Слике страница
PDF
ePub

warning the inhabitants that the sale and distribution of newspapers or printed matter of every kind, which had not been expressly authorized by the German censor, was strictly prohibited, and that all persons offending against the ordinance would be arrested and imprisoned for a long period of time.1

The posting of notices either by the municipal authorities or by private individuals without authority was strictly forbidden.2 The taking of photographs of any kind within the occupied territory of Belgium without the permission of the military authorities was punishable by a fine of 3000 marks, and the taking of photographs of destroyed buildings was forbidden under a penalty of three months' imprisonment or a fine of 2000 marks. The taking out of Belgium of written or printed matter of whatever character, except identity papers and passports, without the special and written authorization of the superior military authorities, was punishable by one year's imprisonment or a fine of 4000 marks.5

§ 367. Restrictions in Respect to Patriotic Demonstrations. There were frequent complaints and loud protests against the German measures prohibiting patriotic demonstrations and the display of the Belgian flag, the purpose of which, the Belgians alleged, was to repress their sentiments of loyalty and patriotism, this notwithstanding that Governor-general von der Goltz had assured the inhabitants in his proclamation of September 2, 1914, that he would "ask no one to renounce his patriotic sentiments." In spite of this assurance a notice was issued on September 16, 1914, by the military governor of Brussels, von Leutwitz, informing the inhabitants that the exhibition of the Belgian national flag would be "regarded by the German troops as a provocation." Nevertheless, the notice added, this was not intended to wound the dignity or the feelings of the inhabitants, its sole purpose being to avoid subjecting the citizens to annoyance. Householders were therefore requested to remove Belgian flags from their housetops. This notice was understood to be an order to the burgomaster of Brussels (M. Max), and he accordingly issued a proclamation to the people of the city urging them to accept provisionally the sacrifice this required of them.

1 Ibid., p. 38.
2 Ibid., p. 7.
Huberich and Speyer, V, p. 23.

8 Ibid., p. 13.

Ordinance of April 1, 1916. Ibid., VII, p. 20.

6

• Arrêtés et Procs., p. 13.

SUPPRESSION OF PATRIOTIC DEMONSTRATIONS 71

This proclamation offended the military governor who thereupon issued the following order: "Burgomaster Max, having failed to fulfil the engagements entered into with the German government, has forced me to suspend him from his position. M. Max will find himself under honourable detention in a fortress." The burgomaster was at first imprisoned in a fortress at Namur, but was later deported to Germany and confined in a fortress at Glatz, from which he appears to have been subsequently transferred to Switzerland, where he remained until the end of the war.1

Flags used by the inhabitants to decorate their shop windows were torn down by the military authorities and in some cases towns and individuals were fined for displaying the national emblem.2 By an order of November 14, 1914, Lieutenantgeneral Hirschberg at Namur charged that the greater part of the population, including the school children, were "manifesting their patriotic feelings by wearing in an open manner the Belgian colors under different forms" with the purpose of "making a public demonstration against the present state of affairs and against the German authority." It was, therefore ordered that this practice should be discontinued, and that the display of Belgian colors, whether on one's person or any object whatsoever, should be forbidden.3

The inhabitants of Brussels, who adopted the custom of wearing a tricolor rosette to the great annoyance of the Germans, were forbidden under penalty of fine and imprisonment by an order of July 1, 1915, to wear or exhibit Belgian insignia in a "provocative manner" or to wear or exhibit under any circumstances the insignia of nations with which Germany was at war. Thereupon they substituted an ivy leaf, but this

1 The treatment of M. Max is discussed by Davignon, Belgium and Germany, p. 31; Gomery, op. cit., p. 173; Gibson, Journal from Our Legation in Belgium, pp. 241, 252.

2 Brussels was subsequently fined 5,000,000 francs in consequence of a "patriotic demonstration" on July 21, 1915, the national holiday, in violation of the regulations, and Lierre was fined 176,000 francs because a flag was found flying from the top of a tree in the town.

3 Text in Massart, p. 267.

Maître Gaston de Laval, counsellor of the American legation at Brussels, in an address before the American Bar Association in 1917 (52 Amer. Law Review, pp. 259-260) described at length the German measures against the display of the Belgian flag and the celebration of the national holiday, and how the efforts of the Germans were outwitted by the Belgians through various ingenious devices.

likewise was forbidden, whereupon a green ribbon was substituted. The Belgians allege that even the celebration of the Te Deum in the churches was forbidden and, of course, the singing of the Brabançonne and the Marseillaise.1

$368. German Measures in Respect to Education. A considerable amount of German legislation and administration in Belgium was concerned with education, its chief objects being to prevent anti-German teaching in the schools, to suppress patriotic exercises and demonstrations by school children, and to insure a larger recognition of the Flemish and even of the German language as the vehicles of instruction in the schools. At the outset the schools were placed under the control of the German authorities and subjected to a régime of supervision and inspection. A year's imprisonment was prescribed as the penalty against school teachers, directors, and inspectors who permitted teaching, activities, or statements calculated to excite hatred of the Germans or opposition to the authority of the military occupant. The singing of the Brabançonne, and other patriotic songs, or the holding of exercises the effect of which was to inculcate anti-German feeling, or the use of textbooks which contained statements offensive to the Germans were forbidden, and the military tribunals were given jurisdiction of all such offences.2 Dismissal of the schools in honor of the king and other patriotic manifestations of the sort were rigorously interdicted.

