injuring the armed forces of the enemy. But the employment of this weapon, in itself allowable, carries danger for peaceful shipping; and peaceful shipping may claim that the sea, open to all nations, should not conceal these secret engines of destruction, sown in unexpected places, without all possible precaution being taken to safeguard the principle of the freedom of the sea definitively established centuries ago. Here it is that international law is asked to intervene and to attempt to harmonize this principle with the no less imperative exigencies of war and the legitimate needs of national defense. Moreover, the purpose of assuring to pacific commerce an effectual protection has constituted the point of common departure of all the discussions of the subcommission and of the committee. The terrible catastrophes that may be caused by automatic contact mines at any moment during a war, and even for a long time after the conclusion of peace, were present in the minds of all, and a declaration of the delegation of China summarizing recent experiences in its waters in the Far East was of a nature further to accentuate the general desire to reach agreement on this subject. The Chinese Government (so ran this declaration) is even to-day under the necessity of equipping the vessels in its coastwise trade with special instruments to pick up and destroy the floating mines which encumber not only the high sea but also its territorial waters. In spite of every precaution being taken, a very considerable number of coasting trade boats, fishing boats, junks and sampans have sunk as a consequence of collisions with these automatic submarine contact mines, and these vessels have been utterly lost with their cargoes without the details of the disasters reaching the western world. It is calculated that from five to six hundred of our countrymen in the pursuit of their peaceful occupations have met a cruel death through these dangerous engines. On the other hand, we must take into account the incontestable fact that submarine mines are a means of warfare the absolute prohibition of which can neither be hoped for nor perhaps desired even in the interest of peace: they are, above all, a means of defense, not costly but very effective, extremely useful to protect extended coasts, and adapted to saving the considerable expense that the maintenance of great navies requires. Certainly the ideal defense of coasts, the defense which can never cause injury to peaceful ships, is that obtained by fixed mines which explode by means of electricity. But the use of such mines is necessarily limited to the vicinity of the land, and even there it is not always possible nor sufficient. This means that automatic contact mines are an indispensable weapon. Now to ask an absolute prohibition of this weapon would consequently be demanding the impossible; it is necessary to confine ourselves to regulating its use. [399] Notwithstanding these difficulties, the committee charged with coordinating the resolutions of the subcommission and with endeavoring to reconcile in one text the different view-points, may congratulate itself for having reached an agreement on some of the broad principles that should in its opinion govern the subject. The principles unanimously accepted may be summed up as follows: 1. There is a fundamental distinction to be made between anchored automatic contact mines and unanchored mines; the latter may be used everywhere, but they should be constructed in such a way as to become harmless within the lapse of a very short time; it should be the same with torpedoes that have missed their mark. 2. As to anchored mines, a limitation is necessary as to space, that is to say, as regards the places where it shall be permissible to lay them. 3. But as this limitation cannot be absolute and as it does not exclude in every case the possibility of laying anchored mines where peaceful shipping should be entitled to rely upon free navigation, it is necessary here again to have. recourse to a limitation in duration, that is to say, a limitation of the time during which the mine is dangerous, which would be possible, thanks to modern technical invention. We have likewise been able to reach a unanimous decision: That every anchored mine should be constructed in such a way as to become harmless in case it breaks its moorings and goes adrift. By this happy combination of the limitations as to space, with the technical conditions that we have just mentioned, a very appreciable improvement can be effected over the present state of things. On several occasions it has been strongly emphasized that the obligation of employing anchored mines that become harmless as soon as they have broken from their moorings constitutes a very great advance over the present situation. 