Ordinarily it is impossible, before taking action, to refer to the Government, which in those troublous times is difficult of access, and whose prudence, calmness and experience are not then available for the protection of very considerable interests.

Accordingly would it not be proper to condense into a few lines the principles which must guide the agents of the central power; and proclaim, for example, that the maintenance of commercial and industrial relations is placed under the protection and particular safeguard of the civil and military authorities?

By means of such a recommendation inscribed in the military catechism the rights of others, so worthy of respect, would be emphasized in the minds of those whom a legitimate ardor might otherwise threaten to carry beyond proper bounds. The civil functionary would see therein a precise statement of his authority, whereby he would at times be glad to be able to shape his course. In such a text private individuals would discover a safeguard to be invoked at a moment of insecurity.

By codifying the laws of warfare the Conference has already imposed its will on fields of battle. But around the theater of war, many peaceful and eminently respectable interests are sacrificed to it. Certain of these interests threatened by it can be effectually protected. By strengthening the rights of neutrals, the Conference will succeed in restricting in the economic field and in circumscribing more narrowly the closed lists of combat. This will be one more of the most efficient means of diminishing the evils of war, and of accomplishing the mission with which the high confidence of the nations has honored us. (Repeated applause.) [218] The President recalls that the speaker who has just addressed them is the one upon whose motion the 1899 Conference expressed the vau that the rights and duties of neutrals be the object of an agreement between the Powers. He proposes Mr. BUSTAMANTE as a member of the committee of examination, whose reporters will be Mr. LOUIS RENAULT for the question of the opening of hostilities and Colonel BOREL for that of neutrality.

The meeting adjourns at 12:30 o'clock.

[219]

SEVENTH MEETING

AUGUST 9, 1907

His Excellency Mr. T. M. C. Asser presiding.

The meeting opens at 10:45 o'clock.

The minutes of the preceding meeting are approved without remark.

The President reads the following letter from his Excellency Mr. A. BEERNAERT which he proposes to have printed and inserted in the minutes. It is so ordered:

MY DEAR COLLEAGUE:

THE HAGUE, August 6, 1907.

Among the proposed amendments to the laws and customs of war on land you will have noted the addition which the Japanese delegation wished to make to Article 57, composed of two paragraphs, 57a and 57b.1

Upon my motion the first subcommission referred the examination of these amendments to the second subcommission, requesting that it examine:

1st, whether there might not be occasion to introduce them into the "Rights and duties of neutrals";

2d, likewise to transfer thereto Articles 58, 59 and 60 which at present compose Section IV.

You are aware that the 1899 Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land is limited to the engagement undertaken by the contracting Powers to give to their armed land forces instructions in conformity with the Regulations annexed thereto. But if such an engagement is understood with respect to the first three sections of the Regulations the same cannot be said of the fourth which refers only to neutral States. These are duties with regard to which the States at war could give no instructions to their armed forces.

In 1899, you have not forgotten, the Conference was petitioned to draw up regulations respecting the rights and duties of neutrals, but this work, owing to insufficient preparation, had to be referred to a subsequent assembly.

However, accord having been established on the provisions of Articles 57 to 60, they were, for lack of better, inscribed in the Regulations. [220] To-day when the neutrals are about to obtain complete and special regulations it appears that there should be included therein the provisions in question and eventually the amendments proposed.

In connection with this subject I also call your attention and that of the second subcommission to the amendment presented by Denmark, which also touches, from certain points of view, upon the question of the rights and duties of neutrals.

Be pleased to accept, etc.

1 Annexes 10 and 32.

2 Annex 12.

(Signed) A. BEernaert.

The President proposes to take up this question when the labors of the Commission are completed.1

The President announces that he has received a letter from his Excellency Mr. BRUN containing a proposition the purport of which has not yet been communicated. It concerns a matter which had already been referred to the committee of examination of the first subcommission and which, by its form, relates to the opening of hostilities, but which, in fact, enters rather within the scope of our labors.

This letter is worded as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT:

THE HAGUE, August 5, 1907.

In the last meeting of the second subcommission of the Second Commission his Excellency Count TORNIELLI announced that the second subcommission of the Third Commission had referred Article 1 of the British proposition entitled "Draft convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral States in naval war," to the subcommission presided over by your Excellency.

The said article is thus worded:

A neutral State is bound to take measures to preserve its neutrality only after it has received from one of the belligerents a notification of the commencement of the war.

To this article the delegation of Denmark proposes to add: 3

But if it mobilizes its military forces before receiving this notice, in order to prepare in due time for the defense of its neutrality, this act shall not be considered as an unfriendly act towards either of the parties in dispute.

4

I have the honor to beg that your Excellency will be so extremely obliging as to have this amendment submitted to the subcommission at the same time as the British proposition cited above.

Be pleased, etc.

(Signed) C. Brun.

His Excellency Mr. Carlin observes, in connection with the subject referred to in the letter of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT, that in the last meeting of the first subcommission the Swiss delegation had raised the question as to whether the stipulations of Article 53 of the 1899 Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land applied equally to the property of neutrals domiciled in the territory of belligerents. The first subcommission had referred this question to the examination of its committee of examination. This committee met yesterday and decided to refer the solution of the question to the committee of the second subcommission.

[221] Under these circumstances his Excellency Mr. CARLIN has the honor to propose that the second subcommission be so kind as to consent that this decision be acted upon.

