transformation of mine matériel, we are not in a position to accept the British amendment in regard to anchored mines.

His Excellency Turkhan Pasha declares in the name of the Imperial Ottoman delegation:

Article 6 is the Article 9 of the former draft regulations; I reiterate then the same declaration made on this article in the meeting of the Cominission and inserted in the minutes of the 19th of September.

Vote, being demanded by the British delegation, is taken.

The result is as follows: 17 yeas, 9 nays, 10 not voting and 8 absent. Voting for: Argentine Republic, Belgium, Bolivia, United States of Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Salvador.

Voting against: Germany, United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Roumania, Russia, Turkey.

Not voting: Ecuador, Haiti, Italy, United Mexican States, Peru, Serbia, Siam, Sweden, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Absent: Chile, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Switzerland.

The President then reads Article 7.

ARTICLE 7

The stipulations of the present regulations are concluded for a period of seven years, or until the close of the Third Peace Conference, if that date is earlier.

The contracting Powers undertake to reopen the question of the employment of automatic submarine contact mines six months before the expiration of the period of seven years, in the event of the question not having been already reopened and settled by the Third Peace Conference.

In the absence of a stipulation of a new Convention the present regulations will continue in force unless the present Convention is denounced. The denunciation shall not have effect (with regard to the notifying Power) until six months after the notification.

This article is adopted without remarks.

The President proposes to the Commission that it be good enough to proceed to a vote upon the whole draft in order to give it the sanction necessary for its presentation to the plenary Conference.

[454] The result of the vote is as follows: 38 yeas, 6 absent.

Voting for: Germany, United States of America, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, United States of Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Spain, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, United Mexican States, Montenegro, Norway, Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Serbia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.

guay.

Absent: Chile, Dominican Republic, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, Panama, Para

Reservations were made by the following delegations:

The delegation of Germany upon the points mentioned previously in the

minutes.

The delegations of Montenegro, Russia and Sweden upon paragraph 1 of Article 1.

The delegation of Turkey upon Articles 1, 3, and 6.

His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow desires to extend to the President, at the end of the examination of the draft, his deep gratitude for the very impartial and conciliatory manner in which he has conducted the difficult debates; he desires also to thank the technical delegates who have worked so hard for many weeks to arrive at a result with which the Third Commission has every right to be content. (Hearty applause.)

The President then speaks:

I am very deeply touched by the kindly appreciation which his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW has expressed regarding the part I have had the honor to take in the accomplishment of a task which has not been without difficulties. I desire also to express my gratitude for the cordiality with which the Commission has been good enough to receive the flattering remarks about myself. If now and then it has happened that in the exercise of my presidential functions I have displayed an insistency which might have seemed excessive and if, when our desired object seemed to be receding, I have not always been able to overcome a certain impatience, I am to-day impelled to crave your indulgence. From the beginning the conviction that it was necessary to arrive at a decision has never left us. The rules which we have just established are above all demanded by the humanitarian sentiment common to-day to all nations. We finish, if not with a complete work, at least with satisfactory results. Our Governments were right in expecting them of us.

Gentlemen, thanks to you, thanks to the cooperation of the bureau of the Commission and to our reporter, as energetic as conciliatory and impartial, we have successfully completed a truly useful work from every point of view. Allow me to thank you for it. (Hearty applause.)

The PRESIDENT asks if the Commission wishes to hear the reading of the supplementary report which will accompany the text of the regulations in its transmission to the plenary Conference.

He states that the Commission seems to rely upon the reporter himself for certain revision which should be made in the report in order that it may be in perfect harmony with the results of to-day's meeting.

The meeting adjourns at 3: 30 o'clock.

[455]

Annex

LAYING OF AUTOMATIC SUBMARINE CONTACT MINES

DRAFT REPORT TO THE CONFERENCE 1

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN:

The Third Commission to-day renders an account to the Conference of the mission which you intrusted to it by assinging to it from among the topics men

This report was presented for the Third Commission by Professor GEORGIOS STREIT, reporter of the first subcommission. See the report to the Conference, vol. i, eighth plenary session, p. 280 [287].

tioned in the program of the Imperial Russian Government1 the question concerning the laying of automatic submarine contact mines.

