Hungary to the British proposal of September 24 regarding the mutual observance of article 17, Sir Edward Grey informed Mr. Page that in consequence of the failure of the German and Austro-Hungarian governments to reply to his proposal, the British government had decided to "remodel" the basis on which pay was being allowed officer prisoners held in England. Information being received in the meantime through the Geneva branch of the Red Cross society that British officers held as prisoners in Germany were receiving only sixty marks per month if subalterns, and only 100 marks if of higher rank, from which approximately an amount equal to two-thirds was being deducted for food, the British government reduced the pay of German officers to approximately four shillings a day for subalterns and four shillings six pence per day for captains and all officers of higher rank.1 Furthermore, officers in receipt of these rates would be expected to defray the cost of their rations and messing. Sir Edward again added that should it be eventually established that either the German, AustroHungarian, or Turkish governments were prepared to allow full pay to British officers, an improved treatment would be accorded to the officers of those powers.2

In the beginning, the French government likewise adopted the policy of allowing captured German officers the pay allowed French officers of corresponding rank (the amount ranged from 102 to 336 francs per month), but for some months all efforts of the French government to obtain information as to the

1 The American consul-general at Berlin had reported on October 20, 1914, that British officers confined at Tergau were receiving sixty marks per month if lieutenants, all others above that rank one hundred marks, from which the cost of meals and clothing was deducted. Ibid., p. 13. This report was confirmed in December by Major Vandeleer, a British officer who had succeeded in escaping from the prison camp at Crefeld. He added that practically the whole of the pay allowed subalterns was consumed for food and clothing. Ibid., p. 33. Dr. Ohnesorg in June, 1916, reported that British officers interned at Ingolstadt were receiving from sixty to one hundred marks per month according to rank, and that the average cost of their mess was about forty-five marks per month. Misc., No. 19 (1915), p. 7.

2 Misc., No. 7 (1915), pp. 74-75. McCarthy in his book, The Prisoner of War in Germany (p. 199), says British officers with the rank of captain were paid sixty marks per month; others up to and including the rank of colonel were paid salaries up to one hundred marks. This scale was about one-eighth of that which the British government had paid to German officers before the reduction referred to

PAY OF OFFICERS

II

German practice resulted in failure. Finally, it was learned that the German government was allowing French officers sixty marks per month in the case of subalterns, and 100 marks for superior officers, a deduction of 1 mark 80 pfennigs per day from this amount being made for subsistence. So little was left to cover other expenses that the French government was led to protest against the German scale not only because of its insufficiency, but because it was in effect a violation of the Hague convention. Thereupon the French government reduced the scale of pay which it had been allowing German officers to 75 francs and 125 francs per month according to rank. In December, 1915, however, an accord between the two governments was reached by which it was agreed that the officers of each held as prisoners by the other should be paid a monthly allowance equal to that paid its own officers when on leave. The Austro-Hungarian ordinance of February, 1915, concerning the treatment of prisoners promised 16 hellers per day, an amount regarded as sufficient merely to cover the cost of subsistence.2 The Russian ordinance concerning prisoners of war announced that generals and admirals would receive 1500 rubles per year, officers of the general staff 900 rubles and superior officers 600 rubles. Soon after the entrance of the United States into the war the American government proposed to the German government that officers captured by each side should receive the pay allowed by their own governments in accordance with the Hague convention, and the American government appears to have acted from the outset on this principle. The German government, however, ignored the American proposal and for months did not return an answer, in consequence of which the American government in January, 1918, directed that no further payments be made to German officers held in the United States until information was received from the German government of its willingness to reciprocate. Finally, in November, 1918, an agreement was reached under which officers held by either government were to receive pay at the rate of from 275 marks ($65.50) per month to 400 marks

3

22 Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Pub. (1915), Docs., pp. 104-121; Le Régime des Prisonniers de Guerre, etc., pp. 16, 19, 20, and Rapports des Délégués Espagnols, etc., Pp. 1-2. 3 Ibid., p. 151.

2 22 Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Pub. (1915), Docs., p. 152.

($95.25) per month according to rank. These rates were to apply without regard to whether officers belonged to the active or reserve forces or whether they were regular prisoners of war or interned civilians.

$336. Officers' Quarters. Regarding the housing and maintenance of prisoners article 7 of the Hague réglement provides that

"The government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance. In default of special agreement between belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards quarters. . . on the same footing as the troops of the government which captured them."

In a note of December 2, 1914, to Mr. Page Sir Edward Grey stated that the

"accommodation provided for officers in England is entirely apart from soldiers and is either in country houses or officers' quarters in barracks. Their quarters are comfortably furnished, but without luxury. Servants are found for officers from among the prisoners of war."1

No complaint appears to have been made by the German government concerning the treatment of officer prisoners held in England, and the reports of the American representatives as well as the testimony of unofficial persons who visited their camps were all in agreement that there was little or nothing to complain of. In France, German officers were housed in some instances in châteaus surrounded by spacious gardens, in old monasteries, or in fortresses, all of which were well lighted and ventilated. In some of the camps where civilians were detained they had their families with them and were provided with German orderlies and cooks.2 Representatives of the Red Cross and of the American embassy found nothing to criticise and much to praise.

