Punishments other than fines were laid in some instances. Thus, when the railroad bridge over the Moselle between Nancy and Toul was blown up, whether by civilian inhabitants or French troops is not clear, the town of Fontenoy was burned by the Germans.17 At Charmes the town casino was burned as a punishment for the act of the inhabitants in firing upon the escort of a convoy of prisoners.18

The German theory of collective responsibility was revived by Lord Roberts and General Kitchener in the South African War, when communities were held responsible and were punished not only by heavy fines but by wholesale burning of farms, the destruction of private houses and the imprisonment of the leading civil inhabitants, for damages committed upon railway and telegraph lines by "small parties of raiders." It is not clear whether the offenders were lawful belligerents or non-combatants; in the former case their acts were not violations of the laws of war and therefore they were not legally punishable.1o In any case the measures resorted to were extremely severe and of very doubtful expediency, as such measures always are, because they tend to drive the enemy to desperation, embitter the whole population and thus retard rather than hasten the termination of the war. Such measures were not resorted to during the Chino-Japanese, the SpanishAmerican, nor the Russo-Japanese Wars, and apparently not during the more recent Turco-Italian and Balkan Wars.

During the present war the Germans have, as already stated, extended the theory of collective responsibility and applied it on a larger scale and under a greater variety of forms than was ever done in any previous war.20

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 Guerre 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 farins 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

The following instances, the facts regarding which seem to be sufficiently established, illustrate fairly well the German theory and practice:

In November, 1914, the city of Brussels was fined 5,000,000 francs by General von Leutwitz for the act of a policeman in attacking a German officer during the course of a dispute between the two, and for facilitating the escape of a prisoner.21 In July, 1915, another fine of 5,000,000 francs was reported to have been imposed upon Brussels for the alleged destruction of a German Zeppelin by a British aviator at Eyre near Brussels.22

According to a press despatch of November 8, 1914, from The Hague, the affair which led to the imposition of the first mentioned 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 GovernorGeneral 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 earlier 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.

fine grew out of the attempt of the German military authorities to prevent the sale of "contraband" newspapers. A German secret service agent, it appears, undertook to arrest certain Belgians for selling Dutch newspapers contrary to the regulations; the latter resisted arrest and were supported by the policeman in question who, it is alleged, attacked the German officer. The Brussels municipal council protested against the fine, among other reasons, because the military authorities had not notified the local news-dealers of the order prohibiting the sale of Dutch newspapers, and because the persons who resisted arrest did not know that the secret service agent was a German officer.

In July, 1915, Brussels was again fined 5,000,000 marks in consequence of a "patriotic demonstration" by the inhabitants on July 21st, the national holiday, the "moderate size of the fine imposed being due to the loyal coöperation of the municipal authorities in preserving order." 23 The mayor addressed a protest to the Governor-General, von Bissing, in which he denied the right of a military occupant to punish the civil population for manifesting their sentiments of patriotism on the occasion of the celebration of their national independence.24

Early in 1916 Brussels was fined 500,000 marks, and the suburb

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.

of Schaerbeek 50,000 marks, in consequence of the murder by an unknown person of a young Belgian in the latter commune on the night of January 6th.25 Brussels was held partly responsible because the crime was alleged to have been committed with a revolver obtained in that city, notwithstanding the fact that the German authorities had, on January 1st, issued a proclamation requiring all persons to deliver up their fire arms and munitions at the city hall, and threatening with the death penalty those found with arms in their possession after a fixed date.26 The proclamation also notified the inhabitants that communes in which such persons were found would be fined 10,000 marks for every offender taken therein.

Numerous towns and cities were fined for the alleged firing by francs-tireurs and civilians upon German troops and for other offenses against the occupying authorities. Thus Louvain was fined 20,000,000 francs in consequence of shots alleged to have been fired by civilians.27

A levy of 60,000,000 francs was made upon the Province of Liège shortly after it fell under the occupation of the Germans, but it is not quite clear whether it was intended as a fine or a contribution.28 Subsequently a levy of 10,000,000 francs was imposed on the city of Liège in consequence of the alleged firing of shots from private houses upon German troops. Mons was compelled to pay 100,000 francs for the firing by an unknown person upon a German soldier, and the town

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."

The German White Book, Die Völkerrechtswidriger 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.

was threatened with another fine in case a certain Englishman should be found within its limits.29 The town was threatened with another fine in case any inhabitant should be found within its limits with benzine or a motor cycle in his possession, and a similar threat to fine the Province of Hainaut for the same offense was made.30 In June, 1917, Mons, according to the press dispatches, was again fined 500,000 francs because a Belgian paper published in Holland stated that Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria was in Mons when the city was bombarded by Allied airmen.30

32

Tournai is said to have been fined 3,000,000 francs for the killing of a Uhlan. Merris and La Gorgue were each fined 50,000 francs for the firing of shots at German troops; the village of Marson (population 300) 3000 francs, and the commune of Warnelon 10,000 francs for the same offense.3 The commune of Cortemarck was fined 5000 marks on the pretext that one of the inhabitants had committed espionage by making signals to the enemy.33 In the case of Marson, the Germans promised "to burn only a part of the village in the event the fine was duly paid."

On January 16, 1915, the Belgian Legation at Washington issued a public statement charging the Germans with having imposed a fine of 10,000,000 francs on the city of Courtrai, not for the disobedience of the inhabitants, but for obeying the orders of the military commander."

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.

30 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.

31 London Times, September 25, 1914.

32 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."

33 Text of the notice, in Massart, p. 153. The curé and the vicar of the commune were held "responsible for the members of the parish" and were punished by deportation to Germany.

34 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