SPOLIATION OF FACTORIES 125 In the reparation account prepared by the Belgian government in 1919 for the information of the Peace Conference it was stated that the value of machinery and materials carried away by the Germans amounted to two billion francs. The Belgian government addressed a protest to the governments of neutral countries against these acts as being contrary to article 53 of the Hague convention respecting the laws and customs of war, which, although it allows, subject to restoration and indemnity for its use, the seizure of war material belonging to private persons, does not authorize the seizure and exportation by the occupying belligerent of machinery and implements used in the industrial arts.1 The industrial establishments of northern France were similarly despoiled of their machinery much of it being systematically destroyed.2 the owners of all mills had been ordered by the military authorities to furnish a list of their machinery; that all textile fabrics had been requisitioned even in small retail stores; that woollen blankets had been taken from private houses, and that there were extensive requisitions of wine. Text in pamphlet entitled Treatment of Conquered Territory, issued by the United States Committee on Public Information, p. 31. In March, 1917, a decree was issued by governorgeneral von Bissing ordering the seizure throughout Belgium of certain articles for removal to Germany when the quantities held by any owner exceeded certain specified amounts. There were sixty articles on the list, including table-cloths, napkins, silks, manufactured or raw, waterproof stuffs and garments, oil-cloths, woollen yarns, tarpaulin, leggings, knee bandages, and other sanitary articles (New York Times, March 9, 1917). Mr. Herbert Hoover in a cablegram to the American government in January, 1918 (New York Times, January 1), stated that the " entire industrial life of northern France had been destroyed by the Germans. There is scarcely a single factory that can be operated without a very large portion of equipment." Some details concerning the systematic destruction of industrial plants in France and the spoliation of the machinery may be found in a Paris despatch published in the New York Times of November 29, 1918. 1 Par. 2 of art. 53 reads as follows: "All appliances whether on land, or 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. 2 Many details of the systematic methods by which the Germans despoiled the French factories of their machinery or destroyed it are given in an article by a correspondent of the London Morning Post who visited the devastated region in December, 1918. The article is reproduced in the New York Times Current History Magazine for March, 1919, pp. 504 ff. The great cotton factories of Lille, Roubaix, and Tourcoing especially, were completely stripped of their machinery. Much of it was carried to Germany and installed in German establishments; What was said above in regard to the illegality of the requisition of live stock and its transportation to Germany for the benefit of German industry and for the support of the civil population at home must be said of the seizure and transportation for similar purposes of the machinery and equipment of Belgian and French factories and other manufacturing establishments. The materials thus taken were not for the needs of the army of occupation, and the carrying of them away was nothing more than pillage and spoliation under the disguise of requisitions. The treaty of peace stipulated that among the damages for which Germany should be required to pay an indemnity was "the carrying away, seizure, injuring or destruction of all property belonging to the allies, wherever situated, with the exception of naval and military works or materials." Art. 244, annex I. the copper and brass were taken for military uses; the rest was destroyed. The correspondent estimates that the tools and machinery taken from Lille or destroyed were worth at pre-war prices about forty million francs. From the factories of Tourcoing over one million kilos of copper and brass are alleged to have been taken. Representatives of German establishments visited the French factories and selected such machinery as could be used and transported by them to their own plants in Germany. See also 42 Clunet, p. 117 ff. 1 The authorities are all in agreement that the right of requisition as recognized by the Hague convention is understood to embrace only such supplies as are needed by the army within the territory occupied and does not include the spoliation of the country and the transportation to the occupant's own country of raw materials and machinery for use in his home industries. "To be legitimate," says Bluntschli (op. cit., sec. 654), "requisitions must be limited to objects absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of the army." Stier-Somlo, in the article cited above, says that only things “required by military necessity" may be taken. Cf. also Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, p. 50, and Passalecq, op. cit., p. 174. The British Manual (sec. 416) and the French Manual (sec. 104) say that only things “indispensable or necessary to the army of occupation" may be requisitioned. Nevertheless the Germans contended that the spoliation of Belgian and French industrial establishments and the transportation of their machinery