How to Fight Savage Tribes

Author(s): Elbridge Colby

Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1927), pp. 279-288
Published by: American Society of International Law
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2189127 .
Accessed: 20/12/2014 23:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The American Journal of International Law.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW TO FIGHT SAVAGE TRIBES
BY ELBRIDGE COLBY

Captain, UnitedStatesArmy

In the April, 1926 number of this JOURNAL, ProfessorQuincy Wright

remarks,apropos of the Damascus bombardment:
Does internationallaw requirethe applicationoflaws ofwar to people
of a differentcivilization? The ancient Israelites are said to have
denied the usual war restrictionsto certaintribes against which they
were sworn enemies, the ancient Greeks consideredthe rules of war
recognizedamong Hellenes inapplicable to barbarians, and medieval
Christiancivilizationtook a similarattitude toward war with the infi-
del. An English writerin 1906 draws attention to "the peculiarly
barbaroustype of warfarewhichcivilizedpowerswage against tribesof
inferiorcivilization. When I contemplate," he adds, "such modern
heroes as Gordon, and Kitchener,and Roberts,I findthem in alliance
with slave dealers or Mandarins, or cuttingdown fruittrees, burning
farms, concentratingwomen and children,protectingmilitarytrains
with prisoners,bribing other prisonersto fightagainst their fellow
countrymen. These are performanceswhich seem to take us back to
the bad old times. What a terribletale will the recordingangel have
to note against England and Germanyin South Africa,against France
in Madagascar and Tonquin, against the United States in the Philip-
pines, against Spain in Cuba, against the Dutch in the East Indies,
against the Belgians in the Congo State." Possibly the emphasis,in
most accounts of the recentbombardmentof Damascus, upon the fact
that relativelyslight damage was done to Europeans and Americans
indicates the existenceof this distinctionin the moral sense of western
communities.

The passage is, it is true,tornfromits context. But it at least illustrates

-however ProfessorWrightmay deplorethe fact-one matterwhichmust
be faced.
The distinctionis existent. It is based on a differencein methods of
wagingwar and on different doctrinesofdecencyin war. When combatants
and non-combatantsare practicallyidenticalamong a people, and savage or
semi-savage peoplestake advantageofthis identityto effectruses,surprises,
and massacres on the "regular" enemies, commandersmust attack their
problemsin entirelydifferent ways fromthosein whichtheyproceedagainst
Western peoples. When a war is between "regular" troops and what are
termed"irregular" troopsthe mindmustapproach differently all mattersof
strategyand tactics,and, necessarilyalso, mattersof rules of war.
This view has been expressedprominently enough not to be overlooked.
Said ProfessorJesse S. Reeves at Williamstown,Mass., August 2, 1923:
279

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Internationallaw is not applicable to uncivilizedpeoples and could

have no influenceupon them. It is merelya body of rulesand customs
that have grownup among nations more or less similarforuse among
themselves.
Says Colonel J. F. C. Fuller of the BritishArmy:'
In small wars against uncivilizednations,the formof warfareto be
adopted must tone with the shade of cultureexistingin the land, by
which I mean that, against peoples possessinga low civilization,war
must be morebrutal in type.
Said an argumentbeforethe Court of Claims of the United States:2
A savage tribelike the Bannocks are incapable of wagingwar in the
sense ofinternationallaw. Such barbarousand looselyorganizedbands
are incapable of attaininga status of belligerency. The least discrimi-
nating sense apprehendsa difference betweenwar against nations and
militaryoperationsagainst gangs of pirates,bandits, and marauders.
Says the officialBritishinstructionbook on the subject:3
It must be emphasized that the rules of International Law apply
only to warfarebetween civilized nations, where both parties under-
stand them and are preparedto carrythem out. They do not apply
in wars withuncivilizedStates and tribes,wheretheirplace is taken by
the descretionof the commanderand such rulesofjustice and humanity
as recommendthemselvesin the particularcircumstancesof the case.
This is the experienceof the red-coatedarmythat has foughtperhapsin
morecornersofthe globe withmoreuncivilizedand savage peoples than any
othermilitaryorganizationin moderntimes. Internationallaw, as we know
it today,is essentiallya Christiandoctrine. It arose in fullpowerin the era
of Christiannational states. Grotiusand Vattel were thinkingof applying
Christiandoctrinesto organizedwarfare,not farfrombeinganalogous to the
chivalrousruleshanded downfromthe days ofarmoredknights. The cross-
bow, forexample, mighthave been placed under interdict" as a barbarous
weapon unfitforChristianwarfare"by a council of the Churchheld under
Pope Innocent II in 1139, and yet Richard the Lion Hearted freelyand un-
perturbedlyused it against the Saracens on crusade, and his practice was
followedby Philip Augustusof France. In his 2History of the Law of Na-
tions, Ward4instances the difference between Turkish commonpractice of
puttingall prisonersin chains and the complaintsof the Spanish Ambassa-
dors at Vervins against such treatmentof Spaniards. Ward likewiseem-
l Fuller,The Reformation
ofWar,p. 191. 2 Marksv. U. S., 28 Ct. Cl. 147
3 ManualofMilitary
Law, 1914,p. 235,par.7. A similardistinctionis implicitin Leiber's
Instructions, par. 24, G. 0. 100, 1863; Moore,Digest,VII, 173, regarding"barbarous
armies."
4Law of Nations,1, 145,citingLettredu 26 Fev.au Roi, 1598,Duc de Guise. Mem. de
Bell. etSill.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW TO FIGHT SAVAGE TRIBES 281

