Regarding the pay of prisoners who were of ficers, the British government at the outset al lowed German officers half the pay of the cor responding ranks in the British army and with out charging them for their subsistence. At the same time the British government offered to al low full pay provided Germany would recipro cate. To this offer, the German government never replied. Subsequently the British gov ernment learned that British officers in Ger many were receiving only 60 or 100 marks per month according to their rank, from which ap proximately two-thirds was deducted for food. Thereupon the British government revised its scale of pay for German prisoners held in Eng land and brought it into harmony with the Ger man scale. The French government at the out set adopted the British policy in respect to the pay of officers but altered it later to conform to German practice. Taking advantage of the right recognized by The Hague Convention, Ger many organized an elaborate prison labor sys tem, more than 2,000 labor camps being estab lished in various parts of the empire. By the end of the second year of the war it was esti mated that between two and three million pris oners were working in the industries of Ger many; in fact they largely replaced the millions of Germans who had been called to the colors. Where they were engaged in private work they were leased out to contractors. The rates of pay allowed appear to have varied in different camps and according to the skill of the prisoner, the most common wage being 30 pfennigs per day, although in some cases it was 80 pfeniugs, and in a few as much as 1.25 marks. Generally, prisoners were compelled to work and naturally there were many complaints in respect to long hours, excessive tasks, brutality of treatment, starvation and the like. It was also a cause of complaint that the German government refused to permit neutral representatives to visit and in spect the working camps, so that the govern ments whose nationals were employed in these camps had no means of obtaining information regarding their treatment. There were also frequent complaints among the prisoners that they were compelled to work in industries that i were engaged in the manufacture of war mate rials. In March 1918 the British government committee on the treatment by the enemy of British prisoners made a report which charged the Germans with systematically employing their prisoners in forced labor close behind the firing line on the Western front, thereby exposing them to the fire from the guns of their own and the allied armies. In April 1917 an agreement had been reached between the British and Ger man governments that prisoners on either side should not be employed within 30 kilometers of the firing line. But the British committee charged that the agreement was systematically violated by the German authorities and that the prisoners held by them were sometimes put to work within 10 kilometers of the firing line, in consequence of which many were killed by the fire of their own troops. The excuse given by the German authorities was that they were driven to this cruel measure as an act of retalia tion against the British for having themselves violated the agreement. This charge, however, was emphatically denied by the British govern ment. In France as in Germany prisoners were employed not only in camp work but in planting, cultivating the fields, harvesting the crops, re pairing roads, work in coal mines, quarries, etc. In Great Britain the same policy was followed although no such extensive system of prison la bor was ever organized as was put into effect in Germany. In the United States prisoners were employed in camp work and in the con struction of roads in the neighborhoods of the prison camps. Germany's prison population proved an asset rather than a source of ex pense, not only because of the elaborate system of compulsory labor which the Germans organ ized but because of the comparatively small out lay necessitated for the feeding of English and French prisoners, since they depended mainly on the food they received from home through the medium of the parcel post.
Regarding postal facilities, all the belliger ents placed restrictions upon the number and length of the letters which the prisoners were allowed to write. The British regulations al
lowed each prisoner to write two letters a week, each consisting of two pages of ordinary writ ing paper. In special cases the number and length of letters allowed were unlimited. No limitation was set to the number of letters which a prisoner might receive. The German regula tions, however, allowed prisoners to write but two letters a month and one postal card weekly, but exceptions were made in urgent cases. In France at first no restrictions were placed upon the number or length of letters which prisoners were allowed to write but in consequence of the abuse of the privilege and in consequence of the German regulations the French government sub sequently felt obliged to introduce certain re stnctions. Prisoners in Germany were allowed to receive parcels not exceeding five kilograms in weight, and this privilege was availed of on a large scale by British and French prisoners in Germany for obtaining food from home. There were of course many complaints that letters and parcels never arrived or were detained for long periods of time in the camps before being dis tributed. There were also the usual complaints in regard to rigorous discipline, especially in the German camps and many charges were made of cruel and harsh treatment and the American representatives found these charges to be well founded in some camps. There was consider able demand in England for the adoption of re taliatory measures against German prisoners in consequence of the alleged mistreatment of British prisoners in Germany, but no such meas ures appear to have ever been adopted. There was also considerable demand that the com manders and crews of submarines who were guilty of sinking British merchant vessels should when captured be denied the treatment accorded to prisoners of war, but the British government declined to adopt such a policy. It did, however, introduce a policy of differential treatment in regard to such prisoners by seg gregating them from other prisoners, but other wise they were treated the same. This pol icy aroused intense indignation in Germany and in consequence of the threat of the Ger man government to retaliate in kind, the Brit ish government abandoned its policy of differ ential treatment. It is somewhat singular that considering the unprecedented number of pris oners held by most of the belligerent govern ments no serious efforts appear to have been made looking toward a general system of ex change or releases on parole. At the outset the French government adopted the practice of re leasing German officers on parole but it was sub sequently abandoned in consequence of the re fusal of the German government to accord reciprocity of treatment. Arrangements were concluded between the principal European bel ligerents for the reciprocal repatriation of in terned civilian prisoners of non-military age (see ENEMY ALIEN PROBLEMS) and in the year 1916 an agreement was reached between Ger many on the one side and Great Britain and France on the other for the transfer to Switzer land of all wounded prisoners held by each gov ernment, as well as all prisoners who were suf fering from any one of 20 specified diseases or infirmities. In pursuance of these agreements many thousand wounded and incapacitated pris oners were transferred to Switzerland, where although still held as prisoners they enjoyed the privilege of living in a neutral and friendly country. Shortly before the close of the war an arrangement was concluded for the recipro cal repatriation of prisoners who had been in captivity as long as 18 months. The number of such prisoners thus repatriated or transferred to neutral countries was, however, a very small proportion of the total number held by the vari ous belligerent governments.
Bibliography.—