if he had not sufficient troops to land in order to destroy them in any [547] other manner. Rear Admiral SIEGEL proposes then to insert in Article 5, paragraph 1, after the word "workshops" the words "plant and supplies which might be utilized." His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow seconds the amendment proposed by Rear Admiral SIEGEL. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert thinks that to adopt this amendment is tantamount to the renunciation of rules on the subject of bombardment, for in this case it would always be permissible. Captain Burlamaqui de Moura requests a precise definition of an undefended town." Mr. Georgios Streit remarks that the points which have just been made by his Excellency General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL, and on the subject of which no objection was expressed in the subcommission, will be inserted in the minutes and will serve as an interpretation of Article 4; a precise definition of a defended town seems difficult to formulate even in the text of the draft. The President supports this view-point of the REPORTER. Captain Ottley recalls the declaration which he made on the subject of Article 5; he is of opinion that it is sometimes impossible for a commander of a fleet to grant a reasonable delay to the local authorities before proceeding to a destruction of ships of war in a harbor, etc. His Excellency Count Tornielli insists that Article 5 first be voted upon in its original form with the German addition, which he accepts. His Excellency Lieutenant General Jonkheer den Beer Poortugael says that since his Excellency Count TORNIELLI accepts the German amendment, it is not necessary to vote upon Article 5. He accepts the insertion of the word "plant," but he opposes absolutely the insertion of the word "supplies.” His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel requests of Rear Admiral SIEGEL that he be good enough to specify what he means by "supplies." Does this expression include depots of coal, provisions, clothing, etc., in short, all the stores and warehouses, public and private, which are naturally to be found in the large commercial ports? This would be equivalent to saying that all maritime districts may be bombarded. Rear Admiral Siegel says that his amendment refers particularly to coal, to get possession of which would be of great military importance. The President remarks that it is well understood that all the provisions which we are discussing refer only to naval war. His Excellency Mr. Hammarskjöld is of opinion that the German amendment is of too wide a scope not to require the most profound study. He does not know how to vote upon it, and he desires therefore that this amendment be first printed and distributed. His Excellency Count Tornielli observes that the examination of the draft under discussion could be finished at to-day's meeting and that, after having been submitted to the examination of a small revision committee, the text would be brought before a full meeting of the Third Commission for discussion. Then all the reasons on which the delegation of Sweden bases its arguments for a postponement of the present discussion can be submitted. [548] It certainly seems excessive to postpone the continuation of the discussion for a week. The President endorses the view-point of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert requests Rear Admiral SIEGEL to be good enough to examine anew the intent of his amendment and denies that the existence of an important railway junction near an undefended town authorizes bombardment. The rule should be the same for naval operations as for war on land. Rear Admiral Siegel says that he is willing to withdraw the word "supplies" since the expression "war matériel" which is now in Article 5 is entirely satisfactory to him. The President then proposes to put Article 4. to a vote just as it is, and then Article 5 with the amendment proposed by Rear Admiral SIEGEL, that is to say, with the insertion of the words "and plant" after the word "workshops" in the third line of Article 5. Mr. Louis Renault, without entering into a detailed discussion of Article 5, and of the technical side of this provision, thinks it necessary however to recall that the needs of naval war are sometimes very different from those of war on land. In the case actually under discussion it is very evident that the belligerent on land has no need to proceed always to the destruction of a railroad or of a depot of coal: he simply takes possession of it. It is very different with naval operations. The commander of a naval force may not have a landing corps at his command; also it may be necessary for him to make a hasty withdrawal, and it would be necessary for him to destroy before his departure either the railway or depot of coal which is useful to the enemy. Indeed, the same object is pursued on land as on sea-harm to the enemy, but by force of different circumstances, it is necessary to have recourse to different means. Because a military operation does not occur in war on land, it does not logically follow that it should be forbidden in naval war. After this explanation, the President moves to proceed to a vote. His Excellency Count Tornielli begs the PRESIDENT to keep a record of the desire expressed by certain delegates who were engaged in the preparatory work, who desired that the provisions of Articles 4 and 5 be joined by the word "nevertheless." Captain Behr asks if, in voting upon the adoption of Article 5, one rejects implicitly the British amendment. "yes The President replies that to vote signifies a demand to maintain the text in the form of the proposition; therefore those who vote " yea" vote against the British proposition. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow thinks that it would not be very regular to have two successive votes, which would be equivalent to voting twice against the British amendment. The President points out that in view of the fact that it is not a question of a definitive vote, but of propositions to be presented to the plenary meet[549] ing, there could be no confusion between the two votes which are only for the purpose of enlightening the assembly upon the attitude of its members towards the two propositions. He will put to a vote Articles 4 and 5 with the addition proposed by Rear Admiral SIEGEL, then the British amendment. The vote is taken by roll call. Article 4 receives a unanimous vote; Article 5 is adopted by 21 votes against 6. There is one abstention; 17 States take no part in the vote. The vote upon the British amendment has the following result: 23 nays and 6 yeas. The President then reads Article 6 of the joint draft. His Excellency Vice Admiral Mehemed Pasha makes the following declaration: In the name of the Ottoman delegation I have the honor to propose the following amendment to Article 6 of the proposition concerning bombardment: The commander shall not, however, have recourse to such a measure if it is proven that these ports, towns, villages and dwellings are not in a position to furnish the provisions or other supplies necessary for the immediate needs of a naval force present. The President observes that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of Article 6 and the proposal of the Ottoman delegation. Rear Admiral Sperry proposes to substitute the first paragraph of the proposition of the United States of America 2 for Article 6 of the joint draft.1 Mr. Georgios Streit observes that if it is stated in the minutes that the principles relative to requisitions in war on land are applicable to naval war, the amendments proposed by the delegations of the United States and Turkey would be useless. His Excellency Count Tornielli points out that the interpolation of the words "and in proportion to the local resources," after the words "naval force present," would satisfy the just desires of the Ottoman delegation. The President thinks that this question might be left to the committee of examination. It is a question here of applying as far as possible the rules concerning requisition in war on land to naval war. His Excellency Mr. A. Beernaert recalls that in Article 52 of the Convention of 1899, where requisitions are mentioned, it is a question of procuring provisions and supplies, while in Article 6 the restriction is not so clear. It will be necessary to bring the two articles more in harmony. His Excellency Mr. Nelidow believes that there are many points which should be submitted to the committee of examination; there are in fact points common to war on land and naval war; there are certain others which it would be necessary to vote upon. In such manner clearness and precision may be obtained. His Excellency Count Tornielli thinks that if his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT desires to formulate an addition to the text which has just been examined, all of the delegations will be glad to take it under consideration. The President shares the opinion of the first delegate of Belgium that it will be necessary to reach an agreement relative to the conditions under which contributions may be levied; this question will be settled later. He passes to Article 7 which is approved without discussion. [550] The proposition of the Russian delegation relative to the title of the draft is then read by the PRESIDENT and submitted to discussion. 1 Annex 6. 2 Annex 1. Mr. Louis Renault does not think that the proposed new wording should be settled by the commission in a body. This question should devolve upon a more restricted committee. In his opinion, the wording of the joint draft is far from perfect; for example, a heading should be placed above Article 4, which lays down a cardinal principle. He recommends to the committee of examination that they take account of the division of the articles as proposed by his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW. The President then proceeds to the formation of the committee of examination; this will be composed of the Bureaus of the Commission and subcommission; because of the technical character of the questions to be examined, the naval delegates of the Powers who formulated the propositions or presented amendments will likewise form a part of it. The committee of examination will meet next Saturday at 11 o'clock. |