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.

2

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.

invaded territory.

Such services may be voluntary, either on the part of individuals or corporations, and, if so, are paid for in accordance with the agreement in each case. With these international law has nothing to do. The right of a belligerent to take means of transportation, by way of requisition, has always been asserted, and almost invariably acted upon. This involves the right to compel the services of drivers and teams, and also of railway, steamship, and telegraph companies, and of blacksmiths, carpenters, and other tradesmen. These services must be obtained by force, as the duty of a citizen to his own government forbids him to render voluntary service to the enemy. The question of payment is discretionary with the belligerent employer, and, as in the case of other requisitions, is rather a matter of policy, or expediency, than of strict justice.'

The policy of the United States in the matter of requisitions has been far from liberal. At the beginning of the campaign in Southern Mexico, General Scott was directed to subsist his troops in the enemy's country. Upon the urgent remonstrances of that officer as to the injustice and impolicy of such a course, the order was rescinded, and the regulation of the matter left to the discretion of the general commanding in the field. He thereupon directed reasonable prices to be paid for such articles as were needed for the subsistence of his army, and experienced so little difficulty in obtaining them as to make a resort to requisitions unnecessary. During the war of the rebellion generals in the field were authorized to seize such articles of subsistence, or forage, as were needed by their commands. For the property thus taken receipts were to be given, payable at the end of the war, upon proof of loyalty.

Hall, pp. 425-427. In January, 1871, the Germans, who were then in military occupation of Nancy, required the services of five hundred laborers upon a work of repairing the railway-of considerable importance to the success of their operations. Notice was given that if they were not forthcom

ing, at the time indicated, a certain number of the officers and employés would be seized and shot; -Hall, p. 427, note; II Halleck, pp. 110-113, notes; Creasy, pp. 534-535; vol. xx. Revue de Droit Int. pp. 362, 383; xix. Ibid. p. 164; Lawrence, Int. Law, §§ 203, 204; II Guelle, pp. 176231; IV Calvo, §§ 2242-2244.

If such proof were not produced, no payments were to be made. This amounted, in fact, to the taking of enemy's property without compensation.'

Contributions. Contributions are levies of money or supplies, made by the authority of a belligerent government, through the commander-in-chief of its armies in the field. They are levied upon the property, or taxable resources, of a city or district of territory. They are usually assessed, collected, and paid by the local authorities, upon the formal demand of the invading general. If the amount of the contribution be not paid, or delivered, at the specified time, the invader takes such measures as he may deem necessary to enforce his decree. Unlike requisitions they are never refunded, or reimbursed, by the belligerent who levies them, though they may be deducted from the amount of an indemnity proposed to be levied by a conquering invader in the preparation of the treaty of peace.'

Captured Property on Land; Booty. Public property on land, and in some instances, private property also, may be captured by a belligerent. Such captured property is called booty. It consists of all public property that is susceptible of capture in war, and of such private property as is susceptible of direct military use. In strictness all articles that may be obtained by way of requisition fall under the head of booty. Aside from the articles obtained by requisition, booty may consist of arms, ammunition, provisions, and military supplies of all kinds, and of all public and private property captured in battle, or as a direct result of military operations."

Snow, p. 109; II Halleck, pp. III, 113; IV Calvo, §§ 2242-2255; VII Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 3020-3062.

2 Hall, pp. 433-435; Risley, pp. 140, 141; Woolsey, § 136; Snow, pp. 108, 109; II Halleck, pp. 109114; VII Pradier-Fodéré, §§ 30623065; II Twiss, pp. 124, 125; Lawrence, Int. Law. § 204; IV Calvo, $$ 2231-2284; Klüber, § 251; Heffter, 130; Vattel, liv. iii. chap. ix. § 165: Walker, Manual, p. 145.

