the fine was imposed and paid.1 Bruges was later fined 500,000 francs on account of the soiling of the German flag by two children 2 and on another occasion 100,000 marks in consequence of a demonstration at the railway station where some Belgian prisoners were waiting. Tournai, which had already in 1914 been fined 3,000,000 francs for the alleged killing of a German Uhlan, was now assessed 200,000 marks for the refusal of the civil authorities to furnish the Germans with a list of all male inhabitants of the town, and a further fine of 20,000 marks was threatened for each day's delay in the furnishing of the information demanded.3

$406. Proclamations Threatening Collective Punishment. Many proclamations were issued by the German military authorities announcing that communities would be held responsible for acts of hostility committed by individual Belgians. Thus on September 25, 1914, General von der Goltz issued a proclamation at Brussels in which, adverting to certain alleged surprise attacks by the inhabitants upon German convoys and patrols, he gave warning that a register was being kept of the localities in the neighborhood of which such attacks had taken place, and that they might expect their punishment as soon as the German troops arrived.1

On October 5 the general issued another proclamation in which, referring to the cutting of the railway and telegraph line between Lovenjoul and Vertryck, both of which towns had been compelled to "give an account," he announced that in the future the places nearest the spot where such acts had taken place, whether the inhabitants were accomplices or not, would be punished without pity. Other proclamations were issued from time to time announcing that villages in which hostile acts were committed would be burned; that they would be held responsible for the destruction of railways, bridges, etc.; that collective punishments would be inflicted without mercy, and the like. On August 17, 1914, the mayor of Hasselt was compelled to post a proclamation warning the inhabitants against acts of hostility and notifying them that "in case of the 2 Gomery, p. 200.

1 London Times (weekly ed.), November 3, 1916.

3 New York Times, November 18, 1916.

• Text in reports on the Violations of the Rights of Nations in Belgium, p. 41;

also Waxweiler, Belgium, Neutral and Loyal, p. 282.

Text in Waxweiler, p. 282; also in Arrêtés et Procs., pp. 21–22.

GERMAN PROCLAMATIONS

151

inhabitants' firing on the soldiers of the German army onethird of the male population will be shot." 1

On October 15, 1914, Colonel Schmidhuber issued a proclamation at Lille threatening with the penalty of death all persons guilty of destroying or damaging bridges, canals, railroads, telegraphs, etc., and announcing that the communes in which such acts were committed, as well as those to which the guilty parties belonged would be punished in each case by a fine equal to the amount of their annual land tax.2

On December 23, 1914, a proclamation was posted at Brussels announcing that "in case the graves of dead soldiers are damaged or violated, not only will the perpetrator be punished but the commune will be held responsible." Many other similar proclamations might be quoted. Those mentioned illustrate fairly enough the German theory and practice in respect to collective responsibility.

By a notice posted on October 7, 1914,3 the principle of collective responsibility was applied to the family. After calling attention to an alleged order of the Belgian government summoning the militia to join the army, the notice declared that "all those who receive these orders are strictly forbidden to obey them. . . . In case of disobedience the families of the militiamen will be held responsible." A somewhat similar notice was issued on June 26, 1915, giving warning that families would be held responsible in case any member between the ages of sixteen and forty, fit for military service, should be found guilty of joining the Belgian army.1

§ 407. Fines on French Towns and Cities. In the occupied districts of France the same policy was followed by the Germans, and many towns and communes were fined for acts alleged to have been committed by the inhabitants against the authority of the occupying forces. Thus in August, 1914, the commune of Lunéville was fined 650,000 francs for an alleged attack by

1 Text in Dampierre, German Imperialism and International Law, p. 229. Text in Fage, Lille sous la Griffe Allemande, p. 33. See also a proclamation of General Heinrich of Oct. 29, 1914, threatening to hold the city of Lille responsible for various acts committed by individuals, Ibid., p. 35.

Text in Arrêtés et Procs., pp. 22-23.

Massart, pp. 315 ff., calls attention to various instances in which Belgian mothers were imprisoned for the acts of their sons in joining the army or for refusing to inform upon them.

certain of the inhabitants on the German troops.1 The French authorities, however, emphatically denied the truth of the charge and accused the Germans not only of having themselves fired the shots complained of, but also of having massacred 18 inhabitants of the town and burned 70 houses.

Upon the occupation of Rheims the Germans levied an "exorbitant indemnity" on the city, but it is not clear whether it was intended as a fine or a contribution. The amount was finally cut down to 150,000 francs in gold and a quantity of supplies to the value of 800,000 francs. Hostages were taken to insure the payment within four days of the sum required.2

The commune of Sissonne (population 1500) was fined 500,000 francs in September, 1914, on the charge that the road between Sissonne and Montaigu had been strewn with broken glass for the purpose of impeding automobile traffic. The town being unable to raise the full amount, General von Bülow sent messengers to the Prince of Monaco, who owned a château near by filled with valuable works of art and family heirlooms, to notify him that unless he paid the fine, the château and the adjoining village, as well as Sissonne, would be destroyed on November 1. The Prince replied that he was unwilling to pay the fine, but would pledge his word to the German Emperor that in case no intentional damage were done to the château or the two communes, he would remit to the Emperor the unpaid balance at the end of the war. It appears that through the good offices of the American and Spanish ambassadors at Paris the matter was adjusted, and the château and villages were saved.*

Lille was fined 500,000 francs because the inhabitants made

1 The text of notice imposing the fine may be found in the Report of the French official commission of inquiry on violations of international law in French territory occupied by the enemy, Journal Officiel, January 8, 1915. A facsimile reproduction in French may be found in a collection entitled Scraps of Paper: German Proclamations in Belgium and France (p. 11), published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1917; in Dampierre, L'Allemagne et le Droit des Gens, p. 149, and in various other publications.

