Chapter II: Violations of the Hague Convention (3)

This is not the only case admitted by them. _Zeit im Bild_ (No. 43, 1914) reproduces on its cover a photograph of a "military post on the tower of an Hôtel de Ville." In this we see German soldiers armed with rifles, watching an imaginary enemy. This photograph was taken at the Palais de Justice in Brussels, as is proved, without possibility of error, by the church of La Chapelle, whose very characteristic tower rises in the distance. The Germans were so delighted with this violation of the Hague Convention that they reproduced the photograph in the illustrated supplement of the _Hamburger Fremdensblatt_. And what is most curious in this affair is that they boasted of an offence which they knew they had not committed. For, firstly, the soldiers were not posted "on an Hôtel de Ville"; secondly, they were not even posted _on_ the Palais de Justice, but to one side of it, as may easily be determined on the spot; thirdly, German soldiers have never been placed there to overlook an enemy!

Since mid-October of 1914 it is in Western Flanders that the fighting has taken place. Did the Germans eventually, before the universal reprobation which greeted their exploits at Louvain, Reims, and so forth, determine to respect the international agreement to which they are parties? By no means. They are far too contemptuous of conventions, as is proved by the photographs of monuments bombarded in the region of the Yser, which are published in the illustrated newspapers, notably in _Panorama_, a Dutch illustrated paper which surreptitiously enters Belgium.

Ypres: _Panorama_, 23_b_, 25_a_.

Dixmude: _Panorama_, 23_a_, 23_b_; _Berl. Ill. Zeit._, Nos. 2 and
3, 1915; _Kriegs-Echo_, Nos. 22, 24; _Zeit. im Bild_, No. 3, 1915.

Pervyse: _Panorama_, 21_a_, 21_b_, 23_a_.

Nieuport: _Panorama_, 22_a_.

Ramscapelle: _Panorama_, 23_b_.

Among the monuments destroyed artists especially deplore the marvellous Halles of Ypres, and the churches of Nieuport, Ypres, and Dixmude. This last contained a very remarkable Gothic rood-screen, of which Herr Stübben, one of the most eminent architects of modern Germany, stated that its loss would be irreparable. It escaped the shells, but not the German soldiery, who destroyed it with the butts of their rifles, after the capture of the town. Always _Kultur_!

_Pillage._

ARTICLE 28.

_The giving over to pillage of a town or place, even when taken by
assault, is forbidden._

ARTICLE 46.

_Family honour and rights, individual life, and private property as
well as religious convictions and worship, must be respected._

ARTICLE 47

_Pillage is expressly forbidden._

"Family honour and rights!" The cases of rape prove the respect of the German army for these prescriptions!

"Individual life!" By the end of September 1914 the Germans had killed more civilians than soldiers. This simple statement says more than could a long exposition.

"Private property!" Theft and pillage are phenomena so commonplace that the inhabitants no longer insist upon them; if they mention the subject it is to say: "The Germans behaved well here; they only took all we had." We shall therefore confine ourselves to citing a few cases particularly typical of the German mentality.

It is indisputable that the conflagrations started under the pretext of chastising "francs-tireurs" were in reality designed to conceal the pillage committed by the German army. This was certainly the case at Aerschot (_4th Report_) and at Louvain. The officers who gave orders to start these fires were therefore accomplices of the pillaging soldiery. For that matter, how could they have disavowed the thefts of their men, seeing that they themselves largely took part in the scramble? Whole trains left Brussels, Louvain, Malines, and Verviers for Germany, loaded with "war booty for officers." During their journey to Belgium, Herren Koester and Noske, on the 23rd September, at Hubesthal, saw numerous trains passing which were laden with war booty (_Kriegsfahrten_, p. 8); there were at that time no serious battles either in France or in Belgium, so that there was no capture of war booty in the Western sense of the term.[28] The trains observed by the Socialist authors could only have been carrying the fruits of pillage; they came probably from Malines, which the Germans at this time were scrupulously emptying, as well as the numerous châteaux of the neighbourhood.

Not a district has been visited by the Germans that has not been totally despoiled. Of course, the silver was taken first. One officer, after plundering the entire store of silver of a villa at Francorchamps, confided to a neighbour that he was going to have it melted down in Germany, with the exception of one spoon, which he would keep as a "souvenir." Is it not typical and delightful, this German cult of the "souvenir" as a veneer of sentimentality on a basis of rapacity? According to the definition given by the Kaiser, this officer displayed his civilization but not his _Kultur_.

Another "requisition" of plate. In the railway station of Mons, towards the middle of February 1915, a merchant unloading a truck-load of merchandise had his attention attracted by a coffin which was being removed from a neighbouring van; suddenly he heard a metallic clink: the bottom of the coffin had given way, and an avalanche of spoons, forks, napkin-rings, and other articles of silver tumbled out!

Nothing is sacred to the Huns. They smash the tabernacles, treasuries, and poor-boxes of the churches as readily as the coffers of the People's Banks (_Maisons du Peuple_). At Auvelois they seized upon 43,000 frs. in the Maison du Peuple, this being the entire capital of the Socialist Young Guard, the Freethinkers, the newspaper _En Avant_, the Miners' Union (_syndicat_), and other mutual aid societies.

At Beyghem, near Grimberghen, before setting fire to the church, they broke open the safe in the sacristy. Being unable to perforate it, they demolished the wall dividing the church from the sacristy, in which it was imbedded, so that they were able to attack it from behind.

