Many of the contributions thus levied did not differ from pillage except in name." While a few German writers, like Bluntschli,12 Geffcken,13 and Wehberg,1 think the German authorities went too far, the vast majority of them have defended the German practice, even when it was resorted to avowedly for the purpose of breaking the resistance of the French and of compelling them to sue for peace.15

The German General Staff in the Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege asserts that the power of requisition was resorted to by the Germans. during the Franco-German War "with the utmost tenderness for the inhabitants, even if in isolated cases excesses occurred." It justifies the excessive severity in respect to the imposition of fines on the ground of the "embittered character which the war took on in its latest stage and the lively participation of the population which necessitated the sternest measures." The charge in respect to the levying of excessive contributions is disposed of by the remark that "the total of all the money contributions raised in the War of 1870 may be called a minimum compared with the sums which Napoleon was accustomed to draw from the territories occupied by him." 16 It seems difficult, however, to reconcile the harsh and sweeping system of exploitation which the German military authorities adopted in France with the admission of the General Staff that "the arbitrary enrich

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, Réquisitions militaires. 11 Compare Latifi, 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.

ment of the conqueror is not permitted by modern opinion" and that 'a conqueror is not justified in recouping himself for the cost of the war by inroads upon the property of private individuals, even though the war was forced upon him." 17

After this brief review of German policy during the wars of 1866 and 1870-71, we may turn to an examination of German practice during the present war. As has been said, German writers have attempted to justify the exercise on an extensive scale of the belligerent right of requisition and the right to exact contributions during the War of 1870-71, partly on the ground that the war was forced on Germany and consequently it was legitimate to resort to pecuniary levies to make those who had brought on the war bear a portion of the cost, and also to break their spirit of resistance and to induce them to sue for peace.

In the present war, however, no such excuse can be pleaded, because Germany was herself the aggressor against Belgium. Moreover, the impoverished condition to which Belgium was reduced in consequence of the German invasion made the imposition of heavy pecuniary exactions a peculiar hardship for those who were compelled to raise the large sums demanded. But this extenuating circumstance does not appear to have been taken into consideration, and no sooner had the German military forces established themselves in Belgium than they proceeded to levy pecuniary impositions of various kinds on the towns, cities and districts which fell under their occupation, to say nothing of the enormous community fines, which it is not my purpose to consider at this time.

The following list of "war contributions" is reported to have been levied upon Belgian and French towns and districts during the first month of the war: Brussels, 200,000,000 francs; Liège (Province and city), 50,000,000; Louvain, 100,000; Brabant (Province), 450,000,000; Lille, 7,000,000; Amiens, 1,000,000; Roubaix and Tourcoing, 1,000,000; Lens, 700,000; Armentieres, 500,000; total, 710,300,000 francs.18 It

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 con

is not clear from the press dispatches what was the exact nature of these impositions. In some cases they may have been fines for individual offenses against the orders of the occupying belligerent, but apparently they fall within the category of "contributions" as the term is used in the treatises on internationl law. Other similar exactions followed in quick succession. In October, after the fall of Antwerp, a contribution of 40,000,000 francs was levied on that city. Namur and the seventeen neighboring communes were subjected to a "war contribution" of 50,000,000 francs, which was afterwards reduced to 32,000,000, on condition that the first million should be paid within 24 hours.19

By an order of December 10, 1914, issued by General von Bissing, Governor-General of Belgium, a war contribution of 480,000,000 francs was levied upon the nine occupied provinces of Belgium, the same to be paid in twelve monthly instalments of 40,000,000 on the tenth of each month.20 It appears that the amount of the monthly contribution was first fixed at 35,000,000, but the Belgian authorities agreed that it should be raised to 40,000,000 in return for the promise of the German authorities to pay cash for the supplies requisitioned by them, and for assurances that the assessment would be limited to twelve months and that no additional general contribution would be exacted. This appears from an avis published by General von Bissing on January 9, 1915,21 which declared that

Subject to the conditions that the contributions imposed on the nine provinces for the duration of a year, amounting to 40,000,000 tribution 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.

francs per month, are punctually paid, the following stipulations are ordered by the military authority:

1. No additional contributions shall be imposed on the state, the provinces or the communes, other than those which constitute fines made necessary by reprenhesible acts against the German army or the German administration.

2. For the stationary troops and fighting armies, requisitions, that is to say, obligatory prestations for their care and maintenance, shall be paid for as soon as possible. Payments for articles sold shall be made on the production of requisition receipts duly verified and as soon as possible after the fact of the payment of the next monthly contribution has been established.

3. That indemnities for requisitioned merchandise or merchandise to be requisitioned en bloc shall be paid as soon as possible in currency, in commercial bills of exchange or in credits on German banks.

With this understanding, the installments were promptly paid each month through the agency of an association of banks, each of which contributed a certain portion of the total. The Belgians contend, however, that the stipulations were violated by the Germans by renewing in November, 1915, for an indefinite term, the monthly contribution of 40,000,000 francs, which had been limited to one year, and by refusing to make prompt payments for goods and services requisitioned. The Belgian Government protested against the renewal of the levy, not only as a violation of an agreement entered into by the Belgian authorities and the Governor-General, but also on the ground that it was excessive, the sum being twenty times the amount of the taxes levied by the nine provinces in time of peace.21a

Estimating the total population remaining in Belgium at 6,000,000, this contribution amounted to a per capita exaction of 80 francs, without taking into account the various local contributions and fines imposed on particular localities. As the total budget of the state in peace times varied between 600,000,000 and 800,000,000 francs per year, it will be seen that the general contribution imposed by Von Bissing amounted to between two-thirds and three-fourths of the customary taxes levied for state purposes. The special contri

214 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."

bution of 50,000,000 levied on the city of Liège in September, 1914, amounted to about 60 francs per capita, which, added to the 80 francs of the general contribution, aggregated 140 francs. Under the existing conditions this amount certainly seems excessive.

Article 49 of the Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land provides that if an occupant levies in addition to the regular taxes "other money contributions . . . this shall be only for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question." The phrase "needs of the army" is unfortunately very elastic 22 and might be interpreted to cover almost unlimited exactions, but it was clearly not the intention of the Hague Conference to authorize military commanders to exact contributions for the enrichment of the occupying belligerent, for the purpose of covering the expenses of the war, or to impose fines under the disguise of contributions.

Bluntschli justly remarks that international law forbids a military occupant from exacting any other contributions than those which are absolutely indispensable for the maintenance and needs of the army.23 Spaight holds a similar view, and he adds that even under the restrictions imposed by international law they strike one as being peculiarly unjust and are in fact a relic of the theory that an invader has a vested right to the private property of those who fall within his power.24 Loening and other German writers hold that it is legitimate for a military occupant to exact money contributions for the purpose of forcing an enemy to submit,25 and Lammasch defended this proposition at The Hague in 1899, but it found no favor.

There was formerly a small group of writers who maintained that contributions were to be regarded as ransoms or exactions in lieu of pillage, which a conqueror is content to accept as a payment

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.