Not only did the Germans first make use of asphyxiating and poisonous gases in the mari ner described above, but at the same time, ac cording to the report of Sir John French, on the battle of Ypres, they employed explosive shells charged with deadly asphyxiating gases. Later shells charged even with poisonous gases were employed on an extensive scale by the Germans. Whatever may be the opinion re garding the legitimacy of the method of attack by means of gas generated from tanks or cylinders and wafted against the enemy by the wind, there can be no difference of opinion in regard to the use of explosive shells which emit such gases. The Hague Convention ex pressly forbids the use of such weapons, Still another instrumentality invented by the Germans and first used by them in their opera tions against Verdun in March 1916, and against which there was more or less protest, was the *liquid fire projector* or *flame thrower* (Flammenwerfer)— a small tank filled with a highly flammable composition liquid under high pressure and strapped to the back of the soldier using it. Connected by a swivel joint with the bottom of the tank was a hose pipe with a valve and a nozzle to which yeas attached an igniting apparatus. By open ing the valve and igniting the composition a stream of fire with intense heat could be pro jected a distance of 20 or 30 yards. The effect against those upon whom it was directed was deadly, the victims sometime's being burnt to a crisp. The French government denounced it as an *abominable method° of attack, in con travention of all the undertalcings solemnly given by the German government to the other powers and in *contempt of all the sentiments of humanity?' No government, it added, could remain defenseless against such refinements of barbarity without endangering the safety of its own troops and accordingly it was .inuounced that the French government would adopt re taliatory measures. The etnployment of such an instrument is not expressly forbidden by The Hague Convention unless it belongs to the category of "material calculated to produce superfluous suffering," which may be seriously doubted. Owing to its Very limited radius of action and the visibility of the flame it. is al ways possible for the enemy to avoid the effect, which is not the case where the instru ments employed are explosive projectiles or shells charged with gases.
A serious charge made by General Botha against Lieutenant-Colonel Franke, Com mander of the German forces in Southwest Africa, was that he had given orders to poison the wells of Swakopmund in January 1915, be fore evacuating the town. This was done by placing bags of arsenical cattle dip in the wells. General Botha protested on tire ground that the use of poison was forbidden by The Hague Convention and he threatened that if the prac tice were persisted in he would hold the officers concerned responsible and would be compeped to resort to such measures of reprisal as might seem advisable. Colonel Franke. admitted that cattle dip had been put into the wells by his orders but asserted that they had been care fully marked by warning notices, so that it was not a case of poisoning, since poisoning implies the secret adding of matter injurious to the lrealth of human beings. It was, in short, nothing more than the "effecting a change in the natural condition of the water in order to deprive the enemy of the use of this means of existence." It is admitted by all the authorities that the cutting off of the waver supply upon which the armed forces of the enemy are dependent is entirely legitimate and the diversion of streams which supply a be sieged place is not an unusual method of com pelling the place to surrender. It is also ad mitted by some authorities that it is legitimate to pollute the water supply of the enemy as by throwing the carcasses of dead animals into it. This was done by General Johnston during the Civil War and by General Cronje during the Boer \Aran Such a measure would seem to differ little in principle from introducing poisonous substances in wells provided they are carefully marked as Colonel Franke claims to have Lre.en the case with the wells at Swakop mund. It should be remarked, however, that the effect if not the purpose of the German measure was not to deprive the armed forces of the enemy of his water supply but to cut off the supply of the civil population which was left behind after the Germans had evacuated tire place. It is very doubtful whether a belligerent has a lawful right to punish in this way the peaceable civil population or the terri tory evacuated by him. The American 'Rules of Land Warfare' (Art. 177) go to the length of interpreting the prohibition of The Hague Convention in respect to the use ot poison to' include "the deliberate contamination of sources of water by throwing into the same dead animals and all poisonous substances of. any kind." A, somewhat similar case was the action of . _ the Germans in poisoning certain wells in the Somme region of France, during their retreat in the spring of 1917 and with having filled others with dung and creosote soda. Charges
were also made against German aviators for having dropped pcnson candy in certain towns of France over which they flew and the mayor of Vadelaincourt felt obliged to issue a proclamation warning the inhabitants against eating candy thus dropped.