In most of the churches which were burned in the north of Brabant (p. 73) the strong-box and the tabernacle were broken open. It was the same in the province of Namur.

As soon as the approach of the Germans was signalled, many people hastened to pack up their furniture and valuables, in order more readily to transport them in case of evacuation. This foresight almost always failed in its object, owing to the impossibility of finding a horse and cart at the moment of departure. These packing-cases and hampers, all ready corded, presented an insurmountable temptation; the officers were never able to resist it, and the goods were sent straight to the railway station.

We are informed that at the beginning of the German occupation officers were frequently mistaken as to the actual value of the articles which they removed; so that they sent their families worthless rubbish "made in Germany." To avoid these unpleasant misconceptions, they made their inspections in the company of experts who directed their choice.

Need we add that the wine-cellars were always methodically exploited? The bottles which could not be drunk on the spot were packed for later consumption, or to be sent to Germany. In a château near Charleroi the officers had the doors--which were beautiful examples of joinery--taken off their hinges, and used to make packing-cases for the bottles.

We must not forget that drunkenness has played an important part in the atrocities committed by the German army.

The Germans were not content with making a clean sweep of the private houses and châteaux; they also stripped the Governmental offices which they occupied in Brussels of their furniture. In the Ministry of Public Works a portion of the maps of bridges, buildings, etc., was burned, and a portion sent to Germany.

_Thefts of Stamps._

As to those who despoiled the Ministries, we will give them the credit of supposing that they acted by order and in the interest of their Government; but we cannot thus excuse the conduct of one officer who, having possessed himself, goodness knows how, of a number of Belgian stamps, attempted, in a stationer's shop, to pay for 80 frs.' worth of goods by means of these stamps. Meeting with a refusal from the shopkeeper, he had to content himself with paying for only a portion of his purchases in this manner. In a neighbouring watchmaker's he did better, for he was able to get rid of 100 frs. in stamps; at a discount, of course.[29] He informed the watchmaker that he possessed 4,000 frs.' worth of Belgian stamps. The latter was not so indiscreet as to ask how he obtained them.

Better still: the Germans do not conceal the fact that they are thieves. The _Matin_ (Paris, 9th June, 1915) reproduced the photograph of an announcement published by a Swiss newspaper.

"It informs us that a thief of the German army, desiring to realize the 'war booty' which he collected in Antwerp, offers for sale unused stamps of values between 10 centimes and 10 frs. In his 'stock' of booty are 19 different stamps of a total value of 29 frs. 70 (oh, that 70 centimes of pillage!) which he offers for 3 frs. 50.--All Germany--philosophical, political, military, and commercial--is contained in this little advertisement."

At Tamines, having burned about 250 houses, on the 21st and 22nd August, 1914, and having forced the living to bury the 416 unhappy people shot on the evening of the 22nd, they sent all the survivors to Velaines-sur-Sambre. There they were given their liberty, and told that they might go to Namur or to Düsseldorf, but not to Tamines. Why not to Tamines? They understood a few days later, when they were bold enough to return despite the prohibition. The Germans had completely emptied all the shops and all the private houses in the place. It is evident that this operation can be effected in a more methodical and comfortable manner when there are no children running between your legs, or women begging you to leave them some souvenir for which they have a particular affection.

At Louvain they acted in the same manner; they proceeded to wholesale pillage only after the 27th, when they had sent all the inhabitants away.

Sometimes the love of pillage got the better of discipline. At Jumet, on the road from Brussels to Charleroi, on the 22nd August, 1914, the troops were ordered to burn all the houses, because the French of the 110th Infantry had dared to attack them with machine-guns. But some soldiers who had entered a tobacconist's amused themselves by stealing cigars and cigarettes, and were so absorbed that they forgot to set fire to the shop, so that it has remained intact in the midst of a long row of burned-out buildings.

What disgusts us most in all this pillage is not that the German troops should have marked our unhappy country for pillage; it is the indisputable complicity of the leaders of the army. Nothing more clearly proves the benevolent intervention of the military and civil authorities in the operations of brigandage than the regular transport of "war booty" into Germany. The officers make no secret of sending to their homes such things as pianos, pictures, jewels, furniture, glass, etc. They do it openly, with the obvious complicity of the railway officials. The latter are entrusted with the organization of the rapid transportation to the Fatherland of mountains of cases, containing the results of the methodical exploration of our houses and châteaux and shops and warehouses. It is a vast organization of brigandage, hierarchically regulated, in which every one steals without hiding the fact from his fellows. Who knows whether the coffin full of silver-plate which burst in the Mons railway station did not belong to some officer who had swindled his accomplices? We in Belgium have witnessed the regular working of a system of "co-operative brigandage under the august protection of the authorities."

Let us note, finally, that theft and pillage are expressly forbidden by the German _Usages of War_. Articles 57, 58, 60, 61, and 62 prohibit all destruction of private property. But we must suppose that their _Usages of War_ are applicable only in times of peace, since from the very first days of the war the German army began to pillage the regions which it occupied. This spoliation has been pursued with the systematic spirit which characterizes _Kultur_.

_Illegal Taxation._

ARTICLE 43.

_The authority of the power of the State having passed de facto
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall do all in his
power to restore, and shall ensure, as far as possible, public
order and safety, respecting at the same time, unless absolutely
prevented, the laws in force in the country._

ARTICLE 48.

_If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes,
dues, and tolls payable to the State, he shall do so, as far as
is possible, in accordance with the legal basis and assessment in
force at the time and shall in consequence be bound to defray the
expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the
same extent as the national Government had been so bound._

ARTICLE 49.