in conceptionbetweenlaws of war in the early

phasizes this same difference
years of the New World. He says:'
When the New World was opened to the spiritand adventureof the
Old, it was reasonable to expect what was found: new laws and cus-
toms,as wellas a new people and language. But on that very account
it was not reasonable to expect that the intercoursebetween the
Spaniards and the Mexicans should be governedby the same customs
as the intercourseof Nations in Europe: nor,ifthe lattersacrificedtheir
prisonersto theirgods, couldtheformerfairlycomplainofit as a breach
of the Law of Nations. Yet to the astonishmentand horrorof every
thinkingand good mind, this was one of the charges on which the
innocentand unfortunatemonarchof Peru was put to death by the
ruthlessPizarro.
In that particularinstance, Atuhalpa was tried by a Spanish court of
justice,and punishedforwhatthe Europeans regardedas an atrocity,though
it was a normalincidentto warfareamong the Mexican people. If one be
angeredby the death offriends,it is always possibleto pick the most severe
law under which to punish the offender. Witness the followinglittle con-
versation, taken by Ward out of that agreeable chronicler,Matthew of
Paris:6
"In the name of the God you worship,"said Saladin, to the prince
of Antioch,his prisoner,worn down and emaciated with hungerand
with chains,"what would he commandyou to do withme, if I were in
yourpower,as you are in mine?"
"He would counselme," returnedthe fearlessprince,"to have you
beheaded on the spot; but as you are a Sovereign,like myself,though
an infidel;I myselfoughtto be your executioner."
"Your own mouth has pronouncedyour doom," said the Saracen,
drawingforthhis sword.
Generalitiesand isolated instances aside, the real crux of the matter of
warfarebetween civilized and uncivilizedpeoples almost invariablyturns
in fact as well as a difference
out to be a difference in law. In fact,among
savages, warincludeseveryone. Thereis no distinctionbetweencombatants
and non-combatants. Whole tribesgo on campaign. This is the primitive
method of applying armed force. The modern and so-called "civilized"
method attemptsto make a distinctionbetweencombatantsand non-com-
batants. The battle may be waged on the fieldof conflict. But combat-
ants are entitledto the rightsof prisonersof war. Non-combatantsare
entitledto protectionagainst unnecessarymolestation,and the " necessity"
of molestationis a subject of intricateprovisionsand endless controversy.
Yet, among nations recognizingand practisinginternationallaws of civilized
war, the distinctionbetween the two is basic, between those authorized
combatants and the unauthorizedand unofficialby-standers.
IIbid., I, 136. 6 Ibid., II, 137,citingMatt. Paris,II (Rollsser.),813.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

This distinctionhas been increasingin emphasis since the eighteenth

century,whenVattel remarked:7

Aujourd'hui, la guerrese fait par les troupes r6gl6es;le peuple, les

paysans, les bourgeois,ne s'en m6lent point, et, pour l'ordinaire,ils
n'ont rien A craindredu ferde l'ennemi.