A succession of ordinances were promulgated relative to the language to be employed in the primary and secondary schools, the general purpose of which was to insure that the Flemish language instead of French should be employed in the instruction

1 Massart, pp. 269-271. Cf. Massart, p. 271, for the text of such an order issued at Ghent. Cf. also Cammaerts, Through the Iron Bars, pp. 19 ff. The practice of singing the Brabançonne in the schools, an old custom which had been followed long before the outbreak of the war, was forbidden under heavy penalties by a decree of von Bissing on June 26, 1915. Text in Massart, p. 280.

2 By an ordinance of June 26, 1915, issued by Governor-general von Bissing, it was provided that "The members of the teaching staff, school managers, and inspectors, who during the period of occupation, tolerate, favor, provoke, or organize Germanophobe manifestations or secret practices will be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of one year"; that "the German authorities have the right to enter all classes and rooms of all schools existing in Belgium and to supervise the teaching and all the manifestations of school life with a view to preventing secret practices and intrigues directed against Germany." Text in Massart, p. 280.

MEASURES IN RESPECT TO EDUCATION

73

of children whose maternal language was Flemish. This measure, the Belgians allege, was designed to set the Flemish population against the Walloon element and, if possible, to attract their support to the German regime. An effort also appears to have been made to force the German language into the schools of certain parts of Belgium. Thus by an ordinance of April 22, 1916, German was declared to be the maternal language in the "German part" of Belgium, which embraced some twelve districts in the province of Liège and some twentytwo towns and communes in the Belgian province of Luxemburg, unless the head of the family made a declaration to the effect that some other language was the maternal or usual language of the family. Schoolmasters were charged with verifying the truth of the declaration and were empowered to examine the children with a view to ascertaining whether they were qualified to pursue their studies in the language so declared.2 At Liège and Namur the inhabitants are said to have been required to use the German language in their correspondence.3

It would seem to be within the lawful rights of a military occupant to exercise supervision over the schools within the territory occupied, so far as it may be necessary to prevent seditious teaching calculated to provoke and incite hostility to his authority, but it may be doubted whether he has any lawful right to forbid such exercises, as the singing of national anthems, or whether he may justly abrogate the laws of the country which prescribe the language to be employed in the schools, except on the inadmissible assumption that the temporary right of occupation is assimilable to the right of sovereignty. In the present case no considerations of public order or security re

1 Cf. the texts of these ordinances in Huberich and Speyer, VI, pp. 177 ff., 243 ff. and VII, pp. 446 ff. By a decree of November 2, 1916, Belgian postal officials in the Flemish part of Belgium were required to employ the Flemish language in all their official correspondence with the communal or other local authorities. Text, ibid., IX, p. 167.

2 Text in Huberich and Speyer, VII, pp. 120 ff.; cf. also a decree of March 18, 1917, ibid., X, p. 197, and a decree of March 24, 1917, ibid., X, p. 210.

Massart, p. 272. Some instances of German interference with schools in France are detailed in Calippe, La Somme sous l'Occupation Allemande, pp. 166 ff.

The British manual of military law (sec. 379) says that "schools and educational establishments must be permitted to continue their ordinary activity, provided that the teachers refrain from reference to politics and submit to inspection and control by the authorities appointed." In 1870-1871 the Germans closed three lycées in France, the heads of which refused to permit inspection.

quired the forcing of the Flemish or German languages into the schools; its evident purpose was to "Flemishize" or Germanize a portion of the country occupied by the enemy. It is very doubtful whether a reasonable interpretation of the temporary and limited rights of a military occupant, as they are set forth in the Hague convention, authorizes him to interfere in any such manner with the elementary and secondary schools in the territory under his occupation. It was a species of petty tyranny more calculated to provoke the hatred and opposition of the inhabitants than to strengthen the hold of the occupant or to subserve any considerations of public order or national defence. It was, therefore, as inexpedient as it was arbitrary and unjustified.

Trans

§ 369. Movement to Detach Flemish Belgium; formation of the University of Ghent into a Flemish Institution. The attempt of the Germans to win over the Flemish population and to drive a wedge between the two races with a view to making the Flemish part of the country a dependency of Germany was not confined to the school and language measures referred to above. The hands of the Germans were also laid upon one of the four universities of Belgium as a means of further promoting their policy of detachment.1 Accordingly the University of Ghent was "reorganized" and transformed by General von Bissing into a Flemish institution. The courses of instruction were required to be given in the Flemish language, subject to the condition that the chief of the civil administration

1 Soon after the occupation of Belgium the Germans entered upon a policy the purpose of which was to widen the cleft which had long existed between the Flemish and Walloon elements of the population and to win over to their own support the sympathy of the former. Advances of various kinds were made toward Flemish leaders of thought and public opinion; promises of autonomy for Flanders were held out to the Flemings, and a policy of conciliation and leniency toward them was adopted. Flemish students who had taken refuge in England, Holland, and other neutral countries were offered inducements to return to Belgium, and Belgian prisoners of Flemish extraction held by the Germans are said to have been treated with more leniency and consideration than their Walloon compatriots and were even permitted to return to Belgium under certain conditions. Cf. an article by a "Flemish Belgian" entitled "Vain Attempts to Divide the Belgians" in the New York Times of August 2, 1916; also Massart, op. cit., pp. 284 ff. German proclamations were printed in Flemish; theatres and moving-picture shows in certain towns were required to print their programmes in Flemish; shopkeepers in Bruges and Ostend were ordered to replace their French signs with Flemish signs; Flemish offenders were let off with lighter punishments than those imposed on Walloons, and the like.

« ПретходнаНастави »