CHAPTER XXVI COLLECTIVE FINES AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY 403. German Theory and Practice; § 404. German Policy during the War of 1870-1871; § 405. Fines Imposed on Belgian Towns and Cities during the Recent War; § 406. Proclamations Threatening Collective Punishment; § 407. Fines on French Towns and Cities; § 408. Views of German Jurists and Military Writers; § 409. The Rule of the Hague Convention; § 410. Interpretation of the Hague Rule; 411. German Policy Criticised; § 412. Concluding Observations. § 403. German Theory and Practice. The theory of collective responsibility for offences committed by the civilian population of occupied districts against the authority of the occupying belligerent was interpreted in a wider sense and applied on a more extensive scale by German military commanders during the recent war than was ever done in any war of the past. The punishments imposed in the application of the theory were unprecedented in number, sometimes novel in form, and often excessive in character. They consisted of pecuniary fines, the seizure and shooting of hostages, the burning of towns and villages, the destruction of private houses, the deportation of the civilian population, the commercial isolation of refractory towns, the interdiction of public charitable relief to the unemployed, the confinement of the inhabitants within doors for certain periods, and the like.1 As a general principle, the right of a military occupant to impose, under certain conditions, fines and other punishments upon communities for acts committed by the civilian population against his authority has long been recognized and acted upon in practice. Among the earlier instances of resort to such measures was the action of Napoleon who, during his occupation of Lombardy in 1796, announced that any district under his occupation in which fire-arms were found in possession of the inhabitants should be liable to a fine equal to one-third its 1 Some of these measures are described in other chapters of this treatise. In the present chapter I have dealt mainly with the imposition of fines. GERMAN POLICY, 1870-71 141 revenue. A like penalty was threatened against any village in which a French soldier had been killed, unless the individual perpetrator of the crime was arrested and delivered up to the local authorities.1 § 404. German Policy during the War of 1870-1871. It was not until the Franco-German war of 1870-1871, however, that the theory of collective responsibility was applied on an extensive scale and interpreted to cover offences for which the population punished could not have been justly held responsible. In August, 1870, a general order was issued by the Prussian military authorities decreeing that French communes in which hostile acts were committed against their authority by persons not belonging to the French army should be liable to a fine equal to the amount of the local land tax, and that those communes from which individual offenders came should be liable to the same punishment.2 In October of the same year it was announced that communes in which damage was done to railways, bridges, canals, and telegraph lines, even when the mischief was wrought by others than the local inhabitants and without their knowledge and connivance, should be held responsible for such acts.3 Those announcements turned out to be more than empty threats, for in fact huge fines were imposed and collected in many instances. Thus Lorraine, in addition to other penalties, was fined 10,000,000 francs for the destruction of a bridge with the alleged connivance of the inhabitants. In June, 1871, the village of Bray was fined 37,500 francs, and hostages were taken to insure the payment of the fine. Combles was required to pay 325,000 francs for a certain offence, and Driencourt was assessed 1000 francs because a stranger was found in the village. The commune of Launois was forced to pay 10,000 francs to 1 Hall, Int. Law, 4th ed., pp. 491 and 492. 2 Concerning this order cf. Bonfils, Droit Int., sec. 1219; Calvo, Droit Int., sec. 2236; Spaight, War Rights on Land, pp. 408-409; Merignhac, Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre, sec. 106; Nys, Droit Int., Vol. III, p. 429; Despagnet, Cours de Droit Int., sec. 589; Bluntschli, Droit Int. Cod., sec. 643 bis. The text of the above-mentioned order may be found in the Rev. de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp., Vol. II, p. 666; cf. the defence of this order, by Loening, ibid., Vol. V, p. 77. 3 Edwards, The Germans in France, pp. 76, 211. 4 Edmonds and Oppenheim, "The Laws and Usages of War" in the British Manual of Military Law (ed. of 1914), p. 305. 'Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit Int., Vol. VII, p. 281. • Ibid., p. 279. the tamilies of two Prussian dragoons who were alleged to have been killed by francs-tireurs.1 Châtillon was fined 1,000,000 francs for the destruction of a bridge; 2 Etamps, 40,000 francs for the cutting of a telegraph wire,3 and Orléans, 600,000 francs on account of the killing of a Prussian soldier by an unknown person during an altercation between himself and the soldier." St. Germain was given the option of paying a fine of 100,000 francs or of being burned because three German dragoons had disappeared from the community. In some instances exactions were levied which in form and pretext were fines, but which in reality were nothing else than contributions in disguise. The enormity of the amounts and their disproportion to the offences alleged would seem to leave no doubt as to this.5 Thus the department of the Seine was assessed 24,000,000 francs, and Rouen was required to raise 6,500,000 francs within five days. The departments of Aisne, Ardennes, and Aube were compelled to pay 3,000,000 francs as a punishment for the action of the French in taking as prisoners of war the crews of captured German merchant vessels and for expelling Germans from France. The departments of Meurthe, Meuse, and Seine-et-Marne were assessed 2,755,253 francs on the same account. A contribution, which was intended as a punitive measure, was the levy in December, 1870, of twenty-five francs per capita on the inhabitants of all the occupied districts of France with the avowed purpose of breaking the resistance of the French people and of inducing them to sue for peace.s 1 Spaight, op. cit., p. 409. 8 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. 3 Guelle, p. 221. Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 1219, and Depambour, L'Occupation en Temps de Guerre, p. 119. 5 Compare Guelle, Vol. II, p. 221. • Depambour, p. 119, and Rouard de Card, p. 178. 7 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. • Bonfils, sec. 1222, and Ferrand, Des Réquisitions en Matière de Droit Int., p. 221. BRITISH POLICY IN SOUTH AFRICA 143 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.1 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." non The German theory of collective responsibility was applied 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 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 combatants; in the former case their acts were not violations of the laws of war, and therefore they were not legally punishable. 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 Spanish-American, or the Russo-Japanese wars, and apparently not during the more recent Turco-Italian and Balkan wars. 8405. Fines Imposed on Belgian Towns and Cities during the Recent War. During the recent war the Germans, 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. The following instances, the facts regarding which seem to be sufficiently established, illustrate fairly well the German theory and practice. 1 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. * Edmonds and Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 305, note b. Spaight, p. 124; Bordwell, p. 150. Cf. 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. 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.1 According to Belgian accounts the affair which led to the imposition of the 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. In April, 1915, Brussels was again fined 500,000 marks in consequence of the refusal of the municipal authorities to repair a road between Brussels and Malines. The municipal authorities protested that the road in question was outside the city limits, and that the funds of the city could not be spent on public works not within its jurisdiction. They also protested that the exaction was in reality a contribution, and that the military authorities had earlier engaged not to levy any further special contributions on the city. The general in command, however, maintained that the levy in question was a "fine" and not a 'contribution," and therefore the pledge regarding contributions was inapplicable.2 In July, 1915, Brussels was fined 5,000,000 marks in consequence of a "patriotic demonstration" by the inhabitants on July 21, the national holiday, the "moderate size of the fine imposed being due to the loyal coöperation of the municipal authorities in preserving order." The mayor ti be L 1 The notice imposing the fine was posted at Brussels, Noyember 1, 1914 The text may be found in various collections of proclamations issued in among others the report of the Belgian commission of inquiry. The ates 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." Gibson, Journal from Our Legation in Belgium, p. 302. 2 Brand Whitlock in Everybody's Magazine, August, 1918, p. 81. • 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 21, 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 |