to Germany was a lawful act of war under article 23 (g) of the Hague Convention which allows a military occupant to appropriate enemy private property whenever it is "imperatively demanded by the necessities of war." In consequence of the Anglo-French blockade which threatened the very existence of Germany it was a military necessity that she should draw in part on the supply of raw materials and machinery available in occupied enemy territory. But it is quite clear from the language and context of art. 23 (g) as well as the discussions on it in the Conference that it was never intended to authorize a military occupant to despoil on an extensive scale the industrial establishments of occupied territory or to transfer their machinery to his own country for use in his home industries. What was intended merely was to authorize the seizure or destruction of private property only in exceptional cases when it was an imperative necessity for the con REQUISITION OF RAILWAY MATERIAL 127 § 397. Requisition of Railway Material. 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 vicinaux), which are owned not by the State but by private individuals, and the transportation of the rails to Poland and elsewhere for the construction of military railways.1 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,2 but also 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,"3 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 duct of his military operations in the territory under occupation. This view is further strengthened by art. 46 which requires belligerents to respect enemy private property and which forbids confiscation and by art. 47 which prohibits pillage. Compare the observations of Professor Nast of the University of Nancy in 26 Rev. Gén. (1919), pp. 111 ff. 1 Van der Essen, Petite Histoire de l'Invasion, p. 96. In 1916 a neutral traveller in Turkey saw quantities of Belgian rolling stock in use on the Bagdad Railway. London Times, September, 1916, p. 7. 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. So were those of northern France. Much of the rolling stock is said to have been carried away to Germany. The act of the Brussels Congress of 1874 had expressly enumerated among the "appliances” referred to in art. 53 of the Hague convention, “railw: y 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 come within the scope of the paragraph quoted. 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 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.1 § 398. Cutting of Forests. A somewhat similar complaint made against the Germans was the cutting without discrimination of large numbers of trees from the State and communal forests to be sent to Germany for use in the manufacture of 1 "The rules of usufruct," says Holland (Law of War on Land, par. 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. Annuaire, Vol. VIII. The question is discussed at length by Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, pp. 144 ff., who holds that rolling stock may not be transported by a belligerent to his own country, because it would interfere with commerce in the country occupied and is, moreover, not a military necessity. Cf. 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 of 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. Cf. also Ferrand, op. cit., pp. 65-66, for a discussion of Buzzati's and Stein's views. The Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege allows a belligerent the right only to use the railways of the enemy State, and these, it says, must be returned at the end of the war. French trans. by Carpentier, p. 148. CUTTING OF FORESTS 129 rifle stocks. There were also extensive cuttings to secure material for trench shelters, for corduroying roads, and for fuel, cooking and heating. Some of the forests thus denuded were as ancient as the cathedrals which likewise suffered from the hands of the Germans. In France, especially in the region of the Argonne, trees in large numbers are alleged to have been cut and transported to Germany for use as timber.1 A similar charge, it will be remembered, was made by the French against the Germans in 1870.2 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."3 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.4 $399. Seizure of Funds of Private Banks and Post-offices. Another serious charge against the Germans was that in many 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 military 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.5 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; 975,000 from a bank at Verviers, and "all the cash" in a bank at Brussels... At Noyon the safes, of the bank Société Générale Hope to date have hele standing in the famous Belgian forest of Houthulst, which dated from the ninth century and which covered an area of two hundred square miles. * See the case of the fifteen thousand 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. Cobbett's Leading Cases and Opinions on International Law, Vol. I, p. 226; Bordwell, Law of War, pp. 95, 329, and Spaight, War Rights on Land, p. 367. 3 Int. Law, Pt. II, p. 106. • Carpentier, p. 168. The Case of Belgium, pp. 16-17; also the seventeenth report of the Belgian commission of inquiry. Massart, p. 133, charges that 43,000 francs were seized from the People's Bank at Auvelois. Cf. also Van der Essen, Petite Histoire, p. 40. VOL. II-9 |