Between the devil and the deep blue sea - University of Canterbury

- 248 -
municipal councils, mayors and other local bodies had to initiate all non-military decisions.
Hence, they continued to playa central part in local administration. Bosboom's edict did
acknowledge that municipalities retained prosecution powers (strafrechtelijke
bevoegdheid), except where they explicitly interfered with military regulations. 84 Snijders
questioned the validity of the directive and wOlTied about the extra work-load it placed on
commanders. He suggested that municipalities could continue to govern as long as they did
not interfere with military decisions. Bosboom did not entirely disagree, but in the interest
of consistency, urged the Commander-in-Chief to comply with his instruction anyway.85 In
fact, the directive ensured that the anned forces became more involved in the running of
municipalities, since they now had to rubber-stamp every decision. This was in sharp
contrast to what Cort van der Linden insisted on in September 1914, when he asked
Snijders to make sure that "state of siege" commanders abstained from involving
themselves in local government, except where necessary for smuggling reasons. 86
The government did restrict the nature of the "state of siege" in one particular way,
by removing the right to establish krijgsraden (military courtS).87 As long as the nation was
not at war, military courts would not function, and the nonnal judicial system continued.
The distinction between a time of war and peace had two important consequences. Firstly, it
ensured that peacetime protocols applied to military courts martial. As a result, sentences
handed out to deserting soldiers were not as severe as they would have been if the country
joined the war.88 Secondly, residents arrested for breaking the "state of war" and "siege"
regulations were tried in regular courts, by a civilian judiciary rather than a military panel.
As a result, when alTestees faced trial, the courts had the chance to define and
interpret the War Law at will. The High Court made several important rulings during the
war, which changed the jurisdiction and powers of "state of siege" authorities substantially.
The fIrst significant "state of siege" case appeared in front of High Court judges in May
1915, after a MilitalY District Commander (kantonnementscommandant) told local police
84 Minister of War to Commander-in-Chief, 10 June 1915; Commander of the Field Army to Commander-in-Chief, 1
October 1915, both in ARA, "Archieven van de Generale Staf' entry no. 2.13.70, inventory no. 179.
85 Minister of War to Commander-in-Chief, 17 August 1915, in ARA, "Archieven van de Generale Staf' entry no.
2.13.70, inventory no. 174.
86 Minister President to Commander-in-Chief, 26 September 1914, in ARA, "Archieven van de Generale Staf' entry
no. 2.13.70, inventory no. 95.
87 Staatsblad. no. 490, 16 October 1914.
88 F. H. A. Sabron, "De militaire rechtspraak tijdens de mobilisatie" [Military jurisdiction during the mobilisation]
Militair-Rechtelijk Tijdschrift. 11, 191511916, pp. 39 - 52.