3

After having referred the matter for preliminary study to its first subcommission, which in turn, after a general discussion, appointed a committee of examination with instructions to draft regulations, the Third Commission busied itself for a long time with this subject of the laying of mines in its last four meetings. In the meeting of August 28, it had to dispose of a preliminary question which had arisen in the committee of examination, to wit, whether the regulations to be drawn up should also contain provisions on the laying of mines by neutrals; in the meetings of September 17, 19, and 26, it deliberated on the text of the draft regulations and accompanying detailed report submitted to it by the committee of examination. We may be permitted to refer to these so far as the project of the committee has not been changed by the Commission.

I

The principal change made by the Commission in the text drafted by the committee consists in the omission of Articles 2 to 5 of the committee text;" these deal with the limits to be observed by the belligerents, as to area, in the

use of anchored automatic submarine contact mines. Paragraph 3 of [456] Article 4, which obtained a strong majority (24 yeas, 5 nays, 3 absten

tions and 12 absent), was the only one kept by the Commission. It now appears as Article 2 of the draft which we have the honor to submit to the Conference; the rest of the provisions contained in the said articles have disappeared. In fact, from the beginning of our deliberations two opposing tendencies were manifested on the subject of the places where it should be permissible to place anchored automatic contact mines. On one hand it was desired to establish fixed limits within which the employment of such mines would not be forbidden, and on the other a right was claimed in behalf of belligerents to make use of anchored mines without restriction as to place, even on the high seas, within the "sphere of their immediate activity." The committee hoped to be able to find a compromise solution:

1. By permitting the use of anchored automatic contact mines within a zone of three marine miles which in certain places would be extended to ten miles; a further distinction being established on certain points, as to this greater zone, between the defense and the attack.

2. By permitting belligerents to make use of such mines in the sphere of 'See vol. i, in initio.

2

3

Meetings of June 27, July 4 and July 11 of that subcommission.

This committee of examination was presided over by his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP (Norway), the president of the subcommission, and was composed of the following menbers: Rear Admiral SIEGEL and Lieutenant Commander RETZMANN (Germany), Rear Admiral SPERRY (United States), Rear Admiral HAUS (Austria-Hungary), his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL (Belgium), Captain BURLAMAQUI DE MOURA (Brazil), Colonel TING (China), Captain CHACÓN (Spain), Rear Admiral ARAGO (France), Captain OTTLEY and Commander SEGRAVE (Great Britain), Professor GEORGIOS STREIT, reporter (Greece), his Excellency Count TORNIELLI and Captain CASTIGLIA (Italy), Rear Admiral HAYAO SHIMAMURA and Captain MORIYAMA (Japan), his Excellency Vice Admiral Jonkheer RÖELL and Lieutenant SURIE (Netherlands), Captain BEHR (Russia), his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD and Captain AF KLINT (Sweden), his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA and his Excellency Vice Admiral MEHEMED PASHA (Turkey).

See the fifth meeting, annexes A and B. The committee of examination held ten meetings; its proceedings were not recorded. * Annex 31.

their immediate activity even beyond the limits above mentioned; but, in this case, the mines employed "would have to be so constructed as to be rendered harmless within the maximum period of two hours after the party using them abandoned them."

In the Commission this solution received so few votes that it was impossible even to hope that when it came before the Conference the desired agreement would be reached. Even paragraph 2 of Article 4, which established the difference mentioned between attack and defense, was rejected, as it obtained only 10 votes as against 12 nays and 10 abstentions. It was the same with an amendment presented, as a compromise, by the delegation of Sweden, according to which the prohibitions of Articles 2 to 4 would carry an exception in the case "of an imperious military necessity"; this amendment was likewise rejected by a majority of the Commission.

