pands it and renders it more exact. In effect, it permits an armistice to regulate not only the communications between the populations but also those [33] with them; at the same time it says that this shall only be "in the theater of war." In the absence of special clauses in the armistice these matters are necessarily governed by the ordinary rules of warfare, especially by those concerning occupation of hostile territory.

The subject of the violation of an armistice by one of the parties gave rise to a discussion in the meeting of May 30. Article 51 of the Brussels project confined itself on this subject to saying that a violation of an armistice by one of the parties gives the other the right to denounce it. At the suggestion of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, the subcommission admitted that the right to denounce an armistice would not always be sufficient, and that it was necessary to recognize in the belligerent the right, in cases of urgency, "of recommencing hostilities immediately." On the other hand, the subcommission thought that in order to justify a denouncement of an armistice and, with greater reason, to authorize an immediate resumption of hostilities, there must be a serious violation of the armistice; it is for this reason that the new Article 40 differs to that extent from the article accepted at Brussels.

Article 52, respecting violation of an armistice by individuals, was not changed and has become the new Article 41. It only provides for "the punishment of the offenders and, if necessary, compensation for the losses sustained."

SECTION III.- MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE

(Articles 42 to 56)

The above title is that of the first chapter (Articles 1 to 8) of the Declaration of Brussels. As early as the meeting of June 1, the subcommission decided to place the articles concerning contributions and requisitions (Brussels Articles 40 to 42) also in this chapter and to examine them at the same time. Finally it instructed the drafting committee also to place in this chapter the new text that had already been adopted for Articles 36 to 39 inclusive of the Declaration of Brussels, where they form the chapter entitled "Military authority over private individuals." Thus the present chapter has been lengthened considerably. Moreover, the debate on it has been arduous; but the patient courtesy of Mr. MARTENS, chairman of the subcommission, together with the good feeling of all its members, has resulted in the unanimous agreement that every one ardently hoped for.

The first article of this chapter (Article 42), defining occupation, is indentical with the first article of the Declaration of Brussels. It should be stated that it was adopted unanimously by the subcommission, as also were all or nearly all of the principal articles of this chapter.

Article 43 condenses into a single text Articles 2 and 3 of the Brussels Declaration. The new wording was proposed by Mr. BIHOURD, the Minister of France at The Hague and one of the delegates of his Government. The last words of Article 43, where it is said that the occupant shall restore or ensure order "while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country," really give all the guaranties that the old Article 3 could offer and do

not offend the scruples of which Mr. BEERNAERT spoke in his address, referred to at the beginning of this report, which had led him to propose at first that Article 3 be omitted.

The omission of Article 4 of the Brussels Declaration was unanimously voted for at the instance of Mr. BEERNAERT, vigorously supported by Mr. VAN KARNEBEEK. The first delegate of the Netherlands stated that he opposed any provision that might seem directly or indirectly to give the public officers of an invaded country any authority to place themselves at the service of the invader. It was not denied, however, that certain officers, particularly municipal officers, might sometimes best perform their duty, in a moral sense at least, towards their people if they remained at their posts in the presence of the invader.

The four following articles, Articles 44 to 47 inclusive, are the Brussels Articles 36 to 39 inclusive, with some very slight changes. They set forth the recognized essential principles which must serve the invader and the occupant as a general rule of conduct in his relations with the population. These principles safeguard the honor and lives of individuals and their private property, [34] whether individual or collective, as well as respect for religious convictions.

Besides, as Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF remarked without contradiction, these limitations could not be deemed to check the liberty of action of belligerents in certain extreme circumstances which may be likened to a kind of legitimate defense.

66

The new Article 48, like Article 5 of the Brussels Declaration, provides that the occupant shall collect the existing taxes, and in this case prescribes that he must defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound." It may be observed that the new article adopts a conditional form. This wording was proposed by the reporter with a view to obtaining the support of Mr. BEERNAERT and other members of the subcommission who had expressed the fears aroused in their minds by any wording apparently recognizing rights in an occupant as such.

The four next articles, 49 to 52 inclusive, deal with extraordinary contributions, with fines, and with requisitions, and take the place of Articles 40 to 42 inclusive of the Brussels Declaration. Quite a divergence of views on the subject of these articles was evidenced in the debate.

