Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 20.djvu/337

WAR. 281 WAR. the methods and means by which they are car- ried on. The usages, customs, and agreements of civilized nations formulate as it were a code or systi'iii of laws of war, the vicdation of which would convict the oll'onding country of barbarism. Tlic United iStatcs, it woulil seem, was the first power to codify these various rules and regula- tions in the form (it a manual, and llie previous- ly referred to Inslruclions of Dr. IJebcr — known in army circles as General Orders Ao. 100 — have been the ba.sis of all subsequent codifica- tions of the laws of land war. These were reis- sued in 1898 for the guidance of officers in the recent war with Spain, and required bit slight modification to meet the purposes of the Hague Conference of 1890. In June, 1900, the Navy Department issued a Naval Code — known as (Icneral Orders No. 551 — prepared by Cajitain Charles H. Stockton. Ar- ticle .54 of this enliglitcned work exjilains the relation between the land ami naval codes, and the supplemental nature of the latter. A perusal of these two brief and admirable documents gives a clear understanding of war as praotieed by the United States and by civilized nations gen- erally; for there is fortunately little, if any, difference in practice among nations at the pres- ent day. For the successive steps by which the miti- gation of the hardships incidental to the con- duct of war liave been brought about and the means and instruments of war changed, see Geneva Conventio.n ; iiEuC'KOiss Societies ; S.int Petersburg, Decl.e.tion of: and IIagi'e Peace Conference. Under these appropriate lieadings it will be seen that the medical corps service on land has been neutralized; that the principles of the Geneva Convention establishing the immunity of hospital and medical corps on land have been extended to hospital ships on sea; and that the restrictions in the case of deadly weapons and ex- plosives formulated in the Declaration of Saint Petersburg have been further extended by the humanitarian spirit jiervading the Hague Con- ference. The outbreak of war produces an immediate and widespread efl'eet. In the first place, treatii's of all kinds contemplating peaceful relations are suspended, while ju'ovisions in contem])lation of war come into efl'eet. Treaties intended to set up a permanent state of affairs, such as boundary-sti|uilatinns, revive on the close of war: but it seems to be generally admitted that com- mercial treaties are wiped out of existence by war and do not revive on its termination unless there be a particular clause to that effect in the treaty of peace. (See Treaties.) Ambassadors and diplomatic agents are recalled or dismissed; and all trade ceases between the belligerents, as trading would not only endiarrass military or naval operations, but would enable the enemy to carry on the war itself. War makes the con- tending nations enemies, and their respective sub- jects or citizens share this quality, as ilo alien residents for the purpose of war. The same quality infects the products of enemy soil, as well as houses of trade, whether iirineioal or liranch. A theory dating from Portalis would confine the enemy character to actual combatants. "War," he said in 1801. "is a relation of State to State, and not of individual to individual. Between two or more belligerent nations the pri- vate persons of whom those nations are composed are only enemies by accident; they are not so as men, they are not so as citizens, they are so only as soldiers." There is indeed a difference be- tween the condiatant and non-eondiatant, due to the fact that the one is dangerous and must be disarmed, wounded, or killed if necessary, but should not be injured if he is incapable of doing harm. The non-combatant will be respected as long as he preserves his passive character; but the moment he becomes actually employed in the struggle he loses his claim to protection. Articles 21-2.5 of the Instructiuns make the distinction as well as the reason therefor clear. "(2.3) Pri- vate citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant |)arts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private re- lations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. (24 1 The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individ- ual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disrupti(m of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uneivili/x'd people, the exception. (2.5) In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inotlensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and dis- turbance of [irivate rcdalions are the exceptions." The combatant is armed, organized, unifornied, and acts under military order or commission, and may be killed in battle if necessarv or taken prisoner if possible and held in captivity until ex- changed. During such time he should be well treated and subjected to no indignit.v of any kind. The question is often raised whether volunteer troops, raised on the spur of the moment, and acting without military commission or organiza- tion should be entitled to the privileges of the regular soldiers. The Instructions answer this (|uestion in the negative, but the practice is sanctioned at present by the Hague Conference of 1899: and it may be said that the volunteer and auxiliary, as distinguished from regular navy, stands upon the same footing. If levies en itiaxse are taken in arms, or if volunteer vessels are captured on water, the captives in either case would be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. The wounded in all cases, whether in the land or naval forces, and of either belligerent, are entitled under the (ieneva Convention and the Hague Conference to hospital service and medical treatment. In the next place, war affects property of the enemy. If this be- indilic propertv situated within the territory of the other, it is occupied if realty, and administered during hostilities for the benefit of the local State: if it be public movable propertv. it is subject to confiscation and probably will be confiscated. Articles 34-36 of Instructions are obviotisly intended for the guidance of a victorious army of occupation in enemy's territory, but would certainly exempt from seizure works of art and scientific and edu- cational property of the enemy wherever found. Private property of one enemy within the terri- tory of the other may, indeed, be confiscated by strict international law: but in the United States it may not be. unless there is a positive le.srisla- tive act to that effect. This was clearly and ex-