4. These provisions are completed by rules, also voted unanimously, establishing an obligation on States employing anchored mines not only to take all possible measures of precaution, particularly in notifying the dangerous regions (Article 6), but also to remove at the end of the war the anchored mines that have been laid, and, in every case, to provide so far as possible that the mines made use of become harmless after the lapse of a short time, so that they do not remain dangerous long after the close of the war. 5. Finally, the general consent of the States represented in the committee. of examination was given to some transitory provisions undertaking to apply these rules as soon as possible and granting the time necessary for conversion of existing material, as well as to the vau that the question may be taken up again before the expiration of the necessarily rather short term for which the Convention can be concluded. These statements are certainly of a nature to weaken the impression that perhaps will be produced by an analysis of the disagreements on different details regarding which we shall take occasion to give an account in the course of this report; they prove that the long work of the subcommission and of the committee of examination has finally succeeded in producing real results unanimously accepted. It will be for the Commission to endeavor to reconcile with the greatest degree the opposing views on those points where a solution satisfactory for all could not be found. The discussion in the subcommission took place on the basis of a project presented at the first meeting of the Third Commission by his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW in the name of the British delegation.1 At the same time the delegation of Italy presented an amendment on the first two points of the British project. This Italian proposition was characterized by his Excellency Count TORNIELLI as a preliminary motion. Besides, there were the following propositions and amendments: 1. An amendment of the delegation of Japan concerning unanchored automatic contact mines.1 2. Propositions and amendments of the delegation of the Netherlands relating to certain points of detail in the British proposal, and especially emphasizing the obligation to give notice of mines laid, the regulation of the right of neutrals to lay mines for the purpose of denying belligerents access to their territory, and finally the establishment of the responsibility that should rest upon Governments placing mines, if these mines cause loss of non-hostile individuals or material outside of the notified regions.2 3. A proposition of the delegation of Brazil on the subject of the defense of the coasts of neutrals and the responsibility to be established in case of the breaking loose of mines.3 4. A proposal of the delegation of Spain on the subject of the control to be exercised by an international technical commission over the use of perfected mines as well as on the subject of confining the laying of mines to hostile territorial waters.* 5. An amendment of the delegation of Germany concerning the use of anchored automatic contact mines in the theater of war." 6. A proposal of the delegation of Russia relating to the period of time to be fixed for putting perfected mines into use." 7. A proposal of the United States of America, which, although filed at the meeting of July 11, could not be distributed until after the close of the debates in the subcommission." After a general discussion all these proposals were referred to a committee of examination and drafting, in which were asked to participate the bureau of the subcommission and representatives of the delegations that had presented proposals or amendments. There have besides taken part in the work of the committee of examination representatives of the French and Austro-Hungarian delegations, and among the members of the subcommission his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA, honorary president of the Third Commission, Colonel TING in the piace of his Excellency Mr. Lou TSENG-TSIANG, honorary president of the Third Commission, and his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD, vice president of this same Commission. The committee likewise took as a basis of its deliberations the British proposal, changed a little in form in order to permit of placing all the proposals thus far presented upon a synoptic table, prepared by his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP. In the course of the debates in the committee new proposals or formulas [401] were presented by the delegations of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands, which were only distributed to the members of the committee, and regarding which we shall have occasion to speak further on. Among these the German delegation presented in the third meeting of the committee the text, "combining in part the previous proposals with a view 1 Annex 11. * Annex 12. Annex 13. • Annex 14. • Annex 16. • Annex 18. 7 Annex 17. 8 Annex 19. to reconciling military exigencies with the interests of peaceful shipping." 1 All these proposals and amendments served for the drafting by the bureau of the texts adopted on the basis of the deliberations of the committee in order to be presented for its definitive vote, as well as for the final drafting of the project which appears at the end of the present report and is submitted for the approval of the Commission. Ten meetings of the committee of examination were held; it was agreed not to make a record of the proceedings in order to facilitate free exchange of views among the members of the committee. The absence of such minutes explains the lengthy and somewhat unusual character of the present report, which must, in a more detailed fashion than is usual, give an account of the principal opinions expressed in the committee. III But, before examining the articles of our draft, it is expedient to recall a preliminary question which arose in the committee towards the end of its work and which had to be decided by the Commission; it will be remembered that, in its preceding meeting the Commission was called upon to decide upon the question, whether the regulation to be elaborated should also contain