in time of war. Accordingly I am of the opinion that it is necessary to modify the report and also to mention straits in the regulations. As the report represents absolutely the decision of the committee of examination, I proposed to add to the regulations an Article 11 by the adoption of which there would have been agreement between the report and the regulations.

This agreement would be still assured if a provision of like purport were placed as a preamble or introduction at the head of the regulations.

It would be for the Commission to decide the place where this provision should appear, but it is above all essential that the regulations should not be mute upon this subject.

However, gentlemen, if you are, like myself, of the opinion that the dangerous inferences to be gathered from the provision should not be allowed to obtain, I judge that it will be necessary for you to reject my proposition, but with the declaration that straits fall legitimately and duly under the stipulations and interdictions mentioned in the regulations. In this case, the report to be presented to the Conference would state this opinion and not the contrary one. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow says that the declaration which the Commission has just heard has clearly set forth the difficulty which presents itself; he states, moreover, that Admiral RÖELL does not insist upon the maintenance of Article 11.

The Commission has then the choice between the insertion in the Convention of a new article and the modification of a passage of the report. It seems to his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOw that it is preferable to adopt the second solution, the modification of the text of the report seeming the more easily effected.

His Excellency Turkhan Pasha believes it necessary to reiterate the declaration which has already been made by the Ottoman delegation on the subject of the Straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and which has been inserted in the report.

The President advises his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA that record is made of this new declaration.

After an exchange of views between his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow, his Excellency Vice Admiral Jonkheer Röell and the Reporter, it is decided that

the latter shall modify the passage of his report relative to the use of [441] automatic mines in straits, and that with this in view he shall consult

in advance their Excellencies Messrs. TCHARYKOW, TURKHAN PASHA and Vice Admiral Jonkheer RÖELL upon the modification to be effected.

The President, after having stated that the explanations which have just been exchanged closed the examination of the draft regulations concerning the laying of automatic contact mines, expresses the opinion that it would perhaps be well to proceed to a second reading of the draft before submitting it to the plenary Conference. The draft has received in truth some important modifications; certain of these provisions have only been approved by a small majority and, under these conditions, we should ask ourselves if they are likely to receive the approbation of the Conference. With a view to eliminating the possibility of a rejection, which could not but impress the public unfavorably, it would be well to examine first of all if the draft, as it emerged from the deliberation which has just terminated, forms a complete whole. The PRESIDENT then states that the Commission has still another decision to make; it is necessary that it indicate what system should prevail (that of the absolute

majority or that of the relative majority) for the transmission to the Conference of the articles of the draft. The personal opinion of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI is that only the articles which have received an absolute majority could be submitted to the plenary Conference with any chance of success.

His Excellency Baron Marschall von Bieberstein explains the difference which exists between the two systems of majorities: the absolute majority consists of one-half plus one of the number of voters, counting abstentions; the so-called relative majority is formed by a superior number of favorable votes without taking into account the number of voters. For his part, his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN is inclined to think that a relative majority in favor of an article is sufficient for it to be considered as approved by the Commission.

However, he begs that the PRESIDENT will be good enough to determine the rule to be followed in the matter.

His Excellency Mr. Mérey von Kapos-Mére states his opinion in the following terms: it is not precisely upon the question as to whether or not in establishing the absolute majority of votes it is necessary to count the abstentions that I desire to express myself. However, since this question has been brought up, I venture to express my opinion thereon. Our president is of the opinion that the absolute majority should be calculated according to the total number of delegates who respond to the roll call, comprising those not voting. The first delegate of Germany thinks, on the contrary, that it is necessary to consider as voting only those who respond by yea or nay. According to my opinion, it would be difficult to choose between these two systems, either of which seems to be justifiable. However, I think that, if it is decided to take account of probabilities, it would be necessary to give the preference to the system adopted by our president, the abstentions having in the majority of cases the character and the signification of negative votes.

However, if I am permitting myself to speak, it is above all to endorse warmly the proposition of our president to proceed, in the Commission, to a third reading of the regulations upon the employment of mines. For my part, I would go even further. At the moment when we have, so to speak, ended the discussion of the regulations, it seems to me necessary that we record in an exact and at the same time temperate manner the result of this discussion and above all of the result of the votes. It has already been stated on many sides that a very large part of these regulations have only received a

small majority. The hope that between now and the plenary session of [442] the Conference this small majority may attain unanimity or quasi

unanimity which is necessary for a definitive convention, would hardly be justified. Under these conditions I ask myself if we should not from this minute sacrifice that part of these regulations which has no chance of being generally adopted. In personal conversations which I have had lately with my colleagues, it has been objected that this manner of procedure would create an unfavorable impression. I confess that I cannot share this opinion. What does public opinion demand and what has it a right to demand of us? The public was, with justice, very alarmed by the fact that during and even a long time after the late war in the Far East pacific navigation suffered disasters caused by mines which had broken loose from their moorings without having become harmless.

But we are in absolute agreement that it is necessary to seek and put into use, from the moment of its discovery, an apparatus which would render mines harmless within a very short lapse of time. In this way we have given to the public and what is still more important—to neutral commerce, every satisfaction they might have expected.

Our opinions are divided only when there is a desire to introduce into the articles of these regulations the question of the laying of mines. But as soon as there was accord upon the engagement to render mines harmless immediately upon breaking loose from their moorings, the question of where they might be laid lost much of its importance for public opinion and for neutral commerce. I am, consequently, of the opinion that we should act wisely if, instead of presenting to the plenary session of the Conference and to public opinion a regulation, part of which would be fictitious-and would not obtain a sufficient number of votes, we should decide upon the occasion of the third reading to sacrifice the articles in question.

