It is for these reasons that the British delegation prefers the wording of paragraph 2 of Article 19 which recognizes this principle. Rear Admiral Siegel makes the following observations on the two principles that are before the committee in the matter of coal: We find ourselves confronted with two systems concerning the quantity of coal that neutrals may allow belligerent war-ships to load in their ports, and before you make your choice I ask you to be good enough to permit me to point out in a few words the differences between these two systems and their significance to neutrals. What neutrals desire, what they need, is to know as precisely as possible the quantity of coal that they may give to a belligerent vessel in their ports without being obliged to undertake an inquisitorial search or to meddle in the vessel's business that does not concern them. They would like to have a simple rule, easy to apply, that will admit of complying with the requests made by the vessel, while avoiding claims and disputes. Let us examine the two systems closely and see in what way they meet these conditions. If we accepted the first rule, which says that we may not allow the belligerent vessel more coal than it needs to enable it to reach the nearest port of its own country, a series of questions arise for the neutral to decide which place him in a very embarrassing position. It will perhaps be possible to determine what is the nearest port and to calculate the distance; but then up comes the question of the radius of action and the speed at which the vessel is to make its voyage. It may be admitted that it is to proceed at the most economical rate of speed. But this may vary according to the quality of the coal, the condition of the boilers and of the machinery, the condition of the hull, the skill and experience of the officers and crew, etc. And again, this speed is possible only under favorable conditions. If the vessel encounters rough weather, if it is obliged to force its way against wind and sea, all calculations are thrown out and the vessel runs the risk of dangers of all kinds. How then would it be possible to determine the quantity necessary for the voyage? It might be said that the commander will give all information that may serve as a basis for estimating the quantity of coal. But even he cannot foresee what kind of weather he will meet with at sea; and it cannot be [634] required of him to put his ship in jeopardy by asking for an insufficient quantity of coal. The commander will therefore ask for the greatest possible quantity, and there will always be the risk of a dispute between the commander and the authorities of the neutral State likely to give rise to claims later on. Furthermore, in case the nearest port should be so remote as to render it impossible for the vessel to reach it without replenishing its coal supply, it would still be necessary to give the vessel the greatest possible supply of coal. Finally, we must consider the case of the nearest port's being blockaded, which would modify all the conditions of the calculation. In brief, the quantity of coal to be allowed would vary according to the case, and the neutral would always be obliged to assume the responsibility of deter mining the number of tons of fuel that the vessel should receive. It would be a very different question and much easier to settle, if it were the general rule that the neutral may give as much coal as is necessary to fill the bunkers proper. In this case the neutral would receive from the commander a certain figure, indicating the quantity of coal that he lacked. The neutral State would be in a position to see that this quantity is not exceeded, for it is not difficult to ascertain whether the bunkers are full. The delivery of coal would then cease, and any controversy or claim would thus be avoided. The technical delegates of fifteen countries discussed this question for two hours and at the end of this discussion a majority of 10 votes to 5 favored the provision stating that the neutral State might give sufficient coal to fill the bunkers, because this is the most convenient measure and the best practical means of avoiding misunderstandings. Against the adoption of this proposal it was urged that the belligerent would find this an easy way to procure coal to enable him to keep to the high seas and undertake hostile acts for a fairly long time, especially if he should be in the vicinity of a certain number of neutral States. But such a situation exists in only a few quarters of the world. In vast regions of the globe ports where it is possible to obtain coal are quite far from one another. Moreover, the same state of affairs would likewise occur in case the rule of the nearest port of its own country should be accepted. All neutral States whose ports are very remote from the nearest port of the belligerent would be obliged to furnish not only sufficient coal to fill the bunkers, but the greatest quantity of coal necessary to enable the vessel to go as far as possible. A final consideration is that the neutral is master in his own house and can forbid any belligerent vessel that attempts to use his ports as a base of operations to enter those ports. For the rest, it is not the neutral's duty to prejudge the intentions of a belligerent vessel belonging to a nation with which he is at peace that visits his port for the first time. It is sufficient if he treats the two belligerents the same. Such, gentlemen, are the reasons which have decided us to propose that you accept paragraph 2 of Article 10 in the following form: Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to fill their bunkers proper. The President remarks that, since the discussion on these two opposite schools appears to be completed, the intermediate proposal of the delegation of Russia should, in his opinion, be examined. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow again explains the purport of his proposal, which aims to state in this Convention that each State may choose that one of the two rules which it prefers. [635] His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki states that he would prefer to have omitted from Article 19 all prescriptions concerning coal rather than to have the article contain a provision that would be equivalent to recognizing neutral ports as centers where belligerents might replenish their coal supplies. His Excellency Mr. Hagerup would like the scope of the English proposal made clear to him. Is not the quantity of coal necessary to enable the vessel to reach its nearest port based upon an estimate to be made for the neutral? Must the latter assure himself of the belligerent vessel's destination? His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow replies that the rule of the nearest port is laid down for the purpose of determining the quantity of coal to be allowed. It constitutes a simple method of calculation and does not impose upon the neutral any obligation to look into the destination of the vessel requesting the fuel. In so far as the compromise proposal of the delegation of Russia is concerned, Sir ERNEST SATOW states that he will support it on two conditions: (1) if the older rule, that of the nearest port, is placed at the beginning of paragraph 2; (2) if the Russian proposal receives a unanimous vote in the committee. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow has no objections to having the British rule placed at the beginning of the paragraph. His proposal will therefore read as follows: Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to reach the nearest port in their own country. They may, on the other hand, fill up their bunkers built to carry coal, when in the ports of neutral States which prefer this method of determining the quantity of fuel required. