of the city several hours without firing, and (2) that a messenger with a flag of truce was sent to the officers in command in Managua and was in bad faith detained by them. The minister replied: "Your explanation is a reasonable one, and is accepted in full faith.” Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Nicaragua, tel., July 25, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 204.

See, also, For. Rel. 1893, 206–209.

3. DEVASTATION.

$1113.

"The measure of permissible devastation is to be found in the strict necessities of war. The right being thus narrowed, it is easy to distinguish between three groups of cases, in one of which devastation is always permitted, while in a second it is always forbidden, and in a third it is permitted in certain circumstances. To the first group belong those cases in which destruction is a necessary concomitant of ordinary military action, as when houses are razed or trees cut down to strengthen a defensive position, when the suburbs of a fortified town are demolished to facilitate the attack or defence of the place, or when a village is fired to cover the retreat of an army. Destruction, on the other hand, is always illegitimate when no military end is served, as is the case when churches or public buildings, not militarily used and so situated or marked that they can be distinguished, are subjected to bombardment in common with the houses of a besieged town. Finally, all devastation is permissible when really necessary for the preservation of the force committing it. from destruction or surrender; it would even be impossible to deny to an invader the right to cut the dykes of Holland to save himself from such a fate; but when, as in the case supposed, the devastation is extensive in scale and lasting in effect, modern opinion would demand that the necessity should be extreme and patent."

Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), p. 535, citing Manning, ch. v.; Heffter, § 125;
Twiss, War, § 65; Bluntschli, § 663; Calvo, § 1919.

At a meeting attended by the Boer generals, at Brussels, Oct. 6, 1902,
General Delarey asked of what use was the sum of £3,000,000 prom-
ised by England, when their losses were estimated at £75,000,000?
General Botha dwelt on the horrors of the concentration camps, the
farm burning, and the devastation caused by the English. (London
Times, weekly, Oct. 10, 1902, p. 646, col. 2.)

4. RETALIATION.

§ 1114.

"The British Government, having sent to England, early in 1813, to be tried for treason, twenty-three Irishmen, naturalized in the United States, who had been captured in vessels of the United States.

Congress authorized the President to retaliate. Under this act, General Dearborn placed in close confinement twenty-three prisoners taken at Fort George. General Prevost, under the express directions of Lord Bathurst, thereupon ordered the close imprisonment of double the number of commissioned or uncommissioned United States officers. This was followed by a threat of unmitigated severity against the American citizens and villages' in case the system of retaliation was pursued. Mr. Madison having retorted by putting in confinement a similar number of British officers taken by the United States, General Prevost immediately retorted by subjecting to the same discipline all his prisoners whatsoever. The difficulty was aggravated by the denunciation by leading New England Federalists of this policy of exposing our own citizens to imprisonment and death for the sake of a set of foreign renegades, as they were bitterly described, and the escape of some of the imprisoned British officers from Worcester jail gave very general satisfaction.' (6 Hildreth's Hist., U. S. 446.) (Mr. Hildreth's attachment to the Federalists, it must be remembered, gives to statements such as this peculiar weight.) In Massachusetts this sentiment took effect in a statute forbidding the ne of the State jails to the United States for prisoners of war; and the jailers were directed to discharge all prisoners of war after thirty days' confinement. An act of Congress was at once passed authorizing the United States marshals, when the State jails were refused, to provide other places of confinement, and the legislature of Pennsylvania at once granted its prisons for this purpose. A better temper, however, soon came over the British Government, by whom this system had been instituted. A party of United States officers, who were prisoners of war in England, were released on parole, with instructions to state to the President that the twenty-three prisoners who had been charged with treason in England had not been tried, but remained on the usual basis of prisoners of war. This led to the dismissal on parole of all the officers of both sides."

Wharton, Int. Law Digest, III. 330, citing, as to treatment of prisoners of war in the war of 1812, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. III. 630; Lawrence, Com. sur. Wheaton, III. 229.

"Having been called upon by the governor-general of the Canadas to aid him in carrying into effect measures of retaliation against the inhabitants of the United States for the wanton destruction committed by their army in Upper Canada, it has become imperiously my duty, conformably with the nature of the governor-general's application, to issue to the naval force under my command, an order to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the coast as may be found assailable.

H. Doc. 551--vol 7-13

I had hoped that this contest would have terminated without my being obliged to resort to severities which are contrary to the usage of civilized warfare, and as it has been with extreme reluctance and concern that I have found myself compelled to adopt this system of devastation, I shall be equally gratified if the conduct of the Executive of the United States will authorize my staying such proceedings, by making reparation to the suffering inhabitants of Upper Canada, thereby manifesting that if the destructive measures pursued by their army were ever sanctioned, they will no longer be permitted by the Government."

Vice-Admiral Cochrane to Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, Aug. 18, 1814, 3 Am.
State Papers, For. Rel. 693.

