and widespread revolt in the Ronietta District. The revolt broke out on April 27th, and lasted for several days. As is common in the more uncivilized parts of Africa it was marked by every circumstance of cruelty and by undiscriminating attacks on the persons and properties of all Europeans.

In the Ronietta District, which was the center of the rebellion, the Home Missionary Society had several establishments,—the Bompeh Mission at Rotofunk and Tiama, Sherbro-Mendi Mission at Shengeh, Avery Mission at Avery, and Imperreh Mission at Danville and Momaligi.

In the course of the rebellion all these missions were attacked, and either destroyed or damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered. The rising was quickly suppressed, and law and order enforced with firmness and prompitude. In September, October and November such of the guilty natives as could be caught were prosecuted and punished. (British Answer, Annexes 15, 16, and 17.)

A Royal Commissioner was appointed by the British Government to inquire into the circumstances of the insurrection and into the general position of affairs in the Colony and Protectorate.

On the receipt of his report, as well as of one from the Colonial Governor, the Secretary of State for the Colonies came to the conclusion that, though some mistakes might have been made in its execution, the line of policy pursued was right in its main outlines and that the scheme of administration, as revised in the light of experience, would prove a valuable instrument for the peaceful development of the Protectorate and the civilization and well-being of its inhabitants (British Blue Book, Sierra Leone, C. 9388 of 1899, Part 1, p. 175).

On February 21, 1899, the United States Government (British Answer, Annex 39), through its Embassy in London, brought the fact of the losses sustained by the Home Missionary Society to the attention of the British Government. In his reply on October 14, 1899, Lord Salisbury repudiated liability on behalf of the British Government, with an expression of regret that sensible as it was of the worth of the services of the American missionaries, there was no fund from which, as an act of grace, compensation could be awarded.

The contention of the United States Government before this Tribunal is that the revolt was the result of the imposition and attempted collection of the "Hut tax"; that it was within the knowledge of the British Government that this tax was the object of deep native resentment; that in the face of the native danger the British Government wholly failed to take proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property; that the loss of life and damage to property was the result of this neglect and failure of duty, and therefore that it is liable to pay compensation.

Now, even assuming that the "Hut tax" was the effective cause of the

native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal measure in accordance not only with general usage in colonial administration, but also with the usual practice in African countries (Wallis, Advance of our West African Empire, p. 40).

It was a measure to which the British Government was perfectly entitled to resort in the legitimate exercise of its sovereignty, if it was required. Its adoption was determined by the course of its policy and system of administration. Of these requirements it alone could judge.

Further, though it may be true that some difficulty might have been foreseen, there was nothing to suggest that it would be more serious than is usual and inevitable in a semi-barbarous and only partially colonized protectorate, and certainly nothing to lead to any apprehension of widespread revolt.

It is a well-established principle of international law that no government can be held responsible for the acts of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing insurrection. (Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. VI, p. 956; VII, p. 967; Moore's Arbitrations, pp. 2991-92; British Answer, p. 1.)

The good faith of the British Government cannot be questioned, and as to the conditions prevailing in the Protectorate, there is no evidence to support the contention that it failed in its duty to afford adequate protection for life and property. As has been said with reference to circumstances very similar, "It would be almost impossible for any government to prevent such acts by omnipresence of its forces" (Sir Edward Thornton, Moore's Arbitrations, pp. 3-38).

It is true that the Royal Commissioner criticized in his report the mode of application of certain measures. But there is no evidence of any criticisms directed at the police organization, or the measures taken for the protection of Europeans. On the contrary, it is clear that from the outbreak of the insurrection the British authorities took every measure available for its repression. Despite heavy losses, the troops in the area of revolt were continually increased. But communication was difficult; the risings occurred simultaneously in many districts remote from one another and from any common center, and it was impossible at a few days' or a few hours' notice to afford full protection to the buildings and properties in every isolated and distant village. It is impossible to judge the system of police and protection of life and property in force in the savage regions of Africa by the standard of countries or cities which enjoy the social order, the respect for authority, and the settled administration of a high civilization. A government cannot be held liable as the insurer of lives and property under the circumstances presented in this case. (See: Wipperman Case, Ralston's International Law and Procedure, No. 491, p. 231.)

No lack of promptitude or courage is alleged against the British troops.

On the contrary, the evidence of eye-witnesses proves that under peculiarly difficult and trying conditions they did their duty with loyalty and daring, and upheld the highest traditions of the British Army.

Finally, it is obvious that the Missionary Society must have been aware of the difficulties and perils to which it exposes itself in its task of carrying Christianity to so remote and barbarous a people. The contempt for difficulty and peril is one of the noblest sides of their missionary zeal. Indeed, it explains why they are able to succeed in fields which mere commercial enterprise cannot be expected to enter.

For these reasons, this Tribunal is of opinion that the claim presented by the United States Government on behalf of the Home Missionary Society has no foundation in law and must be dismissed.

But if His Britannic Majesty's Government, in consideration of the service which the Home Missionary Society has rendered and is still rendering in the peaceful development of the Protectorate and the civilization of its inhabitants, and of the support its activities deserve, can avail itself of any fund from which to repair as far as possible the losses sustained in the native revolt, it would be an act of grace which this Tribunal cannot refrain from recommending warmly to the generosity of that Government. For these reasons and subject to this recommendation, the Tribunal decides that this claim must be dismissed.

