Mr. Partridge to Mr. Gresham.
Caracas, July 12, 1893. (Received July 21.)
Sir: With reference to my dispatch, No. 55, of the 1st instant, I now have the honor to transmit herewith three copies of the constitution of the United States of Venezuela, adopted by the National Constituent Assembly, June 12, and formally promulgated the 5th instant.
This constitution is based upon the last one of April 16, 1891, which was the same as that of April 27, 1881, except as regards the power of amendment. The principal administrative changes are with respect to the executive.
The president, instead of being elected by a federal council for a term of two years, is to be elected by a direct vote of the people for a term of four years. (Articles 63 and 71.) If no one receives an absolute majority of all the votes cast, Congress, voting by states, is to elect one of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes (Art. 65.) Instead of a federal council of 19 members the present constitution provides for a council of government of one member from each of the 9 states. The concurrence of the council in the executive acts of the President is limited to the cases specified in articles 77 and 78. The president of the council is vice-president of the Republic (Art. 70.) I append a translation of articles 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 141, 148, and 149, which are of international interest.
Article 5 declares the law of citizenship. Division (a), section 1, is the same as in the former constitution, and adopts the rule of jus soli in its entirety, declaring every person born in the territory of Venezuela a Venezuelan, whatever may be the nationality of his parents. Division (a), section 2, and Division (b), section 1, following the former constitution, make children born abroad of a Venezuelan father or mother Venezuelan citizens, provided they become domiciled in Venezuela and declare their desire to be such; but the two sections distinguish between children so born of a native Venezuelan parent and of a naturalized Venezuelan parent, declaring the former native and the latter naturalized citizens. Division (a), section 3, simply declares the principle of international law that a child born abroad of a Venuezuelan citizen in the diplomatic service is a native citizen.
Division (b), sections 2 and 3, provide for the naturalization of foreigners, and like the last constitution distinguish between the forms required for natives of any of the Spanish American republics or of the Spanish Antilles and other foreigners. The last constitution (Article 6) provided that “those who fix their domicile and acquire nationality in a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.” This declaration against the right of expatriation has been omitted from the new constitution.
Articles 9 to 12, inclusive, relate to the rights of foreigners in Venezuela and the responsibility of the Government to them. Articles 9 and 10 are the two declarations with respect to claims and diplomatic intervention approved by the International American Conference by a vote of 15 to 1, the United States voting negatively, and Hayti abstaining from voting (Minutes of the Conference, pp. 807–811). Mr. Trescot, a delegate of the United States, in his minority report against these declarations, says that he can not interpret them “in any other sense than the entire and absolute denial of the right to diplomatic reclamation between independent governments in vindication or protection of the rights of its citizens residing in foreign countries.” (Minutes of the [Page 732] Conference, p. 826.) If the necessity, therefore, should arise, I suppose that the Government of the United States would no more admit now than it would in 1888 that “its diplomatic intervention could before-stalled by an internal legislative limitation of liability,” or that such domestic legislation, and not the principles of international law, can determine the responsibility of governments to one another (Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 491). But the most remarkable provision is that of article 11, that “the Government of Venezuela will not make any kind of treaties with other nations unless they recognize the principles established in the two foregoing articles.” This article, strictly interpreted, would, to say the least, restrict the treaty relations of Venezuela with other countries within very narrow limits.
On the 7th instant I had an interview with the minister of foreign affairs relative to the extradition negotiations. As pertinent thereto, but without reference to the merits of the foregoing article generally, I adverted to it, saying to him that I supposed Venezuela would not refuse to make with the United States a treaty to which the principles formulated in articles 9 and 10 could have no applicability, but are wholly irrelevant, as, for example, the extradition treaty which we were negotiating, or a postal treaty. He assented to that view and said he thought it applicable rather to a general treaty, especially one giving foreigners the right to reside and do business in Venezuela.
Article 141, requiring an arbitration clause in international treaties, follows substantially article 109 of the former constitution, but is now applicable to treaties generally, while before treaties of “commerce and amity” were specified.
Article 148 is a copy of article 116 of the former constitution.
Article 149, requiring a clause to be inserted in public contracts that any dispute with reference to the same should be decided by the tribunals of Venezuela, conformably to the laws of the Republic, and that such contracts shall in no case afford a ground for an international reclamation, is new to this constitution, although it has been the usual practice for some time to insert such a clause in contracts.
I have, etc.,