1 Some instances in which the three last mentioned expedients have been resorted to by the Germans in the present war were considered in my article on “Contributions, Requisitions and Compulsory Service in occupied Territory” in the January number, 1917, of this JOURNAL, especially pp. 104 ff.

2 Hall, International Law, 4th ed., p. 492.

3 Hall, International Law, 4th ed. p. 491.

4 Concerning this order see Bonfils, Droit International, sec. 1219; Calvo, Droit International, sec. 2236; Spaight, War Rights on Land, pp. 408–409; Merignhac, Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre, sec. 106; Nys, Droit International, Vol. III, p. 429; Despagnet, Cours de Droit International, sec. 589; Bluntschli, Droit Int. Cod., sec. 643 bis. The text of the above mentioned order may be found in the Revue de Droit International et de Lég. Comp., Vol. II, p. 666; see the defense of this order, by Loening, ibid., Vol. V, p. 77.

5 Edwards, The Germans in Prance, pp. 76, 211.

6 Edmonds and Oppenheim, The Laws and Usages of War in the British Manual of Military Law (ed. of 1914), p. 305.

7 Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit Int., Vol. VII, p. 281.

8 Ibid., p. 279.

9 Spaight, op. cit., p. 409

10 Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 1219; Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, p. 239, and Guelle, Précis des Lois de la Guerre, Vol. II, p. 221. Guelle states that the village of Ham was fined 25,000 francs because the fortress was retaken from the Germans by a detachment of regular French troops. See also Latifi, Effects of War on Private Property, p. 34, and Rouard de Card, La Guerre Continentale, p. 178

11 Guelle, p. 221.

12 Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 1219, and Depambour, L“Occupation en Temps de Guerre, p. 119

13 Compare Guelle, Vol. II, p. 221

14 Depambour, p. 119, and Rouard de Card, p. 178

15 Calvo, op. cit., Vol. IV, sec. 2236. Bismarck considered the action of the French to be a violation of international law, but as the law then stood, the crews of merchant vessels were liable to be treated as prisoners. Compare Edmonds and Oppenheim, in the British Manual, sec. 459, note b.

16 Bonfils, sec. 1222, and Ferrand, Des Réquisitions en Matière de Droit Int., p. 221. Other instances of fines imposed are mentioned by Andler in his brochure, Les Usages de la Guerre et la Doctrine de l’Etat-Major Allemand, p. 25, and by Saint Yves, Les Responsabilités de l’Allemagne dans La Ouerre de 1914, pp. 383 ff

17 Spaight, p. 122, and Guelle, p. 221. Pillet (Le Droit de la Guerre, p. 236) declares that the bridge was destroyed, not by civilians, but by French troops; consequently it was a legitimate act of warfare.

18 Edmonds and Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 305, note b.

19 Spaight, p. 124; Bordwell, p. 150. See especially the proclamation of Lord Roberts of June 14, 1900, announcing that houses and farms in the vicinity of places where damage was done would be burned; and that of General Maxwell of June 15, 1900, declaring that in case telegraph wires were cut or railway bridges destroyed the farm nearest the place where the act was committed would be burned.

20 With a view to establishing the liability of Belgian communes for damages done by the inhabitants and for determining the amounts for which they should be held responsible, the Governor-General of Belgium in August, 1914, revived and declared in force the old French law of 1795, which makes the communes responsible for damages caused by riots and public disorders therein. The claim of the Governor-General to do this was based on the fact that the law in question was enacted when what is now Belgium was a part of France and had never been repealed by the Belgian Parliament. The original purpose of the law of 1795, however, was to establish the responsibility of the communes for damages caused by riots and public disturbances (attroupments) in time of peace and not those caused by acts of individuals in time of war in territory occupied by the enemy. There is no analogy, therefore, between the responsibility contemplated by the French law and that which the Governor-General of Belgium sought to establish. Compare Pillet, Le Droit de la Guerre, p. 235. By a decree of July 3, 1915, the Governor-General created in each province a special tribunal charged with the enforcement of the aearlier decree.” The tribunals were empowered to examine witnesses, employ experts, conduct investigations and to fix the amount of the damages wrought, which amount was to be paid by the commune to the provincial treasurer within ten days, who was thereupon required to transmit the amount to the parties injured. Text in Huberich and Speyer, German Legislation in Belgium, 2d series, pp. 57–59. On the face of it, the primary purpose of this measure was to provide a means for indemnifying the Belgian population, but it is not improbable that it was also intended to provide machinery for punishing communes for acts of hostility committed by individuals against the authority of the occupying forces.

