Another practice frequently resorted to by German commanders was the taking of hostages from among the inhabitants of occupied ter ritory and in some instances even the putting of them.to death. They appear to have been talcen for a variety of purposes, the mast com mon of which was to insure the good behavior of tire civil population. Generally their seizure was accompanied by a threat to shoot all or a certain number of them in case acts of hos tility were committed and in some cases the threats were actually carried out. The per sons taken as hostages were usually the leading citizens of the community: the mayor. mem bers of the city council, senators or deputies, sometimes the schoolmaster and frequently the parish priest. Sometimes they were shut up in buildings as prisoners, sometimes they were led through the streets and compelled to warn their fellow citizens of the consequences which would result from hostile acts and considerable numbers were deported to Germany where they were confined as prisorrers or held to forced labor.
The practice of taking hostages is an old one and in early times was resorted to as a means of insuring the execution of treaties, artnistices and other agreements. During the Franco-German War of 1870-71 it was resorted to on a large scale by the Germans for the purpose of securing their troops against at tacit by those whom the Germans considered to be francs-iireurs, for insuring the obedience of the inhabitants and to compel the payment of commtmity fines and the raising of contri butions. It was also during this war that hostages for the first time were placed on rail way. trains for the purpose of protecting them against derailment either by, the troops of the enemy or the civil population. This latter ex* pedient was also resorted to for similar pur• poses by the British during the Boer War. Mr, Bryce in the House of Commons criticized the action of Lord Roberts and Earl ICitchener as being "contrary to The Hague Convention and the general usages of civilized warfare,° but it was defended by Mr. Brodericic. Secretary of State for War, as a legitimate war measure. Writers on international law have generally condemned the practice as being analogous to the placing of innocent civilians in the front of batde in order to induce the enetny's troops to withhold their fire. The German war man ual, as might be expected, defends the conduct of German cotnmanders in resorting to this practice in 1820-71, because it was effective, although it frankly admits that "every writer outside Germany has stigmatized it as con trary to the law of nations, and that it was a harsh and cruel measure.° Regarding the legitimacy of the taking of hostages for the general purpose of insuring the good behavior of the civil population there is a difference of opinion among the authorities on international law. The Hague Conventions do not deal with the matter further than to declare that "the lives of private individuals must be respected° and that "belligerents are forbidden to compel the nationals of the ad verse party to take part in the operations of war directed against the enemy.° Whatever
may be one's opinion regarding the lawfulness of the practice there is no difference of opinion among the authorities as to the treatment to which hostages are entitled. All are agreed that hostages are both "private persons° and eprisoners,° not combatants. The Hague Con vention, as stated above, declares that the lives of private persons must be respected, and as to prisoners it declares that they shall be "hu manely treated.° They cannot, therefore, be put to death except for crime. Nevertheless, as stated above, the Germane .in a number of instances put to death hostages on account of acts of hostility alleged to have been cont mitted by the civil population. The most fla grant instance of the lcind was the shooting of more than 90 hostages at Les Rivages, a suburb of Dinant, for the act of certain civilians in firing upon a detachtnent of German troops who were engaged in constructing a pontoon bridge. The German white book, (The Belgian Peoples' War,> admits that hostages were shot there and elsewhere but undertakes to justify this extreme measure on the ground that the taking of hostages would often be without effect if the belligerent taking them were not allowed to inflict the death penalty for viola, tion of the conditions for which they are taken. In early times the right to put hostages to death was asserted, but no modern writer outside Germany can be found to defend this cruel practice, and it does not appear that in fact it has been resorted to in any war of modern times, until the ancient practice was revived by the Germans during the late war.
Another practice forbidden by the laws of war is the devastation of the enemy's country except when absolutely required as a measure of nulitary necessity. This long-established rule of civilized warfare, like so many others, was flagrantly violated by the Germans during the late war. The most notable instance of the kind was the frightful devastation of a region on the Somme front in France in March 1917 before the Germans retreated from it. The territory evacuated was, according to German accounts themselves, *converted into a veritable waste and left an empire of death?' Not only were the roads, bridges, culverts and other objects of military value destroyed, but hun dreds of private houses were burned, fences destroyed, shade trees cut down, orchards leveled, vineyards uprooted, dwellings pillaged and their contents destroyed or earned away, wells polluted and poisoned, banks robbed, churches desecrated and despoiled of their relics, and even the tombs of die dead broken open. *Never before in the history of the world," said the American Ambassador who visited the devastated region and made a report to the Department of State, *had there been such a thorough destruction wrought by either a vanquished or a victorious army.* Mr. Pen field, American Ambasiador to Vienna, made a similar report.