These questions evidently go together, and they could be referred for examination to a first subcommission.

The other questions forming the object of our study have also several points. of contact. In the program that was distributed at the second meeting of the Conference they were worded as follows: "Regulations governing belligerent vessels in neutral ports," and "additions to be made to the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864, revised in 1906." If you share my opinion the questions involved in these two points of the program could be examined by a second subcommission.

This division of the work between the two subcommissions will not prevent us from referring the most important motions, if need be, for examination to special committees when you deem it advisable.

For the organization of our work we have a written set of rules; for the cases not provided for therein I think that we could adopt the procedure laid down by the Conference of 1899.

Here two questions of internal regulation arise, and I must beg you to settle them at once. One of these questions concerns the time when the designation of the reporter should be made. The other concerns the steps to be taken to establish a sufficient record of the meetings of the plenary Commission and of the subcommissions.

On the first of these two questions, at the Conference of 1899, there were two different opinions. It seemed to some that the reporter should be designated only after the discussions were sufficiently advanced to let it be seen what resolutions would be adopted, but because of considerations which derive their force from the special character of a diplomatic assembly, in which the formation of a majority is neither to be sought nor expected, the contrary opinion prevailed in the Commissions whose competence extended to the questions having the greatest analogy with those now before us. I, therefore, propose to you to name our reporter without delay.

On the second point, concerning records of our meetings, the Conference of 1899 has bequeathed to us the method to be followed. Then the secretariat established two records, one as complete as possible, and the other an analysis. The first was not printed but was kept at the disposal of the members of the Commission and had no authentic and formal character. It preserved for the discussion the free and intimate character that is most fitted for the aims sought by a diplomatic assembly. But, in order that the motions be duly recorded in an authentic document, it was decided that the secretariat should also prepare a

summary record, summing up the essential part of the work. The analyti[291] cal minutes intended for printing were distributed to the members of the Commission, but they kept their character as a secret document throughout the duration of the Conference.

We are bound, gentlemen, to preserve the secrecy of our discussions and deliberations.

Any recommendation from me on this subject would not add to the conscience that each one of you has of his duty. Mine urges me to try to bring to

a good end the work that we are undertaking.

You know that no useful result

can be obtained except by reconcilable views and harmony of opinion. Publicity of our debates might in many cases destroy the agreement desired. Relations

with the press do not concern us directly. This is for the Bureau of the Conference to seitle, acting for the Commissions as a whole.

With these points once established, we can proceed to the immediate constitution of our two subcommissions. Consequently, I ask the delegates to enroll themselves on one or the other list, or on both, as they wish.

I beg the secretaries to circulate two lists, in order that the delegates may keep their seats, for after this enrollment we are going to resume the work of organizing the Commission and the subcommissions.

After this enrollment was finished the PRESIDENT proceeded:

The regulations provided in Article 3 for the appointment of the secretaries and the reporter of the Commission. The functions of the secretaries chosen among the delegates are not defined by the regulations. They consist naturally in assisting me in the regular development of our work. It is, therefore, beyond question that the appointment of the secretaries should take place at once.1

In conforming to the precedents established in 1899, may I submit for your approval the choice of Rear Admiral SIEGEL, delegate of Germany, for secretary of the Commission, and Mr. LOUIS RENAULT, plenipotentiary delegate of France, for reporter.

Both took a distinguished part in the preparation of the last Convention of Geneva, as we all know, and they bring hither a perfect knowledge not only of the texts but also of the spirit of that recent international agreement. These qualifications select them for our votes.

By this happy choice we complete the bureau of the Commission.

I shall now propose to the delegates enrolled in the second subcommission, that is to say, the one that is to deal with the rules governing belligerent vessels in neutral ports and with the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva Convention, that they be good enough to allow this bureau to act at the same time for the plenary Commission and for the second subcommission. It remains to constitute the bureau of the first subcommission. Will you permit me to recommend to you for the presidency of this subcommission the very distinguished plenipotentiary delegate of Norway, his Excellency Mr. FRANCIS HAGERUP?

The appointment of Mr. GEORGIOS STREIT, plenipotentiary delegate of Greece, as reporter likewise recommends itself. The members of the first subcommission would be assured by these choices of the effective aid of the representatives of two countries whose interests in maritime commerce are among the most important. Finally, for the duties of secretary of the first subcommission I permit myself to name to you his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL, whose eminent qualities will assure the perfect fulfillment of the laborious task placed upon him.

[292] All these proposals were accepted.

With a view to facilitate the work the PRESIDENT asks that the proposals or declarations that may be made be submitted to the Commission as soon as possible.

His Excellency General Porter files a proposal concerning the bombardment by a naval force of towns that are unfortified, etc., etc.2

Mr. Kriege files a proposal containing an amendment of the provisions to

the Convention of July 29, 1899, for the adaption to maritime war of the principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864.1

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow announces that the British delegation will file a proposal concerning the placing of automatic submarine contact mines 2 and reserves the right to file a project relating to the use of automobile torpedoes. His Excellency Mr. Lou Tseng-tsiang then reads in the name of his Government the following declaration:

I have the honor to inform this high assembly that China accepts without reserve the sign of the Red Cross as emblem of the Geneva Convention of 1864. In making this communication the Government of Peking desires me to add:

At the time of the signature by the Representative of China at London of the act of adhesion to the Geneva Convention of 1864 it was stated that the sign of the Red Cross was more than once used in the temporary formations of the sanitary service in China, and the historical explication of this heraldic sign furnished by the Conference of revision of 1906 and communicated by its first delegate to our Conference only strengthened the broadmindedness which determined the Imperial Government to adopt it tacitly with a purpose of maintaining the unity of this emblem and facilitating its recognition in all nations and all their armies.