21 The notice imposing the fine was posted at Brussels, November 1,1914. The text may be found in various collections of proclamations issued in Belgium, among others the Report of the Belgium Commission of Inquiry. The notice states that the policeman in question was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years and that “The city of Brussels, excluding suburbs, has been punished for the crime committed by its policeman De Ryckere against a German soldier, by an additional fine of five million francs.”

22 The application of the principle of collective responsibility in this case seems so extraordinary that one is tempted to doubt the authenticity of the report.

23 Lieutenant-General Hut, German Governor of Brussels, in a letter to the mayor, stated that the municipal authorities had given their approval to the regulations prohibiting all public demonstrations, meetings, processions and display of flags on the fête day of July 21st, but that in spite of this agreement, late in the evening disturbances were created by the distribution of tracts urging the people to disregard the regulations. During the evening Cardinal Mercier drove through the streets, and his appearance led to demonstrations “which were contrary to the German regulations and which had the effect of inciting the people to rebellion or foolish deeds.” “No occupying Power,” said General Hut in his letter to the mayor, “would bear a similar challenge. I therefore proposed to the Governor-General to fine the community. The Governor accepted the proposal and imposed a fine of 5,000,000 marks. The Governor remarked: ‘It is only in consideration of the loyal coöperation of the municipal authorities in preserving order that the fine laid is so moderate.’” Massart (Belgians under the German Eagle, p. 275) says the Germans even went to the length of announcing that the closing of stores on the national holiday would be regarded as a forbidden “demonstration,” but this portion of the order they were unable to enforce in Brussels or elsewhere.

24 The town of Lierre was fined 57,500 francs for a similar “demonstration” on the same day, the chief offense, it is alleged, being the raising of a Belgian tricolor on the top of an oak tree.

25 The murdered Belgian was said-to have been the person who had furnished the German authorities with information which led to the arrest and execution of Miss Edith Cavell, an English nurse, on the charge of assisting English soldiers to escape from Belgium. He was, therefore, regarded by the Belgian people as a traitor and his murder was apparently brought about by a secret society which had sworn vengeance against Miss Cavell’s betrayer.

26 Compare the following from a proclamation, issued in October, 1915, by General Sauberweig:

“If, after October 25th, arms and ammunition are found in possession of any inhabitants those persons will be liable to the death penalty, or to hard labor for at least ten years, while the communities will be fined up to 10,000 francs for each case.”

27 The German White Book, Die Völkerrechtsmdriger Führung des Belgischen Volkskriege, p. 241 says, however, that it was impossible to collect this fine

28 It is variously described in the press despatches as a “fine,” a “contribution,” and a “war levy.” It makes little difference whether technically it was a fine or a contribution, for many of the “fines” imposed by the Germans were in fact “contributions” in disguise.

29 Massart, Belgians under the German Eagle, p. 147. Proclamation posted at Mons, November 6, 1914

30 Proclamation posted at Mons, Oct. 6, 1914, Massart, p. 147.

31 New York Times, June 8, 1917, despatch from Amsterdam. Were there not clearly established instances of the imposition of fines by the Germans in other cases where the element of community guilt was totally lacking, one would be inclined to regard this dispatch as a joke.

32 London Times, September 25, 1914

33 Ferrand Des Réquisitions en Matière de Droit Int. (1917), p. 415, and Morgan, German Atrocities, p. 85. Morgan asserts that these levies were not fines in reality, but "pure extortions levied on mere pretense.”

34 Text of the notice, in Massart, p. 153. The cureé and the vicar of the commune were held “responsible for the members of the parish” and were punished by deportation to Germany.

35 According to the Belgian version, the inhabitants had been ordered by two German officers shortly after the occupation of the city to deliver up their arms in the tower of Broel. Subsequently a new commander arrived who charged that the arms had been clandestinely deposited at the tower without instructions from the military authorities. The city was thereupon fined 10,000,000 francs. Von Mach (Germany’s Point of View, p. 195) ridicules the Belgian explanation, and defends the imposition of the fine as a legitimate and humane punishment.

36 Reports on Violations of the Laws and Customs of War in Belgium, preface by J. Van Den Heuvel, p. xxvi; also p. 58; see also Saint Yves, Les Responsabilité de l’Allemagne dans la Guerre de 1914, P.385

37 Massart, p. 146, quoting the Niemve Botterdamsche Courant of January 30, 1915

38 Massart, pp. 147–148. The Belgian accounts charge that the shot was in fact fired by a German soldier while walking in the country. Hostages were taken to insure the payment of the fine, but as there was no money in the communal treasury, the hostages were subsequently released and apparently the fine was remitted.