There is one phrasein this statement,however,whichis very important

indeed. So importantit is, in fact, that it has oftenbeen overlooked,as
importantqualifyingdetails are, to the distortionof the whole statement.
The idea is sound, providedthe people, the peasants, and the city folk,do
not intrudethemselves(ne s'en melentpoint) into militarymatters.
On May 1, 1865, Uruguay,Brazil and Argentinecombinedto make war
" not againstthe people ofParaguay but againstthe government "18 and that
in the courseof that terribleconflictalmostthe whole of the nation of Para-
guay was obliterated. But look furtherand you will also find that the
wholepeople acted as a partofthe army,and that evenwomenwereemployed
to carryon the operationsby servingpracticallyas beasts of burdenforthe
fieldforces.9 In otherwords,the war was not a war in which "the people
did not interfere"but one in whichpracticallyeverypersonwas a combat-
ant. Such a war is what is spokenof as " guerillawarfare" whenirregulars,
usually not uniformedand usually mingledwith the residents,harass and
attack and slaughterregulartroops. In such a war " wherea whole popula-
tion engagesin warfare,the distinctionbetweencombatantand non-combat-
ant vanishes."'01 Note also that when Brigadier-GeneralJohn Coffeeand
his Tennessee troopsconqueredthe Creek Indians in MississippiTerritory,
November 3, 1813,at Tallussahatchie,"both men and women struggledto
the last . . . withoutaskingquarter" and "not one would desert the field,
but men, women,and childrenperishedtogether."11 When the distinction
vanishes in fact, it likewisevanishes in law. When the distinctionis not
readilyapparentto a fieldcommander,thatcommanderis perfectly justifiable
in ceasing to observeit, for the safetyof his own troops is his paramount
consideration.
A somewhatsimilarcircumstanceoccurredin South Africa. Enteringthe
territoryofthe South AfricanRepublicin 1900,GeneralBuller proclaimed:12
" Her Majesty does not make war on individuals. . . . The quarrelEngland
has is with the Government,not withthe people, of the Transvaal." The
struggledraggedon. Resistancebrokedown,in organizedform. Scattered
resistance continued. It was being fosteredand furtheredby the civil
7 DroitdesGens,Bk. III, Ch. VIII, ? 147. See also Rousseau,ContratSocial,Bk. I, Ch.
IV, and letterofTalleyrandto theEmperorof1806,citedin Bray,Occupation Militaire,pp.
177-178. 8 Britishand ForeignStatePapers,Vol.LV., p. 83,Art.7.
9G. Thompson,War in Paraguay,p. 342. 10Bordwell,Law ofWar,p. 152.
11Rowland,AndrewJackson'sCampaignAgainstthe British,p. 159.
12 Oppenheim, InternationalLaw, 2nd ed., Vol. II, p. 65.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW TO FIGHT SAVAGE TRIBES 283

population. The citizens turned soldier or farmeras occasion seemed to

demand. Stringentmethods were necessary. Formal hostilitieshad be-
come guerillaforays. So Kitchenerstarteddeliberatelyon a policyof oblit-
erating the sources of the resistance and the points of its support. His
burningand destructionof Boer farmshas been instancednumeroustimes,
and was vigorouslyso assailed at thetime 13as indecentbrutality. Yet those
who understandthe task imposed upon the BritishArmymust realize that
such was the only available course,and cannot actually condemnsuch sup-
pressionof such irregularresistanceas contraryto internationallaw.
In 1532 Franciscusof Victoria contendedit properat times to extermi-
nate "all who can bear arms" and added that "in a war withChristiansthis
would not be allowable." 14
Yet, the distinctionis not one of Christianityand paganism. It is a
distinctionof warfare. Against elusive savage or semisavage people, and
against tribalunits whichwage war as completetribes,the methodmust be,
as the BritishColonel Fuller has said, "more brutal." A concreteillustra-
tion of overwhelming,strange, and devastating force, may break down
resistancecompletelyand make foran earlypeace. Speakingofaerial opera-
tions, the United States Armydoctrinestates:15
The effectof bombing . . . is generallyvery great upon the morale
of an irregularenemy. The objective ofirregularoperations . . . may
be the capital ofthe people,theirmain sourceofsupply,theirprominent
leaders,or,ifa fanaticalpeople,the seat oftheirreligion.
And the Britishdoctrineis obviouslysomewhatthe same,fora well-known
Wing Commanderis quoted as saying:'6
One object mustbe selected-preferablythe mostinaccessiblevillage
of the most prominenttribe which it is desired to punish. . . . The
attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentlessand unremit-
ting and carriedon continuouslyby day and night,on horses,inhabit-
ants, crops, and cattle.
Nor is thismethodofwagingwar merelya matterofdoctrine. In Afghan-
istan, in May, 1919, explosivesdroppedfromplanes "inflictedheavy losses
on civil populationand army" in and about Jalalabad.'7 In the same year
in Octoberintensiveaerial bombardmentswereundertakenagainstthe recal-
citranttribesof Tochi Wazirs and Mahsuds.'8 All ofthiswas simplya more
modernizedand more effectiveversionof priorBritishbombardmentswith
fieldartilleryagainst native Asian villages,a casual type of incidentagainst
native tribesin the storyof Britishcolonial enterpriseand mastery.'9
Is F.Y. T. Fuller,A WestPointerwiththeBoers,pp. 202-203.
"4On theLaw of War, ?48. 15TrainingRegulations, No. 15-70,U. S. Army,par. 24.
16 In J.F. C. Fuller,The Reformation
ofWar,p. 208.
17Papers RegardingHostilitieswith Afghanistan.ParliamentaryActs and Papers.
East India, 1919,Col. xxxvii. 18 L. F. R. Williams,
India in 1920.p. 7.
19C. E. Callwell,StrayRecollections,I, 133-134.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