_If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above Article,
the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied
territory, they shall only be applied to the needs of the army or
of the administration of the territory in question._

Two placards exhibited in Brussels on the evening of the 12th December (Saturday) attracted general attention.

They first convoked the Provincial Councils for the 19th December, and imposed upon them, not simply a general "order of the day," but an imperative mandate to vote a war-tax. The second gave details of this tax: 480,000,000 frs. was to be paid in monthly instalments of 40,000,000 (£19,200,000 in twelve payments of £1,600,000) (see _Belg. Allem._, p. 120).

Baron von Bissing thus advertised, seven days in advance, the decisions to be taken by the Provincial Councils. Doubtless he was made to understand that the proceeding was a little extreme, and contrary both to the law and to common sense; for on the following morning the second placard was covered with a blank sheet of paper. Better still, the "Official Bulletin of Laws and Decrees for the occupied Belgian Territory" gave in its issue of the 19th the text of the two decrees; but this number was suppressed, and in its place another placard, numbered 19, was distributed, which included only the first decree.

On the 19th December our nine Provincial Councils assembled. They could not do otherwise than vote the crushing tax of 480 millions; but several of them protested eloquently against the illegality of this proceeding.

_Speech delivered by M. François André at the meeting of the
Provincial Council of Hainaut, on the 19th December, 1914, in the
presence of the German Governor and Dr. Daniest, President._

... We have met by order of the German authorities to vote a
war-tax; to make one word of many, we have met to furnish arms
to the formidable invader of our country, to be used against our
heroic little Belgian army....

We are thus assembled to vote, _by order_, a war-tax.

I wish to protest--against both the form and the substance of this
tax.

As to the form, I regard this extraordinary session as absolutely
illegal; the Provincial Councillors are not qualified to vote
war-taxes affecting the whole country; moreover, the councillors of
the various provinces, in concerting as to the measures to be taken
in common, so to speak, which are matters beyond the scope of their
jurisdiction, are committing an offence in Belgian law, which law
no German decree has abrogated. As to the substance: Admitting that
the German authorities have the right to levy taxes on the whole
country, while our 120,000 soldiers are still in occupation of our
territory, it is very certain that according to the terms of the
Hague Convention no tax may be levied except for the needs of the
army of occupation.

What is an army of occupation?

It is that which, finding itself in a conquered territory,
undertakes the policing and safeguards the security of that
territory.

This is why it may appear legitimate for the army to force the
occupied territory to support it.

But our country--as Field-Marshal von der Goltz has declared,
and as is perfectly obvious--our country has become the basis
of military operations against the Allies. According to the
spirit of the Hague Convention, there is no army of occupation,
properly speaking, in our country, and in any case the 35,000
men concentrated in Namur and the artillery assembled at Liége
cannot in any respects be regarded as making part of an army of
occupation.

It is, therefore, contrary to law and contrary to reason that these
480,000,000 frs. are demanded from the country.

Are we then going to vote this formidable war-tax?

Assuredly if we listened only to our hearts we should reply: No,
no; 480,000,000 times no.

For our hearts would tell us:

We were a small nation, happy to live by its labour; we were an
honest little nation, having faith in treaties and believing in
honour; we were a confident little nation, and unarmed, when
suddenly, violently, Germany hurled two million men upon our
frontier, the greatest army that the world has ever seen, and she
told us: "Betray your given word; let our armies pass that I may
crush France, and I will give you gold." But Belgium replied: "Keep
your gold; I would rather die than live without honour."

History will one day reveal the greatness of the action which
forever magnifies us in the eyes of the future. For nothing in the
annals of the past equals the sacrifice of this people, which,
having nothing to gain and all to lose, preferred to lose all in
order that honour should be saved, and deliberately cast herself
into an abyss of distress, but also of glory.

The German army thus invaded the country in violation of solemn
treaties.

"It is an injustice," said the Chancellor of the Empire; "the
destinies of the Empire forced us to commit it; but we shall repair
the wrong done to Belgium by the passage of our armies...."

This, then, is how they mean to repair that wrong:

Germany will pay----

But no! Belgium will pay Germany 480,000,000 frs.! Vote this money!

As a matter of penal legislation, the Germans have systematically ignored Article 48, as is proved by the eloquent protest of the President of the Bar of Brussels.

Yet another typical instance of the manner in which Germany disregards our laws. At Aerschot the Germans provisionally invested a German, Herr Ronnewinkel, who had inhabited the district for several years, with the functions of Burgomaster. On the 6th November, 1914, they proclaimed him permanently burgomaster.

Here was a German appointed burgomaster by the will of the district commander, although by the terms of the law only a Belgian appointed by the Government could be burgomaster. Moreover, they did the same at Andenne. The communal autonomy of which Belgium was so proud was thus trampled underfoot.

We see, then, that in despite of Articles 43 and 48 of the Hague Convention and Article 67 of their own _Usages of War_ the Germans have shown no respect whatever for the legislation in force. We cite here only the most flagrant of these illegalities, those which any person of common sense can understand and judge.

ARTICLE 44.

_A belligerent is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of territory
occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other
belligerent, or about its means of defence._

This article was not accepted by Germany; she remains faithful to her _Usages of War_: Article 53, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs, and applies their principles with extreme severity.

