fructuary, and may cut such of the large trees as are marked for the purpose by the regular authorities; or, where that is impossible, he may follow any rules of good forest administration.

The German Government did not subsequently admit that it had gone beyond its rights in the treatment of the French forests. It has sometimes been suggested that the German authorities afterwards admitted that they had gone beyond their rights, because they did not interfere to secure to the contractors wood which, though cut during the occupation, had not been carried away at its termination. But the ground of their action evidently was that the occupant is a de facto authority; that he has the right to appropriate some forms of public property, but has not the title thereto; and that, if his appropriation is not complete at the termination of the occupation, all his right to the property then ceases. Of course, if the occupant himself has no right to complete the appropriation of property after occupation is over, he can give no such right to a third party. Executory contracts for the exploitation of the public domain must, therefore, cease to be operative with the occupation itself.

The weight of authority shows that the Germans acted within their rights.-As the opinion adverse to the action of the Germans has been almost wholly based on the decision of the French court, the invalidating of the principle of that decision by the subsequent action at Brussels and The Hague leaves practically no authority for such opinion. On the other hand, Loening and Bluntschli," both of whom, although Germans, were free in their criticism of German conduct, consider that the action of the Germans in the management of the French forests was a model of what the forest administration of an occupant should be. Loening was a professor at the University of Strasburg, and so had exceptional means of knowing the truth. He said that he had authentic information that the number of mature trees cut by the Germans was not greater than the French had planned to cut themselves, although they were not in all cases the same.”4

Treatment of private property at sea-Early in the war

23 Bluntschli, Le Droit International Codifié, Sec. 646. 24 Revue de Droit International, V, 104.

the Germans announced their intention to respect private property at sea, but there the French were the more powerful and they refused to reciprocate. On their making the captains of certain merchant ships prisoners, the German authorities resorted to reprisals and seized prominent citizens of different towns as hostages. This action of the German authorities was improper, as the legality of the French action is unquestionable." The organization of a volunteer navy by Prussia gave rise to the question as to just what was meant in the Declaration of Paris by the abolition of privateering. That question is now the subject of a Convention drawn up at the Second Peace Conference."

Treatment of prisoners of war.-Although there were occasional charges of the ill-treatment of prisoners of war, the care taken of them on both sides was very commendable. In Germany postal cards were distributed to the soldiers, a bureau of information was established to give information as to officers, and lists of prisoners were prepared, by order of the Minister of War. In addition private committees saw to the distribution of reading matter, and established a bureau for the forwarding of letters to the sick and wounded, and for furnishing information about them to their friends and relatives."

Administration of occupied territory.-Early in the war the Germans established seats of government for Alsace at Strasburg and for Lorraine at Nancy. Then a third government was established at Versailles and finally in December a fourth at Rheims.28 Over each division was placed a military governor-general with a civil commissioner as associate." The municipalities in general continued their functions during the war, but the employees of other services generally refused to serve under the enemy, so that in the Railroad and Postoffice Departments the Germans had to take the whole administration of affairs on their own shoulders, and in levying taxes could only roughly approximate what the amount of the taxes 25 Rolin-Jaequemyns Revue de Droit International, III, 339. 26 See infra, p. 235.

27 Rolin-Jaequemyns, Revue de Droit International, II (1870), p. 689, et seq.

28 Brenet, p. 146.

II R. D. L, 691.

would have been. After the fall of Napoleon III the Germans, in their desire to avoid recognition of the provisional government in France, refused to permit the courts to dis charge their functions except in the name of the Emperor, with the result that most of the courts declined to act; for, being required by law to exercise their powers in the name of the sovereign, they felt that Napoleon III was no longer to be considered as holding that place." It is much to be regretted that the German authorities did not devise some means of enabling the courts to act in conformity with their sense of legal obligation, without appearing on their own part to recognize the provisional government.

30 Bray, Le Droit, etc., p. 311, et seq.

CHAPTER X.

THE CODIFICATION OF THE LAW OF WAR.

The organization of the Institute of International Law. -Not long after peace between France and Germany had been declared, Dr. Lieber, in a letter to Rolin-Jaequemyns, founder and editor-in-chief of the Revue de Droit International, suggested the organization of an institution which should include among its members the leading exponents of International Law. About the same time Gustave Moynier and Bluntschli made similar recommendations. RolinJaequemyns acted on the suggestion, and in March, 1873, sent invitations to representative jurists. In September eleven of these met at Ghent and founded the Institute of International Law. M. E. de Laveleye, in a memoir which he wrote on the occasion, declared the object of the Institute to be the collective scientific investigation of the rules of justice which should seem to the members to be the rightful base of the relations of people to people.1

The Institute cannot have a session oftener than once a year, nor can the interval between sessions be more than two years. At each session the Institute designates the place and time of the next. It is composed of members, associates and honorary members, the members not exceeding sixty and being chosen by the Institute from among the associates. The first annual meeting was held at Geneva in 1874, and meetings have since been held at The Hague (twice), Zürich, Paris (twice), Brussels (thrice), Oxford, Turin, Munich, Heidelberg, Lausanne, Hamburg, Geneva, Cambridge, Venice, Copenhagen, Neuchatel and Ghent. The office of President has been held by M. M. Mancini, of Rome; Bluntschli, of Heidelberg; de Parieu, of Paris; Rolin-Jaequemyns, of Ghent; Bernard, of Oxford, Pierantoni, of Rome; von Holzendorff, of Munich; von Bulmerincq, of Heidelberg; Rivier, of Brussels; von Bar,

1 Holland, Studies in Inter. Law, p. 88.

2 Annuaire, XIX, Articles II, III, IV of the statutes.

of Göttingen; Moynier, of Geneva; Renault, of Paris; Westlake, of Cambridge; Brusa, of Turin; Goos, of Copenhagen; Asser, of The Hague; Lardy, of Paris; Descamps, of Louvain; Lord Reay, of London; and Alberic Rolin, of Ghent.' The next meeting is to be held in Florence, in 1908, under the presidency of Gabba, of Pisa. The indirect influence of such an association must almost necessarily be even greater than its direct. The personal contact of the leaders of international juristic thought can hardly help being a powerful factor in the development of common ideas of right and duty.

First steps towards the Brussels Conference.-In March, 1874, Count de Houdetot, President of the Society for the Amelioration of the Condition of Prisoners of War, which had been formed in Paris, in 1872, communicated with the diplomatic representatives of the various countries at Paris, requesting that delegates be sent to a Conference to be held in Paris, in May, 1874, to consider means for alleviating the condition of prisoners of war and to prepare the way for an official Congress, which should formulate an international treaty. He was evidently following the course which had led successfully to the Geneva Convention.

Action of the Russian Government.-Little would probably have come of this, as the Earl of Derby, then British Foreign Secretary, had determined not to take any such action on the initiative of a private society, if the Russian Government had not stepped in and carried on the undertaking. Alexander II had already given orders that a project be drawn up covering practically the entire war practice on land, when the French society came forward with its scheme. At the suggestion of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count de Houdetot consented to the absorption of the project of his society into the greater one of the Russian Emperor, and the movement was thereafter carried on by the Russian Government. The project which the latter submitted was drawn up with great care and ability, beginning with a declaration of general prin

• Holland, Studies, p. 89, adapted.

♦ Parl. Papers, 1874, Misc. No. 1, pp. 1–3, 17–18.

■ Ibid., p. 19.

• Ibid., p. 21.