majority vote in spite of reservations of an appreciable minority is—and I believe I can say it in the certainty that I am expressing your unanimous sentiment-a thing to be avoided as far as possible, for that scarcely responds to the spirit of general good-understanding that we must maintain in our labors, to that spirit of harmony which was enjoined recently by our honored president and which the eminent senior delegate of France, his Excellency Mr. LÉON BOURGEOIS, eloquently evoked when to the applause of the First Commission he recalled that we are here not to be counted but to reach a common ground of agreement.

Shall we seek a middle course in the direction of the new Belgian amendment which the PRESIDENT has just read to us? The two systems before us are too diametrically oppposed to admit of the possibility of reconciliation. The Belgian proposition, I feel, would not dispel any of the objections raised by each of them, but would rather risk the addition of difficulties of execution which according to the cases and under certain circumstances would not fail to be considerable. No, after the discussions that have already occurred and in face of the difficulties stated, it must be well recognized that in seeking new texts for the project a very real danger would be encountered of engaging in an unfruitful and unsatisfying task.

To sum up:

We have not, it appears, to act again on Articles 61 to 63 which were voted on Saturday.

The considerations just indicated compel us to relinquish Articles 64 and 65 and the same applies to Articles 67 and 68 by reason of the reservations made to each on the part of several delegations.

There remains Article 66 which alone has obtained unanimous vote.

I propose to retain of Chapters II and III only this Article 66, and to present it to the Conference with the vau corresponding to the first paragraph of the subsidiary amendment of the Luxemburg delegation. I believe that the Commission should justify this proposition in a supplementary report to the Conference. It is important, indeed, to show that far from being made ab irato or under the sway of some inexplicable feeling of weariness or susceptibility, the decision which I have the honor to recommend to you is inspired by objective and powerful considerations and that there is even some sacrifice in so resolving after all the labor accomplished.

I shall not finish without repeating how much I regret that the proposed solution is not more satisfactory; but I am convinced that there is no other under the circumstances I have just recalled. (Applause.)

His Excellency Baron Marschall von Bieberstein: I share entirely in the views just expressed by my honored colleague of Switzerland.

His Excellency Mr. Hagerup: I desire to make a statement. The Norwegian delegation voted for the English proposition 1 because it preserved freedom of internal legislation as to the military service to be required of domiciled aliens. I shall abstain from voting against the second paragraph of Article 65, while reserving to my Government the question of deciding if there should not be some modifications made in the legislation now in force.

The President: It only remains for us to proceed to the vote. We are called upon to consider only the text already voted, with the exception of the proposition

1 Annex 45.

formulated by his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL, if this proposition is still maintained.

[95] His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel: I presented propositions relative to Articles 65 and 66 only with a conciliatory motive, but since these compromise propositions do not seem to receive almost unanimous approval, I withdraw them.

His Excellency Lord Reay: I desire that it be stated in the minutes that the British delegation was prepared to vote on the project as it was submitted September 7 to the Conference with the exception of Articles 67 and 68. For the reasons just indicated to us by Colonel BOREL, I shall vote for the proposition that he has made, seeing that any decision which the Conference would reach in the circumstances would lack the authority that the Conference should exercise and would only be a manifestation of the differences of opinion which exist in regard to the principles of law upon which the project rests.

The remarkable report of Colonel BOREL contains valuable data for a later solution of the matter.

I desire also to make acknowledgment of the excellent work of the assistant secretaries of this Commission.

His Excellency Mr. Beldiman: I should like to be perfectly clear in my mind as to the formula to be voted upon.

The President: It is quite plain: the proposition admits of the suppression of Articles 66 and those following.

His Excellency Mr. Carlin: I desire to know if the vote by the Conference on Articles 61, 62 and 63 still stands.

The President: As far as I am concerned, I believe so.

Mr. Louis Renault: If this vote stands I am not too certain as to what will become of Articles 61, 62 and 63 and how they will be regarded by the Conference, which has referred the entire project back to the Commission with full powers to act.

The President: Articles 61, 62 and 63 appear to me to have been voted for without reservations, but in its next plenary meeting the Conference could obviously complete the slaughter on which it seems resolved by the suppression of the rest of the project.

His Excellency Mr. Léon Bourgeois: Mr. RENAULT has not demanded slaughter. He has simply made an observation of a formal nature. The Conference having decided to return the entire project, the result is that the Commission is called upon to decide on all the articles without exception.

The President: Is such indeed the case? After having adopted Articles 61, 62 and 63, the Conference decided to return the other articles to the Commission for further examination, but for the contingency in which there might result, from the discussion which would follow a rehandling of the whole project, it included in this return the first articles already adopted.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow: Having had the honor to preside at the meeting of the Conference where this decision was taken, I take the liberty of observing that Articles 61, 62 and 63 were, in fact, voted. Afterwards, on coming to Chapter II of the draft arrangement it was decided to return it to the Commission. But at the request of his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN the whole project was then returned in order to permit, if the situation

demanded it, an eventual coordination of the articles voted as a result of the new labors of the Commission.

[96] The President: No one is better qualified than our eminent President to interpret the vote which has been expressed and I willingly accept his opinion. Mr. RENAULT was then right in saying that we must declare ourselves anew respecting Articles 61, 62 and 63.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow remarks that Articles 61, 62 and 63 having been voted, it seems useless to renew the discussion. He proposes to repeat the vote, taking the three articles together.