However,all ofthisis somewhatgeneralized. It has to do withthe larger

objectives of war, ratherthan withincidents. In the more concretedetail,
we findmany incidentsin historyto supportthe Britishtheorythat when
natives go to war, they do not observe the individual decenciesof civilized
regularsoldiers. And here on the Americancontinentwe have ample ex-
ample ofwhat mightbe expectedfromconflictwithsuch persons. The long
list of Indian wars in whichthe troopersofthe United States have defended
and pushed westwardsthe frontiersof Americabear eloquent testimonyto
the unifiedtribal action in war, and to the almost universalbrutalityof the
red-skinnedfighters. Withthese,therecan be littlethoughtof international
law. The fact was broughthome very plainly,and discussedin officialpa-
pers, duringthe War of 1812, in whichEngland attemptedto utilizethe aid
of redskin to harass and harm the Americans. This unnatural alliance
of redskinswith redcoat caused the deepest perturbationon the part of the
United States. When General Hull enteredCanada he announced on July
13, 1812, that he would take strenuouscounter-measures. He said :20
If the barbarousand savage policy of Great Britain be pursued,and
the savages are let loose to murderour citizensand butcherour women
and children,this war will be a war of extermination.. . . If the
dictates of reason,duty,justice and humanity,cannot preventthe em-
ploymentof a force,which respectsno rightsand knows no wrong,it
willbe preventedby a severeand relentlesssystemofretaliation.
That these were not needless alarms, and empty threats,but ratherthe
sound forebodingsof an Americanwho knewthe redskinas he was and as he
waged war, is attested by the report of a Major P. L. Chambers of the
Britishforces,to Colonel Proctor,in August of the same year, when he en-
tered United States territoryto receive a surrender:2'
In conformitywithmy Instructions,I assured the Inhabitants of the
EffectualProtection of His Majesty's Government. But it is with
extrememortification I feel myselfcompelled to state, that notwith-
standingeveryefforton my Part, to insureit to them,so strongwas the
dispositionon the Part of the Indians in particularthe Wyandotts,to
Pillage Ravage and destroy,that I could not succeed, scarcelya House
in that Settlement[River au Raisons] having escaped Pillage. Indeed
it was one Universal scene of desolation.
It is really beside the pointhereto go into the controversyas to whether
measures of retaliationwere justifiable22 and how far the Britishviolated
internationallaw in employingthe servicesofsavage tribesin a regularwar.2a
20 BritishDocumentsof the Canadian War of 1812. ChamplainSocietyPublications.

No. XIII (Toronto,1920),Vol. I, pp. 356-357.

21 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 498-499. 22 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 373.

23Ibid.,Vol. I, pp. 356-357;RulesofLand Warfare, U. S. Army,1914,Art.41; Bonfils,8th

ed. (Fauchille),sec. 1083; Morgan,War Book of the GermanGeneralStaff,1915,p. 87;
Bordwell,Law of War, p. 140; Garner,International Law and the WorldWar, Vol. I, p.
292; Oppenheim, InternationalLaw, 3rd ed., Vol. II, p. 108; as citedby Q. Wrightin this
JOURNAL, April,1926,Vol. XX, p. 267.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW TO FIGHT SAVAGE TRIBES 285

