ficient, it would never be just or reasonable that the labor of prisoners should assist the captor Government in diminishing the expenses of their maintenance. Otherwise, in my opinion, the captor should be compelled to return the prisoners to their own country. Major General von Gündell requests that if the Spanish proposition is accepted, the words: according to their rank, which apply to non-commissioned officers, may be preserved. Colonel Jofre Montojo declares his acceptance of this addition. The President proposes to put to vote at the same time with this proposition, that of the Japanese delegation relative to the same article and consisting in the addition at the end of the third paragraph of the words: or if there are no rates in force, at a rate suitable for the work executed.1 His Excellency Mr. Carlin asks if the three votes should not be taken separately. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel supports this request by insisting upon the separation of the three proposed amendments. The first, he says, concerns the situation of officers who are prisoners; there appears to be accord as to its adoption. As to the second, relative to "deducting the cost of their maintenance," a question is raised which has already invited the attention of the Brussels Conference in 1874 and of the First Peace Conference. If he well understands the system approved in 1899, it was the desire then to recognize three portions in the pay of prisoners employed by the State or by a fixed administration. the first portion for ameliorating their situation, the second to be put in reserve to constitute savings until the end of their internment, the third subject to retention by the State with a view of covering the expenses of their maintenance. It is the latter that the second Spanish amendment seeks to suppress. His Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL considers there would be disadvantage in its general and absolute suppression. The States cannot be forced to ensure to prisoners a situation more advantageous than that which they would have in their own country, where they would be compelled to employ a portion of their salary in their maintenance. The Japanese proposition concerning the scales of wages does not appear to raise any difficulties. [109] No one requesting permission to speak upon the latter proposition, it is unanimously adopted, without any necessity for proceeding to a ballot. The first Spanish amendment, modified by the German delegation, is also adopted without opposition. The first sentence of Article 6 will accordingly be thus worded: The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The second Spanish amendment relative to the deduction of the cost of maintenance is put to vote. Thirty-five delegations take part in the ballot. Voting against: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Panama, Paraguay, the Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden, Turkey. 1 Voting for: United States of America, Chile, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Spain, France, Haiti, Nicaragua, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Venezuela. The amendment is rejected by 23 votes against 12. The President presents for discussion the new Article 13a proposed by the Japanese delegation: The ressortissants of a belligerent, inhabiting the territory of the opposing party shall not be interned unless the exigencies of war make it necessary.1 His Excellency Count Tornielli supports the amendment, but proposes the insertion of the words nor expelled after the word interned. The President calls attention to the importance of this addition. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki declares his acceptance of it. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel points out that one may consider the Japanese proposition by reversing it. From an interpretation a contrario there would result that the ressortissants of a belligerent could be interned as soon as the exigencies of war should demand it. He inquired whether this text would not permit vigorous measures against foreigners who have never committed an act of aggression. The President proposes in such a case to be contented with the right of expulsion. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki justifies his proposition by the necessity of providing for future cases analogous to those which have already been presented. In respect to the addition proposed by his Excellency Count TORNIELLI, his Excellency Mr. Hammarskjöld observes that if this should be determined on it would result in diminishing in time of war the right possessed by each State of expelling strangers from its territory whenever it judged this course necessary. His Excellency Mr. Nelidow expresses the opinion that in time of war the internment of the ressortissants of a belligerent who have sojourned in the territory of the hostile party, may be preferable to their expulsion in many cases where the latter course would be inadequate to safeguard the interests at stake. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel believes that the different opinions [110] may be reconciled by establishing a distinction. If the attitude of the for eigner does not constitute a cause of trouble for the State in the territory of which he is a resident, it is evident that no one will think of disturbing him. If on the other hand his actions should render him an object of just suspicion on the part of the State, the latter may have recourse to two kinds of measures compatible with ideas of equity and justice, either bringing him before the courts in cases of infraction of repressive laws, or expelling him. To go further, it might be presumed that from the beginning of the declaration of war the military authority has most absolute powers to intern all subjects of the adverse party, even the most inoffensive. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow, taking into consideration that the delegation of Japan has specified in a very clear formula all the exigencies which could be presented, states that he coincides with it in the name of the Russian delegation. Major General Amourel calls for a division of the two formulas proposed by the delegations of Japan and Italy. The President remarks in reply that the delegation of Japan having ac 1 Annex 10. cepted the addition proposed by his Excellency Count TORNIELLI, the subcommission finds itself no longer facing more than a single proposition. Following an exchange of views between Major General Amourel, the President and his Excellency Count Tornielli, respecting the right of expulsion which constitutes for each State a question of internal order, it is decided that the amendment shall be sent to a committee of examination which will be appointed at the close of the meeting. The subcommission then adopts, without any opposition, the Japanese amendment to Article 141 consisting of the insertion after the second sentence of the first paragraph of the following words: The individual return shall be sent to the Government of the other belligerent after the conclusion of peace; the bureau must state in it the regimental number, name and surname, age, place of origin, rank, unit, date and place of capture, internment, wounding and death, as well as any observations