New-York tribune., 1905-04-16

congress at the end OF the present conflict in
the Far East. for the purpose OF revising the
rules OF warfare IN so far as they concern the
disposal OF prisoners Of war. This is question
which has formed the subject Of discussion at
nearly all the international congresses assem-
bled in the nineteenth century. in order to re-
form the laws Of war in accordance with the
requirements OF modern civilization. But no
satisfactory agreement has yet been reached
and while beligerents no longer eat or slay
their prisoners OF war nor yet sell them into
slavery. as in days Of old. yet the rules and
ethics regarding them remain pretty much
as they were al the time Of the NapOleOnic
wars, and certainly differ in no respect from the
condition of affairs in the war OF 1SIO-'71. when
the Germans had not 10000 but over 100000
French prisoners OF war their hands. Neither
the commissaliat and supply department Of
Germany nor yet her transport service was
prepared to deal with the conveyance and main
tenance of such vast hordes OF captives. and in
spite of all the efforts of the German authorities
and of the generous public and private cOutrt-
buttons throughout the length and breadth OF
Germany toward the relief Of the French
prisoners. there was a terrible amount Of suf-
fering among them. Thus in the case OF the
French army Of Metz. the losses for the entire
siege did not exceed 1880 men. all told. where
as more than 22.OOO succumbed. after the
render. to disease and privation while in Ger
captivity.
Preliminary negotiations between Japan and
the great powers regarding the organization OF
a congress for dealing with the knotty problem
in question have taken the form Of proposal to
conclude some kind of international arrange
ment whereby captives would be handed back
to their own cOUntrymen zen masse." the
understanding that they would not be permitted
to bear arms again. either against the enemy
against his allies, for the remainder Of the con-
flict. and it has further been suggested that
they should be cared for by their own govern
ment. in districts appointed for the purpose.
under such supervision that il would be impOs-
sible for them either singly or collectively to
take any further part in the war without the
entire world being made cognizant Of this
breach OF faith. In word. the idea seems to
be to extend to the rank and file OF the army the
prerOgative Of parole. now confined 70 commits
stoned officers.
Parole Is pledge. usually in writing. whereby
a captured officer. in consideration Of certain
privileges. binds himself. his honor an
officer and as gentleman, to do and to refrain
from doing certain things stipulated in the
agreement. Paroles are OF varied character.
In certain rare cases the officers are permitted
to return home. upon promise TO refrain from
any further participation in the war. and 1t was
on this understanding that General Stoessel and
several hundred OF his officers were allowed TO
sail for Russia after their surrender OF Port Ar
thur TO the japanese. Sometimes the parole is
of more restricted nature. and binds officers
who have been placed in certain district not
20 20 beyond well defined boundaries. and 20 re-
port themselves at stated intervals, subject 20
which they enjoy the most complete liberty and
absence OF supervision Thus. the Russian Ofti-
GERS at Matsuyama who preferred remaining
with their men in Japan TO returning home, are
allowed the run of the district and are per-
rnitted to make excursions in every direction.
aIwavs on the understanding that they will ad-
here 20 their parole not to go beyond the stipu-
lated limits II must be borne in mind that the
pledge OF the parole Is always an Individual act
which Is purely voluntary both on the part OF
the prisoner and on the part Of the belliserent
mower which holds him captive. That Is to say,
no government Is forced 70 parole prisoners OF
war: nor can the latter be compelled TO parole |
sbansolves Moreover. Il Is understood that |
officers can give parole only with the consent Of
their own government and superiOrs. II these
do NOT sanction the parole. then the paroled oii-
eer ia compelled by the laws OF honor and chiv-
airy 20 return into captivity. and to offer HIM
SELF up once more TO the enemy. and 1t Is only II
the latter refuses then to receive him that ne Is
liberated from his obligations
How strict are the ethics IN this connection |
among officers OF all nations Is shown by an |
incident IN the military career OF the well
known French cavalry general. tho late Duo cs !
Beaurremong, which probably few people rsosu