thing of a badge, easily put on and off, and to call it a uniform. It makes a great difference, however, whether the absence of the uniform is used for the purpose of concealment or disguise, in order to get by stealth within the lines of the invader, for destruction of life or property, or for pillage, and whether the parties have no organization at all, and are so small that they cannot act otherwise than by stealth. Nor can it be maintained in good faith, or with any respect for sound sense and judgment, that an individual-an armed prowler-(now frequently called a bushwhacker) shall be entitled to the protection of the law of war simply because his government or his chief has issued a proclamation by which he calls upon the people to infest the bushes and commit homicides which every civilized nation will consider murders. Indeed, the importance of writing on this subject is much diminished by the fact that the soldier generally decides these cases for himself. The most disciplined soldiers will execute on the spot an armed and murderous prowler found where he could have no business as peaceful citizen. Even an enemy in the uniform of the hostile army would stand little chance of protection if found prowling near the opposing army, separate from his won troops at a greater that picket distance, and under generally suspicious circumstances. The chance would, of course, be far less if the prowler is in the common dress worn by the countryman of the district. It may be added here that a person proved to be a regular soldier of the enemy's army found in citizens" dress within the lines of the captor is universally dealt with as a spy.

It has been stated that the word guerrilla is not only use for individuals engaged in petty war, but frequently as an equivalent of partisan. General Halleck, in his International Law, or Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War, San Franciso, 1861, page 386 et seq., seems to consider partisan troops and guerrilla troops as the same, and seems to consider 'self-constitution" a characteristic of the partisan; while other legal and military writers define partisan as I have stated, namely, a soldier belonging to a corps which operates in the manner given above. I bet the reader to peruse that passage, both on account of its own value and of the many important and instructive authorities which he will find there. They are collected with that careful industry which distinguishes the whole work.

Dr. T. D. Woolsey, page 299 et seq., of his Introduction to the Study of International Law, Boston, 1860, says:

The treatment which the milder modern usage prescribes for regular soldiers is extended also to militia called out by public authority. Guerrilla parties, however, do not enjoy the full benefit of the laws of war. They are apt to fare worse than either regular troops or an armed peasantry. The reasons for this are, that they are annoying and insidious; that they put on and off with ease the character of a soldier, and that they are prone themselves to treat their enemies who fail into their hands with great severity.

If the term partisan is used in the sense in which I have defined it, it is not necessary to treat of it specially. The partisan in this sense is, of course, answerable for the commission of those acts to which the law of war grants no protection, and by which the soldier forfeits being treated as a prisoner of war if captured.

It is different if we understand by guerilla parties, self- constituted sets of armed men in times of war, who form no integrant part of