Sir Edward asserted that in one month alone 74,000 tons of coal had been taken from Belgium to Germany; 6100 tons of phosphates; 100 tons of lead; 1350 tons of ore; 540 tons of pit props; 1200 tons of guano, and 1600 tons of briquettes. In addition, there had been large exports from Belgium to Germany of pyrites, tanning extracts, lead extracts and quantities of iron, rubber, and other raw materials. It was well known, he said, that half the products of the Belgian textile mills had been requisitioned. Should the British Government attempt to provide relief for the industries of Belgium by permitting importations to replace the Belgian stock of raw materials taken away by the Germans, these would be promptly requisitioned. His Majesty's Government must, therefore, disclaim all responsibility to the Belgian people for the ruined condition of their industries; that responsibility must be placed on the Germans, whose fixed policy was to impoverish the country by means of requisitions, contributions, and fines and to drive Belgian workmen to seek employment in Germany.63

The British Government, however, allowed the importation of supplies by the American Relief Commission, and although the Germans refrained from requisitioning these supplies, the British authorities were well aware that the effect was to enable the Germans to requisition more liberally the Belgian domestic stocks without reducing the population to starvation. The British Government also contributed $500,000 to the funds of the Relief Commission, and this was supplemented by grants from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; but in February, 1916, Sir Edward Grey notified the chairman of the commission that, in view of the policy of the German Government in respect to requisitions, "the proposed arrangement between His Majesty's Government and the commission must be regarded as having broken down." No further grants for the support of the commission would therefore be made. Sir Edward added, however, that "We shall, of course, maintain our general favorable attitude towards your work, and our offer of financial support will remain open in the event of the German Government

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

receding from their present position with regard to their levies in Belgium."

Hardly less justifiable than the carrying away of machinery and raw materials, was the tearing up of the tracks of various Belgian railroads, especially of interurban roads (les chemins de fer vicinales) which are owned, not by the state, but by private individuals, and the transportation of the rails to Poland for the construction of military railways. The Belgian Government protested to the governments of neutral Powers against this form of spoliation, not only because it deprived the Belgians of the only means of commercial transportation which remained under their control,64 but because it was in violation of the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Article 53 of the convention, as stated above, authorizes the seizure of "appliances for the transport of persons or things." 65 even when they belong to private individuals, upon condition that they be restored and compensation made at the conclusion of peace.

Manifestly, this stipulation had reference only to the use or exploitation of such "appliances" by the occupying belligerent, and can hardly be construed to authorize the tearing up of railway tracks and their removal to a foreign country, for in such a case the probability of their restoration intact at the end of the war would be very remote. It might be otherwise with rolling stock, which could be easily removed from the territory occupied and returned at the end of the war without necessary injury to the plant. The right of a belligerent to seize and operate railways belonging to the state is conditioned upon the same obligation. Article 55 of the above mentioned convention lays down the rule that the occupying belligerent shall be regarded only as the usufructuary of public property

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.

situated in the territory occupied, and that he must safeguard the substance (le fond) of such property and administer it in accordance with the rules of usufruct. It is very doubtful whether the tearing up of a railway track and the transportation of the rails to a distant country under the occupation of the belligerent, to be used by him. for the purpose of building new lines, can be regarded as "administration" according to the rules of usufruct.66

A somewhat similar complaint made against the Germans was the cutting without discrimination of large numbers of walnut trees from the state and communal forests to be sent to Germany for use in the manufacture of rifle stocks.67 There were also extensive cuttings to secure material for trench shelters, for corduroying roads and for fuel for cooking and warming. Some of the forests thus denuded were as ancient as the cathedrals which likewise suffered from the hands of the military occupant. In France, especially in the region of

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 de Fer en Cas de Guerre, Rev. 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.

the Argonne, trees in large numbers are alleged to have been cut and transported to Germany for use as timber. A similar charge, it will be remembered, was made by the French against the Germans in 1870.68 The right of an occupying belligerent in respect to the lopping of forests is thus stated by Westlake: "In the case of forests, the right of a usufructuary is to cut the trees which regularly come to cutting during his tenancy." 69 The German Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege admits that, although a military occupant is not bound to follow the enemy's mode of administration in respect to state forests, he must not damage the woods by excessive cutting, still less may he cut them down altogether.70

Another serious charge against the Germans was that in a number of instances they seized and confiscated the deposits of private banks. Thus on August 12, 1914, the funds of a branch of the National Bank of Belgium at Hasselt, amounting to 2,075,000 francs, were appropriated by order of the militry authorities. Likewise at Liège the Germans upon their entrance into the city seized the funds of the local branch of the national bank, amounting to 4,000,000 francs."1 Two million, nine hundred thousand francs are also alleged to have been taken from other private banks at Liège; 20,000 francs from a bank at Huy, and 975,000 from a bank at Verviers, and "all the cash" in a bank at Brussels. The deposits of the Banque Générale Belge, a private institution, at Namur, were likewise confiscated, but on petition of the directors the German authorities agreed to allow the money to be applied towards the contribution of 50,000,000 francs which had been levied on the town.72 At Louvain the Germans are

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.

alleged to have seized the available cash assets of various private banks.73

In September, 1916, the Belgian government filed a protest with the department of state at Washington against what it described as an enforced loan of 1,000,000,000 francs ($200,000,000) said to have been imposed by the German military authorities upon the banks of Belgium. According to a statement of the Belgian minister of finance, of September 19, this was accomplished by the compulsory transfer of the funds of the National Bank of Belgium and the Societé Générale de Belgique to the German Imperial Bank. M. Carlier, director of the National Bank of Belgium was deported to Germany on account of his opposition to the proposed transfer. The German authorities denied that the funds thus transferred were to be used for subscriptions to the fifth German war loan, but the Belgian Government asserted that inasmuch as the transfer took place at the time the German loan was being put through, it was evident that the purpose was to supply the Imperial Bank with a fresh supply of cash with which to swell its subscriptions to the loan. The protest of the Belgian Government denounced the measure as an outrage against private property and a violation of international laws and conventions." 74

It was also reported that a Belgian company owning coal mines in the Far East was compelled to subscribe the surplus profits of the company to the German war loan, and that the assets of all Belgian stock companies had been sequestered.

Regarding the right of a military occupant to seize the funds of banks, Article 53 of the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War declares that:

An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the state which may be used for operations of war.

Clearly the authority here conferred in respect to the seizure of funds and securities is limited to those belonging to the state, and does not

73 Fifth Belgian Report.

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