Nothing better illustrates the severity with which the Germans act than the little manual of conversation which terminates the _Tornisterwörterbuch_, published by the Mentor publishing house in Schöneberg, Berlin. It is a small dictionary, costing 60 pfennigs, and intended, as the title indicates, to be carried in the soldier's knapsack. The French dictionary and the English are conceived according to the same method; after information concerning the country in question they give a summary of the rules of grammar; then comes the dictionary properly so-called, with phonetic pronunciation; finally, a few common phrases, which to us are the most interesting part of the book, since their choice naturally reflects the requirements of those expected to employ them. Here are a few passages from paragraph 4: _Service of Outposts and Patrols_. In each passage we copy all the phrases without exception, so as to avoid misrepresenting the spirit of the work; and this spirit, as will be seen, is ferocious. The volume is not dated; but the 42nd edition, from which we quote, describes (p. 44) the French campaigning uniform of 1912. These phrases were therefore printed at least five years after the second Hague Conference (18th October, 1907). They show clearly that the acts of cruelty committed by the patrols against those who refused to betray their country were not improvised by the cavalry taking part in these reconnaissances, but were systematically premeditated.

P. 175--

Silence! Speak only when I question you!
You seem to me a suspicious person.
Where is your pocket-book?
I must search it.
Remain here for the moment.
At the first attempt at flight you will be shot.
Sir, where does this road lead?

P. 176--

Is this village occupied by the French?
When did the troops arrive there?
What is roughly their composition?
Roughly? Two or three companies?
How many officers, roughly speaking?
Have they any artillery?
How many guns?
Have you seen cavalry too?
Tell us the truth. The least lie might cost you your life!

P. 177--

Has the village been placed in a state of defence?
Are there no cross-roads leading to the windmill?
Remain by my horse.
On the first attempt at flight, or if you try to mislead
me, I shall send a bullet after you.
Stop here! I will call the miller myself.
Hey! Miller!
Have any French troops passed this way?
You lie! Here are visible traces, and quite fresh ones.

A little manual of conversation costing 20 pfennigs--_Deutsch-Französischer-Soldaten-Sprachführer_, by Captain S. Th. Hoasmann, is conceived on the same lines. Here are a few examples. The soldier, making a reconnaissance, declares: "Speak the truth or you will be killed!" In the chapter on "Posts and Telegraphs" we find the phrase: "It is forbidden (on pain of death) to send telegrams." And the sentinel should be able to say: "If you lie you will be shot," etc.

ARTICLE 50.

_No collective penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted
upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which
it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible._

This article proclaims the principle that in no case must the innocent suffer with the guilty, nor in their place. We have already seen that our enemies oppose this idea; they maintain that the innocent should suffer with the guilty, and even that if one cannot lay hands on the guilty one may punish the innocent in their place (p. 84). It was by the application of this German principle of collective punishment that Louvain, Dinant, Termonde, and other towns were burned.

The placard of 1st October, 1914, clearly displays the German mentality; it states that villages will be punished without mercy, whether guilty or not.

NOTICE.

On the evening of the 25th September the railway and telegraph
lines were destroyed between Lovenjoul and Vestryck. In consequence
of which the two localities mentioned were, on the morning of the
30th September, called to account and forced to supply hostages.

In future the localities nearest the spot at which such acts have
been committed--no matter whether they are guilty of complicity
or not--will be punished without pity. To this end hostages have
been taken from all localities adjacent to railway lines threatened
by such attacks, and at the first attempt to destroy the railway
lines, or telegraph or telephone wires, they will immediately be
shot.

Moreover, all troops charged with the protection of railways have
received orders to shoot any person approaching railway lines or
telephone or telegraph wires in a suspicious manner.

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN BELGIUM,
BARON VON DER GOLTZ,
_General Field-Marshal_.

BRUSSELS, _1st October, 1914_.

Fully to appreciate the horrible nature of this placard we must recall the fact that during the siege of Antwerp (which terminated only on the 9th) Belgium patrols were penetrating into the midst of the German troops, venturing thirty-five miles and more from Antwerp, their mission being to harass the enemy's communications and to destroy the railways and the telegraph and telephone line. It was one of these bodies of Belgian cyclists which cut the railway and telegraph line between Louvain and Tirlemont on 25th September, 1914. Von der Goltz was evidently aware that this destruction was a perfectly legitimate military operation, so that his placard was intended simply to embarrass our military authorities by showing them that in defiance of all justice Germany intended to hold the Belgian civilians responsible for the activity of our army. In short, instead of saying "no matter whether these localities are guilty of complicity or not," von der Goltz would have given a greater proof of sincerity had he said, "although I know that these localities are in no way guilty of complicity."

Here are two other placards, printed in Germany, which show plainly that it is according to a system that our oppressors hold the entire community responsible for the act committed by a single person; or rather, as we shall see, for the acts of the Belgian army.

PLACARD PRINTED IN GERMAN, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, AND POLISH, SURROUNDED
BY A BORDER OF THE GERMAN COLOURS.

NOTICE.

Any person who shall have damaged a military telephone or telegraph
will be shot.

Any person removing this notice will also receive the severest
punishment. If the guilty person is not found, the severest
measures will be taken against the commune in which the damage has
been caused or the present notice removed.

THE GENERAL COMMANDING THE ARMY CORPS.

(_Posted at Bieghem, copy made 22nd October, 1914._)

NOTICE.

All damage done to the Telegraph, Telephone, or Railway lines will
be punished by the Military Court. According to the circumstances,
the guilty person will be condemned to death.

If the guilty person is not seized the severest measures will be
taken against the commune in which the damage has been done,

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

Printed by H. A. Heymann, Berlin, S.W.

