1 German policy in respect to fines and other collective penalties will be considered in another paper.

2 Droit International Codifié (French trans, by Lardy), sec. 654.

3 Spaight, War Rights on Land, p. 393.

4 Hozier, Seven Weeks War, p. 80.

5 Spaight, p. 122; Bonfils, Droit Int. Public, sec. 1219; Calvo, Droit Int. Pub., sec. 2236; Mérignhac, Lois et Coutumes, sec. 106; Nys, Droit Int., Vol. III, p. 429; Despagnet, Droit Int. Pub., sec. 589; Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 643 bis; Latifi, Effects of War on Property, p. 34; Andler, Les usages de la Guerre et la Doctrine de l’Etat-Major Allemand p. 25.

6 Bonfils, sec. 1226, n. 3; Calvo, Vol. IV, p. 266; Latifi, p. 34; Rouard de Card, Droit Int., La Guerre cont. et la propriété, p. 178; and Depambour, Effets de l’occupation en Temps de Guerre, p. 77.

7 Bonfils, sec. 1222.

8 Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. V, p. 108.

9 Op. cit., Vol. IV, sec. 2254.

10 Despagnet, Droit Int. Public, sec. 588. See also Bonfils, sec. 1226, n. 3; Pont, Les Réquisitions militaires, p. 94; Kluber, p. 359; and Rouard de Card, p. 180. Excellent reviews of the law and practice in respect to requisitions and contributions may be found in two articles by Ernest Nys in the Revue de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comparée, Vol. 38 (1906), pp. 274 ff. and 406 ff.; and in an article by C. N. Gregory in the Columbia Law Review for March, 1915, pp. 1-21; see also Bordwell, Law of War, see index; Halleck, Int. Law, Vol. II, see index; Calvo, Droit Int., Vol. IV, secs. 2235 ff..; Spaight, pp. 395 ff.; Thomas, Requisitions militaires.

11 Compare Latin, Effects of War on Private Property, p. 34, and Bluntschli, op. cit., sec. 654.

12 Op. cit., sec. 654.

13 Edition of Heffter, p. 30, n. 4.

14 Capture in War (English trans, by Robertson), Ch. IV.

15 See for example two articles by Loening entitled L’Administration du Gouverneur-Général de l’Alsace durant la Guerre de 1870-71 in the Revue de Droit Int., 1872-73 (Vols. IV-V), pp. 692 ff. and 69 ff. A German publication entitled Zum Gebrauch im Feindsland, published at Berlin in 1906, contains a variety of formularies for the use of military commanders in levying contributions and imposing fines.

16 Morgan, The War Book of the German General Staff, pp. 177-178.

17 Ibid., p. 177.

18 London Times, Sept. 8, 1914. An Amsterdam dispatch of Nov. 2, 1914, stated that the Brussels “war indemnity” had been fixed at 45,000,000 francs. It is stated in the Fifth Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry that the contribution levied on Louvain was reduced to 30,000 francs. Massart (Belgians under the German Eagle, p. 156) states that the contribution levied on the city of Liège was 20,000,000 francs and that on Brussels was 45,000,000. According to Massart the levy of 450,000,000 on the province of Brabant was so utterly exorbitant” that the Germans were induced to cancel it. It is not unlikely that the reports in the London Times are exaggerated in some instances.

19 The Martyrdom of Belgium: Testimony of an Eye Witness, p. 7. Massart, op. cit., p. 156, says the contribution imposed on Antwerp was 40,000,000 francs. Some reports place the amount as high as 500,000,000.

20 Text in Arrêtés et Proclamations de Guerre Allemandes (Allen and Unwin, London, 1915), p. 49; also in Huberich and Speyer, German Legislation in Belgium, 2nd ser., p. 11; and Clunet, 1915, p. 48.