As to Articles 2 to 4, paragraph 1, as presented by the committee, they obtained only a relative and rather feeble majority (Article 2: 16 yeas, 11 nays, 10 abstentions; Article 3: 10 yeas, 10 nays, 10 abstentions; Article 4, paragraph 1: 15 yeas, 9 nays, 12 abstentions); and Article 5 of this text was rejected almost unanimously, being opposed both by the delegations that were against any restriction in area and by the delegations that had consented, in order to facilitate an agreement, to permit the use of anchored mines everywhere in the sphere of the immediate activity of the belligerents, subject to the technical restrictions contained in the second paragraph of Article 5. Moreover, very serious doubts were expressed as to the possibility of applying in all circumstances the technical provisions set forth in that paragraph.

The omission of Articles 2 to 5 of the committee's draft necessarily caused the second paragraph of Article 7 and the second paragraph of Article 9 to be dropped. It seemed, however, to be understood that the absence of any provisions assigning limits within which neutrals can place mines must not be interpreted as establishing a right on the part of neutrals to place mines on the high

seas.

By thus overturning, through the suppression of Articles 2 to 5, the decision which had seemed to obtain unanimous support in the committee and according to which a restriction as to area in the use of anchored mines ought to be expressly set forth in the regulations, there has been no intention to swerve from the conviction that a restriction as to area also is in principle imposed upon the employment of such mines. The very weighty responsibility [457] towards peaceful shipping assumed by the belligerent that lays mines.

beyond his coastal waters has been several times placed in evidence, and it nas been unanimously recognized that only "absolutely urgent military reasons can justify such a usage with respect to anchored mines. "Conscience, good sense, and the sentiment of duty imposed by the principles of humanity" will be the surest guide for the conduct of mariners of all civilized nations; even without any written stipulation, there will surely not be lacking in the minds of all the knowledge that the principle of the liberty of the seas, with the obligations that it carries for those who make use of this means of communication open to all peoples is definitely dedicated to humanity.

II

The other provisions contained in the committee's draft1 have not undergone essential modification.

Article 1 remains the same with the exception of a slight change in phrasing to emphasize the prohibition laid down in the first paragraph. The fundamental distinction between the three kinds of engines mentioned in Article 1 is preserved. The Commission was unanimous for prohibiting the use of anchored automatic contact mines which do not become harmless when they have broken loose from their moorings as well as the use of torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark. As to unanchored mines, the broader proposal to forbid their use absolutely (for a period of five years) was again brought up by the delegation of Germany; it obtained only a relative majority; and then the interdiction as the committee had worded it obtained a majority of 19 yeas against 8 nays, with 9 abstentions, 8 Powers not responding to the vote call. The Argentine delegation declared that it accepted the provision with the exception of the fixed period of one hour within which the mine must become harmless.

2

Article 2 [paragraph 3 of the fourth article of the committee's original draft] secured, as we have just seen, a strong majority; the different vicissitudes through which this provision passed are narrated in the report to the Commission.3

A new and more radical amendment presented by the British delegation," providing that it is "forbidden to lay automatic contact mines before the ports of the adversary other than those which are considered as war ports" was rejected by the Commission by a vote of 13 to 5, with 17 abstentions.

Article 3 (Article 6 of the committee's draft") was adopted unanimously. The text proposed by the committee underwent only a slight change in its form; since it was unanimously recognized that the provision obliging belligerent States to notify the danger zones "as soon as it can be done" was intended to qualify this obligation as the exigencies of war might make necessary (report to the Commission), it seemed preferable to express this idea more clearly in the very text of the regulations.

His Excellency TURKHAN PASHA repeated on the occasion of the discussion of this article in the Commission, the declaration that had been made in the committee by the Ottoman delegation with regard to the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. This was inserted in the detailed report.

Article 4 (Article 7 of the committee's draft) was accepted unanimously after omitting by a majority vote the provision fixing limits of area which neutrals should observe in laying mines. We have already had occasion to explain the reason of this omission.

[458] Article 5 (Article 8 of the committee's draft) merely completes the provisions contained in the two preceding articles by laying down rules to be observed at the close of the war by every Power, belligerent or neutral, which