Falling within the category of forbidden instrumentalities is the employment of savage troops. In July 1915 the German Foreign Office issued a white book in which it pro tested against the employment in Europe, con trary to international law, by England and France of large numbers of colored troops from Africa and Asia: Gurkhas, Sikhs, Pa thans, Sepoys, Turcos, Moroccans, Sengalese, etc. These people having, it was said, grown up in countries where war was still conducted in its most savage forms, had brought to Europe the custom of their countries and had in fact committed atrocities which set at de fiance not only the recognized usages of war fare, but of civilization and humanity. Among the evidence submitted in proof of the charge. were depositions of witnesses, facsimile repro ductions of extracts from diaries of French and Belgian soldiers and photographs of muti lated bodies, amputated ears, and the like. In some cases, it was alleged, war trophies con sisting of the severed heads, ears and fingers of German soldiers were found in the pockets of captured Turcos or strung around their necics lilce beads. The Hague Convention does not forbid the employment of colored troops but it lays down the requirement that militia and volunteer forces to be entitled to treatment as lawful belligerents must conduct their opera tions iu accordance with the laws and customs of war. Manifestly this condition is none the less essential in the case of regular troops. There is a general agreement among writers on international law that it is not permissible to employ savages or semi-barbarous reoples as soldiers, but there is no agreement as to what particular races fall within this category. In dians were employed by the English and French in the colonial wars of North America, thus calling out the famous protest of Lord Chat ham; Bashi-Bazouks and Circassians were used by the Turks during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78; Kaffirs were armed for defense by the British and later were regularly employed as soldiers during the Boer War and certain Manchurian bands known as Chunchuses were made use of by the Japanese during their war with Russia in 1904-05. African troops were used in Europe by the French in 1859 and again in 1870-71 and in both cases the govern ments against whose troops they were used protested. Regarding the conduct of African troops in the late war it is probably safe to say that there were individual instances of atrocities but from the best information avail able it does not appear that such cruelties were common. Concerning the conduct of the Indian troops there appears to have been no ground for complaint. Valentine Williams, correspondent of the London Dai/v Mail, says in his book 'With Our Army in Flanders' : "They have proved themselves to be a smart and soldierly body of men, clean, well-man nered, and like all good troops, most punctual about saluting.° Again he says: "They are fierce and terrible in their charge but are merciful to their prisoners and there is none of that slaying of prisoners that has eternally be smirched the German escutcheon.° Turning now from instrumentalities and weapons to methods and practices forbidden either by The Hague Conventions or the cus tomary rules of warfare we find many ex amples during the present war of non-con formity to the law and custom. One of the most common and reprehensible of such prac tices was the conduct of German military com manders in using their civilian captives as screens or shields to protect their own troops against attack by the forces of the enemy or by the civil population. In many towns and villages occupied by the Germans large num bers of the inhabitants, men, women and chil dren, were seized and placed in front of the German firing lines and sometUrres were com pelled to march long distances at the head of columns of German troops. The evidence in proof of this charge is so abundant in quantity and so reliable in character as to leave no doubt whatever in the mind of the investigator that this barbarous practice was resorted to on numerous occasions particularly in Be.lum and France and to a less extent on tire Rus sian and Italian fronts and in Serbia. In some cases the Germans approached their ob jects of attack and even attadced tire forces of the enemy from behind columns of civilians or military prisoners. Such a cruel and barbarous expedient is not only contrary to the customs and usages of civilized warfare but is MID pressly torbidden by The Hague Convention itself, which declares that the inhabitants of occupied territory may not be compelled to take part in the military operations against the troops of their own country.