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki prefers the omission of Article 19 in its entirety to his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW's proposal. The motion to omit the article is put to vote and defeated by 10 votes to 4. The President states that the first paragraph of Article 19 has met with no opposition. He therefore declares it adopted. He then puts to vote the wording proposed by his Excellency Mr. TCHARYKOW, which is carried by 11 yeas with 3 abstentions. Great Britain, Japan, and the United States of America abstained from voting. The last paragraph of Article 19 is then adopted. The Reporter states that the second sentence of paragraph 1 might better be placed at the end of paragraph 3. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow and Rear Admiral Siegel make reservations with regard to the last paragraph of Article 19 because of the words "permissible duration of their stay" therein, which imply recognition of the 24-hour rule. The President passes to Article 20, which he reads: 1 Belligerent war-ships which have shipped fuel in a port belonging to a neutral State may not within the succeeding . . . months replenish their supply in a port of the same State less than . . . miles distant. He remarks that two blank spaces have been left in this article, the preceding discussions of the committee not having reached any definite result. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow, because of the changes that have been made in Article 19, proposes that the number of months be fixed at three and that the article end with the words "same State." [636] Rear Admiral Siegel feels that he must call attention to the fact that the committee of examination has already adopted the distance of 1,000 miles, but he raises no objection to a new discussion on this distance. The President puts Article 20 to vote, as modified by the English proposal and reading as follows: Belligerent war-ships which have shipped fuel in a port belonging to a neutral State may not within the succeeding three months replenish their supply in a port of the same State. The vote results as follows: 5 yeas, 3 nays, 6 abstentions. Yeas: United States of America, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan. 1 Annex 63. Nays: Germany, Brazil, and France. Abstentions: Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, and Turkey. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow proposes that there be inserted after Article 20, which has just been voted, the provision contained in Article 16 of the British project, whose text is as follows: A neutral Power must not knowingly permit a war-ship of a belligerent lying within its jurisdiction to take on board supplies, food, or fuel in order to go to meet the enemy or in order to enter upon operations of war. Although he has no hope of its being adopted, his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW would like to have this article put to vote. The President, in compliance with this request, puts the article in question to vote without discussion. It is defeated by 8 nays to 3 yeas, with 3 abstentions. Yeas: Spain, Great Britain, and Japan. Nays: Germany, United States of America, Denmark, France, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, and Sweden. Abstentions: Brazil, Italy, and Turkey. A prize may only be brought into a neutral port on account of unseaworthiness or stress of weather. It must leave as soon as the circumstances which justify its entry are at end. If it does not, the neutral Power must order it to leave at once; should it fail to obey, the neutral Power must employ the means at its disposal to release it with its officers and crew and to intern the prize crew. He adds that it has been proposed by the German delegation that the words "want of provisions or fuel" be added to paragraph 1. [637] This addition is accepted by his Excellency Sir Ernest Satow and sup ported by his Excellency Mr. Tcharykow, who remarks that there is an absolutely humanitarian reason for allowing a vessel to enter a neutral port under these conditions. He therefore warmly supports the German proposal. The President states that the first paragraph of Article 21, with the addition above mentioned, is adopted. The second paragraph of the same article as it stands at present is likewise adopted. The President then reads Article 22: A neutral Power must, similarly, release a prize brought into one of its ports under circumstances other than those referred to in Article 21. His Excellency Mr. Hagerup proposes that the words "must employ the means at its disposal" be substituted for the words "must, similarly." The President reads Article 22, which is adopted as thus modified. The neutral Power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be sequestrated pending the decision of a prize court. 1 Annex 63. If the prize is convoyed by a war-ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty. The President recalls that this article gave rise to long discussions in the joint meeting of the committees of examination of the Third and Fourth Commissions. He thinks that it is perhaps unnecessary to go over it again. The Reporter states that there is a slight modification, suggested by Mr. DE BEAUFORT, to be made in this article. With a view to preventing the overcrowding that might result in a small port, the neutral State should have the right to remove the prize to another of its ports. Mr. de Beaufort explains that his proposal has in mind principally colonial ports. The said proposal will be taken into account in the text. The President adds that another amendment to this article has been proposed, to cover the case of a neutral prize that is brought into a port of its own country. It is perfectly evident that such a prize would become free of right. The wording of the two amendments is left to the reporter, who will submit them to the Commission. His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow notes that the discussion on Article 23 is still open. In view of the difficulties which the article presents, the delegation of Russia would not object to its omission. The President passes to Article 24, whose text is as follows: If, notwithstanding the notification of the neutral Power, a belligerent ship of war does not leave a port within the time fixed, the neutral Power is entitled to take such measures as it considers necessary to render the ship incapable of taking the sea during the war, and the commanding officer of the ship must facilitate the execution of such measures. [638] When a belligerent ship is detained by a neutral Power, the officers and crew are likewise detained, unless the Government of the other belligerent party consents to their repatriation. The officers and crew of a belligerent ship detained by a neutral Power may be left in the ship or kept either on another vessel or on land, and they may be subjected to the measures of restriction which it may appear necessary to impose upon them. The Reporter remarks that in the first paragraph of the article in question no provision has been made for the case of a vessel that enters a port unlawfully. His Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD has called attention to this oversight. We must also provide for the case of a vessel's leaving before the expiration of the 24-hour interval. These observations could be taken into account in the final text. Rear Admiral Siegel requests that it be stated in the report that there were differences of opinion concerning the treatment of the crews. He clings to his opinion, already set forth, that it would be preferable to leave the crew on board the vessel unless there are special reasons for removing them. In any event a certain proportion of the crew should remain on board to tend the engines, etc., of the detained vessel. The President says that an amendment has been presented by the delegation of Italy with this in view. He reads it: "A sufficient number of men for looking after the vessel must, however, be always left on board." His Excellency Mr. Tcharykow seconds the amendment presented by |