except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country and of such a nature as not to imply for the population any obligation to take part in military operations against their country.

"These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. "Supplies in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged." Other matters that involve non-combatants in case of occupied territory will be discussed later.

There are certain non-combatants who from their prestige, high position, and great importance to the enemy can be captured and retained as prisoners of war. These include the reigning monarch and members of his family, also the chief ruler of a country, the chief officers of the enemy government, and any other persons whose capture for evident reasons may be of great value to the belligerent.

A belligerent state is not obliged to permit the nationals of an enemy to remain in his territory although this is frequently done. It can be considered that by the rules of international law such nationals, if not permitted to remain, must have a reasonable time for withdrawal. This does not apply to the subjects of an enemy who are in the military service of the enemy, as active or reserve officers or men who may be detained as prisoners of war. As to the treatment of subjects or citizens of the enemy who are not in the military services, the practice as to their expulsion varies even in modern times. When large numbers of the nationals of an enemy are in the territory of other belligerents and from the necessary military movement cannot be received by their own country, it is not unreasonable, if considered wise, to intern them in a chosen section of the country in which they have been domiciled.

Oppenheim says: "Thus, during the Crimean War Russian subjects in Great Britain and France were allowed to remain there, as were likewise Russians in Japan and Japanese in

Russia during the Russo-Japanese War and Turks in Italy during the Turco-Italian War. On the other hand, France ex pelled all Germans during the Franco-German War in 1870, the former South African republics expelled most British subjects when war broke out in 1899; Russia, although during the Russo-Japanese War she allowed Japanese subjects to remain in other parts of her territory, expelled them from her provinces in the Far East; and in May, 1912, eight months after the outbreak of the Turco-Italian War, Turkey decreed the expulsion of all Italians, certain classes excepted. In case a belligerent allows the residence of enemy subjects on his territory, he can, of course, give the permission under certain conditions only, such as an oath to abstain from all hostile acts, or a promise not to leave a certain region, and the like. And it must be especially observed that an enemy subject who is allowed to stay in the country after the outbreak of war must not, in case the forces of his home state militarily occupy the part of the country inhabited by him, join these forces or assist them in any way. If, nevertheless, he does so, he is liable to be punished for treason by the local sovereign after the withdrawal of the enemy forces."1

Bynkershoek and British and American writers and a few only of the continental school follow the rule that all intercourse and commercial trading is automatically closed between the nationals of the opposing belligerents unless specially permitted between the forces of the respective countries, in accordance with the laws of war or by special license from the governments of the respective states.

The difference between the two schools is one mainly as to the normal condition of affairs at the outbreak of war, one school maintaining a normal cessation of intercourse with right to issue special licenses as to trade, while the other considers the normal state to be of free intercourse with complete rights as to prohibition, etc.?

1 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, pp. 131, 132

2 Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, p. 135.

"There are some persons of the non-combatant class who possess the character of an enemy to a degree, so as to affect their property in cases in which it is involved.

"They are:

"1. Persons residing in an enemy country though not subjects of it.

"These,' as Lawrence says, 'are enemies to one belligerent in so far as they are identified with the other.' That is to say, any property they possess in connection with their residence is enemy property in case it is exposed to maritime capture, or in case the territory in which they reside is a place of warlike operations and actual hostilities. The fact that the person is a subject of the country of the invaders would not exempt his property or himself from disabilities or from use if needed by a belligerent for military purposes.

"2. Persons living in places in the military occupation of the enemy.

"People in this class enrich the occupying enemy by contributing, though unwillingly, to his warlike resources. If the enemy is dispossessed they lose their enemy taint and become in all respects subjects of their own states. During our Civil War the courts held that all places in secure possession of the Southern Confederacy were enemy territory and the property there enemy property so far as warlike capture was concerned and without regard to the question of individual loyalty.”1

138. Effect of War as to Property. All property belonging to the enemy state in the territory of the opposing belligerent becomes the property of that belligerent at once and, if of a warlike nature, is not only subject to possession at once but also to retention or destruction. If not of a warlike nature or of the nature of resources useful for the current needs, such as foodstuffs, such property can be used but is not subject to wanton destruction. A familiar historical example of the violation of this rule was the destruction or partial destruction of the Capitol and other public buildings in Washington during

1 Stockton's "Manual," pp. 181, 182.

the War of 1812 by the British forces. Even English writers of the present day do not condone this action, which was exceptional in the experience of modern wars. The excuse was offered by the British authorities at the time that it was in retaliation for the burning of the village of Newark, in Canada, by our forces; but it was established that this burning was an incident of the hostile operations there and not deliberate, and, besides, no complaint had been made to us nor reparation asked. It is reasonably well established that before retaliation can be exercised against an enemy proper reparation should be asked, which, if refused, then gives a right to exercise retaliation.

"Property belonging to a state or territory occupied by an enemy cannot be sold by the occupying belligerents. The property can be used or rented by the belligerent, but upon his departure he has neither the right to destroy it, if it be not of a military nature, nor to sell it. All such acquired titles are illegal and, of course, not recognized by the state to which they belong upon reoccupation.

"The seizure of money belonging to the enemy state is legitimate, except funds set apart for hospitals, schools, and for scientific or artistic objects. Taxes for local administrative purposes, such as roads, police, lighting towns, etc., are not legitimate objects of capture or confiscation. Timber can be cut and sold from state forests, but apart from the necessities of war, such as the necessity for fuel, etc., timber should not be cut so as to affect the future annual productiveness of the timbered lands. During the Franco-German War, for instance, the German authorities sold fifteen thousand oaks growing in the state forests in certain departments of France. After the war the French authorities seized those which had not already been removed. The purchasers appealed to the German Government, but the latter left it to the French courts, which annulled the sale as being wasteful and excessive."1

1 Stockton's "Manual," pp. 182, 183.

Property belonging to individual citizens or subjects of the enemy state, though assuming the character of enemy property, is exempt from pillage, by which is meant open robbery by soldiery. This exemption by the modern laws of warfare extends even to capture of a place by assault.

While private property of the enemy on land is now free from direct seizure, still through contributions, requisitions, levies, etc., such property is liable to heavy exactions, other than the customary taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the local benefit. The direct results of a march of an army, not to say hostilities in an enemy country, is most likely to bear hardly upon the property of non-combatants. Naturally, railway plants, telegraphs, telephones, and appliances generally for transmission of news or for transport, such as horses, carriages, automobiles, carts, and drays, are liable to be seized and used more or less exclusively for military purposes. This use car hardly be compensated by restoration and indemnities.1

Besides the possibility of the use of private property on land for hostile purposes, there is also the liability of direct destruction of anything approaching military resources in case devastation is ordered to prevent supplies being obtained by the opposing belligerent.

Merchant ships of a belligerent which happen to be in the ports of the enemy at the outbreak of war may be allowed to depart after a few days of grace.

Private property under an enemy flag at sea is still liable, with a few exceptions, to capture and confiscation by the laws of the United States, although we have by action of Congress expressed our desire to see this liability abolished by the universal assent of the maritime powers.

"There are some anomalies that would come within this subject, as when one belligerent assumes a protectorate over another state or country. In this case war does not necessarily

1 Arts. 51, 52, 53, and 54 of Convention IV of Second Hague, Higgins, "Hague Conferences."