The real essence of the matteris that devastation and annihilationis the
principalmethodof warfarethat savage tribesknow. Excessive humanita-
rian ideas shouldnot preventharshnessagainstthosewhouse harshmethods,
forin being overkindto one's enemies,a commanderis simplybeingunkind
to his own people. As James Monroe remarked,when he declared General
Harrison acted properlyin 1813 in burningIndian huts and homes:24
This species of warfarehas been invariablypursued by every nation
engagedin war withthe Indians on the Americancontinent.
The factsimplyis that whena tribeon the war-pathmeasuresits victories
by the numberofhouses burnedand the numberof foes,combatantor non-
combatant, cut up, you must use a differentmethod of warfare. When
Orientalpeoples are accustomedto pillagingand beingpillaged,accustomed
to torturingand flayingalive distinguishedprisoners,25you are dealing with
opponentsto whomthe laws ofwar mean nothing,who,as General Hull said
of the AmericanIndians, "respect no rightsand know no wrong." Against
such it is not only perfectlyproper,it is even necessary,to take rigorous
measures. These are not those "regular troops" of whom Vattel spoke,
waging a conflictin which people, peasants and bourgeois, do not mix.
Against such, who neitherunderstandnor are ready to apply the rules of
internationallaw, as the BritishManual says, it is perfectlycorrectand in-
deed absolutely essential to trust simply "to the discretionof the com-
mander."
One hundredand thirty-oddyears ago, Ward remarked:26
Where they professedto observe a Code, so directlythe opposite of
ours, . . . then,indeed, I could conceivewe mightact towardsthemas
towardsenemies,whosedispositionit was, like beasts, to preyupon us;
but even then I do not perceive the fairnessof consideringthem as
amenable to the laws we chose to pursue or as punishableforbreaches
of those laws.
In otherwords,he would object to the formaltrial and punishmentof a
Mexican fora " crime" underSpanish law, whichwas a perfectlynormaland
regular procedureunder Mexican law. Nor does it do any good to write
Latin treatiseson the rightof the Spaniards to travel and trade in Indian
countryunder theologicalor legal doctrines,as did Franciscus of Victoria.
It would be but Latin to the Indians. In otherwords,it would not be proper
to instituteformalrecriminationsand "reprisals" against enemyforcesfor
alleged misbehavior on the battlefield. Such steps would simply not be
understoodby the personsat whomtheyweredirected. They mightbe felt;
but they would not be understood.
It appears entirelyfallaciousto assume that thoseless humanemethodsof
24 Niles WeeklyRegister,March18, 1815. Vol. VIII, pp. 35-36.
25 J. P. Ferrier,Caravan Journeys,
pp. 14, 81.
26 Ward,Law ofNations,Vol. I, p. xi.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
286 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

wagingwar whichare commonlyemployedagainst savage tribesin Asia and

in Africatoday,as theywerein previousages against " infidel" Saracens and
"wild" American Indians, are merelyextensionsand applications of the
doctrineof retaliationor reprisal. The purpose of a reprisalis to inflicta
cruel and unnaturalpunishmentfora crueland unnaturalact. It is meant
as a specificlessonfora specificmisdeed. It is like that airplanebombingof
FrieburgwhichMr. Holland in 1917 said was justifiable,even though" delib-
erately intendedto resultin injuryto the propertyand personsof civilian
inhabitants,"because it was deliberatelyand publiclydone "with the prac-
tical object of inducingthe enemyto abstain in the future."27
The doctrineof reprisalpermitsa temporarydeparturefromthe normal
law as a formalmode of war-timepunishment.
But if the German used poison gas at Ypres in 1915, could you call the
constantuse of gas thereafterby the Allies simplya reprisal? No! It was
not a temporarydeparture. It was a differentmode of fighting. Even
thoughcontinueddeparturesfromthe laws of war are onlyofsuch character
as those of your foe, you cannot call them "reprisals." You are really
fightinganotherkind of war.
The importantthing is to keep one's head, and for the commanderto
exercisereal discretion,as it has been intrustedto him,he could do no better
than to followthe advice of Baty, who says:28
It is not enough to justifyone army in resortingto these measures
that instances of the enemy's troops having done so on particular
occasions,are alleged to have occurred. . . . There are some infringe-
mentswhichcan never be met with reprisalsin kind. Noblesseoblige,
and a self-respecting
commanderwillnotfollowthe exampleofan antag-
onist,should that example unfortunatelybe set, in reducinga civilized
army to the rank of a band of massacringsavages.
It is well to remindourselvesofthe disastrouseffectsofeven slightloosen-
ing of the bonds ofrestraint,as whenthe Allied troopsenteredPekin in 1900
and looted for "souvenirs" without apparent restraint of any effective
sort,in spite ofpartial efforts
in some quartersto hold the troopsin check.29
Rules against indiscriminatelooting and needless barbaritypromotedisci-
pline and make foreffectiveand necessarycontrolof one's own forces. It
was not because the Chinese were Orientals of another civilization,or be-
cause theircivilizationwas reallyadvanced-though different-thatAmeri-
can officersgave strictordersagainsttheft,and triedto enforcethemto some
extent. It was reallybecause ofthe internalnecessityformilitarydiscipline
and control,as well as an innate sense of decency.30
27 Holland,LettersuponWar and Neutrality, 3rded.,p. 123. See also Moore,Digest,VII,
207; and Vattel,Liv. III, Sec. 141-142.
28T. Baty,International Law in SouthAfrica,pp. 85-86.
29 PrussianYear Book,quotedin N. Y. Tribune,March25, 1923.
30 See Colby,E., Military Value ofthe Laws of War,in 15 Georgetown Law Journal24
(November,1926).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HOW TO FIGHT SAVAGE TRIBES 287