(_Posted at Tervueren, copy made 15th April, 1915._)

Very frequently the penalties with which the community is threatened are not specified in these placards. One may suppose that it would consist of a fine; this is indeed the punishment most frequently applied, doubtless because it is the most productive. Here are some examples, for cutting the telegraph wires, various localities in Flanders were forced to pay fines in December 1914.

The military chest does not lack for money; for in a garrison command a fine may be inflicted more readily than elsewhere. Here is an example. An officer was choosing some music in a shop; and found, amidst a heap of pieces of music, a copy of the _Marseillaise_. Now it has never been stated that one must not possess the _Marseillaise_. Result: the shopkeeper was condemned to pay a fine of 500 marks or to twenty days' imprisonment. "I prefer the imprisonment," said the unfortunate man. "But, my good fellow, you can avoid going to prison! Pay the fine!" "I know, but I have not got 500 marks. I could only scrape together 150 frs. at most." "All right, give them to me!"

* * * * *

_Fines for Telegraphic Interruptions._

The military chest is also replenished by the fines paid because the telegraph and telephone do not work properly. Now it has often happened during the last six weeks that communication has been obstructed in Flanders. The smallest communes have been forced to pay fines.

Here is a brief list of such fines:

Gand 100,000 marks
Ledebourg 5,000 "
Destelbergen 30,000 "
Schellebelle 50,000 "
Sweveghem 4,900 "
Winckel Sainte-Croix 3,000 "
Wachtebeke 3,000 "

_(N.R.C._, 30th January, 1915, evening edition.)

_Fines for "Attacks by Francs-tireurs."_

We may observe, in passing, that in September 1914 the accusation--the accusation, we say, not the offence--of having allowed a telegraph wire to deteriorate was punished, in Brussels, by a stoppage of the telephone service; but in December the Germans preferred to fill their treasury. The same observation is true of Mons and Bilsen; the accusation of "francs-tireurs," which in September 1914 would have ended in a massacre of the inhabitants and the burning of the town, was in October the motive for a tax of 100,000 frs. At that time it no longer seemed essential to terrorize; the Germans no longer required blood, but money.

ON BEHALF OF THE GERMAN MILITARY AUTHORITIES.

WARNING.

The City of Mons has been forced to pay a tax of 100,000 frs.
because a private person fired upon a German soldier.

(_Posted at Louvain._)

And indeed it is money that is demanded everywhere--5,000 frs. from the commune of Grenbergen, near Termonde, because an inhabitant allowed his pigeons to fly. 5,000,000 frs. was required of Brussels because a police agent maltreated a German spy (p. 157). It was with a money fine that Mons was threatened should an Englishman be discovered on its soil (placard posted at Mons, 6th November, 1914), and the city of Mons and the province of Hainaut if any inhabitant retained for his own use any benzine or a motor-bicycle (placard posted at Mons, 6th October, 1914). At Seraing, in February 1915, it was again money that was demanded, because a bomb had burst within the limits of the commune. The more surely to obtain the sum, a few hostages were imprisoned, with the promise that they would be sent to a fortress in Germany if the communal treasury did not pay their ransom; but the hostages themselves advised the commune to refuse. The Germans, fearing to be left in the lurch, reduced their demands by half; finally, having obtained nothing, they released the hostages. Singular justice, to regulate its penalties not by the gravity of the offence, but according to the temper of the victims! We are waiting for the German newspapers to publish a schedule of penalties as affected by the docility of the victims and the season.

Here is an amusing instance of a penalty which was inflicted upon Antwerp. When the Germans posted up a statement that they had captured 52,000 Russians and 400 guns in Eastern Prussia, a playful citizen replaced the first letter of _Russians_ in the Flemish text by an M and concealed the two first letters of _canonen_. The new version announced that the Germans had captured 52,000 sparrows and 400 nuns. The Germans were annoyed and imposed a fine of 25,000 frs. on the city. At Tirlemont, where the same pleasantry was perpetrated, the Germans contented themselves with making vague threats.

The adventure of Eppeghem also deserves to be told in a few words.

In November 1914 a German soldier walking in the country fired at a hare or a pigeon. An officer turned up and questioned the soldier. As all sport is reserved for officers, the soldier, to avoid punishment, threw the blame on to the peasants. The matter was referred to Brussels, and on the following day officers arrived with forty Uhlans. A fine of 10,000 frs. was inflicted on the commune.

Some women living in a house which had by chance remained standing, near the field in which the soldier had fired, asserted that no inhabitant had fired a shot, but that they had seen the soldier fire. No one listened to them. "We must have 10,000 frs., and at once." But in this village, ruined from end to end, where scarcely a house was habitable, from which all the men had been deported into Germany, there was no means of collecting such a sum of money. "Since that is so, hostages will be taken," said the officers. The Uhlans organized a hunt, and seized the curé and three laymen, the only ones they could find; and even of these one was an inhabitant of Vilverde, who had obligingly been acting as a citizen policeman at Eppeghem. They were taken to Brussels, but on passing through Vilverde the inhabitant of that place was released, owing to the protests of his fellow-citizens. After ten days' imprisonment Baron von der Goltz, finding that there was nothing to be extracted from the communal treasury of Eppeghem, and that the curé and his two parishioners were being kept and fed at a loss, set them at liberty.

_Hostages_

The taking of hostages is also in flagrant opposition to the provisions of Article 50, but in conformity with the German _Usages of War_. The hostage guarantees with his own life that his fellow-citizens, with whom he has no influence, shall faithfully execute the orders of the German authorities.

