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