"The troops of Queen Victoria are now passing through the Transvaal. Her Majesty does not make war on individuals, but is, on the contrary, anxious to spare them as far as may be possible the horrors of war. The quarrel England has is with the Government, not with the people, of the Transvaal. Provided they remain neutral, no attempt will be made to interfere with persons living near the line of march; every possible protection will be given them, and any of their property that it may be necessary to take will be paid for. But, on the other hand, those who are thus allowed to remain near the line of march must respect and maintain their neutrality, and the residents of any locality will be held responsible, both in their persons and property, if any damage is done to railway or telegraph, or any violence done to any member of the British forces in the vicinity of their home." [Footnote 64: See Boidin, pp. 32-44.] [Footnote 65: But many continental writers constantly make use of Rousseau's _dictum_ in order to defend untenable positions. See Oppenheim, _Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts_ (1911), pp. 59-61.] [Footnote 66: See Breton, _Les non-belligérants: Leurs devoirs, leurs droits, et la question des otages_ (1904).] [Footnote 67: See below, § 254.] [Footnote 68: The first edition of this work was wrong in stating that through military occupation private enemy individuals fall under the _territorial supremacy_ of the occupant. Since military occupation by no means vests sovereignty in the occupant, but only actual authority, this authority may not be called _territorial supremacy_.]