On motion of Mr. BOURGEOIS, seconded by Mr. BELDIMAN, the question was referred to the drafting committee with an instruction to set forth in a new text only the points on which an agreement seemed possible.

The committee, of which Mr. BOURGEOIS was chairman, made a thorough study of these questions with the active assistance of Messrs. BEERNAERT, VAN KARNEBEEK, and ODIER, and it ascertained that agreement certainly existed on three important points concerning the levying of contributions of any kind in hostile territory. These three points are the following:

1. Every order to collect contributions should emanate from a responsible military chief, and should be given, as far as possible, in writing.

2. For all collections, especially those of sums of money, it is necessary to take into account as far as possible the distribution and assessment of the existing taxes.

3. Every collection should be evidenced by a receipt.

The committee next discussed the question whether it should confine itself to giving expression to these three purely formal conditions and to determining to what extent they are applicable to the requisitions in kind or money and the fines required by the occupant. It came to the conclusion that, relying on the general considerations indicated at the beginning of this report, as being of a nature to dispose of the objections stated by Mr. BEERNAERT, it would be not only possible but also highly desirable to state certain principles on the lines of Articles 40 to 42 of the Brussels Declaration, that is to say, concerning the limitations to be placed on the actual power which the invader exercises against the legal authorities and which in its tendency weakens the principle of respect for private property. The rules to be laid down relate to three categories of acts:

a. Requisitions for payments in kind (money being excepted), and for personal services, or in other words, "requisitions in kind and services " (Article 51);

b. The levying and collecting of contributions of money beyond the existing taxes (Article 49);

c. The imposition and collection of what are improperly called "fines (Article 50).

a. As to requisitions in kind and services, it has been admitted that the occupant cannot demand them from communes or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation." This is the rule of necessity; but this necessity is that of maintaining the army of occupation. It is no longer the rather vague criterion of 'necessities of war" mentioned in Article 40 of the Brussels project under which, strictly, the country might be systematically

exhausted.

It has been fully agreed to retain the provision of Article 40 of the Brussels Declaration which requires that the requisitions and services shall be "in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in the operations of the war against their country."

It was necessary to recognize that one of the three formal conditions mentioned above, that of collection "following the local rules of distribution and assessment of taxes," although applicable in a certain degree to contributions in personal services, is evidently not applicable to requisitions in kind so called, that

is to say, the requisition of particular objects in the hands of their owners [35] either to make temporary use of them or for consumption. The committee therefore thought, and the subcommission agreed thereto, that some limitations should be stated here so that the requisitions and services demanded will be "in proportion to the resources of the country."

There remain two other formal conditions that were agreed upon, one respecting the order for the collection and the other respecting the receipt. These two conditions already appeared in Article 42 of the Brussels project, and the committee had little to do beyond reproducing them. In conformity with the Brussels text it has been agreed that the requisition orders must emanate only from the commander on the spot, but that in this case the requirement of a written order would be excessive. Military necessities are opposed to de

manding for ordinary daily requisitions a higher authority than that of the officer on the spot, and a written order would be superfluous in view of the obligation to give a receipt.

Lastly, the wording agreed upon in the matter of requisitions recommends the rule of payment therefor in money, although such payment is not made a hard-and-fast obligation. Such payments will ordinarily take place under the form of real purchases instead of requisitions. And it is to be noted that this will often be not only a method of strict humanity but also commonly one of shrewd policy, if only to deter the people from hiding their provisions and produce. Besides, the army of occupation will obtain in the same country the money necessary for payments on account of requisitions or purchases by means of contributions whose weight will be distributed over all, whilst requisitions without indemnity strike at random upon isolated individuals.

b. As to the money contributions that the occupant may wish to collect beyond the regular taxes, the subcommission at the instance of the drafting committee agreed upon the very interesting and valuable rule for occupied territory, that except in the special cases of fines, which are the subject of a separate article, these contributions can, like requisitions, be levied "for the needs of the army" alone. The only other legitimate motive for collecting the contributions would lie in the administrative needs of the occupied territory, and the population thereof evidently cannot make a just complaint on that score.