The German memorandum of November, 1914, concerning prisoners of war declared that "as a rule" captured officers and soldiers were not interned in the same place at the same time. Military officers and civil officials of like rank were interned in

1 Misc., No. 7 (1915), p. 21.

2 Such were the conditions in a camp at LePuy as they were seen by a representative of the associated press in November, 1915. The officers were on parole and were not under guard, although the camp was surrounded by a wall topped by several strands of barbed wire. Cf. also Régime des Prisonniers, pp. 16–19.

QUARTERS FOR MEN

13

fortresses. Generals were provided with a living room and a bedroom. Staff officers were each given a single room. Other officers were assigned a small room each, or seevral together in one large room. Officers were allowed to have orderlies of their own nationality for their personal service, one for every five to ten officers. The official statement of February 28, 1915, "concerning the principles observed in the housing, feeding, clothing, etc., of officers and men held as prisoners of war in Germany" declared that the place of internment "must be healthy and absolutely unobjectionable from the hygienic point of view, with at least 15 cubic metres breathing space for each man, one which could be aired, which admitted full daylight and which could be heated and lighted daily." Various charges were made, however, by British officers that the regulations laid down in the German memorandum and statement referred to above were not always observed.

For the most part the American inspectors, however, found little to complain of in regard to the treatment of officers in the German camps. Dr. McCarthy says that in a general way the German government met this problem in a complete and satisfactory manner. With one or two exceptions, he said, "all of these camps are now satisfactory, and considering conditions no reasonable complaint can be found. Fortresses, sanatoria, newly constructed high school buildings, modern barrack buildings and vacated factory buildings have all been utilized for officers' quarters." 3

§337. Quarters and Housing Arrangements for Men. The British memorandum respecting the treatment of interned civilians and prisoners of war stated that they were lodged either on board ships, in barracks, in large buildings that had been taken over for the purpose, or in small huts constructed

1 Misc., No. 7 (1915).

4

2 Text, ibid., pp. 79-81.

The Prisoner of War in Germany, p. 191. All the above-mentioned buildings, he adds, except those at Magdeburg and Ingolstadt, were unobjectionable from the hygienic standpoint. In the other camps the officers were housed in small rooms which were simply but comfortably furnished. Hot and cold water was supplied for bathing purposes; there was sufficient space for field sports and recreations; food arrangements were in the hands of a committee of officers; orderlies were provided to care for their rooms, etc.

♦ In the early days of the war nine ships were taken over by the admiralty and fitted up for the accommodation of interned civilian prisoners, but later the prisoners were removed to camps on land.

for the housing of prisoners. These quarters were, the memorandum added, kept warm and well lighted. Interned civilians were allowed to choose better accommodations and food at their own expense. Those who remained in the camps to which they were assigned were divided into classes according to their social rank, though all received the same accommodations and food. Ample hospital and medical facilities were furnished free of charge.1 The American representatives who inspected the prison camps in England found the accommodations quite up to the standard usually prevailing in prison camps for private soldiers, and this was the testimony of neutral newspaper correspondents and other persons who were permitted to visit them.2 The only camp in England against which there appears to have been any serious complaint from Germany was that at Newbury, which was criticised on the ground that it was "greatly overcrowded, poorly furnished and generally unfit for human habitation." 3

In France prisoners were at first lodged in casernes, but as the number increased, special buildings were constructed. Only in North Africa were tents employed. By a circular of November 27, 1914, commandants were urged to see that

1 Misc., No. 7 (1915), P. 23.

2 Cf., e.g., the very favorable report of Chandler Hale concerning the detention camp in the Isle of Man, Misc., No. 7 (1915), pp. 36-37. Boylston Beal of the American embassy made a report in the spring of 1916 upon the conditions which he found in twenty-three prison camps in the United Kingdom. He found that in every instance the quarters were "clean, neat, well ventilated, heated and lighted"; that there was no overcrowding; hot and cold water was furnished for bathing purposes; ample facilities for recreation were provided; concerts, theatricals, and libraries were established; the sanitary arrangements were "clean and neat" and in most cases "odorless"; the hospitals were clean and in good condition; there were few patients then, and the rate of mortality was very low; the improvements which he suggested were usually made; some of the camps were models; and he heard no serious complaints and, indeed, few of any kind. His reports are published in a white paper, Misc., No. 30 (1916), Cd. 8324. Cf. also an article entitled "Civilians Interned in England" by a London newspaper correspondent, New York Times Current History Magazine, November, 1916, pp. 349 ff.; also despatches in the New York Times of June 26 and July 27, 1917. A correspondent of the New York Times, in a despatch of July 8, 1917, from London, gave a flattering description of the conditions prevailing in the prison camps of England. He heard only two complaints: (1) No German newspapers were allowed, and (2) the prisoners were not permitted to sing German patriotic songs. Cf. also a booklet entitled German Prisoners in Great Britain.

This charge was made in November, 1914, by the association of physicians at Hamburg in an open letter addressed to the physicians of England.