FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84  
85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>   >|  
in its general 'atmosphere.'" (Misc. 16 [1916].)] [Footnote 9: Dr. Ella Scarlett-Synge (M.D., D.P.H.) visited this camp on December 17, 1915. She reports: "The prisoners of war are housed in well-built, well-drained barracks having excellent ventilation. Each man has an iron bedstead with two blankets (or a thick quilt), a straw mattress, good pillow and sheet...."] [Footnote 10: These indulgences can also be paralleled on this side. A writer from a British internment camp says, during "a great sports week": "There are already a lot in hospital with broken legs and arms."] [Footnote 11: It is astounding how extremely rare are responsible accounts of the worser ill-deeds by those who have actually suffered them. These stories have almost always been heard from someone else. (Cf. pp. 156, 157.)] [Footnote 12: "The Common Cause." October 16, 1914.] II. CIVILIAN PRISONERS. RESIDENT ENEMY NATIONALS. A few extracts from Dr. J. M. Spaight's important work, "War Rights on Land," will be useful as an introduction to this section. "Resident enemy nationals," runs Dr. Spaight's marginal summary, "are not interfered with" (l.c., p. 28). The text proceeds: "The treatment of resident enemy nationals has undergone a great change for the better in modern times. Ancient theory and practice regarded them as enemies, individually, and admitted the right to arrest and imprison them. The last instance of this rigorous rule being put in force is Napoleon's detention of British subjects who happened to be in France when war broke out in 1803. Present usage allows enemy nationals to depart freely, even when they belong to the armed forces of the other belligerent." The State has the right to detain such subjects, but usage is against it. Again, "'Present usage,' says Professor LeFur, 'does not admit of the expulsion _en masse_ of enemy subjects resident in a belligerent's territory, save when the needs of defence demand such expulsion....' The bad precedent set by the Confederate Government in 1861, when it ordered the banishment of all alien enemies, has not been followed in subsequent wars. France and Germany allowed enemy subjects to continue to reside in their respective territories during the war of 1870-1, but the former country was led by military exigencies to rescind the general privilege so far as Paris and the Department of the Seine were concerne
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84  
85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

subjects

 
Footnote
 

nationals

 

British

 

expulsion

 

enemies

 
Spaight
 

resident

 

France

 

belligerent


Present

 

general

 

instance

 
privilege
 
arrest
 

imprison

 

rigorous

 

detention

 

military

 

exigencies


rescind
 

Napoleon

 
admitted
 

happened

 
regarded
 
treatment
 

proceeds

 

Department

 

undergone

 
concerne

change
 
theory
 
practice
 
modern
 

Ancient

 

individually

 

country

 

territory

 

subsequent

 
continue

allowed

 

Germany

 

defence

 
Government
 

ordered

 

Confederate

 

demand

 
precedent
 

reside

 

belong