21 Arrêtés et Proclamations, pp. 73-74.

21a In November, 1916,’ a general levy of 10,000,000 francs per month in addition to the above 40,000,000 monthly imposition was made by the German authorities. The purpose alleged was “to pay the cost of the maintenance of the German army of occupation and the German administration of the occupied territory."

22 At the Second Hague Conference an effort was made to substitute for the vague term “needs of the army” a more precise one (e.g., “absolute necessity"), but the proposal was rejected through fear of compromising the success of the convention. Several delegates, notably Lansberge, Odier, and Karnebeek, advocated the abolition of contributions, but this proposal was defeated. Actes et Documents, III, p. 134.

23 Op. cit., sec. 654.

24 Op. cit., p. 383.

25 Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. V, p. 107.

26 Among those who held this view were Vattel, Bk. Ill, Ch. 19; Martens, Precis, Vol. II, sec. 280; Kluber, sec."251. See Rouard de Card, p. 174.

27 For example, by Lueder in Holtzendorff’s Handbuch, p. 503; Wehberg, Capture in War, p. 40; Meurer, Die Haager Friedenskonferenz, Vol. II, p. 286; and Die völkerrechtliche Stellung der vom Feind besetzten Gebiete (1915), p. 70; Strupp, Das Internationale Landkriegsrecht, p. 107; and Zorn, Das Kriegsrecht zu Land, pp. 307-308.

28 Sec. 1220. See also Verger’s Notes on Martens’ Précis, 249-254.

29 Op. cit., sec. 654.

30 Capture in War, p. 42. Cf. also Strupp, op. cit., p. 107.

31 Droit Int. Pub., Vol. IV, sec. 2231.

32 Compare Pont, Les Réquisitions militaires, p. 98.

33 Op. cit., p. 41. Compare also Bentwich, War and the Private Citizen, p. 62, Verger’s Criticism of Martens’ View, Précis, Vol. II, sec. 279, and Nys in the Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. 38, p. 429.

34 Holtzendorffs Handbueh des Völkerrechts, Vol. IV, p. 503.

35 See his article cited above in the Revue de Droit Int., Vol. V.

36 Morgan, The War Book of the German General Staff, p. 178.

37 Op. cit., secs. 1222-1223. Mérignhac (sec. 166) appears to hold a similar view.

38 Manuel de Lois de la Guerre Continentale, 4th ed., 1913, Art. 107.

39 Sarolea in his “How Belgium Saved Europe,” p. 140, referring to this practice by the Germans in 1914-15, mentions the imposition of a contribution of 1,000,000 francs on Baron Lambert de Rothschild, and a contribution of 30,000,000 francs on M. Solvay, the well-known Belgian manufacturer. This charge seems to be admitted by Meurer, Die völker-rechtliche Stellung der vom Feind besetzten Gebiete (1915), p. 71, who remarks that “in practice, contributions have heretofore been laid on cities and districts, but according to newspaper accounts heavy contributions have been laid on an individual firm by the Germans in Belgium."

40 Manuel de Lois de la Guerre Continentale (1913), Art. 108.

41 Text in Arrêtés et Proclamations de Guerre Allemandes, p. 79; also in Huberich and Speyer, German Legislation in Belgium, 2nd ser., p. 41. For a Belgian view of the harshness of this measure, see Massart, Belgians under the German Eagle, p. 299.

42 Texts of these orders may be found in Huberieh and Speyer, German Legislation for the Occupied Territories of Belgium, 1st ser., pp. 27, 28, 96; 2nd ser., pp. 39, 40, 52, 53, 111.

43 Ibid., 1st ser., p. 21.

44 Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry, p. 25; Sarolea, How Belgium Saved Europe, p. 140; Phillipson, International Law and the Great War, p. 236; Massart, op. cit., pp. 132, ff; Grondys, The Germans in Belgium, p. 29; and Damplerre, L’Allemagne et le Droit des Gens, pp, 147 ff.