His Excellency Turkhan Pasha declares that the Ottoman delegation reserves the right to state in the subcommission the reasons why it must keep the Red Crescent on its hospital ships, hospitals, ambulances, etc.

The President takes note of the filing of both proposals and declarations. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 o'clock.

1 Annexes 38 and 39.

2 Annex 9.

[293]

SECOND MEETING

JULY 16, 1907

His Excellency Count Tornielli presiding.

The meeting opened at 10:30 o'clock.

The minutes of the first meeting were approved.

The President explains the procedure adopted to accelerate the examination of the report elaborated by Mr. Louis RENAULT and the draft convention annexed thereto.1

He believed that in order to gain time he could summon the Third Commission in a plenary meeting although, in strict procedure, it belonged to the second subcommission to declare itself first on the report and on the convention.

The PRESIDENT thinks that it is not necessary to have a reading of the report 2 distributed Saturday, which all the delegates have consequently been able to acquaint themselves with. (Assent.)

It is proper nevertheless to ask whether anyone desires to offer any remarks. As no one asks for the floor, the PRESIDENT begins the reading of the articles of the new convention.3

Articles 1 and 2, which are only a reproduction pure and simple of the first two articles of the 1899 Convention, are approved.

The President then reads Article 3.

ARTICLE 3

Hospital ships, equipped wholly or in part at the expense of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, on condition that they are placed in the service of one of the belligerents, with the previous consent of their own Government and with the authorization of the belligerent himself, and that the latter has notified their names to his adversary at the commencement of or during hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.

[294] The Reporter offers some observations on the subject of the text proposed by the committee of examination. He permits himself to abandon for a moment his official position as reporter in order to call up again as a French delegate the objections he had already expressed against the proposed innovation.

We are dealing in the new Article 3 with neutral hospital boats that place themselves in the service of a belligerent. Is there need of completely assimilating these vessels to neutral ambulances by adopting for these vessels a provision.

Annex A to this day's minutes.

3

Annex B to this day's minutes. Amendments to the Hague Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of April 22, 1864. See also vol. i, pp. 63-82 [66-85].

analogous to that of the 1906 Convention for war on land,1 or on the other hand is it necessary to preserve the provision written in the Convention of 1899? The majority of the committee of examination declared itself for the former solution. It is proper to remark first that the majority of the committee, while expressing itself in favor of the analogy between neutral hospital ships and ambulances, nevertheless did not make the assimilation complete.

Neutral ambulances, indeed, have to fly only two flags, that of the belligerent under whom they have placed themselves and that of the Red Cross; whilst, according to the provision proposed for hospital ships, the latter would have to fly three flags, their national flag, the flag of the belligerent under whom they have placed themselves, and the flag of the Red Cross.

But there is here not only a question of flag: the neutral hospital ship must enter into the hospital service of the belligerent, which seems excessive. The analogy on this point is indeed more apparent than real between maritime war and war on land. A neutral ambulance, in the nature of things, is and should be incorporated in the hospital service of one of the belligerents, for it necessarily works within the lines of one of them; this situation is not necessarily that of a neutral hospital ship that plies its work on the high seas and for the most part of the time with entire freedom of action. In 1899 the question was thoroughly discussed and the committee of examination, a majority of whom were sailors, did not hesitate to adopt with unanimity the rule set forth in Article 3 and so consider as sufficient the right of control granted to belligerents by Article 4. Finally, a last consideration, and the most important, is that the requirement contained in Article 3 proposed by the committee of examination is of a nature to discourage the good-will of neutrals. Indeed it may be that a neutral hospital ship may wish to preserve its independence within the limits fixed by Article 4 of the 1899 Convention. The case may be presented where a vessel of that kind would desire to bring equal aid to the two belligerents, if for example it belongs to a neutral country that is near the theater of operations. It is going counter to its sentiments to oblige it to place itself in the service of one of the belligerents when it would desire to carry assistance to both parties conformably to the charitable spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

Such are the considerations that Mr. LOUIS RENAULT desired the Commission to consider in support of his motion that Article 3 as proposed by the majority of the committee of examination be rejected.

Rear Admiral Siegel desires to show precisely what were the military reasons that have caused the German proposal 2 relative to the obligation resting on neutral hospital vessels to put themselves under the authority of one of the belligerents. He thinks that he should in consequence read the following declaration: "When the text of the 1899 Convention was drawn up I myself combated the idea that neutral hospital vessels should be obliged to declare themselves for either of the belligerents. At that time this measure seemed to me superfluous and even harmful. I believed with my colleagues that the provisions of [295] Article 4 and those of the last paragraph of Article 5 would be sufficient to override all difficulties and prevent any disorder.

The German delegation now proposes an amendment to Articles 3 and 5 in order to regulate in a more effective manner the conduct of neutral hospital ves

1 Annex C to this day's minutes.

* Annex 39.