"I have had the honor of receiving your letter of the 18th of August, stating that, having been called on by the governor-general of the Canadas, to aid him in carrying into effect measures of retaliation against the inhabitants of the United States for the wanton desolation committed by their army in Upper Canada, it has become your duty, conformably with the nature of the governor-general's application, to issue to the naval force under your command an order to destroy and lay waste such towns and districts upon the coast as may be found assailable.

"It is seen, with the greatest surprise, that this system of devastation, which has been practiced by the British forces, so manifestly contrary to the usage of civilized warfare, is placed by you on the ground of retaliation. No sooner were the United States compelled to resort to war with Great Britain, than they resolved to wage it in a manner most consonant to the principles of humanity, and to those friendly relations which it was desirable to preserve between the two nations after the restoration of peace. They perceived, however, with the deepest regret, that a spirit, alike just and humane was neither cherished nor acted on by your Government. Such an assertion would not be hazarded if it was not supported by facts, the proof of which has, perhaps, already carried the same conviction to other nations that it has to the people of these States. Without dwelling on the deplorable cruelties committed by the savages in the British ranks, and in British pay at the river Raisin, which to this day have never been disavowed or atoned for, I refer, as more immediately connected with the subject of your letter, to the wanton desolation that was committed at Havre de Grace and at Georgetown, early in the spring of 1813. These villages were burnt and ravaged by the naval forces of Great Britain, to the ruin of their unarmed inhabitants, who saw with astonishment that they derived no protection to their property from the laws of war. During the same season, scenes of invasion and pillage, carried on under the same authority, were

witnessed all along the waters of the Chesapeake, to an extent inflicting the most serious private distress, and under circumstances that justified the suspicion that revenge and cupidity, rather than the manly motives that should dictate the hostility of a high-minded foe, led to their perpetration. The late destruction of the houses of the Government in this city is another act which comes necessarily into view. In the wars of modern Europe, no example of the kind, even among nations the most hostile to each other, can be traced. In the course of ten years past, the capitals of the principal powers of the continent of Europe have been conquered, and occupied alternately by the victorious armies of each other, and no instance of such wanton and unjustifiable destruction has been seen. We must go back to distant and barbarous ages to find a parallel for the acts of which I complain.

"Although these acts of desolation invited, if they did not impose on the Government the necessity of retaliation, yet in no instance has it been authorized.

"The burning of the village of Newark, in Upper Canada, posterior to the early outrages above enumerated, was not executed on that principle. The village of Newark adjoined Fort George, and its destruction was justified by the officers who ordered it, on the ground that it became necessary in the military operations there. The act, however, was disavowed by the Government. The burning which took place at Long Point was unauthorized by the Government, and the conduct of the officer subjected to the investigation of a military tribunal. For the burning at St. David's, committed by stragglers, the officer who commanded in that quarter was dismissed, without a trial, for not preventing it.

"I am commanded by the President distinctly to state, that it as little comports with any orders which have been issued to the military and naval commanders of the United States, as it does with the established and known, humanity of the American nation, to pursue a system which it appears you have adopted. This Government owes it to itself, to the principles which it has ever held sacred, to disavow, as justly chargeable to it, any such wanton, cruel, and unjustifiable warfare.

"Whatever unauthorized irregularities may have been committed by any of its troops, it would have been ready, acting on these principles of sacred and eternal obligation, to disavow, and, as far as might be practicable, to repair. But in the plan of desolating warfare which your letter so explicitly makes known, and which is attempted to be excused on a plea so utterly groundless, the President perceives a spirit of deep-rooted hostility, which, without the evidence of such facts, he could not have believed existed, or would have been carried to such an extremity.

"For the reparation of injuries, of whatever nature they may be, not sanctioned by the law of nations, which the military or naval force of either power may have committed against the other, this Government will always be ready to enter into reciprocal arrangements. It is presumed that your Government will neither expect nor propose any which are not reciprocal.

"Should your Government adhere to a system of desolation, so contrary to the views and practice of the United States, so revolting to humanity, and repugnant to the sentiments and usages of the civilized world, whilst it will be seen with the deepest regret, it must and will be met with a determination and constancy becoming a free people contending in a just cause for their essential rights and their dearest interests."

Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Vice-Admiral Cochrane, Sept. 6, 1814, 3 Am.
State Papers, For. Rel. 693.

"I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 16th instant this morning, in reply to the one which I add_essed to you from the Patuxent.

"As I have no authority from my Government to enter upon any kind of discussion relative to the points contained in your letter, I have only to regret that there does not appear to be any hope that I shall be authorized to recall my general order; which has been further sanctioned by a subsequent request from Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost.

"A copy of your letter will this day be forwarded by me to England, and, until I receive instructions from my Government, the measures which I have adopted must be persisted in, unless remuneration be made to the inhabitants of the Canadas for the injuries they have sustained from the outrages committed by the troops of the United States."

Vice-Admiral Cochrane to Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, Sept. 19, 1814, 3 Am.
State Papers, For. Rel. 694.

"27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation. than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.

28. Retaliation will therefore never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover cautiously and unavoidably-that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.