45 The charge of pillage is confirmed in some instances by testimony found in the diaries of captured or dead German soldiers. See Bédier, German Atrocities from German Evidence, pp. 21-23, for examples of diaries containing such testimony. See, also, Eric Fisher Wood, Note Book of an Attache, p. 189; Owen Johnson, The Spirit of France, p. 53. Appendix B of the Bryce Report; and Dampierre, op. cit., pp. 154 ff.

46 Information concerning the German policy of requisitions in Poland and other territories occupied by the German armies is too indefinite to justify an attempt to describe it here. Sweeping charges have, of course, been made that Poland in particular was the object of a wholesale system of spoliation under the guise of requisitions. Vehicles, farm machinery, grain, potatoes, and other supplies in large quantities are alleged to have been taken not only for the use of the military forces but for transportation to Germany. A dark picture of the situation may be found in the London Times of November 25, 1915; see also the New York Times of the same date. The extensive system of requisitions in Poland, and especially the carrying away of supplies to Germany, caused the British Government to refuse to permit the sending of food for the relief of the Polish population; this on the ground that it would involve the rendering of assistance to the Germans. The diplomatic correspondence relating to the matter may be found in a British White Paper entitled “Correspondence Respecting the Relief of Allied Territories in the Occupation of the Enemy.” Misc. No. 32, 1916, Cd. 8348.

47 Davignon, Belgium and Germany, p. 123; also 13th Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry.

48 Specimen forms of requisition orders issued may be found in Davignon, Belgium and Germany.

49 Report on the Violations of the Laws of Nations (English trans.), p. xvi. Some German writers still maintain, or did recently, that requisition of supplies or services without payment is lawful. See Leuder in Holtzendorff, Vol. IV, p. 502, and Loening, in the Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. IV, p. 645. It is the duty of the state, says Loening, from which the supplies are taken to indemnify the owners. It is, he says, wholly a question of municipal not of international law. In case the state is victorious, it will exact an indemnity from its adversary sufficient in amount to cover the value of the supplies taken. But Bluntschli (sec. 655) and practically all English and French writers adopt the contrary view. Wehberg (op. cit., p. 47) expresses the opinion that Art. 52 of the Hague Convention respecting payment as soon as possible is of no value because the requisitioning belligerent will never have the means to pay. Usually the defeated belligerent, he says, will have to bear the cost. Cf. Zorn, op. cit., p. 314.

Regarding the rule that requisitions shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, Moltke in his well known letter to Bluntschli of Dec. 11,1880, observed that “the soldier who endures suffering, privation, fatigue, and danger cannot be content to take only in proportion to the resources of the country. It is necessary for him to take all that is necessary to his subsistence.” This was also the view of Von Clausewitz, Von Kriege, Vol. II. p. 85, who says “the law of requisitions has no limits except the exhaustion, impoverishment and destruction of the country “of Von Hartmann, Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. XIII, pp. 450, 458, who adopts essentially the same view; and it is the view laid down in the Kriegabrauch im Landkriege (Morgan’s trans., pp. 175-176). The right of requisition without payment, it says, exists as much as ever, and will certainly be claimed in the future by armies in the field, and considering the size of modern armies, must be claimed. As to the rule that requisitions must be in proportion to the resources of the country, it will never be observed in practice, we are told, for the needs of the army must determine the amount. But Strupp, op. cit., p. 111, condemns this view. The French Manuel (Art. 103) adopts the rule of the Hague Convention. Requisitions, it declares, can only be made for the indispensable needs of the army. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and this rule the French armies will observe in the enemy’s country.

50 Evidence and Documents on Alleged German Atrocities, Appendix, p. 288. See, also, the 11th Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry.

51 Chambry, The Truth about Louvain, p. 19. On August 4, 1914, the Commander of the Army of the Meuse, in an address to the Belgian people, promised that the Germans would pay in gold for the supplies (vivres) which they found it necessary to take and that “our soldiers will show themselves to be the better friends of a people for whom we feel the highest esteem and the greatest sympathy.” Arrêtés et Procs. de Guerre Allemandes, p. 3.

