the bidding of the German military authorities, and posted in the
Belgian and French towns mentioned, have been produced to us, and copies
thereof are to be found in this appendix.

Appendix D contains the rules of The Hague Convention dealing with the
conduct of war on land as adopted in 1907, Germany being one of the
signatory powers.

In Appendix E will be found a selection of statements collected in
France by Professor Morgan.

These five appendices are contained in a separate volume.

In dealing with the evidence we have recognized the importance of
testing it severely, and so far as the conditions permit we have
followed the principles which are recognized in the courts of England,
the British overseas dominions, and the United States. We have also (as
already noted) set aside the testimony of any witnesses who did not
favorably impress the lawyers who took their depositions, and have
rejected hearsay evidence except in cases where hearsay furnished an
undersigned confirmation of facts with regard to which we already
possessed direct testimony from some other source, or explained in a
natural way facts imperfectly narrated or otherwise perplexing.[A]

[Footnote A: For instance, the dead body of a man is found lying on the
doorstep, or a woman is seen who has the appearance of having been
outraged. So far the facts are proved by the direct evidence of the
person by whom they have been seen. Information is sought for by him as
to the circumstances under which the death or outrages took place. The
bystanders who saw the circumstances but who are not now accessible,
relate what they saw, and this is reported by the witness to the
examiner and is placed on record in the depositions. We have had no
hesitation in taking such evidence into consideration.]

It is natural to ask whether much of the evidence given, especially by
the Belgian witnesses, may not be due to excitement and overstrained
emotions, and whether, apart from deliberate falsehood, persons who mean
to speak the truth may not in a more or less hysterical condition have
been imagining themselves to have seen the things which they say that
they saw. Both the lawyers who took the depositions, and we when we came
to examine them, fully recognized this possibility. The lawyers, as
already observed, took pains to test each witness and either rejected,
or appended a note of distrust to, the testimony of those who failed to
impress them favorably. We have c