of a special character. There is also adopted without discussion the amendment of the delegation of Cuba relating to the same article and concerning prisoners who have been released on parole, or exchanged or who have escaped.2 The last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph will be worded then as follows: It is kept informed of internments and transfers as well as releases on parole, exchanges, escapes, admissions into hospital and deaths. It is likewise the function of the information bureau to receive and collect all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, etc., . . . found on the field of battle or left by prisoners who have been released on parole, or exchanged, or who have escaped or died in hospitals or ambulances, and to forward them to those concerned. The amendment of the delegation of Japan modifying as follows Article 171: The Government will grant, if necessary, to officers who are prisoners. in its hands, a suitable pay, the amount to be refunded by their Government, is then presented for discussion. The President remarks that the new wording would have the disadvantage of permitting the Government to accord nothing. [111] His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki supports his proposition. Its object, he says, is to remove from the text of the article in question a phraseology which, in his opinion, does not seem sufficiently explicit to warrant an unequivocal interpretation. His Excellency Mr. Beldiman considers it necessary to state plainly that the amendment will not be able to accomplish any improvement in the situation of prisoners. On the suggestion of the President the question is referred to the committee of examination. The discussion is opened upon the new Article 22a proposed by the dele 1 Annex 10. * Annex 5. gation of Germany to replace Article 44 and upon the modification of the new text requested by the delegation of Austria-Hungary. The new Article 22a would be worded as follows: It is forbidden to compel ressortissants of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were enrolled in its service before the commencement of the war. The amendment asked by the delegation of Austria-Hungary consists in inserting after the words "to take part" the words "as combatants." Major General Amourel asks that the discussion of this question be postponed to an early meeting. Major General Baron Giesl von Gieslingen presents the following ex plattations in regard to his proposition. It would seem desirable to establish an absolutely clear distinction between "operations of war" in which the population of the hostile State cannot be compelled to take part, and certain "military services" that this population can, in certain cases, be compelled to render. Thus, the military chiefs could scarcely forgo the employment, in a provisional way, of the subjects of the hostile State for some service with the army train, in the capacity of guides, and for work on roads and fortifications. On the other hand, in our judgment, nothing would seem to stand in the way of a formal prohibition against forcing the ressortissants of the enemy State-both individually and collectively-to participate with arms, that is to say "as combatants" in the military operations. His Excellency Count Tornielli points out the gravity of the question of principle thus raised, and announces that he joins in the request for postponement made by General AMOURel. The President announces that a new discussion will necessarily follow the examination of the committee of examination to which the question is referred. They pass to Article 23, to which the delegation of Germany proposes to add a new paragraph 41 thus worded: 1 To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible the private claims of the ressortissants of the hostile party. Colonel Borel asks for the insertion of the words "in a court of law" after the word "inadmissible." Major General von Gündell accepts this addition in the name of the delegation of Germany. [112] Upon Colonel Michelson's declaring that he supports the new text but requests the addition to it of the words "if these ressortissants take no part directly or indirectly in the war," an exchange of views on this subject ensues between him, Mr. Göppert, Colonel Borel and the President, after which his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow requests that the question be referred to the committee of examination. There is also sent to this committee the proposition of the delegation of the Netherlands proposing the addition to Article 35 of the following paragraph: Annex 2. 2 Annex 3. The capitulation to the enemy of an armed force is not obligatory for the detachments of that armed force which are separated from it by such a distance that they have preserved a liberty of action sufficient to continue the struggle independently of the main body. At the request of his Excellency Count Tornielli the committee will also attend to the striking out of Article 44, requested by the delegation from Germany in consequence of the new Article 22a, which it has been decided to refer to the committee. In the absence of his Excellency Lieutenant General Jonkheer den Beer Poortugael, detained at the Council of State, there are also transmitted to the committee of examination the amendments filed by the delegation of the Netherlands1 proposing that Articles 44 and 45 be followed by two new Articles 44a and 45a, thus worded: ARTICLE 44a It is forbidden to compel the population of occupied territory to give information concerning their own army or the means of defense of their country. ARTICLE 45a It is forbidden to punish an inhabitant of an occupied territory by death without a sentence of a war council. This sentence must be sanctioned before it is executed by the commander in chief of the army. The President reads the new wording of Article 46, presented by the delegation of Austria-Hungary: 2 Family honor and rights, the lives of persons, religious convictions and practice, as well as in principle private property, must be respected. He calls attention to the gravity of the proposition, it being conceded that the principle of respect for private property had been affirmed in 1899, and that the present Conference ought in no way to weaken it. His Excellency Mr. Carlin shares in this view and declares himself opposed to the adoption of the words "in principle." Major General Baron Giesl von Gieslingen affirms that his amendment in no respect seeks to harm this principle and that it rests solely upon the restrictions contained in the following articles, especially in Article 53. He considers that the issue is chiefly a question of wording. The amendment is then referred to the committee. The discussion is opened on the proposition of Denmark relative to Article 53,3 providing for the insertion of the following provisions: Submarine cables connecting an occupied or enemy territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized nor destroyed except when absolute necessity requires. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. [113] His Excellency Mr. Brun does not believe it necessary to lay stress upon the reasons which have prompted his amendment for protecting more particularly submarine cables. 1 Annex 4. 2 Annex 7. Annex 12. |