39 Annex IV to Cardinal Mercier’s address to the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of Germany, Bavaria and Austria-Hungary, published in a brochure entitled “An Appeal to Truth,” p. 26.

40 The mayor replied that the local authorities, not being charged with the administration of the railways, did not possess the information demanded.

41 Massart, p. 148.

42 Ibid., p. 147.

43 Text in the Belgian Reports on Violations, etc., p. 37. See also Dampierre, l’Allemagne et le Droit des Gens, p. 148, and Saint Yves, op. tit., p. 385. Some of the accounts say the fine was imposed by General von Bülow.

44 Facts about Belgium, p. 7. Grasshoff, a German writer (The Tragedy of Belgium, p. 173), alleges, however, that the threat was not executed and that the city was spared from burning.

45 Belgium, Neutral and Loyal, p. 281.

46 See my article in the January, 1917, number of this JOURNAL, p. 90; also Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, p. 437.

47 London Times (weekly ed.), Nov. 3, 1916.

48 New York Times, November 18, 1916. Major-General Hoppfer, who imposed the fine, replied in a letter of October 23d to a resolution of the municipal council declining to furnish the list, as follows: “The fact that the municipal council allows itself to oppose the orders of the military Authorities in occupied territory constitutes an act of arrogance without precedence and is an absolute misunderstanding of the situation arising from the state of war.

“The state of affairs is clearly and simply this: The military authority commands and the municipality has to obey. If it fails to do this, it will have to support the heavy consequences which I have already pointed out in my previous explanation.

“The commander of the army has imposed on the town for its refusal to supply the required lists a fine of 200,000 marks, which has to be paid within the next six days, and he further adds that until the required lists have been put at his disposal the sum of 20,000 marks will have to be paid for every day of delay. This will hold good until December 31.”

49 Sarolea, How Belgium Saved Europe, pp. 140–1. Sarolea refers to these exactions as “fines” without stating what the offenses were for which they were laid. Apparently they were nothing more than acts of confiscation.

50 The following notice concerning the fine was posted by the German authorities throughout the commune:

“On the 25th August, 1914, the inhabitants of LuneVille made an attack by ambuscade against the German columns and transports. On the same day the inhabitants fired on hospital buildings marked with the Red Cross. Further, shots were fired on the German wounded and the military hospital containing a German ambulance. On account of these acts of hostility a contribution of 650,000 francs is imposed on the commune of LuneVille. The mayor is ordered to pay this sum — 50,000 francs in silver and the remainder in gold — on the 6th of September at 9 o’clock in the morning to the representative of the German military authority. No protest will be considered. No extension of time will be granted. If the commune does not punctually obey the order to pay 650,000 francs, all the goods which are available will be seized. In case payment is not made, domiciliary searches will take place and all the inhabitants will be searched. Anyone who shall have deliberately hidden money or shall have attempted to hide his goods from the seizure of the military authorities, or who seeks to leave the town, will be shot. The mayor and hostages taken by the military authorities will be made responsible for the exact execution of the above order. The mayor is ordered to publish these directions to the commune at once.”

Hénaménil. 3d September, 1914.

Commander-in-Chief, Von FASBENDER.

The text of this notice may be found in the Report of the French Official Commission of Inquiry on Violations of International Law in French Territory occupied by the Enemy, Journal Officiel, January 8, 1915. A facsimile reproduction in French may be found in a collction entitled Scraps of Paper: German Proclamations in Belgium and France (p. 11), published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1917; in Dampierre, l’Allemagne et le Droit des Gens p. 149; and in various other publications.

51 Wood, The Note Book of an Attaché, p. 168.

52 Press dispatches of March 12, 1915. The Department of the Nord had already been subjected to a contribution of 15,000,000 francs, in addition to amonthly contribution of 2,000,000 francs. About half of the burden fell upon Lille. Lille, Sous le Joug Allemand (Paris, 1916), p. 4.

53 Facsimile reproduction of the order in Scraps of Paper, etc., p. 23; see also Matot, Rheims et la Marne, Almanach de la Guerre, p. 169.

54 Saint Yves, op. cit., p. 387.

55 Thus the entire population of Roulers was compelled to remain indoors from 2 P.M. until 8 P.M. every day for three weeks because one of the inhabitants was found guilty of giving food to Russian prisoners employed by the Germans at work in the vicinity of the town. London Times (weekly ed.), June 23, 1916, quoting from the Amsterdam Telegraf.

