To use false colors is a more serious offense against international law on land than upon sea. By the code established in 1907 at the Second Hague Conference it is forbidden to make improper use of the national standard, military ensigns or enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention.

On ships of war it has been permissible to use foreign flags to deceive an enemy, but the tendency is against such practice. As a man-of-war cannot be searched or examined to discover her identity, she should not have the privilege of using false colors. The regulations of the United States Navy require that under no circumstances shall an action be fought without the display of the proper national flags.

Flag of truce. A flag of truce is the well-known square white flag, and is used for a parley between opposing forces. International law extends its protection around this flag and to any duly authorized persons carrying it. The protection is extended to all of the necessary accompanying persons, such as the bearer or flag-carrier, a trumpeter, bugler or drummer, and an interpreter, besides the officer who is to make the parley.

Admission to the opposing lines by the party carrying this flag cannot be claimed as a right. The commander of the forces to whom the flag is sent may, if he chooses, give general notice to the other belligerent that he will not receive any flags of truce, or none within a certain period, or except at certain places; or he may warn off any particular flag of truce; but without such warning or notice, to fire upon a flag of truce, or to offer any violence to the bearer, is an offense against the rules of war subjecting the offenders to the most summary punishment.

In 1827, in Navarino Bay, the firing upon an English boat carrying a flag of truce by a Turkish man-of-war, which killed an officer in the boat, brought on the naval battle of

Navarino, which in turn led to the destruction of the Turkish fleet and to the independence of Greece. A flag of truce being admitted, precautions may be taken, of course, by blindfolding or otherwise, to prevent improper advantage being taken. A bearer of the flag is also bound to act in good faith; if he should in any way abuse the confidence of the receiving force he loses his privileges and may be detained and tried for violation of the laws of war. If he should, for instance, excite officers or soldiers to desert, or purchase plans, or attempt secret communication he may in extreme cases be held and executed as a spy.

66

The use of the white flag of truce has sometimes extended beyond the ordinary use as prescribed by the laws of war. To show the white flag" has been considered a readiness to surrender, and during our Civil War, and even farther back, has been used as a mark of capitulation. During the Civil War at times bodies of Confederates marched over to the Union side with a display of white flags in their muskets. In such cases the irregularity of its use was waived.

In 1652, during a naval engagement between the English and Dutch fleets, a narrator quaintly says, "We did very good execution on them, and some of their ships that had lost all their masts struck their colors and put out a white handkerchief on a staff, and hauled in all their guns."

Exemption of coast and food fisheries.-A matter which has now been entirely settled is the exemption of coast fisheries. It has not been the rule, however, to disturb innocent fishermen or their boats along the sea or lake coasts. There have been circumstances, however, which seemed to justify such destruction.

In the early English and Dutch wars, when it was determined to lay such stress upon Holland and the Dutch as to bring them to terms, such measures of destruction were adopted. The Dutch herring fishery was considered so vital

war.

to that country that its destruction followed as a measure of Three hundred and sixty thousand Dutch people, at that time, depended upon this herring fishery for their subsistence. Amsterdam, the principal city of Holland, according to the old Dutch proverb, was built upon herrings alone. In 1798 and 1801 the British Government ordered the capture of French fishing craft to prevent their use by Napoleon in his proposed invasion of England. But however justifiable these cases may be, the destruction of fishing craft, as a rule, the ordinary tools of livelihood of a poor class of people, equivalent to the ploughs and implements of the farmer, is neither humane nor ordinarily justifiable by the results obtained.

CHAPTER X.

MILITARY OCCUPATION. TERMINATION OF WAR.

CONQUEST.

Military occupation.-A conquest and occupation of an enemy's territory is followed by a military government of that territory.

The best authorities regard a territory as occupied in a military sense when as a consequence of its invasion by the enemy's forces the nation from which it has been taken has ceased as a matter of fact to have any regular authority there, and the invading forces alone find themselves able to maintain order therein. The limits within which this state of affairs exist determines the extent and the duration of the occupation and military government.1

The immediate effect of the military occupation of any portion of an enemy's country is the suspension of any and all authority which is derived from the government of the enemy over the occupied territory.

Military government.—In the jurisprudence of the United States the system of rules established by the invading force is called military government. Such government is peculiar in that it is subject to no constitutional or legal restraints other than those imposed by international law and the usages of war. The previously existing laws of the district, so far as they relate to the exercise of public administration are of no validity against the invader; while, on the other hand, the occupied territory lies without the bounds of the nation to

1 See Sec. III, Laws and Customs of War on Land. Appendix.

which the occupying army belongs, and hence neither the constitution nor the laws of that country can have any force there.

The result, then, is that the declared will of the military commander, tempered by his instructions, and by the humane sentiment of the times, and also by the established practice of civilized warfare, must be regarded as having the force of law within the occupied territory. Chief Justice Chase of the United States Supreme Court defined military government as a form of "military jurisdiction to be exercised by the military commander under the direction of the President (who is military commander-in-chief) in time of foreign war without the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within states and districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents."

Martial law. Sometimes military government has been confused with martial law. Martial law, however, is rather such a suspension of law, which has been best defined as being a military rule exercised by the United States or by a single state of the Union over its own citizens (not being enemies), in an emergency justifying its proclamation. It is declared at times to secure the suspension of the writs of habeas corpus. It was declared in portions of the North during the Civil War by the general government, by the State of Rhode Island during Dorr's Rebellion, and in more recent times in the State of Washington on account of the anti-Chinese riots, and in 1892 in Idaho by the Governor on account of a miners' riot in one county. There is some doubt as to the power of a Governor of a territory to declare martial law, although such power has been exercised in the past.

Authority for military government.-The authority for military government is the fact of the occupation. A proclamation or public notice to the inhabitants informing them of the extent of the occupation and the powers proposed