that the Government, holding in view the aim of the prohibition and defending with all lawful measures its own existence, did not give to claimant the permission it thought fit to give to the above-mentioned ships;

And whereas therefore no unlawful act or culpable negligence on the part of the Venezuelan Government is proved that would make the Government liable for the damages claimant pretends to have suffered by the interruption of the navigation of the Orinoco River; This item of the claim has to be disallowed.

The last item of this claim is for $25,000 for counsel fees and expenses incurred in carrying out the above-examined and decided claims;

But whereas the greater part of the items of the claim had to be disallowed;

And whereas in respect to those that were allowed it is in no way proved by evidence that they were presented [?] to and refused by the Government of the Republic of the United States of Venezuela, and whereas therefore the necessity to incur those fees and further expenses in consequence of an unlawful act or culpable negligence of the Venezuelan Government is not proved, this item has, of course, to be disallowed.

For all which reasons the Venezuelan Government owes to claimant :

For detention and use of the steamers Masparro and Socorro, 36,000 pesos, or

For goods delivered for use of the Government.

For passages

Together total

U. S. Gold

.$27,692.31

308.00

224.62

28,224.93

While all the other items have to be disallowed.

THE SAVARKAR CASE

between

FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN

Decided February 24, 1911

Syllabus

This case arose as the result of the escape of Savarkar, a Hindoo, who was being transported from England to India for trial on a charge of abetment of murder, and who at Marseilles on July 8, 1910, escaped to the shore from the Morea, a British merchant vessel, which was carrying him. While being pursued by Indian policemen from the vessel, he was captured by a French police officer, who returned him to the Morea, which sailed with the fugitive on board on the following day. Subsequently, France demanded the restitution of the fugitive on the ground that his delivery to the British officers on board the vessel was contrary to the rules of international law, and, upon Great Britain's refusal to comply, the questions of law and fact involved were, by a compromis signed October 25, 1910,1 submitted to the arbitration of a tribunal composed of the following members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration: Auguste M. F. Beernaert of Belgium, Louis Renault of France, Gregors Gram of Norway, A. F. de Savornin Lohman of Holland and the Earl of Desart of England. The sessions began February 14, 1911, and ended February 17, 1911, the decision being rendered February 24, 1911.

The tribunal found that previously to the arrival of the Morea at Marseilles arrangements had been made between the British and French police to prevent the escape of the fugitive, and that, although the French officer who arrested him may have been ignorant of his identity, there was no fraud or force used to obtain possession of him and the failure of the French authorities to disavow the arrest and delivery before the ship sailed might naturally have led the British police to believe that the French officer acted in accordance with instructions or that his conduct was approved. The tribunal held that while an irregularity was committed in the arrest of Savarkar and his delivery to the British police, there is no rule of international law which imposes under these circumstances any obligation on the Power which has the custody of the prisoner to restore him because of a mistake made by the foreign agent who delivered him up.

1Post,
p. 280.

AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL

Award of the tribunal of arbitration in the case of Savarkar, between France and Great Britain.-The Hague, February 24, 1911.1

Whereas, by an agreement dated October 25th, 1910, the Government of the French Republic and the Government of His Britannic Majesty agreed to submit to arbitration the questions of fact and law raised by the arrest and restoration to the mail steamer Morea at Marseilles, on July 8th, 1910, of the British Indian Savarkar, who had escaped from that vessel where he was in custody; and the demand made by the Government of the French Republic for the restitution of Savarkar;

The arbitral tribunal has been called upon to decide the following question:

Should Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in conformity with the rules of international law, be restored or not be restored by His Britannic Majesty's Government to the Government of the French Republic?

Whereas, for the purpose of carrying out this agreement, the two Governments have respectively appointed as arbitrators:

His Excellency Monsieur Beernaert, Minister of State, member of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, etc., president;

The Right Honorable, the Earl of Desart, formerly His Britannic Majesty's Procurator General;

Monsieur Louis Renault, professor at the University of Paris, Minister Plenipotentiary, Legal Adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs;

Monsieur G. Gram, formerly Norwegian Minister of State, Provincial Governor;

His Excellency, the Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, Minister of State, member of the Second Chamber of the States-General of the Netherlands.

And, further, the two Governments have respectively appointed as, their agents,

The Government of the French Republic:

1Official report, p. 54. For the French text, see Appendix, p. 516.

2Post, p. 280.

Monsieur André Weiss, Assistant Legal Adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, professor of law at the University of Paris.

The Government of His Britannic Majesty:

Mr. Eyre Crowe, Counselor of Embassy, a senior clerk at the British Foreign Office.

Whereas, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, cases, counter-cases and replies have been duly exchanged between the parties, and communicated to the arbitrators.

Whereas the tribunal met at The Hague on the 14th February, 1911.

Whereas, with regard to the facts which gave rise to the difference of opinion between the two Governments, it is established that, by a letter dated June 29th, 1910, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London informed the Directeur de la Sûreté générale at Paris, that the British-Indian Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was about to be sent to India, in order to be prosecuted for abetment of murder, etc., and that he would be on board the vessel Morea touching at Marseilles on the 7th or 8th July.

Whereas, in consequence of the receipt of this letter, the Ministry of the Interior informed the Prefect of the Bouches-du-Rhône, by a telegram dated the 4th July, 1910, that the British police was sending Savarkar to India on board the steamship Morea. This telegram states that some "revolutionnaires hindous" [Hindu revolutionaries] then on the continent might take advantage of this to further the escape of this foreigner, and the Prefect was requested to take the measures necessary to guard against any attempt of that kind.

Whereas the Directeur de la Sûreté générale replied by a letter dated the 9th July, 1910, to the letter of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, stating that he had given the necessary instructions for the purpose of guarding against the occurrence of any incident during the presence at Marseilles of the said Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, on board the steamship Morea.

Whereas, on the 7th July, the Morea arrived at Marseilles. The following morning, between 6 and 7 o'clock, Savarkar, having succeeded in effecting his escape, swam ashore and began to run; he was arrested by a brigadier of the French maritime gendarmerie

and taken back to the vessel. Three persons who had come ashore from the vessel assisted the brigadier in taking the fugitive back. On the 9th July, the Morea left Marseilles with Savarkar on board. Whereas, from the statements made by the French brigadier to the police of Marseilles, it appears:

That he saw the fugitive, who was almost naked, get out of a porthole of the steamer, throw himself into the sea and swim to the quay;

That at the same moment some persons from the ship, who were shouting and gesticulating, rushed over the bridge leading to the shore, in order to pursue him;

That a number of people on the quay commenced to shout "Arrêtez-le";

That the brigadier at once went in pursuit of the fugitive and, coming up to him after running about five hundred metres, arrested him.

Whereas the brigadier declares that he was altogether unaware of the identity of the person with whom he was dealing, that he only thought that the man who was escaping was one of the crew, who had possibly committed an offense on board the vessel.

Whereas, with regard to the assistance afforded him by one of the crew and two Indian policemen, it appears from the explanations given on this point, that these men came up after the arrest of Savarkar, and that their intervention was only auxiliary to the action of the brigadier. The brigadier had seized Savarkar by one arm for the purpose of taking him back to the ship, and the prisoner went peaceably with him. The brigadier, assisted by the abovementioned persons, did not relax his hold till he reached the half deck of the vessel.

The brigadier said that he did not know English.

From what has been stated, it would appear that the incident did not occupy more than a few minutes.

Whereas it is alleged that the brigadier who effected the arrest was not ignorant of the presence of Savarkar on board the vessel, and that his orders, like those of all the French police [agents] and gendarmes, were to prevent any Hindu from coming on board who had not got a ticket.