For the Tribunal :

(Signed) HENRI FROMAGEOT,

President.

IN THE MATTER OF THE TATTLER

CLAIM NO. 19

Decision rendered December 18, 1920

The Government of the United States presents two claims arising out of two different detentions of the American Schooner TATTLER in the year 1905.

These two claims have been argued and are to be decided separately.

First Claim

This is a claim for $2,028.88 with interest, on account of a seizure of the said schooner Tattler on April 10, 1905, and its detention for six days, i.e., from April 10 to April 16, 1905, by the Canadian authorities in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, on a charge of an alleged contravention of the first article of the treaty concluded at London on October 10, 1818, between Great Britain and the United States, and of section 3, paragraph 3, of Chapter 94 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1886, entitled: "An Act respecting fishing by foreign vessels."

The record shows that by an agreement made at Liverpool, Nova Sco

tia, April 15, 1905 (United States Memorial, Exhibit 19, enclosure 1), the owners entered into the following undertaking:

In consideration of the release of the American schooner TATTLER of Gloucester, Massachusetts, now under detention at the port of Liverpool, Nova Scotia (on payment of the fine of five hundred dollars, demanded by the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada, or by the Collector of Customs at said port), we hereby guarantee His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His Successors and assigns, represented in this behalf by the said Minister, and all whom it doth or may concern, against any and all claims made or to be made on account of or in respect to such detention or for deterioration or otherwise in respect to said vessel or her tackle or apparel, outfits, supplies or voyage, hereby waiving all such claims and right of libel or otherwise before any court or Tribunal in respect to said detention or to such or any of such claims or for loss or damage in the premises.

It has been observed by the United States Government that on the same day the owners notified the Canadian authorities that the payment of the said sum of $500.00 was made under protest.

But neither this protest nor the receipt given by the Canadian authorities for the $500.00 contains any reservation to, or protest against, the guarantee given against "any and all claims made or to be made on account of or in respect to such detention." It does not appear, therefore, that the waiver in the undertaking of any claim or right "before any court or tribunal" was subject to any condition available before this Tribunal.

It is proved by the documents that the consent of the British Government to the release of the vessel was given on two conditions: first, on payment of $500.00, and, second, on the owners undertaking to waive any right or claim before any court, and the protest against the payment does not extend and cannot in any way be held by implication to extend to this waiver.

This protest appears to have been a precautionary measure in case the Canadian authorities should have been disposed to reduce the sum. Any protest or reserve as to the waiver of the right to damages would have been plainly inconsistent with the undertaking itself and would have rendered it nugatory if it had been accepted by the other party.

On the other hand, it has been objected that the renunciation of and guarantee against any claims are not binding upon the Government of the United States, which presents the claim.

But in this case the only right the United States Government is supporting is that of its national, and consequently, in presenting this claim before this Tribunal, it can rely on no legal ground other than those which would have been open to its national.

For These Reasons:

This Tribunal decides that the claim relating to the seizure and detention of the American schooner Tattler on and between April 10 and April 16, 1905, must be dismissed.

Second Claim

This is a claim for $2,100.00, with interest, for the seizure of the same American schooner Tattler by the Canadian authorities on December 15, 1905, in the port of North Sydney, Cape Breton, for an alleged violation of the Canadian Statute 55 and 56 Vict. (1892), chapter 3, entitled: "An Act respecting fishing vessels of the United States."

In October, 1905, the Tattler registered at and sailed from Gloucester, Massachusetts, to Newfoundland on a salt herring voyage, proceeded to North Sydney, Cape Breton, and entered that port to obtain a license from the Canadian authorities under the above-mentioned Canadian Act enabling it to ship additional men as members of the crew.

It is shown by the documents and it is not denied that the Master of the Tattler, after entering that port, went on shore, and applied to the Canadian authorities for the said license, that notwithstanding three separate requests the license was refused him on the ground that the schooner was on the American register and did not hold an American fishing license, and that on this refusal the men were shipped without a license.

It is established by a report of the Canadian authorities to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada dated at Ottawa, December 15, 1905 (British Answer, Annex 51), that up to that season United States vessels registered as trading vessels visited Newfoundland for the purpose of obtaining cargoes of frozen herring, and were afforded all the ordinary port privileges extended to trading vessels. Newfoundland, however, in that year, i.e., 1905, passed an Act preventing such vessels from procuring bait fishes, and herring, within the territorial jurisdiction of Newfoundland, and they were forced to catch their cargoes of fish for themselves, and so became fishing vessels. As they had not the necessary crews and could not, under the Newfoundland regulations, ship them in Newfoundland waters, it became necessary for them either to return home or procure the necessary crews in Canadian ports. In the early part of the season the Canadian local customs officials were not very clear as to the status of these vessels under the changed conditions. The Canadian Government, however, decided that the moment they shipped crews to catch fish they changed their character and became fishing vessels, and as such must procure a Canadian license under the Canadian Act. When the Government's decision was made known to the officials, this course was followed.

In the following month, i.e., November, 1905, information was received by the owners of the Tattler that the Canadian authorities at North Sydney had discovered their error in regard to the license requested by and refused to the schooner, and that they were ready to issue the license on receipt of the proper fee. The owners mailed the amount without delay to the Canadian authorities at North Sydney.