Wood, The Note Book of an Attaché, p. 168.

• Text of the order imposing the fine in the pamphlet German War Practices (p. 45), issued by the United States Committee on Public Information.

See the text of ambassador Herrick's despatch of October 27, 1914, to the secretary of state and the texts of two letters of October 22 to the German Emperor and General von Bülow in German War Practices (pp. 45-47), referred to in the preceding footnote.

GERMAN POLICY IN FRANCE

153 a demonstration of sympathy for a detachment of French prisoners who were being escorted through the streets by a German military guard. The city was allowed one week in which to raise the amount of the fine.1 Valenciennes was reported to have been fined 3,000,000 francs, two-thirds of which were imposed in consequence of the seizure of a song entitled "William's Last Will and Testament," which was considered as disrespectful to the Emperor; the remainder, because of the failure of the town to deliver a quantity of flour requisitioned by the military authorities.2

The town of Epernay was fined 176,560 francs in September, 1914, for not having delivered within the time specified certain supplies which the German military authorities had requisitioned for the use of their troops. The notice of the fine was accompanied by a threat to "take the most rigorous proceedings against the population itself and to conduct forcible requisitions in the houses of the inhabitants" in case the amount was not paid on the following day. The mayor protested against the fine on the ground that certain supplies requisitioned (notably 12,000 kilograms of salted bacon) were not to be found in the town, although he had used all his endeavors to procure them. The German authorities could not, however, be induced to relinquish the fine or reduce the amount, and an appeal was made by the mayor to the inhabitants to raise the sum demanded.3 The amount was collected and turned over to the German authorities at 5 o'clock on the day fixed. Erbéviller and other places were fined on the charge that shots were fired by civilians at German soldiers. As in Belgium, punishments other than pecuniary fines were laid upon French towns in various in

1 Press despatches of March 12, 1915. The department of the Nord had already been subjected to a contribution of 15,000,000 francs, in addition to a monthly contribution of 2,000,000 francs. About half of the burden fell upon Lille. See a book entitled Lille sous le Joug Allemand (Paris, 1916), p. 4. The text of General von Heinrich's proclamation imposing the fine of 500,000 francs on Lille may be found in Fage, op. cit., p. 270. The Commune of Rouchin, near Lille, was fined 10,000 marks by von Heinrich because a crime had been committed within its territory and the offender had not been apprehended. Ibid., p. 98.

* Maccas, op. cit., p. 208. Large sums were also exacted of Tourcoing, Roubaix, and Armentières, but they appear to have been regarded by the Germans as contributions rather than fines.

• Facsimile reproduction of the order in Scraps of Paper, etc., p. 23; cf. also Matot, Reims et la Marne, Almanach de la Guerre, p. 169.

♦ Saint Yves, op. cit., p. 387.

stances.1 The theory of collective responsibility for individual offences was frequently enunciated in public proclamations. Thus by a proclamation of General von Bülow, issued at Noyon in the spring of 1916, mayors and magistrates were notified that towns and villages would be held responsible and would be heavily fined in case fire-arms were found after a certain date in the possession of any inhabitant.2

In other territories occupied by the Germans, notably Russia and Roumania, the policy of collective responsibility and punishment was applied as in Belgium and France.3

§ 408. Views of German Jurists and Military Writers. The great majority of American, English, and French writers on international law have condemned as arbitrary and contrary to the elementary principles of justice the theory of collective responsibility as it was applied by the Germans in many instances during the war of 1870-1871, particularly where it was applied to districts other than those in which the offence was committed, where the amount of the fine was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, where the acts complained of were committed not by the civilian population but by the regular troops of the enemy, as appears to have sometimes been the case, and where the fines levied were imposed for the psychological purpose of inducing the population to cease their resistance and sue for peace.4

1 Thus the entire population of Roulers was compelled to remain indoors from 2 P.M. until 8 P.M. every day for three weeks, because one of the inhabitants was found guilty of giving food to Russian prisoners employed by the Germans at work in the vicinity of the town. London Times (weekly ed.), June 23, 1916, quoting from the Amsterdam Telegraf.

2 Text in New York Times Magazine, July 22, 1917.

Thus Windau was fined 50,000 rubles, Vilna 75,000 marks, Craiova 50,000,000 francs, Bucharest 50,000,000 francs, Warsaw 250,000 marks, Libau 500,000 rubles, etc. London Times (weekly ed.), December 15, 1916; New York Times, June 26, 1917; 42 Clunet, 277.

4 Cf., for example, Bordwell, Law of War, p. 317; Lawrence, Principles, p. 448; Spaight, op. cit., p. 408; Westlake, Int. Law, Vol. II, p. 96; Bonfils, op. cit., sec. 1219; Despagnet, op. cit., sec. 589; Ferrand, Des Réquisitions, pp. 239 ff.; FeraudGiraud, Des Requisitions Militaires, p. 17; Merignhac, Les Lois et Coutumes, sec. 106; Nys, Droit Int., Vol. III, p. 429; Guelle, Précis, Vol. II, p. 219; Latifi, op. cit., p. 34; Pillet, Le Droit de la Guerre, pp. 234 ff. Cf. also Calvo, op. cit., Vol. IV, sec. 2172, and G. F. de Martens, Traité, Vol. III, p. 265. Rolin Jaequemyns, a Belgian jurist, defends in general the German policy of 1870-1871, although he condemns as unjustifiable the punishment of communes other than those in which offences were committed. Rev. de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp.. Vol. II, pp. 666 ff., and Vol. III, pp. 311 ff.