For the latest authoritative discussion of this subject, see the article, "The Right of Booty in General, and especially the Right of Maritime Capture," by Professor Bluntschli, in the Revue de Droit Int. vol. ix. (1877), p. 508; x. Ibid. p. 60; see also II Twiss, p. 122; Hall,§ 435; Risley, p. 141; II Halleck, pp. 115-118; Lawrence, Int. Law, § 199. What shall be the subject of capture, as against the enemy, is always

As is the case with all property which may be captured in war, on land or sea, the title first vests in the captor's government.' Such title is held to be complete after twenty-four hours of actual possession, upon the presumption that secure possession will be obtained within that time. The capturing government may make such disposition of this captured property as it deems best. It may convert it to its own use; it may cause it to be sold, and may appropriate the proceeds of the sale to governmental uses; or it may decree the whole, or a part, to the actual captors as a reward for their services. The British Government, in certain cases, recognizes and rewards such services. The Government of the United States has adopted the contrary rule, and appropriates to its own use all property captured by its armies on land.

The rules regarding booty and those regarding the treatment of private property seem to be in conflict. They are not so in fact. Private property on land, however great in amount, is exempt from capture unless it be susceptible of direct military use by a belligerent, or contributes directly to the support and maintenance of his armies. Arms, ammunition, equipments, and all sorts of military stores, clothing, or cloth suitable for uniforms, shoes, leather, blankets, medicines, and food and forage supplies of all kinds, are susceptible of such appropriation. Money, unless by way of contribution, clothing and cloth not adapted for use as uniforms, and all other products, manufactures, and commodities, are exempt from capture, and are entitled to protection by the laws of war."

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 United States, 187.

1 Unless restrained by governmental relations, the capture of movable property on land changes the ownership of it without adjudication. Lamar vs. Browne, 92 United States, 187; Young vs. United States, 97; Ibid. 39, 60.

"The very ground on which a belligerent army must encamp is private property; the crops which it must trample under foot in its march are private property; the

Combatants and Non-combatants. While the entire body of citizens or subjects of the belligerent states become enemies at the outbreak of war, it has been seen that this status of hostility is legal, rather than actual; and that no individual subject of either state can take an active part in military operations, or commit acts of hostility, save with the express consent of his government, as expressed by its taking such citizen into its military service, either by appointment to military office, or by enlistment, or conscription, or by a rising in mass. Persons thus expressly authorized, and no others, may do acts of hostility, or otherwise participate actively in the operations of war.

A combatant is a person who, with the special authorization of his government, takes part, either directly or indirectly, in the operations of war. The term includes, in addition to the troops of the line, all staff - officers, surgeons and chaplains, officers and employés of the supply and transport service, all agents, contractors, and others who accompany the army in an official capacity, and who assist in its movement, equipment, or maintenance; and all retainers to the camp.'

A non-combatant is a resident of a belligerent state who takes no part in the war. He is not subject to the laws of war, and is protected by them, in his person and property, so long as he refrains from participation in military operations.1 Treatment of Non-combatants in the Theatre of War. It

farm buildings and the villages which it must devastate and destroy in battle are private property. The vicissitudes of war also must sometimes render the exaction of supplies for the support of an army moving in an enemy's country imperative, even in the case of well-disciplined troops. Respect, therefore, for private property in a continental war must always be a question of degree. To destroy private property, where such destruction is necessary to facilitate the operations of war, is as justifiable, from the ne

cessity of the case, as the destruction of public property; to seize it by way of requisitions, to the extent to which such requisitions are necessary for the support of a belligerent army, is justifiable on the same principle as the war itself on which the army is engaged."—II Twiss, int. chap. pp. 40, 41.

1 II Halleck, pp. 2-22; Snow, pp. 89,90; Hall, pp. 394, 395'; Risley, pp. 107-114; IV Calvo, §§ 2044-2065.

2 Hall, pp. 395, 396; II Halleck, pp. 68-73; Snow, pp. 89, 90; Risley. pp. 107, 108.