The first care of enemy troops arriving in any locality is always to demand the provision of hostages; these are usually the curé, the burgomaster, the notary, the schoolmaster, and a few other notables. We may recall Liége, where the bishop, Mgr. Rutten, was taken hostage; Spa, Louvain, Charleroi, Gand, and Mons. In Brussels they demanded the delivery of 100 hostages, but afterwards withdrew the demand.

As to the fate which awaits the hostages if the German army is attacked, it is plainly stipulated in the proclamations: they will be shot, "without previous judicial formalities." Thus, it would have been enough for a Belgian patrol to renew its usual activities near Forest, and two hostages would have immediately been shot "without previous judicial formalities."

GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN BELGIUM.

TO THE PEOPLE OF FOREST.

Despite my repeated warnings attacks have again been made during
the last few days by the civil population of the neighbourhood
against German troops, and also upon the railway between Brussels
and Mons.

By the order of the Military Governor-General of Brussels each
locality must consequently provide hostages.

Thus at Forest the following are arrested:

(1) M. Vanderkindere, Communal Councillor.
(2) M. le curé François.

I proclaim that these hostages will immediately be shot without
previous judicial formalities if any attack occurs on the part of
the population upon our troops or the railway lines occupied by us,
and that moreover the most severe reprisals will be carried out
against the commune of Forest.

I request the population to keep calm and to refrain from all
violence; in this case it will not suffer the slightest harm.

THE COMMANDANT OF THE LANDSTURM,
HALBERSTADT BATTALION,
VON LESSEL.

FOREST, _26th September, 1914_.

If hostages try to escape they will be hanged and their village burned.

WARNING.

As fresh attempts at assassination have been made upon persons
forming part of the German army I have had persons from many
localities arrested as hostages. These will guarantee with their
lives that no inhabitant will again dare to commit a malevolent
action against German soldiers or attempt to damage the railway,
telegraph or telephone line, or other objects useful to the
operations of our army.

Persons not belonging to the army surprised in committing such
actions will be shot or hanged. The hostages of the surrounding
localities will suffer the same fate. I shall then have the
neighbourhood burned to the last house, even if important towns
are in question. If the hostages attempt to escape the locality to
which they belong will be burned, and if captured the hostages will
be hanged.

All inhabitants who give proof of their goodwill toward our troops
are assured of the safety of their lives and property.

THE COMMANDANT ENTRUSTED WITH THE
PROTECTION OF THE RAILWAYS,
FREIHERR VON MALZAHN.

(_Posted at Spa, Aywaille, Châtelineau.... 17th August, 1914._)

We do not know if hostages were shot or hanged in Belgium. But in the north of France, according to a military correspondent of the _K.Z._, at least one hostage was killed; this assassination was the more criminal in that it punished not a hostile act of the inhabitants, but a perfectly normal and regular operation of war: a bombardment.

A WAR PICTURE.

... A château stands beside the highway, at the back of a courtyard
protected by a French spear-headed railing. It is intact, and
shelters the staff of an infantry regiment. Facing it is the ruined
façade of an incredibly pretentious building on whose pediment
sprawls in letters of gold the one word, "Bank." Beside it is a
wholesale corn-chandler's and a wholesale wine-merchant's. All
this belonged to a single man. It was necessary to shoot him as
hostage, because the French were persisting, despite all warnings,
in throwing shells into the neighbourhood. In the wine-cellars
stores of unexpected importance were found; according to the
estimates there are more than half a million litres of red and
white wine of very good quality. A great part of the wine was
pumped out of the tanks and received, like an old acquaintance, by
the comrades far and near.

The rich man of this quarter of the town had a companion who was
more lucky, who in due time sought safety in flight.

(_K.Z._, 21st February, 1915.)

A very curious case of the punishment of innocent people in the case of "guilty" ones is the following: On the 7th October, 1914, the Germans posted statements that the militia-men of the occupied regions could not rejoin the Belgian army, and that in case of disobedience the young men would expose themselves to the risk of being sent into Germany as prisoners of war. So far, nothing illegal. But the placard then declared that in case of the departure of any militia-man his family would be held responsible. Now, how are the parents guilty, if their son intends at all costs to fulfil his obligations to his native country? On the 30th December, 1914, there was an aggravation of this measure: the burgomasters also were to be punished. On the 28th January, 1915, a new notice appeared: all Belgians between the ages of sixteen and forty years were to be regarded as capable of military service. So when a man of forty goes to join the Belgian army the members of his family will be punished! Truly the notice might have stated whether children would be punished for not preventing their father's departure!

Have there been cases of repression? The _N.R.C._ states that at Hasselt the Germans actually arrested the fathers and mothers of the young men who escaped.

The _Tijd_ learns from Ruremonde:

At Hasselt and in the neighbourhood the Germans have hunted down
the fathers of those young men who, liable to be called to the
colours, have been able, in spite of strict prohibition and active
supervision, to enter Holland, there to pass through England and
France with the intention of eventually joining the army.

But as soon as they heard that the fathers were being arrested,
these latter also crossed the frontier, and the Germans found that
a great many birds had flown.

They did not stop then: the mothers were arrested in their place.

At the same time the Germans made it known that all these people
would be transferred to the well-known camp at Münster, and
warned the women to provide themselves with as much body-linen as
possible. The whole of the little town was in consternation. Later
arrived a telegram from General von Bissing, announcing that the
departure for Münster was postponed for a week, and the prisoners
were taken to Tongres.

(_N.R.C._, 3rd February, 1915.)

