"Since the railroads and the post office are already regulated by the normal time of central Europe, this time will be enforced in Brussels from the 8th of November, 1914. On that day all clocks will be advanced about 56 minutes."

This order could not be enforced and gave the Belgians some good opportunities for ridiculing the Germans. The Belgians would look at the clock as a German was passing and one would say, "What is the hour?" If it were seven o'clock and the clock plainly so indicated, the second Belgian would say, "It is six o'clock." This order was also the basis of a celebrated Brussels joke: "The Kaiser says 'Advance on Paris,' but they don't advance: then 'advance on Calais', but they don't advance. Then 'advance on Cracow', but they don't advance. Then 'advance the Brussels clocks one hour!" "

Impressment of Guides

"A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by him to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent or about the means of defense." (H. R. 44.)

This article was not ratified by Germany, Austria, Japan, Montenegro and Russia. The only question of importance involved in this article is, may guides be impressed? In any war between civilized nations, it becomes very much an academic question owing to the accurate knowledge of such countries and the excellent detailed maps in general use.

In case of a war between the United States and Mexico, however, it is of vital importance to us. General Order No. 100, which has been our Bible in such matters ever since the Civil War, justifies the impressement of guides and the military commander will always interpret Article XLIV as subordinate to military necessity.

"It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants to swear allegiance to the hostile power." (H. R. XLV.)

To compel the inhabitants of an occupied territory to take an oath of allegiance is not only in violation of the laws of war, but it is of doubtful utility. The power to punish offenses against the military government is as complete and ample without the oath as with it, and the compelling of inhabitants to take such oath always arouses indiganation and hatred, with no compensating advantages.

In the occupation of Cuba, Germany and of Vera Cruz, no oath was required of the inhabitants. The British and Boers both required oaths of neutrality from the inhabitants, but the use of such oaths is not apparent, and is condemned by the British writers generally.

In an occupation of Mexico no oath should be required of the inhabitants, but as a civil government is gradually established, the Mexicans appointed or elected to office should be required to take an oath to properly perform their duties under such government. This oath should be administered with the pomp and ceremony so dear to Latin-Americans. When a constabulary or force of rurales is organized all members of it should take such oath, and a suitable ceremony should attend this entry into the service.

"Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

"Private property cannot be confiscated." (H. R. 46.) "Pillage is formally forbidden." (H. R. 47.)

These two articles need little comment and are generally accepted. While it is true that in all wars there is a certain amount of pillaging, it is equally true that all officers condemn it, if not on moral ground, at least because of its ill effects on discipline. Most pillaging occurs during, or immediately after a

battle or a siege when the blood is up.. In an occupied territory it is much easier to stop.

Confiscation is the forfeitures of private property to public use, while pillage is the taking of private property by individuals—it is larceny or robbery, as the case may be. The best way to stop pillage in an occupied country is to educate the soldier to a proper pride in his country, his regiment and his company.

"If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate government was so bound." (H. R. 48.)

In a military government of an occupied territory sovereignty has not passed to the conqueror and it is only to this form of government that the article applies. The article is qualified by the words “as far as possible" and is to be regarded as nothing more than a general guide. It is frequently impossible to collect taxes according to the old rules.

When the Germans invaded France in 1871, they replaced all indirect taxes by direct taxes with the approval of the French, the latter realizing that it is impossible for an invader to collect stamp duties or other taxes of a complicated nature without the aid of a competent personnel familiar with the work. The entire object of this article being to avoid excessive taxation, no great fault could be found when changes not involving abuses were made.

In an invasion of Mexico it would be quite likely that all officials would flee, or at least refuse to serve. Further, the Mexican system of taxation can hardly be regarded as a model, and any changes would be for the better. In the Vera Cruz expedition in 1914, the

army found that taxes were being collected for the Republic of Mexico, for the State of Vera Cruz, and for the city of Vera Cruz. The revenues of the city were barely sufficient to pay for the administration of the city, while there were few expenses properly chargeable to the State of Vera Cruz or the Republic of Mexico. These balances constantly grew, it not being the policy of the United States to pay the expenses of occupations out of money so collected..

The customs import duties were changed in one particular only. The duty on foodstuffs consumed locally was waived. This was necessary to alleviate distress among the inhabitants and Mexican refugees from the interior, many hundreds of whom flocked to Vera Cruz for protection. This was done with the approval of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State.

In the case of an enlightened country taking a mandate under the League of Nations for Turkey and Armenia, it is inconceivable that this paragraph should apply. No enlightened nation would consent to enforce the taxation laws of a country like Turkey. In case the United States should declare war on Mexico with the avowed object of leading that misgoverend country into the paths of justice and establishing a stable government as was done in the case of Cuba, it is again inconceivable that the paragraph should apply. In this case sovereignty would not pass to the United States, but every exercise and prerogative of sovereignty would pass until such time as, under the tutelage of this country, our backward neighbor had learned to walk alone.

On the other hand, if, in a war with Great Britain, the United States should occupy the province of Ontario it is quite likely that there would be no necessity for changing the tax laws, especially if the offi

cials concerned with the collections of taxes remained at their posts and continued to function.

The paragraph is of importance only to those officers charged with formulating the policy of the military government. In an invasion of Mexico the military governors of the various States of Mexico should not change the tax laws without the approval of the commander-in-chief. Such changes as are made should be made in a uniform manner throughout the republic, and only after a thorough study of the resources, customs, and habits of the Mexican people.

"If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above Article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question." (H. R. 49.)

"No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commanderin-chief.

"The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force.

"For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors." (H. R. 51.)

These articles are sound and should be followed in so far as they prescribe that contributions shall be levied only by authority of the commander-inchief, that a receipt shall be given and that the contributions shall only be for the needs of the army or the administration of the territory in question. When they prescribe that the collection of the contributions shall be effected in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force, they show the work of the theorist rather than of the practical administrator. It will generally be impracticable, if not impossible, to collect a contribution by the slow means of taxation. So far as the United States is concerned our policy will always be a liberal