TaÌˆgliches Cincinnatier volksblatt. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1885-1919, 1915-07-22
German Practice Sanctioned by
British Regulations.

oKAtlAn 6oBuh8t1Vhb.
As with the British moral indigna-
tion about Germany's breaches OF
international law. 30 II u with the
bitter complaints of German military
methods: there IL equally little sub
stance ir the oriticisms. In reading
through -The Laws and Usages OF
War;" published by the British War
Office in 1914. one Is struck with its
similarity to the German "Kriegs-
buch," IN the clauses dealing with
the Occupation of Enemy Ter
ritory." The following sections are
from THE Manual of Military Law"
published by the British War Office
In 1914: 1851 THE occupant can
claim certain services from the in
habitants. and may impose upon
them such restrictions as he judges
necessary. He can. under certain
conditions. use. requisition. seize and
destroy their property. and they may,
In various other ways. have TO suffer
under the effects Of the war. 1881
Political laws and constitutional pri-
vileges are, as matter of course,
suspended during occupation: for in
stance. the laws affecting recruit
ment. those concerning suffrage. the
right OF assembly. the right to bear
arms, and the freedom of the press.
t370l The Inhabitants OF occupied
territory expose themselves TO the
punishments for war treason In case
they contribute 10 funds witch enable
their legitimate government TO pro-
secute the war. 1872 and a23l The
occupant may raire money by con-
tribution. Cash. over and above
taxes. may be reQuisitioned from the
Inhabitants and is then called con
trlbution. 1871 Public worship
must be permitted and religious coz
yictions respected. II the salaries OF
the clergy are paid by the State they
must be continued. The clergy must
refrain from reference TO politics,
and II they use their position to in
cite the population 10 resistance or
revolt. they may be dealt with as
war criminals. When one recollects
the uproar there was In this country
because Cardinal Mercier was placed
under detention In consequence of
his pastoral to the Belgian people,
one is surprised that 20 many promi-
nent politicians. who must have
lent themselves 10 that absurd dem
The Cardinal was dealt
with somewhat lsnienuy from the
British m1litarist standard. (3S6)
II, contrary to the duty Of the In
habitants to remain peaceful. hostile
acts are committed by individual In
Q belligerent 10 justified
In requiring the aid OF the population
to prevent their recurrenee and. In
serious and urgent casss, In resorting
10 reprisals. (414) The custom Of
war prints an act OF reprIsals the
destruction Of . houss By burning or
otherwise. whose Inmates, without
the rights OF combatants.
have flred on the troops (45s) Al
though collective punishment OF the
population is forbidden for the acts
IL individuals for which Il cannot be
regarded as collectively responsible,
I may be necessary TO resort TO re-
prisals against locality or COM
nunity for some act committed by
u inhabitants or members who can
lot be Unidentified. In q footnote.
he editors give this interesting ex-
LnpIe Of the futility of certain kinds
II reprisals re prisoners: I'm 1913.
he British government having sent
o England TO be tried for treason
Irishmen naturaiized In
he United States. who had been
aptured on vessels of the United
itates. Congress authorized the Presi-
Ient TO retaliate. Under this act.
ieneral Dearborn placed In close con-
nement twenty-three prisoners taken
I Fort George. General Provost.
nGer the express direction OF Lord
'athurst. ordered the close imprison-
lent OF double the number OF COM
iissioned and non commissioned
'nited States officers. This was fol-
owed by threat OF unmitigated
everity against American citizens
nd villages" in case the system OF
was pursued Mr. Madi-
On retaliated by putting into con-
nement q similar number OF British
hcers taken by the United States.
enerai Provost Immediately retaliat-
by subjecting to the same disci
line all his prisoners. A better
smper, however. soon came over the
ritish government. by whom the
gstem had been instituted. and the
risoners were released on both
des." Perhaps Mr.. Winston Church
! and Mr.. AsQuith Will study that
lcident in regard to the faulty OF
ie differentiai treatment OF SUBJ
arine prisoners OF war.