56 London Times (weekly ed.), Dec. 15, 1916. These levies were variously described in the press dispatches as “contributions,” “war levies” and “fines.” It is impossible to determine their technical character, nor is this important, for the reason that the Germans do not seem to have observed strictly the distinction between fines and contributions.

56a New York Times, June 26, 1917.

57 Von Mach ventures the explanation that many of the so-called “indemnities” levied by the Germans were nothing more than taxes imposed for meeting the expenses of the civil administration. Germany’s Point of View, p. 194. In this article I have made a conscientious endeavor to avoid confusing fines with contributions and taxes, and with one or two exceptions where there is doubt as to the exact character of the imposition, I have dealt only with fines.

58 See, for example, Bordwell, Law of War, p. 317; Lawrence, Principles, p. 448; Spaight, op. cit., p. 408; Westlake, International Law, Vol. II, p. 96; Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 1219; Despagnet, op. cit., sec. 589; Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, pp. 239 ff.; Feraud-Giraud, Des Réquisitions Militaires, p. 17; Merignhac, Lea Lois et Coutumes, sec. 106; Nys, Droit Int., Vol. III , p. 429; Guelle, Précis, Vol. II, p. 219; Latin, op. cit., p. 34; Pillet, Le Droit de la Guerre, pp. 234 ff. See also Calvo, op. cit., Vol. IV, sec. 2172, and G. F. DeMartens, Traité, Vol. III, p. 265. Rolin Jaequemyns, a Belgian jurist, defends in general the German policy of 1870–71, although he condemns as unjustifiable the punishment of communes other than those in which offenses were committed. See the Revue de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. II, pp. 666 ff. and Vol. III , pp. 311 ff.

59 Droit Int. Cod. (Fr. trans, by Lardy), sec. 643 bis.

60 See his note (no. 7) to sec. 126 of Heffter where he says it must be admitted athat the Germans went beyond the necessities of the war in holding responsible distant communes from which the offender originally came. Their action in compelling the municipal authorities to furnish information to the nearest military commander concerning infractions and in punishing communes for giving shelter to offenders, Geffcken says was unjustifiable, since the occupying belligerent has no right to require the civil authorities to act as agents for the commanders of the invading army.

61 See his article l’Administration du Gouvernement-Géneral de VAlsace Durant la Guerre de 1870-71 in the Revue de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. V (1873), p. 77. Loening defends the action of the Germans in imposing a fine equal to the amount of the local land tax on districts in which offenses were committed against the safety of the German army by persons not belonging to the French army. The effect he says was “remarkable” and was the means of preventing many wrongs. “It therefore marked a great progress in the penal law of war.” He also defends the 25 franc per capita levy for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the French and bringing pressure on them to sue for peace. But the Germans went too far, he says, when they extended the principle of collective responsibility to communes from which the offenders came, because in most cases there was no relation between the offense and the commune punished. The commune punished in such cases, he very properly adds, possessed no authority over its inhabitants such as the German theory assumed, and consequently the punishment fell upon persons who not only took no part in the acts committed but who were powerless to prevent them (p. 78). Loening asserts, however, that there was no reported instance in fact in which such a commune was fined; the German order was, therefore, only an unexecuted threat, and as matters turned out the Germans cannot be reproached.

62 Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechis, Vol. IV, p. 508; see also sec. 112, note 14 (p. 473).

63 Morgan, The War Book of the German General Staff, p. 178. Both Leuder and the general staff asaert that the fines levied by the Germans were small in comparison with the contributions extorted by Napoleon.

64 Ibid., p. 509.

65 Ibid., p. 505. See Westlake’s comment on this doctrine in his Collected Papers, p. 251.

66 Ibid., p. 510. Lammasch at the First Hague Conference likewise defended the theory that money contributions may be levied for the purpose of exercising pressure upon the inhabitants to sue for peace. Ferrand, Des Requisitions,, p. 229.

67 Das Internationale Landkriegsrecht (1914), p. 248. Compare also the following remarks by Herr Walter Bloem in the Kölnische zeitung of July 10, 1915:

“The innocent must suffer with the guilty, or, if the latter cannot be discovered, the innocent must pay the penalty for the guilty, not because they have committed a crime, but to prevent the commission of crimes. The burning of a village, the execution of hostages, the decimation of the inhabitants of a commune who have taken up arms against the advancing troops, are less acts of vengeance than signs of warning to the parts of the territory not yet occupied.”

68 Op. cit, sec. 643 bis.

69 Das Völkerrecht, p. 340.

70 Das Kriegsrecht zu Land, p. 242. Zorn, like Loening, apparently disapproves the punishment of communes other than those in which the offense was actually committed.