52 Text in Arrêtés et Procs., p. 14.

53 Arrêtés et Proclamations, p. 77.

54 Thus at Ostend the German soldiers, it is alleged, requisitioned all the food and drink, leaving the inhabitants without the necessary means of subsistence, in consequence of which they would have been reduced to starvation had not outside relief been provided. London Times, Nov. 24, 1914.

55 13th Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry.

56 Ibid.

57 See the text of specimen notices of this character, in the Belgian Report on the Violations of the Law of Nations, p. 12, and in Davignon, Belgium and Germany, p. 119. They are alleged to have been placarded at Lessines, October 5, 1914; at Binche, October 9th; at Lens, October 13th; at Chievres, October 16th; at Gembleux, October 27th; at Tulliers, November 9th; and at Nivelles, November 27, 1914.

Mr. Geo. B. McClellan, who traveled through Belgium in 1915 and who defends the Germans against many of the acts with which they have been charged, states that there was “apparently no lack of cattle, sheep, and poultry” in the country, popuand that “if the Germans have helped themselves to cattle, as has been charged, they have left a great number untouched.” The Heel of War, p. 57.

58 The Deutsche Tages Zeitung of February 2, 1915, contained an announcement of an offer for sale to the highest bidders of 60 head of horses “directly imported from Belgium.” The Kölnische Zeitung of October 13, 1914, contained a notice of a “Sale of Belgian horses and mares, Booty of war” (260 horses and 54 mares), “on behalf of the Chamber of Agriculture, with the assistance of the Central Horse Rearing Society of the Rhine."

59 Preface to the Belgian Report on Violations of the Laws of Nations in Belgium, p. xv. It appears that the German authorities entered into a contract with a private firm at Cologne by which the latter undertook to forward by the quickest route to a German factory machinery and tools seized in Belgium and France and to return the same at the close of the war. Davignon, Belgium and Germany, p. 121. Mr. A. B. Farquhar, a well known manufacturer, who, as a member of the American Industrial Commission, traveled through France and Belgium in 1916, reported that the Germans had carried away from the occupied portions of those countries, “all the machinery and everything that would be valuable in the reorganization of factories.” New York Times, Nov. 16, 1916.

60 Ibid., Belgian Report, p. 18; see also Davignon, p. 121; and Massart, pp. 158 ff.

61 Paragraph 2 of Article 53 reads as follows: “All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news or for the transport of persons or goods, apart from cases governed by maritime law, depots of arms, and generally, all kinds of war material, may be seized, even though belonging to private persons, but they must be restored and compensation for them arranged for at the peace."

The authority to requisition, here conferred, is clearly limited to “war materials “and is conditioned upon the obligation to restore the same at the end of the war and to indemnify the owners for their use. It appears, however, to have been the intention of the German authorities to restore at the end of the war the machinery thus seized.

62 “Enormous quantities” of raw materials, cotton, wools, nickel, jute, etc., art alleged to have been removed to Germany for use in German industries. They were, of course, not needed by the army of occupation. Davignon, pp. 113, 116, and Massart, p. 159. Dean Howard McLenahan of Princeton University, who traveled through Belgium and made a special study of conditions there, thus describes in an article in the New York Sun the German requisition policy:

“When the Germans had completed their occupation of Belgium, they apparently intended to bring about as far as possible the restoration of normal industrial conditions. There was published in the papers of Cologne a statement to this effect from official sources. Immediately the Labor party denounced this design and threatened political retribution if the attempt were made. Subsequently such a restoration of industry was made impossible by the removal to Germany of the available supplies of raw materials, such as leather, wood, silk, cotton, brass, etc.

