The Crimineel Wetboek art. 92 (article 92 of the Dutch colonial Criminal Code) was the statutory provision criminalising sleeping on post by a sentinel — an offence punishable by court-martial (krijgsraad). The article was, in Borel’s account, unlawfully withdrawn by generaal van Swieten’s legerorder on sleeping sentinels, which substituted disciplinary punishment by chiefs of corps for the statutory court-martial. Borel considers the withdrawal a characteristic instance of the want of discipline that prolonged the Atjeh-oorlog.
The Statutory Provision
Article 92 of the Crimineel Wetboek was, in Borel’s account, the statutory provision of the Dutch colonial Criminal Code that criminalised sleeping on post by a sentinel. The offence was, by the terms of the article, punishable by court-martial (krijgsraad) — the formal military judicial proceeding that could impose serious penalties, including imprisonment, demotion and, in extreme cases, death. The article was, in effect, the statutory foundation of sentry discipline in the Dutch colonial army: the law that defined the sentinel’s duty and that prescribed the consequences of its neglect. The article was, in Borel’s account, an unimpeachable provision of the criminal law — a provision that could not lawfully be withdrawn or modified by a field order, however well-intentioned.
The Legerorder’s Withdrawal
The unlawful withdrawal of the article was effected by van Swieten’s legerorder on sleeping sentinels of 1874. Instead of applying article 92 to sentinels found asleep on post, van Swieten instructed the chiefs of corps to punish them disciplinarily, citing an anecdote of Napoleon I who once took the rifle of a sleeping sentinel and stood his post himself. The legerorder was, in Borel’s account, unlawful: the Crimineel Wetboek, article 92, was the statutory provision governing sleeping on post, and a field order could not lawfully withdraw its application. To do so was to substitute the commander’s personal discretion for the law of the land. The legerorder was also, in Borel’s account, highly damaging: the padi-snijden concession to Langkroek, the refusal to shell kampongs, the prohibition on burning kampongs or cutting standing padi, the gifts to spies — all these “overdreven zachte en humane” measures had their counterpart in the legerorder’s indulgence of sleeping sentinels. The consequence was a relaxation of discipline at the very moment when the bezettingskorps was besieged, exhausted and reduced to a shadow of its strength.
The Vindication
The vindication of Borel’s critique of the withdrawal of article 92 came, in his account, with the night attack on Longbatta-Mesigit of 22 November 1875 — when a band of ~50 Atjehneezen climbed the low borstwering and “met de blanke klewang” hacked among sleeping manschappen, wounding 13 including 2 officers. The attack was, Borel suspected, “hoogst waarschijnlijk” the fault of schildwachten who had neglected their post. The night attack on Lemboe-N.O. of 23–24 January 1876 — in which the bezetting weerde zich dapper but lost one gesneuveld officier and 22 zwaar gekwetsten — was, Borel suspected, again the fault of schildwachten. The legerorder on sleeping sentinels was, however, not formally withdrawn — and the want of discipline it had licensed continued, in Borel’s judgement, to cost Dutch lives. The lesson Borel draws is that the statutory provisions of the criminal law could not be lawfully or wisely withdrawn by a commander’s personal discretion, and that the indulgence of sleeping sentinels was, in the conditions of Atjehnese warfare, an invitation to disaster. The Crimineel Wetboek art. 92 thus stands, in Borel’s account, as a small but instructive document of the war: the statutory provision whose unlawful withdrawal was one of the many errors of the afwachtende houding.
See Also
- Van Swieten’s legerorder on sleeping sentinels
- Jan van Swieten
- Night attack on Longbatta-Mesigit (22 November 1875)
- Afwachtende houding
- Klewang
- Bezettingskorps in Atjeh
- 1874
- 1875
Source
Onze vestiging in Atjeh, critisch beschreven, by G. F. W. Borel, Kapitein der Artillerie. ‘s-Gravenhage: D. A. Thieme, 1878. pp. 171–172, 270, 286, 294, 304.