It is only thus that these regulations which, in spite of everything, constitute a considerable progress, would have the character of a practical, serious and, I dare to say, sincere stipulation.

His Excellency Mr. Léon Bourgeois desires to explain in a few words his way of looking at this question of majorities. It is necessary, according to him, to make a distinction between two systems of balloting, one of which suffices in proceeding to the examination of a draft in Commission and the other of which should precede the sending to the Conference of the draft approved by the Commission. It is evident that the relative majority is sufficient in the first case and his Excellency Mr. LÉON BOURGEOIS shares in this respect the opinion expressed by his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL; he will make, however, a reservation upon the necessity of a quorum, that is to say, of a minimum number of voters, a third or a fourth, for example, of the members of the Commission. This condition of the quorum being fulfilled, the relative majority suffices in order that a provision may be, in the course of the deliberation in Commission, considered as approved.

But it is otherwise when the question of voting to submit a draft to the plenary Conference is involved. In this case it is necessary above all to consider the chances for the success of the draft. Whatever difference there may be between the favorable and unfavorable votes, if there has been only a small number of voters, the approbation of the Conference should be considered doubtful, and upon this point his Excellency Mr. LÉON BOURGEOIS shares the opinion of his Excellency Mr. MEREY; if there has been a large number of abstentions, the latter should be regarded as negative votes which there is very little reason to believe would be changed before the plenary Conference into affirmative

votes.

[443] To sum up, what should be considered above all is that a draft in order to be submitted to the Conference should have received in the Commission a sufficient number of favorable votes. The consequence of this requirement is that all the efforts of the Commission should be concentrated on bringing into being a draft fulfilling these conditions by making an appeal to the general goodwill, on one hand, and, on the other hand, by knowing when it is necessary to sacrifice those provisions which are not likely to be finally adopted.

His Excellency Baron Marschall von Bieberstein supports entirely the

system which has just been explained by his Excellency Mr. LÉON BOURGEOIS upon the question of absolute and relative majorities.

His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow states that he is in entire accord with the preceding orators and expresses the opinion that it will not be impossible to form draft regulations with the articles which have received sufficient majorities. Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3, decree on one hand provisions of the greatest importance. A second group, consisting of Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, accepted with majorities almost equivalent to unanimity, contain provisions which interest pacific navigation to the highest degree. These two groups of articles could be united and would thus form a draft which would be of a nature to be approved by the Conference.

On the contrary, conformably to the opinion expressed by his Excellency Mr. MÉREY, the provisions concerning the laying of mines should be left out, since these provisions are of only a limited interest and have not the same chances of success.

His Excellency Mr. Hagerup is of the opinion that the Commission has the right to present to the Conference a provision accepted by a majority vote, even if that majority is not equal to the absolute majority of the members of the Commission. This manner of procedure has been followed by the Second Commission on the occasion of the draft concerning neutrals in belligerent territory. But the Commission may, of course, decide not to take before the Conference a proposition which has not secured a sufficiently large majority to assure its acceptance by the Conference. A simple question of expediency is involved and, in arriving at a conclusion with regard to Articles 2 to 4, there should, according to Mr. HAGERUP, be taken into consideration the probability of securing an agreement upon the other parts of the draft. Those who have voted Articles 2 to 4 and who have obtained the majority in favor of their opinion, have not, it would seem, any reason to abandon it if they have no guaranty of a positive result for the other provisions of the draft. But the first paragraph of Article 1 has obtained only a majority of 14 votes and many of the Great Powers have voted against it. For the second paragraph of Article 1, there was unanimity, it is true, but the value of this result is perceptibly lessened by the fact that in Article 9 many Great States are reserving the right to employ, without any time limit, the engines prohibited by Article 1, paragraph 2, until they have perfected their mine matériel. It is to be seen that the probability of quasi-unanimity is not for the moment very great if Articles 2 to 4 are eliminated. But it is perhaps permissible to hope that this situation will change, if after having closed our debates, we should proceed, several days later to a new reading. I cannot close without endorsing the words of our president at the opening of our meeting to-day, when he said that the divergences of opinion which have manifested themselves in the discussions of the Commission are very much greater than those which the committee of examination could have foreseen in comparing the different propositions submitted to its study.

[444] His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow desires to repeat that in the opinion of the British delegation it would be of advantage to present to the Conference the draft regulations such as they have been amended by the votes of the Commission. But considering the fact that there seems to be a majority

who are of the contrary opinion, he states that he will reserve his own opinion upon this question.

However, his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW desires to ask the members of the Commission who have voted for the German proposition relative to the interdiction for five years of the employment of unanchored automatic contact mines, and those who have voted for the provision of the draft forbidding the employment of mines which do not become harmless one hour after being laid, if there is not some means of reconciling these two votes by means of a joint provision. In reality the principles of these two provisions harmonize, and it may perhaps be possible to find a basis of agreement.

On the other hand, as to Article 4, paragraph 3, relative to the interdiction of the employment of mines to effect a blockade, might not the five negative votes, which have been cast against 24 favorable votes, be withdrawn?

The President states that in view of the divergences of opinion which have just manifested themselves, the necessity of postponing the discussion, as he had suggested a few moments before, should be perfectly apparent to the Commission. He therefore proposes that between now and the next session the bureau be authorized to retouch the draft so that the Commission may have before it a new text of such a nature as to be approved by the large majority of its members.

It is thus decided, and the meeting adjourns at 5:30 o'clock.