Devastation. The practice of laying waste a portion of the territory of the enemy, as a measure of military necessity, is, at present, happily less frequent than was formerly the case. It was resorted to upon at least two occasions, however, during the American civil war, once by General Sherman, during his march from Atlanta to Savannah, and, subsequently, during his northward march through the Carolinas, and again by General Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley during the autumn of the year 1864. The rule in respect to the devastation of the territory of the enemy is deduced from the general principle of international law, that, in time of war, a state may resort to such measures, involving the use of force, as are necessary to secure the objects for which the war was undertaken.'

"The same general rule, which determines how far it is lawful to destroy the persons of enemies, will serve as a guide in judging how far it is lawful to ravage or lay waste their country. If this be necessary, in order to accomplish the just ends of war, it may be lawfully done, but not otherwise.' Thus, if the progress of the enemy cannot be stopped, nor our own frontier secured; or if the approaches to a town, intended to be attacked, cannot be made without laying waste the intermediate territory, the extreme case may justify a resort to measures not warranted by the ordinary purposes of war." Devastation is therefore justified: (1.) When dictated by military necessity, as when property is destroyed in battle

pp. 94, 95. The Duke of Wellington, in a despatch to Mr. Canning bearing date of February 3, 1820, maintained the view that the garrison of a besieged place that refused to surrender could be put to the sword. It is to be said to his credit, however, that he never applied the rule in practice.--Wellington Despatches, vol. i. p. 80, cited by Creasy, p. 452. See also Creasy, pp. 449-452; I Guelle, pp. 109-122; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. viii. § 143; VI Pradier-Fodéré, § 2784. Risley, pp. 115, 116; Creasy, pp.

1

by the fire of artillery, or by the movement of troops; or where the vicinity of a besieged place is cleared of houses, crops, forests, and the like, in order to facilitate siege operations; or when villages or detached buildings are fired to cover the retreat of an army, or when bridges are destroyed, or canals diverted from their course in order to prevent pursuit. (2.) Where a portion of territory is laid waste by way of retaliation, or, in an extreme case, to prevent an incursion of the enemy, or to deprive him of food and forage necessary for the support of his armies.' "Destruction, on the other hand, is always illegitimate when no military end is served, as in 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." " When devastation is occasioned by pillage, or by the wanton destruction of houses, crops, and trees by troops wanting in discipline, it becomes an offence against the laws of war, and its discontinuance may be compelled by measures of retaliation."

Usages of War at Sea. The usages of war at sea are the same in substance as those on land, although, from the circumstances of the case, they are much simpler of application. The same rules apply as to giving and receiving quarter, and as to the treatment of wounded and unwounded prisoners of war. The crews of captured merchant vessels of the enemy are made prisoners of war. When neutral vessels are seized for carrying contraband, or for attempting to violate a blockade, their crews, not being belligerents, are not subject to detention as prisoners of war, unless by their conduct they render such restraint necessary. As to the use of false colors in maritime

'Vattel, liv. iii. chap. ix. §§ 142, 166, 167; De Martens, Prêcis, liv. viii. chap. iv. §§ 279-283; Klüber, §§ 262-265; Hall, pp. 531-534; Par. 15 Instructions for Armies of the United States, etc.; II Twiss, pp. 125, 126; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 347, 351a; IV Calvo, §§ 2215-2219; Hall, § 186,

2 Hall, p. 533.

3

II Halleck, pp. 117-119; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. ix. §§ 167, 168; Hall, pp. 531-535; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 347351a; II Twiss, pp. 124, 125; Risley, pp. 115-118; Creasy, pp. 531534; Articles 22 and 23 Hague Convention of 1899.

warfare, the practice is that a flag other than that of the ship's nationality may be used for purposes of pursuit or escape; all acts of hostility, however, must take place under the proper national flag; the rule being that a vessel cannot attack another, at sea, before having made known its own nationality, and having put the vessel which it encounters in a position to declare its nationality also.'

THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE ENEMY

Treatment of Property on Land. The property of an enemy on land may be classified into public and private. Public property is again classified into-1. Property of a military character, or susceptible of appropriation to military use. To this class belong forts, arsenals, dockyards, magazines, and military stores of all kinds. 2. Money and movables of all kinds belonging to the belligerent government as proprietor. 3. Property essentially civil, or non-military in character, and used for religious, charitable, scientific, or educational purposes. The two former may be captured and destroyed, or converted to the military use of the enemy. The latter is now exempt from seizure, and should be protected by a belligerent if situated in, or near, the theatre of active operations."

1

Pistoye et Duverdy, Traité des Prises, tit. i. chap. i. The ancient rule of maritime law was that the affirming gun could only be fired under the true national flag.-Valin, Traité des Prises, chap. ii. § 1, par. 9; cited by Halleck, vol. ii. pp. 25, 29. Ortolan says that the affirming gun may be fired under false colors, but that all acts of hostility must take place under the proper national flag.-II Ortolan, liv. iii. chap. i. See also Massé, Droit Commercial, tome i. § 307; Hautefeuille, Droit des Nations Neutres, tome iv. p. 8; Snow, p. 96. Paragraph 273 United States Navy Regulations of 1896 contains the requirement that "the use of a for

eign flag to deceive an enemy is permissible, but it must be hauled down before a gun is fired; and under no circumstances shall an officer commence an action, or fight a battle, without the display of the national ensign."

