one and our army generally supplied with rations for its need. No one, however, can foresee when an army will be operating in a country where supplies from home may be cut off and contributions necessary. It is inconceivable that any American Army commander would levy a contribution for the purpose of enriching his own country or paying the general expenses of the war. In an occupation of Mexico there would be no contributions except in the rare case that taxes could not be collected for the expenses of the administration of the territory, or in case of a rich town which is unable to pay in kind. For example, if one thousand beef cattle were needed from a district and a rich town had none, it would be better to levy a contribution on the town and purchase the cattle than to requisition the cattle from the poorer farmers. It distributes the losses on those best able to pay. If, however, we are paying cash for all requisitioned articles, it makes little difference. The subject of contribution is not important to the American officer and the best rule for him is to avoid them. In the invasion of Mexico in 1847 General Scott did not hesitate to levy contributions. In one order, G. O. 267 of September 17, 1847, he says:

"This splendid capital-its churches and religious worships, its convents and monasteries; its inhabitants and property are, moreover placed under the special safeguard of the faith and honor of the American Army.

"In consideration of the foregoing protection a contribution of $150,000 is imposed on this capital, to be paid in four weekly instalments of thirty-seven thousand five hundred dollars ($37,500) each, beginning on Monday next, the 20th instant, and terminating on Monday the 11th of October.

"The Ayuntemiento, or corporate authority of the city, is especially charged with the collection and payment of the several instalments.

"Of the whole contribution to be paid over to this army, twenty thousand dollars shall be appropriated to the purchase of extra comforts for the wounded and sick in hospital; ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) to the purchase of blankets and shoes for gratuitous distribution

among the rank and file of the army, and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) reserved for other necessary military purposes."

In addition to this, on December 31, 1847, he levied a contribution on the various states of Mexico of over $2,000,000 "to support in part the military occupation of the Republic of Mexico by the Army of the United States."

It is hardly probable that similar action would be approved by the administration today.

"No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible." (H. R. 50.)

Collective punishment generally takes the form of a pecuniary levy or fine, but the article refers to any kind of collective punishment. Collective punishment frequently was applied by the Germans in 1870-71. The town of Chatillon sur Marne was fined a million francs because a bridge was burned and Etampes paid 40,000 francs for a cut telegraph wire. The town of Dijon was required to deposit 300,000 francs as security for the good behavior of the people. This was afterwards refunded. I know of no case of collective punishment in Vera Cruz. There was one in Germany. In the town of Kell on three nights in succession American soldiers had had rocks thrown at them. It was impossible to discover the culprits. All inhabitants were ordered to be in their houses by 7:00 PM, and to remain there until daylight next morning. After a period of two weeks there was no further trouble in this town.

Soon after the American troops reached Treves a French liaison officer stopped in the town. He dismissed his chauffeur for an hour and left his automobile standing in the street for an hour. A small suit case was stolen. He applied to the Department

of Civil Affairs to have a collective fine of 300 francs laid on the town to cover his loss. The reply was that it was perfectly proper to inflict a collective fine for a damaged road, or cut telephone or telegraph wires, but it was hardly proper in the case of larceny, especially when the owner of the stolen articles had been guilty of contributory negligence.

"Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.

"Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

"Contributions in kind shall be, as far as possible, paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given, and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible." (H. R. 52.)

A requisition differs from a contribution in that it may be demanded by a commander in the locality, and it should not be used except for the needs of the army of occupation. The distinction is a little theoretical and the last paragraph of Article 51 leads one to believe that the distinction was not quite clear to the learned authors.

For the use of the army anything under the sun may be requisitioned. In any military government certain trained officers of judgment and discretion must be detailed to pass upon requisitions. Our experience in Germany proved that this was necessary to prevent abuses. I recall one very active and energetic young officer who wanted to requisition for his company one piano, three guitars, and five mandolins on the ground that they would add to the contentment of his organization.

All articles requisitioned should be paid for in cash or a receipt given and payment made as soon

as possible. This is not based on any theoretical or humanitarian grounds, but for the reason that, if an army pays for its supplies, the supplies will be forthcoming when it needs them.

Requisitions for supplies should preferably be made upon the local authorities, the burgomasters, alcaldes or mayors, rather than upon individuals. If these officers honestly assist, the burden will be more evenly distributed.

The services, not only of laborers but of the thousand and one kinds of mechanics and artisans needed in a modern army, may be requisitioned. Services should always be paid for. When this is not possible, rations must be issued to those whose services are requisitioned. Very often it will be found that a combination of wages and rations will make the requisitioning of services unnecessary.

"An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realisable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.

"All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and generally, all kinds of ammunition of war may be seized even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made." (H. R. 53.)

"Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored, and compensation fixed when peace is made." (H. R. 54.)

"The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." (H. R. 55.)

"The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity, and education, the arts and

sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

"All seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings." (H. R. 56.)

These paragraphs are clear they are in accord with G. O. 100 prepared by Francis Liebet during the Civil War, and with the enlightened opinion of the civilized world. If followed in their broad spirit, no military government will commit any grave error, nor is it believed that they will in any way hamper the efficient working of any military government.

Conclusions

There has been an attempt, perhaps an unconscious one, on the part of certain army lawyers to cloud and befuddle this subject of military government. They often speak of it as some mysterious thing beyond the pen of the ordinary officer. It reminds one of the way certain artillerists in former years attempted to make mysterious their profession, hoping thereby to exalt it into a sacred profession. There is nothing mysterious about military government; it is not even in the main a legal problem, but purely a military and an administrative one. Look at our ablest military governors, General Wood, General Davis, General McArthur, General Funston, General Plummer, General Pershing, not a lawyer among them but each an executive of rare ability. In searching for a good officer to make a military governor or chief of staff for civil affairs do not select a man who travels with a large legal library. He will never get action. Select rather, one who has studied General Wood's work in Cuba, Lord Cromer in Egypt, Cecil Rhodes in South Africa and our own Porto Rican-Philippine experience. No officer should be selected for this office because