On the whole what is forbidden is levying contributions for the purpose of enriching oneself.

It is important to state that this formula is more stringent than that of Article 41 of the Brussels Declaration; and right here is a point that received the especial attention of those members of the subcommission who, being properly interested by the situation of their countries, showed themselves above all solicitous to restrain as far as possible by legal rules the absolute liberty of action that success in arms actually gives to an invader.

The three formal conditions indicated above (the order for collection, the collection, and the receipt) have unlimited application to these contributions, but it seemed best to insert them in a special article applicable to every collection of money.

c. As to fines, a separate article seemed necessary in order that it might be determined as exactly as possible in what cases it is proper to impose fines.

In the view of the committee the word fines itself is not quite apt because it lends itself to confusion in thought with penal law. Certain members of the committee have even urged that the use of the word "repression" be avoided.

According to the point of view at first taken by the subcommission, this article ought to deal only with what is given the special designation "fines" in the law of war, that is a particular form of extraordinary contribution consisting in the collection of sums of money by the occupant for the purpose of checking acts of hostility. On this subject the subcommission was unanimously of opinion that this means of restraint which strikes the mass of the population ought only to be applied as a consequence of reprehensible or hostile acts committed by it as a whole or at least permitted by it to be committed. Consequently, acts that are strictly those of individuals could never give rise to collective punishment by the collection of extraordinary contributions, and it

is necessary that in order to inflict a penalty on the whole community there must exist as a basis therefor at the very least a passive responsibility therefor on the part of the community. Having proceeded thus far upon this course, the drafting committee first, and then the subcommission, thought they could go still further and, without prejudging the question of reprisals, declare that this rule. is true, not only for fines, but for every penalty, whether pecuniary or not, that is sought to be inflicted upon the whole of a population.

Finally, the subcommission approved the special Article 52 proposed by the committee, concerning the three formal rules applicable to every collection whatever of sums of money by the occupant.

[36] It is on the strength of the foregoing considerations that the subcommission has adopted with only a few slight modifications in form Articles 49 to 52 of the text proposed to it by the drafting committee.

It is also proper to say that these provisions have been voted unanimously with the exception of the vote of the delegate of Switzerland on Articles 51 and 52. That delegate had proposed in behalf of his Government that the right to claim payment or reimbursement on the evidence of the receipts be expressly stipulated in these articles. The subcommission thought that such a stipulation would be out of place in the proposed Declaration as it relates rather to internal public law and will naturally be the subject of one of the clauses of the treaty of peace.

The next article, bearing the number 53, corresponds to Article 6 of the Brussels Declaration. It deals with seizure by the occupant of the personal property of the hostile State and, by extension, of all material serviceable for carrying on war and especially of railway plant.

The subcommission unanimously adopted the first paragraph of this article at once without making any change therein. Such was not the case with the second paragraph, which derogates, especially in the matter of railway plant, from the principle of respect for private property. Mr. BEERNAERT proposed to indicate that seizure of this material can only be in the nature of a sequestration, aside from the option of requisitioning it for the needs of the war. This proposal was discussed at length, with the result that this paragraph and its amendments were returned to the drafting committee. That committee expressed the opinion that if greater exactness were given to the wording of this provision, it would probably be impossible to reach an agreement, and that it therefore seemed best to preserve as far as possible the text of the Brussels draft. Nevertheless the draft was condensed into a single sentence for the sake of precision, and, on the proposal of the drafting committee, the subcommission also decided to omit an ambiguous clause which said that the means in question of carrying on war "cannot be left by the army of occupation at the disposal of the enemy." Moreover this clause seemed to contain an allusion to the idea of sequestration which the subcommission wished to avoid.

On the other hand, the drafting committee and later the subcommission accepted the principle of the amendment proposed by Mr. BILLE, the senior delegate of Denmark, concerning "shore ends of cables." It was therefore decided to say: "Land telegraphs including shore ends of cables." The author of the amendment further specified the shore ends of cables which are "established within the maritime territorial limits of the State."

As it was necessary to refrain from dealing here, even incidentally, with