A last example of punishment inflicted upon the innocent, when the "guilty" person had already suffered punishment. A Belgian, having made signals to the enemy (that is, to the Belgian army), was killed while being arrested. Immediately the curé and the vicar were sent to Germany as being responsible for the members of their parish.

IMPORTANT NOTICE.

Alidor Vandamme, inhabitant of Cortemarck, committed espionage by
making signals to the enemy. Resisting arrest, he was killed by a
rifle-bullet.

The German authority has taken the following measures of coercion
in consequence of the crime committed by Vandamme:

1. The curé Blancke and the vicar Barra, responsible for the
members of their parish, will be deported as prisoners of war to
Germany.

2. The commune of Cortemarck must pay a fine of five thousand marks
(5,000 M.).

(_Posted at Thielt_, _Termonde_, _etc._)

This iniquity was not enough for the German authorities: they advertised it all through Flanders (we copied it at Thielt and Termonde), and forced _Le Bien Public_ to give it publicity. Through lack of conscience or insolence?

_Contributions and Requisitions._

ARTICLE 51.

_No contribution shall be collected except under a written order,
and on the responsibility of a General in command._

_The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected
in accordance, as far as is possible, with the legal basis and
assessment of taxes in force at the time._

_For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the
contributories._

ARTICLE 52.

_Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from local
authorities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of
occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the
country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in
the obligation of taking part in military operations against their
own country. Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded
on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied._

_Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in
ready money: if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of
the amount due shall be made as soon as possible._

The last paragraph of Article 23, already cited, in reality presupposes that passage in Article 52 which forbids the occupant to force the inhabitants to do work which would assist operations directed against their country (p. 112).

Among the forms of contribution included in Article 49 we must give first place to that which fixes the value of the mark. The _Düsseldorfer Zeitung_ of the 4th September announces that the military commander of the occupied portion of Belgium and France fixed the value of 100 marks at 130 frs. And indeed placards posted at Charleroi, Saint-Trond, Namur, and Liége required the Belgians to accept German marks at this exaggerated tariff, which has caused certain of our merchants to lose considerable sums.

PROCLAMATION.

The circulation of German money having given rise to perplexities,
_the value of the German mark has been fixed at 130 centimes_.

The attention of the public is called to the fact that all German
paper money must be accepted in financial transactions at the same
rate as German coin.

THE GOVERNOR.
_The 25th August, 1914._

(_Posted at Liége._)

The fraudulent intention in this measure was only too evident. A month later Baron von der Goltz made it known that until further notice the mark was to be valued at the lowest at 1 fr. 25 (placard of the 3rd October, 1914). In reality the mark was worth only 1 fr. 08 to 1 fr. 15, so that the Belgians naturally endeavoured to refuse German notes; whereupon fresh placards were exhibited, compelling their acceptance (placards of the 4th and 15th November, 1914). We must mention an unhappy phrase in a placard posted at Mons; it states that the mark must be accepted _at the actual value of the coin_, and further on fixes this value at 1 fr. 25, which is obviously incorrect.

_Contributions demanded from the Cities._

Let us now consider the pecuniary contributions demanded from the cities. The most important were: Liége, 20 million frs.; Namur, 32 millions; Antwerp, 40 millions; Brussels, 45 millions. The discussions excited by this last contribution are extremely instructive; they have been reported by the _N.R.C._ We learn how the Germans violated, successively, all the different agreements which they concluded with the city; finally they imposed a fine of 5 millions, which enabled them, in spite of everything, to complete the sum of 50 millions which they had promised themselves they would extort from the capital.

CONTRIBUTION IMPOSED UPON BRUSSELS.

FROM ONE OF OUR WAR CORRESPONDENTS

... In the course of this journey I once more heard people speaking
of the reasons which resulted in the city of Brussels being fined
the sum of fifty millions of francs, as every one knows. What I
relate here I had from one of the most eminent members of the
magistracy:--

At the time of their entry here, the Germans demanded fifty
millions from the city, and--don't cry out at this--450 millions
from the province of Brabant. The communal council of Brussels
tried to demonstrate that the city could not pay this tax, and that
the tax imposed on the province was utterly exorbitant, seeing
that Brabant, which draws on the budget for an annual sum of five
to six millions, employed this money before it was paid, and could
not, therefore, pay a fine, since the province had first to provide
for its expenditure.... Having discussed the matter at great
length, the Germans finally released Brabant from this war-tax,
and at the same time gave the communal council a week to find the
fifty millions, during which period they would suspend all other
requisitions.

Burgomaster Max then had posted the well-known placard announcing
that for the coming week no requisitions whatever would be made by
the German authorities.

But on the following day the burgomaster was called upon to justify
his action, and although he produced the written convention before
the new Governor of the city, the latter gave him to understand
that his predecessor might possibly have granted such a delay,
but that he, being of superior rank, did not recognize the clause
at issue. Fresh negotiations were commenced, and it was at last
arranged that twenty millions should be paid in five instalments of
four millions each. Four of these instalments were punctually paid,
and the fifth was about to be paid, when Max was summoned by the
Governor, who asked him what his arrangements were concerning the
remaining thirty millions.

Max did not conceal his extreme surprise, stating that he fully
understood that the remainder of the tax had been remitted, and
that the twenty millions constituted the whole amount.