provisions concerning the laying of mines by neutrals. The special report submitted to the Commission on this subject stated that "in the subcommission there were different proposals intended to insert in the regulations of mines provisions also relating to the right of neutrals to lay mines for the purpose of preserving their neutrality, and regulating that right in a way similar to that adopted for belligerents. No objection in principle having been made on this subject in the subcommission, the said proposals with the others are referred to the committee of examination. But in the committee some members put the question, whether the regulation of the right of neutrals to place mines was not outside the competence of the Commission, indeed even that of the present Conference. It was recalled that the program of the Conference communicated to the Powers by the Imperial Government of Russia and accepted by them, mentioned the question concerning the laying of mines among the "special operations of war"; it would thus seem that the said program intended to submit to the Conference only the regulation of the laying of mines by neutrals. Other members of the committee, on the contrary, were of the opinion that, as the two subjects are so closely bound together, such a limitation would not seem to have been contemplated by the program. Moreover, among the subjects that the Conference would have to deal with there was also found the question relating to the "rights and duties of neutrals at sea," which would imply the possibility also of regulating the right of neutrals to lay mines. Confronted by this difference in views, the committee believed that it would not make a decision. Before taking up, therefore, the limits to be imposed upon the use of mines by neutrals, it submits to the Commission the preliminary question, the solution of which appears to be outside the scope of its competency; upon which the Commission, in the meeting of August 28, after having [402] deliberated upon the question of competence at the same time as upon the material provisions which should be decreed, ended by deciding in favor of a regulation for the laying of mines by neutrals. His Excellency the 1 Annex 23. first delegate of Russia stated that, although the question does not figure in the program of the Imperial Government, the latter has no objection to seeing it discussed, inasmuch as the subject is related to the subjects with which the subcommission has been called upon to consider; in this connection his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW presented in the name of the Russian delegation a proposition tending to put neutrals and belligerents upon an equal footing with regard to the technical conditions surrounding the use of mines. Many speakers, notably their Excellencies Messrs. HAGERUP, BARBOSA and VAN DEN HEUVEL, having again pleaded in favor of the advantage of an even greater regulation in the matter, in the interest of the needs of peaceful navigation, it is believed possible to set aside the scruples which had arisen on the subject of the powers attributed to the Third Commission by the Conference and, upon the proposal of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI, the question was referred to the committee of examination with authorization to draw up a text concerning the duties of neutrals who should place mines to safeguard their neutrality. Hence Article 7, added by the committee to its former propositions, the tenor of which we will examine later. IV The project which the committee has the honor to submit opens with certain prohibitions concerning the different kinds of engines to which it relates. By reason of their importance it was thought best to place these provisions at the head of the project. It is forbidden: ARTICLE 1 1. To lay unanchored automatic contact mines which do not become harmless one hour at most after the person who laid them ceases to control them; 2. To lay anchored automatic contact mines which do not become harınless as soon as they have broken loose from their moorings; 3. To use torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark. A distinction between these three kinds of engines is made necessary by their nature and also by the purposes for which they are used. . Unanchored mines, floating at large upon the sea, constitute a tremendous danger for peaceful shipping, even beyond the theater of war and far from the places where they have been laid; this is what led the Institute of International Law to declare itself in favor of an absolute prohibition of these "floating" mines. The original project of the British delegation was conceived in this same sense; but at the very beginning of the discussion in the subcommission the proposal to prohibit absolutely the use of unanchored mines was confronted with very serious objections. It was pointed out that it is impossible for Governments to dispense with a weapon hitherto employed in naval warfare, and especially in certain cases the only means of safety for a vessel pursued by a stronger enemy. In general, it was said, the imperative requirements of [403] war are incompatible with so absolute a prohibition. Two proposals, based upon recent progress in the construction of mines, of which we have already spoken, brought about a solution which, while taking into account military exigencies, was at the same time of a nature to respond satisfactorily to the legitimate rights of peaceful shipping. The preliminary motion of the Italian |