IMMUNITY OF NON-COMBATANTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5361, 3 June 1878, Page 2

IMMUNITY OF NON-COMBATANTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND'TIMES. ,T 1 n y our re P» r t of Governor Weld’s speech I see he makes allusion to fc, -< traCVan" iu the colonial banks, And - then; in reference to the power of self-defence, he goes on to say “Some may say, as I have heard it said;' ‘ But; in the event of a fight, we would turn out to a man;’ but unfortunately a custom prevails' of hanging or shooting any persons not in the uniform of a regularly - enrolled corps who may Tie taken in arms ; and in the French'war the Prussians, by no means an uncivilised enemy)'in such eases shot hostages, selected by' lot from among the unarmed inhabitants, when they could not or iwonld not deliver up those who had so fired on them.” Admitting this to be in accordance - with the rules of -civilised-warfare, the question I wish -'to’ask is :■ Does not the converse of this hold good? Is not the inon-belligerent' exempt from violence and plunder 2 ' When- an army ehfers'a hostile territory, it'does not'commit acts of hostility on unfortified and unresisting towns, dor does it lay hands on the “ bullion" in the banks. Is a squadron, or a man-of-war, entering the harbor of an undefended and unresisting town in a (hostile territory justified, according to the laws of war, in acting otherwise ? .If, it did, by a wanton attack provoke non-belligerents to resistance, on what recognised ; principle of international law or ci vilised * warfare cqnld it treat as-'culprits those ‘‘not in the uniform of a regularly enrolled corps,” who were merely acting in selfdefence! vil think this subject .is worthy of some consideration. I havc long wished to see it obtain the attention it deserves,—l am, Ac., May 31. : ' A.