The chief receives one hind leg of every wild animal shot by any of his men, and when the killing of elephants was allowed he took one of the tusks if his villagers were lucky enough to slay one of those animals. The villagers build the house of their ruler, and formerly they also cut his jhum, but I regret to say that nowadays they have ceased doing so, and this is an unsatisfactory sign of how, without any desire on our part to do so, our rule has weakened the authority of the chiefs. The chief held rather an anomalous position. Nominally he was a despot--I am speaking now of the state of things which existed prior to our occupation of the Hills--but in reality his power was very much circumscribed, and his subjects could so easily transfer their allegiance to some rival chief, who would probably be willing, for a consideration, to champion the cause of his last recruit, that every ruler had to use tact as well as force. In fact the amount of power he wielded depended almost entirely on the personal influence of the chief. A strong ruler, who governed mainly according to custom, could do almost anything he liked without losing his followers, but a weak man who tried petty tyrannies soon found himself a king without any subjects. The chiefs naturally tried their best to stop people leaving their villages, and it was customary to confiscate the paddy of any person who left the village without permission, but leave was seldom refused if the emigrant intended moving to the village of a friendly chief; and if the fugitive took refuge with a more powerful ruler it was extremely likely that a demand for the prompt surrender of all his property would be made with such a show of force that it could not be ignored. I add here two extracts from Colonel Lewin's book, "The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein," page 100.