December 13, 1877 [Memorial, p. 366], although not printed in the Return to the Order of the House of Lords, of May 27, 1879. The Debate is printed in the Straits Settlements Legislative Council Debates, session of 1877. The page references here- with are to a copy made therefrom, certified by the Uni- 6. Extract from "Report upon the Commercial relations of the United States with Foreign Countries, for the year 1878" 7. Extract from "Reports from the Consuls of the United States on the Commerce, Manufactures, etc.," of their Consular Districts, No. 19, May, 1882... 8. Extract from "Reports from the Consuls of the United States on the Commerce, Manufactures, etc.," of their Consular Districts, No. 19, May, 1882... 9. Extract from a paper by Mr. Hugh Clifford, entitled "Life in the Malay Peninsula, as it was and is," Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute, 1898-1899, Vol. 30.... 63 70 APPENDIX. No. 1. Extracts from "Political and Statistical Account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca," Vol. II, by T. J. Newbold, London, John Murray, 1839. "The Mohammedan empire of Johore was founded by Mahomed Shah II., of Malacca, after his expulsion from Malacca by the Portuguese in 1511, A. D. This prince, after many brave though unsuccessful attempts to retake his capital, died at the newly-founded city of Johore, where he had settled after the destruction of Bintan by the Portuguese. Mahomed Shah, according to the Katurunan, or genealogy of Johore in my possession, reigned twenty-nine years at Malacca, and seven at Johore. He died at Johore, A. D. 1518, succeeded by his son." (P. 45.) "Sultan Mahmud Shah II., in the early part of whose reign, Rajah Haji, the sultan's viceroy at Rhio, made the celebrated attack on Malacca, in concert with Sultan Ibrahim, of Salangore, in which he lost his life, during an assault upon his stockaded post at Teloh Katapang, a little to the south of Malacca. Sultan Mahmud, who was then very young, accompanied the Malayan expedition from Rhio as far as the Muar river, thus lending to it the influence of his name and cause." (P. 48.) "In 1795, the British took possession of Malacca and other Dutch settlements, giving up Rhio to the Sultan of Johore without exacting any conditions. Mahmud having placed Rhio under a viceroy, styled the Rajah Muda, proceeded to Linggin (or more properly speaking Lingga), where he finally settled. He died about 1810 at Lingga, leaving two legitimate sons, viz., Hussain and Abdurrahman. The former by his second wife, the latter by his third. The Sultan's first wife died without issue. "This was the point so strenuously contested in 1818 prior to the occupation of Singapore by the English and Dutch authorities, as Singapore was an island in the gift of the Sultan of Johore, whoever that potentate might be. "Hussain at the time of his father's death was absent at Pahang, and in consequence Abdurrahman, his younger brother, being present, agreeably to Malayan usage, was elected by the chiefs notwithstanding the opposition of the sultana dowager, who protested against the proceeding and refused to give up the regalia, which were forcibly and most ungallantly torn from her by the Dutch Commissioners who interfered in favour of Abdurrahman, a prince more disposed to their interests than the elder brother. The British, for the same reason, though with greater justice, since their candidate possessed the natural right of primogeniture, espoused the cause of Hussain, and obtained one of the principal objects of their exertions in the possession of the island of Singapore. "Both the Dutch and English agents have been too severely censured for the prominent share they took in this affair (with the exception of the lawless seizure of the regalia by the former). Both parties, however, acted for the good of their respective nations, and with regard to the claims of the two princes, the natives themselves entertain conflicting opinions, some resting upon the natural right of primogeniture and the laws of the Koran; others, upon Malayan usage and the voice of the chiefs. Thus it has remained the Dutch set up the sovereign of their creation at Lingga, while Hussain, the eldest, held his court at Singapore, under shelter of the British flag. Both enjoyed pensions from the English and Dutch governments respectively, as has been already shewn. Abdurrahman the Sultan of Lingga died in 1832, succeeded by his son Mahomed Shah; and Hussain, the Sultan of Johore, at Malacca in September, 1835, where he had removed from Singapore a year or two before his decease. He left no living children by his first and second wives. By his third wife he had a son named Abdul Jalil, who was living at Singapore in 1834. By reason of his mother's low birth his claims to the throne are not considered good by Malays, or at least equal to those of Hussain's issue by his fourth wife, a woman nobly born, named Rajah Yahia. She bore him four children, two sons, Tuanku Alli and Tuanku Jaffir, and two daughters. "Since Sultan Hussain's decease up to 1836, no attempt had been made to elect a successor, beyond a journey undertaken to Pahang by the youngest of his sons, with the hope that the Ban |