ieff contents himself with ordering "every (Chinese?) official in Manchuria" to render the Russian army every possible assistance in obtaining supplies, and in directing all the inhabitants of Manchuria to treat the Russian troops with confidence. He declares that he will hold "all virtuous citizens resid ing in the neighborhood of Manchurian rail ways or telegraph or telephone wires respon sible for their protection," and that "the offi cial headmen and village elders must unani mously devise means to prevent damage. . . . Should attempts at destruction be made, not only will the offenders be severely punished, but the officials and people of the vicinity who witnessed such attempts will be held responsible." He also threatens severe punishment against any one privily harbor ing or concealing the Chunchuses or redbearded brigands of Manchuria. He finally threatens that if officials or people treat with enmity the Russian army, the Russian Gov ernment will assuredly exterminate these persons, showing no mercy."1 While the language of this proclamation is certainly somewhat harsh and the penalties prescribed rather severe, they do- not seem to go beyond the rights of an invader or a military occupant, nor do they constitute a violation of Chinese neutrality. As has been noted above, Manchuria is not included with in the sphere of Chinese neutrality as far as the belligerents in their relations with each other and with neutrals are concerned.2 The position of Manchuria is one of double or ambiguous sovereignty which is closely anal ogous to that of a territory or district under military or belligerent occupation.3 Under 1 For the text of this curious and interesting proclamation, see the London Times (weekly ed.) for February 26, 1904. 2 It is neutral in respect to the relations be tween China and other States. 3 On the subject of Military or Belligerent Oc cupation, see especially Hall. Pt. III., c. 4: Law rence, Pt. III., c. 4: Halleck, IL. pp. 444ff; Bluntschli, Arts. 539-41; Calvo, §§2166-98.
such circumstances pillage or mere plunder is strictly forbidden and private property on land is not subject to capture and confisca tion; but the invader or military occupant has an undoubted right to levy, and collect fines, requisitions, and contributions for strictly military purposes, and he may, if he chooses, make the war support itself. These should, however, be as orderly and as light as possible, and they should not exceed the needs of the troop or the resources of the district in which they are levied. Above all, it should never be forgotten that the funda mental law of warfare is that of reasonable military necessity, and that only so much vio lence is permitted in war as is necessary for self-protection and the destruction of the enemy's power of resistance. The fact that the Russians expect the Chinese in Manchuria to treat them in a friendly or nonhostile manner, or even that they require them to furnish their army with supplies and carts for purposes of transportation, is no evidence of an intention or a desire to violate Chinese neutrality, as some of our news papers seem to have regarded it, nor is it a breach of the laws of civilized warfare. It is said that the Russian minister at Peking has made firm representations to the Chinese Government concerning the activity of the Chinese troops along the Manchurian frontier; that Russia has served notice on China that the latter must not send troops beyond the Great Wall; and that China has been informed that she must use her influ ence to restrain the Chinese bandits (who are spoken of as partially under the control of Chinese officials) from interfering with the railway and telegraph lines. It is also stated that Russia has notified China that a refusal to heed these warnings will be considered a breach of Chinese neutrality, and that China has received a pointed intimation of the de fensive measures which Russia mav in that