'Hall, pp. 416–423; II Halleck, pp. 98-106; Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 352, 355; Risley, pp. 134, 137–139; Walker, Manual, pp. 128-130, 143145; Manning, pp. 179-183; Snow, pp. 108, 109; Woolsey, § 137; Instructions for Government of Armies of the U. S. etc. sec. ii.; II Twiss, pp. 119-125; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. ix. §§ 160-163; Creasy, pp. 496-514; Dana's Wheaton, § 347 (note), 169; IV Calvo, §§ 2199-2220.

Private property is classified into real and personal. Real property, whether consisting of land or buildings, is exempt from seizure or destruction, except as a direct necessity of military operations. It may be occupied or used, and during such occupation should be protected from all needless injury and damage. Personal property is divided into-1. That which is susceptible of direct military use by a belligerent. To this class belong pack, saddle, and draft animals, means of transportation of all kinds, cattle, fuel, provisions and food products, medicines, forage, cloth, leather, and shoes and the like in general, all articles of wear and supply for men and animals. 2. That which is not susceptible of direct military use, including works of art, furniture, valuables, clothing, and articles of general merchandise. The former may be captured, or taken by way of requisition; the latter is exempt from capture or confiscation. Money may be taken in commutation of requisitions regularly imposed, or by a levy in the nature of a contribution, with the sanction of the state by whose authority it is levied. If personal property be taken by way of pillage, the act is severely punished.

The taking of private property within the limits here described is sanctioned by the law of nations. It is sometimes paid for, more frequently, perhaps, now than formerly, but when compensation is made, it is dictated rather by motives of policy than justice. Illiberal and unjust as the practice may be, it is universally recognized, and so receives the unwilling sanction of international law.' The army regulations of all nations provide specifically, and in great detail, for the main

'Boyd's Wheaton, §§ 346, 346a; II Halleck, pp. 108-115; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. ix. §§ 161-168; Manning, Pp. 179–183; II Twiss, pp. 119-128; Creasy pp. 514-534; Hall, § 139; Risley, pp. 134,135,139-143. What shall be the subject of capture, as against an enemy, is always within the control of every belligerent. It is the duty of his military forces in the field to seize and hold that which is apparently so subject, leaving the owner

to make good his claim as against the capture in the appropriate tribunal established for that purpose. In that regard they occupy on land the same position that naval forces do at sea.-Lamar vs. Browne, 92 U.S. 157. Unless restrained by governmental relations, the capture of movable property on land changes the ownership of it without adjudication.-Ibid. See also Arts. 46-51 of the Hague Conference of 1899.

tenance of their troops in the enemy's territory, by supporting them, wholly or in part, by requisitions on the country through which they are passing, and prescribe the methods of quartering troops, and of collecting and distributing subsistence and forage.'

Requisitions are the formal and regular levies of supplies, made by an invading army for its support, in accordance with the municipal laws and army regulations of the state to which it belongs. These laws, regulations, and orders prescribe the methods in accordance with which the requisitions are to be made. The proportion to be taken from each individual, the articles to be paid for, if there be any such, the tariffs, or rates of payment, and the cases in which receipts are to be given, are stated in such regulations and orders. They also contain provisions denouncing pillage, and prescribing punishments for that offence and for other unauthorized taking of enemy property.'

Receipts should always be given for property taken by way of requisition. They are of importance, as payments for stores and supplies thus taken from individual residents of the occupied territory, whether made by the invaders' government or their own, are based upon them; and, if not taken up and paid, they may serve to mitigate the severity of future requisitions by the same invader. Requisitions may be made by commanding officers of any grade, but always in strict accordance with law and regulations. Unauthorized requisitions are usually regarded as acts of pillage, and are punished accordingly."

A question arises as to whether a belligerent can compel the personal services of individuals of the population of the

'Hall, §139; Risley, pp. 139-140; Walker, Manual, pp. 143-148;Woolsey, §§ 135-137; Snow, pp. 108-109; II Halleck, pp. 108-109; U. S. Instructions, par. 33; II Twiss, pp. 122-128; IV Calvo, §§ 2220-2229.

Hall, § 140; Risley, pp. 140-141; Woolsey, 136; Snow, pp. 108-109; II Halleck, pp. 109-114; Manning,

pp. 182, 183; Vattel, liv. i. ch. ix. § 165; Articles 56-58 Brussels Conference; Arts. 48-53 Convention of The Hague, 1899.

II Halleck, pp. 113, 114; Article 51 Convention of The Hague, 1899; Hall, § 139; IV Calvo, §§ 2253-2255; Bluntschli, §§ 653–656.