A finerexample is found in the attitude of the soldiers of the Mikado

enteringChina in thewarbetweenthosetwonationsin the 1890's. Although
the Japanese consideredthe Chinese a backwardand uncivilizedpeople who
mightnot respectthe modernconventionsand customsofinternationallaw,
theyneverthelessdeterminedto abide by thoserulesthemselvesand attached
distinguishedJapanese publicistsand scholarsin this branch of learningto
each of theirarmiesin the field.3'
It is good to be decent. It is good to use properdiscretion. It is good to
observethe decenciesofinternationallaw. But it is a fact that against un-
civilized people who do not know internationallaw and do not observe it,
and would take advantage of one who did, there must be somethingelse.
The "somethingelse" should not be a relaxationof all bonds of restraint.
But it shouldbe clear understandingthat thisis a different kind of war,this
whichis waged by native tribes, than that which might be waged between
advanced nations of western culture. Ferocity and ruthlessness are not
essential; but it is essential to recognize the differentcharacter of the people
and their usual lack of discriminationbetween combatants and non-com-
batants, in their own as well as in enemy personnel. To a Frenchman,a
shell strikingRheims Cathedral-signal station thereonor not,it makes no
difference-ora bomb explodingon a railroad train-military men therein
or not,it makes no difference-isa lawless act ofthe enemywhichinfuriates
the temperamentalsoul and arouseswrathand gives a fineincidentforover-
seas propaganda. To a fanaticalsavage, a bomb droppedout of the sky on
the sacred temple of his omnipotentGod is a sign and a symbolthat that
God has withdrawnhis favor. A shellsmashinginto a putativeinaccessible
village strongholdis an indicationof the relentlessenergyand superiorskill
ofthe well-equippedcivilizedfoe. Instead ofmerelyrousinghis wrath,these
acts are much more likelyto make him raise his hands in surrender. If a
few" non-combatants"-if therebe any such in native folkofthis character
-are killed, the loss of lifeis probablyfar less than mighthave been sus-
tained in prolongedoperationsof a more polite character. The inhuman
act thus becomes actually humane,forit shortensthe conflictand prevents
the sheddingof more excessivequantitiesof blood.
These things should be recalled when "civilized" troops make war on
"uncivilized" peoples. There is a difference in effect,as well as a difference
in conceptionof warfare. Of this difference the commandermay be well
aware. Strictlyspeaking,and in a finelegal sense, he is not bound to ob-
serve the preceptsof internationallaw against any nation that is not a co-
signerofthe conventionscoveringany particularpointin question. Strictly
speaking,the gas warfaretreatysignednot so long since in Washingtonhas
never been ratifiedby France and is inoperativeas a ban on poisonous and
toxic gases until all signatoriesratifyand exchangeratifications. But it is
to be noticedthat the United States Armywithinsix monthsput that treaty
31N. Ariga,La GuerreSino-Japonaise,
pp. xiii,9.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
288 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

into effectand has limitedinstructionand trainingand preparationof its

own troops to "defensive chemical warfare" and the use of mere smoke
screensand non-toxicgases. The strictlylegal point of view is not the only
point of view. The discretionand the decency of the commanderare also
factors. The really controllingelementin the handling of a fieldforceis
economy. Economy of effort, economyof force,maintainedby a well-knit
and well-disciplinedarmydirectedtowardthe most directand properattain-
ment of the end in view-these are the preceptsby whichthe commander
will governhis actions. Bearing these thingsin mind, he will use against
uncivilizedpeoples, as the BritishManual says, "the discretionof the com-
mander and such rules of justice and humanityas recommendthemselves
in the particularcircumstancesof the case."

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 23:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions