classes were organized, libraries established, and the like. According to the reports of representatives of the American Embassy who inspected the camps from time to time, the civilian prisoners were well treated and were probably better off than they would have been had they been left scattered over the country, where they would have been exposed to ill-treatment.

Nevertheless, the German Government protested strongly against the policy of wholesale internment as unprecedented, harsh, and unnecessary. In a dispatch of November 8, 1915, to the American Ambassador in London, Mr. Gerard voiced the protest of the German Government. It admitted, he said, the right of the British Government to arrest German subjects who were suspected of espionage, but that great popular resentment had been aroused by the reports of the arrests of other Germans.34 In a White Book issued by the German Foreign Office in 1915,35 the German Government complained of the rigorous treatment to which its nationals in England, France, and Russia had been subjected in respect to their rights of person and property, particularly the closing of the courts, thereby making it impossible for them to enforce their legal rights, the policy of wholesale internment, the sequestration of German property, the attacks of mobs, etc.36 The Austro-Hungarian Government made similar complaints.37

FRENCH POLICY

The problem which confronted the Government of France at the outbreak of the war was, by reason of the large number of enemy aliens in the national territory and the geographical proximity of the country to Germany, even more serious than that which faced the

Correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the United States Ambassador Respecting the Release of Interned Civilians. Misc. No. 8 (1915) [Cd. 7857], p. 19.

25 Entitled, Ausnahmegesetze gegen deutschen Private Recht in England Frankreich und Russland (Carl Heyman's Verlag, Berlin, 1915), especially pp. 193 ff.

36 The German White Book complained especially of harsh and cruel treatment which Germans in the Cameroons are alleged to have received at the hands of the British.

37 See the Red Book entitled, "Collection of Evidence Respecting Violations of the Law of Nations by the Countries at War with Austria-Hungary."

British Government. In addition to the large number of permanent residents of enemy nationality who had lived in the country for many years and were engaged in business or the practice of professions, there were thousands of German and Austrian tourists who were caught there by the suddenness of the outbreak of the war. The condition in which many found themselves was almost pathetic. Without money, without clothing except such as they wore at the time, with the hotels and lodging houses closed to them, with no place to sleep except in the parks and public squares, thousands, exhausted from long journeys and fruitless searches for lodgings, terrified at the prospect of being arrested as spies, betook themselves to the American Embassy to beg for food, advice, and protection.38 The embassy rendered them assistance in many ways. It gave them information regarding local police regulations; it found lodgings for them in school houses and other public buildings, with the permission of the French Government; and provided them with money to meet temporary and urgent needs.

During the first days of the war there was some wrecking of German shops in certain quarters of Paris, especially of milk depots, some windows were broken and crockery dashed to pieces, and account books scattered in the streets, but the outbreaks were not general or serious.39

On August 2, 1914, when the outbreak of war with Germany was imminent, the French Government gave notice that all foreigners might leave France before the end of the first day of mobilization. On the same day a decree was issued commanding all persons of foreign nationality, without distinction as to age, sex, or nationality, to make known their identity to the commissariat of police at the mairie or to an administrator at their place of residence. The same decree required all German and Austro-Hungarian subjects to evacuate the region of the

38 Eric Fisher Wood, The Note Book of an Attaché pp. 2-8. For a French view of the German spy system in France see an article by Georges Prade in the London Weekly Times of May 19, 1916.

39 Wood, op. cit., pp. 6 ff. and 33 ff. There is a deposition in the Austro-Hungarian Red Book, p. 30, which alleges that all German and Austrian shops in Paris were wrecked, but I know from personal knowledge that the statement is entirely without foundation.

northwest, as well as a part of the southwest, including also the fortified districts embracing Paris and Lyons, and to retire to certain places in the west where work, if possible, would be provided for them. Eventually they would either be allowed to leave the country or authorized to continue their residence. In the latter event they would be furnished with a permis de séjour but would not be allowed to change their places of residence without a safe-conduct establishing their identity.40

Natives of Alsace-Lorraine, not naturalized as French citizens but members of families long established in the country, whose origin and sentiments were known, as well as families of which at least one member had enlisted in the Foreign Legion, were allowed to remain with full liberty of action. By a decree of the same date the territories of Belfort and Algeria were declared to be in a state of siege. The measures requiring the evacuation of the regions mentioned were deemed necessary on account of the rapid advance of the German armies and the certainty that those regions would soon become the theater of actual warfare.

By a decree of August 3 the police authorities of the frontier and maritime departments were instructed not to permit any person who was not provided with a passport to leave France, this with a view of preventing French citizens from evading their military duties, and also to prevent the departure of enemy subjects for the purpose of joining the colors of their own country.42 Until that date Germans and Austro-Hungarians were free to leave France without restriction, and in spite of the briefness of the period allowed and the difficulties of transportation due to the use of the railways by the French Govern

40 Permits de séjour to reside at their homes were granted very sparingly, the recipients being for the most part foreigners who had sons in the French army or old men who had lived in France for many years and whose ties with the fatherland had been broken by long absence. The Minister of the Interior stated in the Senate, on March 23, 1916, that not more than 500 permits of the kind had been issued to enemy aliens in Paris and that the number granted in the provinces was very small.

Text of the decree in Dalloz, Guerre de 1914, Vol. I, p. 19; Législation de la Guerre, Vol. I, pp. 13–14; Clunet, 1915, pp. 95-96; and Rev. Gen. de Droit Int. Pub., 1915, pp. 7–8.

42

Valery, De la Condition en France des Ressortissants des Puissances Ennemis, Rev. Gen. de Droit Int. Pub., 1916, p. 356.

ment for mobilization of its armies, a considerable number succeeded in getting away. The greater number, however, either preferred to remain or were compelled to do so on account of the difficulties mentioned. All who remained were from the beginning subjected to a rigorous régime of surveillance for the purpose of preventing espionage and other acts calculated to compromise the national security.43

In consequence of the more serious character of the enemy alien problem in France as compared with that of England, owing mainly to the proximity of France to Germany and the rapid invasion of the country by the Germans, the French Government considered that the public safety did not permit the enemy alien population to be left at large, as was done in England for some eight months after the beginning of the war. In the early days of the war, therefore, the greater part of the enemy alien population, particularly that of Paris, was removed to concentration camps located in various parts of France, mostly in the western departments behind a line extending from Dunkirk to Nice.44 The persons so interned were divided into two groups: first, natives of Alsace-Lorraine, Czechs, Greeks, Poles and Armenians; and second, Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans and Bulgarians. As in England, enemy aliens belonging to the first group were regarded as being the unwilling subjects of their respective governments, whose sympathies were assumed to be largely on the side of the Entente Allies. In consequence they were separated from other interned enemy aliens and allowed a relatively larger degree of freedom, such as the privilege of spending the daytime away from the camps to which

43 Valery, article cited, p. 359.

44 The original order provided for twelve camps, but the number was increased from time to time, until there were fifty-two in the latter part of the year 1915. Clunet, 1916, p. 156. The Minister of the Interior stated, in December, 1915 (Journal des Débats, Dec. 12), that the number of German and Austro-Hungarian subjects then interned in concentration camps was about 45,000. He also stated that the number of aliens who had been "chased" from France since the outbreak of the war was 4700; the number of arrests on the charge of espionage was 1125; the number of persons condemned to death by the councils of war was 55; the number condemned to forced labor was 34; to réclusion 14; to imprisonment 29. Aside from the condemnations by the councils of war, there were a considerable number of condemnations by the judicial courts.

they were attached.45 Those in the second category, however, were allowed no such privileges and were kept under a régime of strict surveillance.46

Owing to the fact that the disproportion between the enemy alien populations of Germany and France was less than that between England and Germany, and also because males of military age of both France and Germany were liable to compulsory military service, the difficulties of reaching an agreement in respect to the exchange of certain classes were less serious. As early as October, 1914, therefore, an agreement was reached for the reciprocal repatriation of all males, except those between the ages of sixteen and sixty, and of all women regardless of age. Subsequently a new agreement was entered into for the repatriation of all males under seventeen and over fifty-five and also of males between those ages who were incapacitated for military service by reason of their affliction with any one of twenty specified diseases or infirmities.47 A similar agreement was entered into between the French and Austro-Hungarian Governments. 48

In France, as in the other belligerent countries, popular hostility towards the enemy manifested itself in a variety of forms. Generally in all of them persons of enemy nationality were deprived of all titles, honors, or dignities which had been conferred upon them by the governments with which they were at war, and even scientists were expelled

Enemy aliens of this class were accorded specially favorable treatment in other respects. Thus, they were allowed the benefit of the moratorium and were granted permits de séjour more freely than were other enemy aliens. Moreover, the measures in respect to sequestration were enforced against them with less rigor. In these respects, also, Bulgarians and Ottomans not actively hostile appear to have been treated with more liberality than were Germans and Austro-Hungarians. See Clunet, 1915, p. 1091; and 1916, pp. 267 and 1634.

Valery, p. 362. Regarding the special leniency accorded to enemy aliens in the first group, see also Clunet, 1915, pp. 1091-3, and 1916, pp. 267, 814-16 and 1634. Conditions in a typical concentration camp (Château roux Bitry) are detailed in Clunet, 1916, pp. 478 ff.

"It was announced in the press dispatches from Berlin on Nov. 24, 1916, that some 20,000 German civilians then interned in France would in accordance with this agreement be released and allowed to return to Germany. The number of Frenchmen in Germany who were repatriated in pursuance of the arrangement was, however, considerably smaller.

48 Text in Clunet, 1916, p. 515.