“Apparently all idea of such a restoration of industry was then given up, for some time about Jan. 1 a contract was signed between the German officials and a wrecking firm in Cologne for the removal to Germany of all the machine tools, lathes, planers, milling machines, drill presses, etc., in Belgium. This work of removal was actually begun and by Feb. 1 some of the factories of Antwerp had been stripped of their equipment. I do not know whether this practice was continued after that time or not.

“The contention that if the Belgians would they could start up their factories and run them in the normal way is grotesquely absurd on its face. There is little if any raw material in the country, for the Germans have taken away whatever there was at the outbreak of war. There is no opportunity to renew the stock because of the highly successful British blockade. The Germans control the railroads, telegraph and telephone systems and the postal service and make any communication of any sort exceedingly difficult. And the Germans place heavy restrictions upon the resumption of work at the factories which are in actual part time operation."

63 The text of this memorandum is printed in the London Times (Weekly ed.), February 25, 1916, p. 147.

64 The main railway lines, which in Belgium are owned and operated by the state, were taken over and operated by the German military administration, mainly for military purposes.

65 The Act of the Brussels Congress of 1874 had expressly enumerated among the “appliances” referred to in Art. 53 of the Hague Convention, “railway plant, land telegraphs, steamers and other ships.” The Hague Conference, however, deemed it wise not to enumerate specifically the objects the seizure of which it intended to authorize. But there can be no doubt that railway lines came within the scope of the paragraph quoted.

66 “The rules of usufruct,” says Holland, Law of War on Land (§ 115), “may be shortly stated to be that the property subject to the right must be so used that its substance sustains no injury.” The authorities who have considered the rights of belligerents over railroads in occupied territory, so far as I am aware, have not pronounced an opinion on the question of their right to tear up the tracks and take the rails out of the country for use elsewhere. They are all in agreement, however, in holding that a belligerent has no lawful right to damage or destroy a railway line further than to cut it in order to prevent the enemy from drawing supplies over it or from maintaining communications. They all seem to be agreed, likewise, that the occupying belligerent is bound to restore the road at the end of the war in the same condition in which he found it. This rule was approved by the Institute of International Law in 1883.

See on this point the views of Stein, a professor in the University of Vienna, in an article entitled Le Droit International des Chemins ale Fer en Cos de Guerre, Ren. de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. XVII, especially p. 350; of Moynier, ibid., Vol. XX, p. 365; of Buzzati, Les Chemins de Fer en Temps de Guerre, ibid., Vol. XX, p. 388; and Nowacki, Die Eisenbahnen im Kriege (1906), p. 31. Stein, whose views are attacked by Moynier and Buzzati, holds that a belligerent may destroy the tracks in certain cases where military necessity requires it, but even he does not admit that they may be taken up and transported by a belligerent to a distant country for use in the construction of new lines. The Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege allows a belligerent the right only to use the railways of an enemy state and these, it says, must be returned at the end of the war. Morgan, War Book of the German General Staff, p. 168.

67 Le Telegrafe, March 22, 1915; 13th Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry.

68 See the case of the 15,000 oaks cut by the Germans in the French state forests, the unperformed contracts for the sale of which the French Government refused to enforce after the return of peace. See Cobbett’s Leading Cases and Opinions on International Law, Vol. I, p. 226. See, also, Snow’s Cases, p. 377; Bordwell, Law of War, pp. 96, 329; Spaight, War Rights on Land, p. 367; Latifi, Effects of War on Property, p. 19; and Hershey, Essentials of International Public Law, p. 416, n. 14.

69 International Law, Pt. II, p. 106.

70 Morgan, The War Book of the German General Staff, p. 169.

71 The Case of Belgium, pp. 16-17; also the 17th Report of the Belgian Commission of Inquiry. Massart, p. 133, charges that 43,000 francs were seized from the Peoples’ Bank at Auvelois.

72 Martyrdom of Belgium, p. 7.

73 Fifth Belgian Report.

74 Dispatches in the New York Times and the London Times.

75 The public funds referred to in Article 53, it says, “must be entirely distinguished from municipal funds, which are regarded as private property.” Morgan, p. 169.