The President asks if the Swiss delegation has formulated an amendment. His Excellency Mr. Carlin replies in the negative. He desires only to know whether the provisions of Article 53 apply equally to the property of neutrals domiciled in the territory of the belligerents. He moves that the sub

commission sanction the decision made yesterday by the committee of examination of the first subcommission, to the effect that the discussion of this question be transferred to the committee of examination of the second subcommission, which is adopted.

The President announces the continuation of the discussion on the first and subsidiary amendments presented by the Luxemburg delegation1 to the proposition of the German delegation.2

Major General von Gündell makes the following address:

At the last meeting we listened with the greatest interest to the very eloquent and impressive discourse of the honorable first delegate of Luxemburg, his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN, on the question concerning the transportation facilities coming from neutral States. As the Luxemburg amendment has reference to Article 70 of the German proposition, I take the liberty of replying in a few words. First of all, I state with satisfaction that the spirit which inspired the first delegate of Luxemburg in defending the inviolability of neutral transportation facilities is precisely the same that dictated the proposition of the German delegation, namely, the desire to contribute in all possible measure to lessening the evils of war which are inevitable with respect to neutral States and persons. At the same time the difficulty of satisfying this desire, common to us all, consists in that it is indispensable to subordinate to military necessity the interests of those who are strangers to the war. In so far as these necessities will permit we shall always be found ready to take into consideration the demands of equity and justice not only as regards neutrals but also as regards all private individuals.

The question as to whether neutral railway material may be requisitioned by belligerents has already been discussed by the First Conference of 1899. The result of these debates was Article 54 of the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, which stipulates: "The plant of railways coming from neutral States, whether the property of those States or of companies or of private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible." It was at the First Conference that the honorable first delegate of Belgium, his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT, had suggested ordering "immediate restitution of this material with a prohibition of using it for the needs of the war." But this addition not having received the assent of the Conference, it was limited to the clause "shall be sent back to them as soon as possible." I believe I have the right to conclude from this that the 1899 Conference wished to express the opinion that there may be some cases of force majeure in which a military commander cannot forego the right to employ all the transportation material he finds at hand without making any distinction of ownership. Permit me to advance one example among many: When there is a question of evacuating sick and wounded and there is on hand transportation material part of which belongs to a neutral State, would it not be contrary to the true spirit of humanity which presides over the peace conferences to refuse to utilize this material for the transportation of the wounded? It

would be easy to multiply these examples, and because on the theater of [222] war at any moment the case may arise in which it is indispensable to utilize all the transportation material at hand, either for a humanitarian purpose or for a purely military one, it therefore follows that this material cannot be exempted in principle from the right of requisition on the part of the belligerents.

1 Annexes 39 and 40.

2 Annex 36.

And so, while recognizing the arguments drawn in the interests of neutral States and individuals which his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN has advanced in support of absolute inviolability of neutral transportation material, I venture to think that my military comrades and all those who have a true and clear conception of the exceptional circumstances of war and its essential nature, will agree with me that we cannot renounce the right to profit by all material means found on the theater of war in order to bring our difficult and responsible task to a successful issue; and that consequently we cannot adhere to the first Luxemburg amendment, which bears an absolute and peremptory character.

There remains to be considered the subsidiary amendment which we have before us. The very fact that the delegation of Luxemburg presented this subsidiary proposition leads me to hope that it has not closed its eyes to the fact that there are some truly justifiable objections to be made, from a military point of view, to its original amendment.

The first paragraph of the second amendment is thus worded: "The maintenance of pacific relations, especially of commercial and industrial relations, existing between the inhabitants of belligerent and neutral States, merits particular protection on the part of the civil and military authorities." I venture to say that there is no one in this high assembly who does not heartily applaud the noble and truly humanitarian principle expressed in these words. The maintenance of the best relations between two neighboring States that are not at war with one another is without doubt highly desirable and even very useful for both parties. However, it seems to me that Article 70 of the Regulations respecting the treatment of neutrals is not the best place for the expression of this fundamental and unanimously recognized principle. This sentence says nothing concrete which could be caried into execution, and consequently if it is desired to expressly set forth this axiom in the Regulations it would perhaps be possible and preferable to put it in the form of a preamble at the head of the fifth section. Perhaps the drafting committee will charge itself with finding a suitable place. What I wish to do is merely to answer an observation of his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN Who expressed the opinion that by means of such a recommendation inscribed in the military catechism the rights of others, so worthy of respect, would be emphasized in the minds of those whom a legitimate ardor might otherwise threaten to carry beyond proper bounds. I cannot share this opinion. On the contrary, gentlemen, the increased responsibility in time of war which weighs on a superior military commander, far from leading him into unlawful ways, will rather render him more sensible and more attentive to the limits to be observed with respect to the population that may be for a time at his mercy.

The second paragraph of the Luxemburg amendment stipulates a delay in order that the neutral transportation material may be taken back to its country of origin. The days of grace accorded to merchant vessels which, at the declaration of war, happen to be in the ports of the belligerents, have been cited in support of this proposition.

Making allusion only in passing to the rights of embargo and of angary which, though disputed, are not yet abolished in common law and which constitute the right of requisition applied to naval war, I call attention to the difficulties of a purely technical nature that stand in the way of fixing such a delay in the domain of railways. While the sea is free for navigation and the voyages of ships