Question

Case Home Missionary Society Case

what are the arguments?

what is the problem?

which are the parties?

what is the conclution?

Case 2-2 HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CASE Home Frontier and Foreign Missionary Society of the United Brethren in Christ (United States v. Great Britain) Claim American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal, 1920. United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 6, p. 42. AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL is 1898, the collection of a tax newly imposed [by Great Britain) on the natives of the Protectorate of Sierra Leone) and known as the "hut tax" was the signal for a serious and widespread revolt in the Ronietta district. The revolt broke out on April 27 and lasted for several 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 govern- ment wholly failed to take proper steps for the mainte- nance 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 effec- tive cause of the native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal measure in accordance not only with general usage in In the course of the rebellion all the claimant's) ... missions were attacked, and either destroyed or dam- aped, and some of the missionaries were murdered....

Answer 1

HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM (US vs. Britain)

Facts:

The collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of Sierra Leone known as the “hut tax” was the signal fir as serious and widespread revolt in the Ronietta district.

In the course of rebellion, all US’ Missions were attacked, and either destroyed or damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered.

US contents that British Government is responsible for the revolt since it wholly failed to take proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and property, and that the loss of life and damage to property is the result of such neglect.

Arguements:

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. 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 centre; 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 can not be held liable as the insurer of lives and property under the circumstances presented in this case

Issue:

Whether or not revolt is attributable to the British Government.

Held:

Even assuming that the “hut tax” was the effective cause of the native rebellion, it was in itself a fiscal measure to which British Government was perfectly entitled to exercise.

It is well established principle of international law that no government can be held responsible for the act 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.