76 When the Prussians entered Rheims on Sept. 4, 1870, they desired to seize the funds of the local branch of the Bangue Nationale de France, but being informed that the bank was a private institution, Crown Prince Frederick decided that they should not be molested so long as they “were not used for the maintenance of the French army.” Schiemann, Rechtslage der offentlichen Banken im Kriegsfälle (Griefswald, 1902), p. 76.

77 See Holland, §113; and Spaight, p. 411.

78 Sutherland Edwards, The Germans in France, p. 295, quoted by Spaight pp. 150-151; Nys, Réquisitions et Contributions, Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. 38, p. 415

When in January, 1871, a German commander in the Department of the Meurthe requisitioned the services of 500 French laborers and they refused to comply with his demand, he ordered all public works in the department to be closed and prohibited all work in factories, on roads, streets, railway lines, and other public utilities. Likewise all private ateliers employing more than 10 laborers and every private factory were ordered to be closed. All contractors on public works and all owners of factories ordered to be closed were forbidden to pay their employees. Violation of the order was punishable by a fine of from 10,000 to 50,000 francs for each day and for each payment. The order was to remain in force until 350 laborers responded to the call of the commander. See text of the order in the Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. I l l (1871), p. 315. At Nancy on Jan. 23, 1871, at 4 P.M., the same military commander addressed a communication to the mayor demanding the services of 500 laborers and warning him that if they failed to appear by noon of the following day the overseers and a certain number of laborers would be seized and shot. Text, ibid., p. 315.

79 Violations of the Laws of Nations in Belgium, pp. 53-55. Professor Leon van der Essen, of the University of Louvain, publishes a letter from one of his colleagues in which the latter states that he, with other inhabitants of Louvain, were compelled to dig trenches for the Germans, and that some of them indeed were required to dig their own graves, after which they were shot. See his brochure entitled, “A Statement about the Destruction of Louvain,” pp. 17-18. The French Official Commission of Inquiry (p. 27) published the affidavit of a witness that 100 inhabitants of Creil and Noget were compelled to cut down a field of grain which hindered the firing of the enemy and to dig trenches intended to shelter the Germans.

80 Letter to the Bishops of Germany and Austria-Hungary published in a brochure entitled “Appeal to Truth.” Massart, Belgians under the German Eagle, p. 113, cites various instances in which Belgians were compelled to dig trenches for the Germans, prepare ground for the landing of aeroplanes, build huts, employ their owjn horses and wagons in the hauling of munitions and the like. A Dutch Newspaper Correspondent, writing in Les Nauvelles of Maastricht in December 1916, stated that a thousand Belgians were at that time being compelled to perform military work on the Somme front and that four thousand others were about to be sent there. New York Times, Dec. 21, 1916.

81 Report of the Belgian Minister of Railways, Posts, Telegraphs, and Marine regarding the affair at Luttre; French edition of the Belgian Report on Violations of the Laws of Nations in Belgium, pp. 77, 81-84.

82 Texts in “Appeal to Truth,” an address of Cardinal Mercier and the Bishops of Belgium to the Bishops of Germany and Austria-Hungary, p. 29.

83 18th Belgian Report (French ed.), p. 76.

84 German, French, and Flemish texts in the Belgian official Report (French ed.), p. 80.

85 In July, 1916, a Canadian prisoner named Simons, who had been transferred to an internment camp in Switzerland, charged that a number of Canadian prisoners had been sentenced to jail for a year on account of their refusal to work in the German munitions factories. New York Times, July 15,1916. The attempt of the Germans to compel Belgian railway employees to work is detailed in Massart, pp. 300 ff.

See, also, a communication of Sir Edward Grey to the ministers of the Netherlands, Spain and the United States protesting against the German policy of compelling Belgians to work in munitions factories. New York Times, July 4, 1916.