The German Governor was by no means of this opinion, and demanded
the remaining thirty millions. Thereupon Max immediately sent an
order to the bank to suspend payment of the last four millions,
which were ready for payment, until he was certain that the Germans
would accept them as the final instalment. There was then on either
side an equal degree of obstinacy. The Governor maintained that Max
was breaking his engagements; Max, on the other hand, maintained
that the Germans had failed to keep their word. The result was
that the burgomaster was arrested, and he is at the present moment
imprisoned in a fortress at Glatz in Silesia.

The communal council was then warned that it would be deprived
of its functions, and that the Germans would take over the
administration of the city if the war-tax was not paid.

There were again interminable negotiations, and it was arranged
that in all forty-five millions should be paid.

The sum was paid. Still the Germans wanted to get hold of the five
remaining millions, so a police agent who had shown lack of respect
for an officer was condemned to five years' imprisonment, while
Brussels was fined five million francs.

One might ask whether, if the Germans continue to act in this
fashion, the city of Brussels will be forced to pay a fine each
time one of its functionaries is guilty of offence: for it is
impossible that the city can control all its employés.

In this case the German officer who was insulted was in civilian
clothes. Now to a complaint of the communal council the Governor
had replied, some time previously, that there were no secret agents
at work in civilian clothing; so that the police agent could not
have known that he was dealing with an officer, since the latter
was not in uniform.

It may be imagined that lively protests were made, but once more
the Germans threatened to assume the direction of the commune
if the sum was not paid by the 10th November at latest; so,
although the council presented a memorandum on the affair, it was
nevertheless forced to pay in order to pursue its mission in peace.

(_N.R.C._, 9th November, 1914.)

_Exactions of a Non-commissioned Officer._

Fines without rhyme and reason, and exorbitant war contributions have become so normal and so customary that the Germans have finally learned to exploit the situation. The _N.R.C._ for the 21st May, 1915, reported that the Council of War in Coblenz had condemned to eighteen months' imprisonment the non-commissioned officer Garternich, who had demanded from several occupied Belgian communes a war contribution of 3 frs. per head, and had thus acquired, for his own personal profit, a sum of 27,393 frs. Does not this simple fact reveal the habitual squeezing to which our poor country is subjected? Eighteen months' imprisonment for having emptied the communal treasuries already officially despoiled by the authorities--that truly is not much; especially when we compare this sentence with those pronounced upon the communes when a telegraph wire breaks down: the threat of burning a whole neighbourhood or a formidable fine.

_Requisitions of Raw Materials and Machinery._

_Requisitions may only be demanded_, says Article 52, _for the needs of the army of occupation_. Now our enemies have removed from Belgium enormous quantities of raw material, and machinery which evidently cannot be of use to the army of occupation (see _Belg. Allem._, pp. 113, 116, 117). What can the army do with raw cotton, wools, spun cotton, nickel, jute, etc.? It can be of use only to the industries of Germany, paralysed by the suppression of the mercantile marine. Among these requisitions are included machine-tools for the manufacture of shells (notably those removed from the national arsenal at Herstal and the royal cannon foundry at Liége), and metals, such as copper, which are indispensable to the manufacture of munitions; so that the articles which have been taken from us, contrary to Article 52 of the Hague Convention, subscribed to by Germany, are thus directly employed in fighting against us.

The Germans cannot pretend that these requisitions of machinery were made by over-zealous officers ignorant of the laws, for Baron von Bissing himself, in his quality of Governor-General, signed the proclamation of the 17th February ordering the despatch of our machine-tools to Germany. Moreover, in Berlin even people are perfectly aware of these requisitions, and of their destination (_N.R.C._, 22nd February, 1915, morning edition).

We must insist on the fact that all these raw materials of industry, all this machinery, etc., is not bought, but requisitioned. There is here no case of a commercial transaction, nor even an expropriation; for we have no redress against the decision arrived at in Berlin as to the prices which will be paid after the war. It is a theft, to express the matter in a word.

_Requisitions in kind and in services ... shall be in proportion to the resources of the country_, says Article 52; which evidently means that requisitions must not exhaust the country to the point of jeopardizing the lives of the inhabitants. If this stipulation had been respected we should not have to deplore the famine which is ravaging our country, and to which we shall return later on.

We shall confine ourselves--in order to give some idea of the excessive and inhuman manner in which requisitions have been made--to referring the reader to certain articles written by eye-witnesses, particularly those who have seen what has happened near the frontier, and at Gand. It will at once be recognized that the requisitions made exceed that which the inhabitants can reasonably provide (see _N.R.C._, 10th January, 1915, morning; 23rd January, 1915, morning; 16th January, 1915, evening; 30th January, 1915, evening; 12th January, 1915, morning; 22nd December, 1914, evening).

The Germans have always taken good care to demand wine. They demanded enormous quantities in the little villages of the Campine of Limburg (_N.R.C._, 15th January, 1915). Elsewhere they took for their own use all the cellars of the wine-merchants and the inhabitants, without allowing the latter to make use of them (see _Belg. Allem._, p. 118).

A last point as to requisitions. They shall _as far as possible be paid for in ready money; if not, a receipt shall be given_.

Very often no receipt has been given to the owners of property taken. Elsewhere the receipts are fantastical and valueless.

It is the truth that those who do receive vouchers are requested to satisfy themselves of their accuracy, but this prescription is obviously a dead letter. Imagine, on the one hand, a peasant, Fleming or Walloon, terrorized into a condition of helplessness, and incapable of reading a voucher scrawled in German; and on the other, soldiers whose customary arguments are shooting and burning.

ARTICLE 53.

_An army of occupation shall only take possession of cash, funds,
and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the
State, depôts of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies,
and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which
may be used for military operations...._