His Excellency Mr. Carlin: With this idea in mind I should propose to vote first on Articles 61 to 63 and then on Article 66.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow: The three articles in question not being disapproved it would be preferable to vote on them before voting on Article 66.

His Excellency Baron Marschall von Bieberstein: If Chapter II is suppressed, there appears to be no reason for retaining Articles 61, 62 and 63. The Reporter: In regard to Articles 61 to 63 we must not confound two very distinct things:

The value of these articles as such appears to me to be beyond discussion. Adopted without observation they express henceforth truths recognized in international law.

Altogether different is the question of knowing whether they by themselves can form the subject of a convention ad hoc. That is, it seems, a question of form, of a rather practical order, whose solution pertains to the drafting committee of the Conference.

As to Article 66, its place appears clearly indicated in the Regulations of 1899, where is already found Article 54 with which the drafting committee will have to combine it.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow: I cannot share the opinion of the delegate of Germany for in my judgment Articles 61, 62 and 63 have not only a juridical value but also a value in principle. The progress of international law is extremely slow. This is the first time that the word "neutral" has been admitted and a study made of the rights and duties of neutrals.

We can restrict ourselves to defining a neutral-by what means he acquires his rights, and how he loses them-it is a great point to have reached this question. If we cannot come to any agreement as to the different details of a regulation, we have at least established the character of the neutral, and in the future in conventions dealing with the question of neutrals, there will be no doubt as to the interpretation of the term. I propose, therefore, to retain these articles embodied in the Regulations of the laws and customs of war, wherein the drafting committee will be able to find their place.

His Excellency Mr. Carlin: I share the views of his Excellency Mr. NELIDOW and declare that the Swiss delegation will vote for Articles 61, 62 and 63 even in case Article 66 should be maintained alone.

The President: Articles 61, 62 and 63 together are put to vote: These articles are voted unanimously by the following 39 delegations: Germany, United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,

France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, [97] Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal,

Roumania, Russia, Salvador, Serbia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.

The President: We will now proceed, and under the same conditions, to the vote on the suppression of Chapter III, Article 66 excepted.

Thirty-nine delegations take part in the vote:

Voting for: Germany, United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Not voting: Belgium, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, Luxemburg, Norway, Roumania, Sweden.

This suppression is therefore approved by 32 affirmative votes against 7 abstentions.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen offers the following remarks:

It is necessary to inquire into the causes of the failure of some of the resolutions concerning neutrals in belligerent territory.

Many States are anxious to preserve the power to regulate this matter by their internal legislation. They are not unmindful of the legitimacy of certain claims in the interest of neutrals and are ready to conform their conduct to them, but they demand to remain judges of the limits within which these regulations must move.

Other States take account of the great diversity of interests of the different peoples with respect to the foreign population inhabiting their countries. Special notice has been taken of the division of nations into countries of emigration and countries of immigration in order to set forth more clearly the different treatments suitable of application to foreigners living there and belonging to neutral countries.

Such divergencies of situation can be reconciled only by special treaties between those interested.

Under these circumstances those who are interested in the regulation of the rights and duties of neutrals must ask themselves if for the future there is not something expedient to be done in behalf of the situation of these serious problems. Assuredly, we continue to place our hopes in the devotion of the men interested in the science of international law, and the Institute of Public International Law will of course continue to devote all its attention thereto. But is it not also the duty of the Conference to point out to the different interested Governments the fact that by the internal legislation of States and the conclusion of international treaties appropriate to the diversity of interests, many important items of detail for which the required unanimity could not be obtained to-day, will constitute a useful development and desirable advancement in determining the law of nations? Such measures will prepare for the future a basis of agreement which will permit later taking up again projects which to-day we have been obliged to abandon. If these views were shared by the Conference there would be ground for mentioning this opinion in the report to be presented to the plenary meeting. (Applause.)

[98] His Excellency Mr. Nelidow: The eloquent, almost affecting, words which have just been uttered by the eminent delegate of Luxemburg should be accepted very seriously by the Conference. If the vau expressed by his Excel

lency Mr. EYSCHEN cannot at present be made the subject of world-wide arrangements, it will certainly serve to prepare ways for the future. I shall add that it would be desirable to express the vau that this question may not escape the attention of the Governments in order that they may make provisions which leave no doubt with respect to the rights and duties of neutrals, thus taking the first step in the regulation of the condition of neutrals.

The President: I beg Mr. ExSCHEN to furnish me with the text of his vau which I equally applaud.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen: I shall arrange with the reporter as to the form to be given to this vau.1

The President: Gentlemen, may I put to a vote the vau proposed, omitting the wording? Since no opposition arises, the vau is unanimously adopted.

The Reporter: As mentioned in the report, the Commission has already decided to propose to the Conference a vou conforming to the first paragraph of the subsidiary amendment of the Luxemburg delegation, worded as follows: The maintenance of pacific relations, more especially of the commercial and industrial relations existing between the inhabitants of the belligerent States and neutral States, merits particular protection on the part of the civil and military authorities.

The President: Once more the approval of the whole assembly seems to be obtained, and I declare the proposition unanimously adopted; the drafting committee will assign it to its proper place.

His Excellency Mr. Nelidow: I can only warmly support a vau which so well expresses my sentiments and responds perfectly to my own ideas.

The President: It remains for me to thank you anew, gentlemen, and to state once more that our labors are ended.

The meeting adjourns at noon.

See the Final Act, vol. i, p. 689 [700].