86 Reports on the Violations of the Laws of Nations in Belgium, pp. 78-79.

87 Boston Transcript, Nov. 13, 1915, quoting from the Echo Beige, a newspaper which Von Biasing had attempted to suppress but without success.

88 See the Official Belgian Report (English ed.), p. 53.

89 Westlake, International Law, Pt. II, p. 101; Pillet, p. 199.

90 Laws of War on Land, p. 53.

91 Spaight, p. 369; Westlake, II, p. 101-102; Hershey, p. 411; Higgins, p. 269; Lawrence, p. 418.

It will be recalled that the Austro-Hungarian delegate proposed to add the words “as combatants” after the words “take part” in Article 23h, with a view to prohibiting compulsory service only in respect to combatant operations. The French, Belgian and Swiss delegates opposed the amendment on the ground that it would have the effect of legalizing the taking of guides from the civil population. The Austro-Hungarian and Russian delegates urged it for this very reason, because, they said, the taking of local guides would often be indispensable to a belligerent in mountainous countries where the roads were unknown to them. General den Beer Poortugael, and other delegates, objected on the ground that the forced taking of guides was immoral. The rejection of the Austro-Hungarian proposal would seem to indicate, therefore, that the Conference intended that the articles as finally adopted should not allow the forced taking of guides. The whole matter is discussed by Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences, pp. 267-269. Oppenheim (II, p. 121), however, seems to hold that it is still permissible to exact the services of guides. See, also, Calvo, Vol. IV, sec. 2120.

92 Morgan, The War Book of the German General Staff, p. 153. See the criticism of this doctrine by Mérignhac, Les Lois de la Guerre Continentale suivant le Grand Etat-Major Allemand, p. 33.

93 War Rights on Land, p. 370.

94 Op. cit., sec. 1149.

95 Lois Actuelles, p. 144. Compare also Mérignhac, op. cit., p. 33.

96 For example Loening, L’Administration de l’Alsace-Lorraine, Rev. deDroit, Int., Vol. IV, p. 649; Strupp, Das Internationale Landkriegsrecht, p. 71; Huber, Jahrbuch des öff. Rechts, 1908, II, 570; Meurer, Die Haager Friedenskonferenz, p. 246; Zorn, Kriegsrecht zu Lande, p. 279.

97 Droit Int. Pub., secs. 1147-8 and 1150. Bonfils, however, strongly condemns the act of Count Renard, German prefect at Nancy, who in 1871 threatened to shoot a number of laborers in case his demand for 500 workmen to reconstruct a bridge was not complied with. But the Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege attempts to justify the threat on the ground that it accomplished the purpose desired without it being necessary to carry it out. Morgan, pp. 144-145. It is also defended by Strupp, op. cit., p. 113.

98 Les Lois Actuelles de la Guerre, sec. 135.

99 The French Manuel de Droit International (pp. 110, ff.) for the use of the army officers, emphasizes very clearly this distinction.

100 Principles of Int. Law, p. 419 (4th ed.).

101 Oppenheim is one of the few exceptions. He holds that a belligerent may not only requisition drivers, guides, farriers, etc., but he may require “the execution of public works necessary for military operations, such as the building of fortifications, roads, bridges, soldiers’ quarters and the like.” International Law, Vol. II, pp. 121-122. But, as Spaight (War Rights on Land) observes, he gives no authority for his statement.

102 Morgan, War Book of the German General Staff, p. 152. Stein, an Austrian writer, (Rev. de Droit Int., Vol. XVII, p. 349), defends the right of a belligerent to compel the employees not only of state railways but also those of private lines to operate the roads by which they are employed. Moynier, however, adopts a contrary view (ibid., Vol. XX, p. 365), and so does Buzzati (ibid., Vol. XX, p. 402).

103 Réquisitions et Cotributions, Rev. de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. 38 (1906), p. 284.