71 Capture in War (English translation by Robertson), p. 48. Meurer holds substantially the same opinion. A community, he says, cannot be punished for the act of individuals unless the entire population is responsible either in an active or passive sense. Das Kriegsrecht der Zweiter Haager Konferenz, p. 286.

72 There is a difference of opinion as to whether the right of punishment is limited to offenses in violation of the laws and customs of war. Bordwell (p. 316) thinks it is so limited, but Spaight (p. 408) holds otherwise and affirms that it extends to all acts forbidden by the occupying authorities, whether they are infractions of war law or not.

73 The word amende, employed in the Brussels Declaration, was rejected by the Hague Conference for the term peine, on the ground that the use of the former term involved a confusion of ideas of the criminal law with those of international law. See Albert Zorn, op. cit.,p. 240, and Meurer, op. cit., p. 287. The change, however, has been criticized by scfthe writers because the word amende, it is said, has a clear and definite meaning in international law. Compare Pont, Les Réquisitions, p. 92, and Merignhac, Les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre, p. 290.

74 Commenting on Article 50, Lawrence (Principles of International Law, p. 447) remarks that it allows inferentially pecuniary penalties upon communities when the responsibility can be brought home. “If a detachment occupying a village,” he says, “were slaughtered in the night while asleep, few would argue that the community had no collective responsibility if a conspiracy of silence should baffle all attempts to discover the real perpetrators. On the other hand, if a train were derailed in the night while passing through a wild ravine far from human habitation, it would be wrong to hold that the population for miles around could have known of the deed and have assisted in it directly or indirectly.”

75 Le Droit International, Vol. III, p. 429. Compare also Brenet, La France et Allemagne devant le Droit International pendant leurs Operations de la Guerre 1870-71, p. 197, and Westlake (op. eit., Vol. II, p. 106), who remarks that no fine is justifiable except where the responsibility can “justly be imputed to the inhabitants.” Compare also Rolin’s report on the subject at the First Hague Conference, where it was said: “that strictly individual acts could never be followed by collective repression in the form of a special war levy, and it becomes necessary that any repression, directed against the community, should be founded upon the more or less passive responsibility of that community…. The rule holds good not only in respect of fines, but for all penalties, pecuniary or otherwise, which it may be proposed to inflict upon the population as a whole.”

76 See his article on Contributions et Réquisitions in the Revue de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. 38 (1906), p. 430. Compare also Merignhac (op. cit., p. 282), who contends that contributions under the form of fines can be levied only on offenders and their accomplices, and that they are illegal when they fall upon innocent persons, whatever the motive for which they are levied.

77 Op. cit., p. 408.

78 Op. cit., sec. 1218. To the same effect see also Despagnet, op. cit., sees. 587–588; Feraud-Giraud, op. tit., p. 17, and Bordwell, op. cit., p. 317, who remarks that collective punishment is permissible only when the community could and should have prevented the act.

79 Compare Latifi, Effects of War on Property, p. 34, and Bluntschli, Droit Int. Cod., sec. 654.

80 As to the facts of this case see Garner, Reconstruction in Mississippi, p. 37.

81 Bonfils, Droit Int., pub. sec. 1224, and G. F. de Martens, Traité de Droit Int., Vol. III , p. 265. Compare also Eouard de Card, p. 178.

82 See, for example, the Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege (trans, by Morgan), pp. 69, 84, 85; Leuder in Holtzendorff, Vol. IV, sec. 96; Von Hartmann, Militärische Nothwendigkeit und Humanität in the Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. XIII, pp. 119 ff. and Vol. XIV, pp. 117 ff.and von Clausewitz on War (Eng. trans, by Graham, Ch. II). See also the views of Field Marshal Prince Schwarzenberg quoted in the Continental Times of September 17, 1915. There is little German literature dealing with the levying of collective penalties during the present war which is yet available in America. Meurer’s monograph entitled Die volkerrechtliche Stellung der vom Fiend besetzien Gebiete (1915) contains a brief general defense of the German policy, and Albert Zorn in his Kriegsrecht zu Land (1915) apparently finds nothing for which the Germans may justly be reproached. It is a little singular that the German White Book, the Belgian Peoples’ War which contains an elaborate defense of many of the charges that have been made against the Germans in Belgium, gives no attention to the subject of contributions, requisitions or fines. Likewise Stier-Somlo, in a long article dealing with international law in the territories occupied by the German forces (Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht, Vol. VIII (1914), pp. 581–608, ignores the Belgian charges that the Germans were guilty of a policy of wholesale spoliation under the form of contributions, requisitions, and collective fines.