fact constitute an unfortunate distinction between converted ships on the one hand and war-ships on the other. The amendment of the delegation of the United States of America is put to vote. Voting against this amendment: Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, Serbia, Sweden. Voting for it: United States of America, Great Britain, Portugal. The amendment is not adopted. ARTICLE 6 A belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a war-ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of war-ships. Article 6 is adopted without discussion. The President puts the project as a whole to vote. The project is unanimously adopted, except for Rear Admiral SPERRY'S reservation with regard to Article 5. 1 The order of business being exhausted. the President announces that Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK has just filed his report on the application to naval warfare of the provisions of the 1899 Convention concerning war on land. This report was drawn up in collaboration with his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT, President of the Second Commission, and propounds a series of questions to be decided by the committee at its next meeting on Monday, September 9. [1041] Annex INVIOLABILITY OF ENEMY PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA The status of enemy private property at sea is the second question which was entrusted to the Fourth Commission for examination. In 1899 the adoption of the principle of inviolability was proposed by the delegation of the United States of America. Its discussion at that time had been set aside, as not figuring in the program; but the vau had been expressed' to postpone the examination of it to a later Conference. In compliance with this vau the question has been included in the Russian program of April 6, 1906. In the questionnaire 5 prepared under the direction of our president, it was expressed in the following form: 'See report to the committee of examination annexed to the minutes of the thirteenth meeting of the committee; see also report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 259 [264]. 'Reporter, Mr. HENRI FROMAGEOT. See also the report to the Conference, vol. i, p. 240 [245]. Proceedings of the First Peace Conference, part i, pp. 46-49 [31-33], fifth plenary meeting, July 5, 1899. See vol. i, in initio. Post, Fourth Commission, annex 1; Questionnaire, question III. Should the practice now in vogue relative to the capture and confiscation of merchant ships under an enemy flag be continued or abolished? T 8 There were laid before the Commission by the delegations of the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Brazil," Denmark, Belgium and France ten propositions, declarations or amendments, to the examination of which the Commission devoted no less than six of its sessions, in whole or in part. In the meantime and during this long discussion, the Commission was happy to commend the declaration made on July 17 by his Excellency Mr. DE VILLA URRUTIA, first delegate of Spain, announcing that the Royal Government would henceforth adhere to the Declaration of Paris of 1856 in its entirety.10 [1042] The proposition of the United States of America, contemplating the absolute abolition of the right of capture, except in cases of the transportation of contraband or a violation of blockade, served as a basis for the exhaustive discussion of the question of inviolability. It was in these words: The private property of all citizens of the signatory Powers, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure at sea by the armed vessels or military forces of the said Powers. However, this provision in no way implies the inviolability of vessels which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of the above-mentioned Powers, nor of the cargoes of the said vessels. All the arguments in favor of inviolability were made with an eloquence and logical force which it would be difficult to surpass. The American delegation " mentioned especially the continuity of the so-tospeak historic doctrine of the United States from BENJAMIN FRANKLIN to President ROOSEVELT, from the negotiation of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain in 1783 and the conclusion of the treaty with Prussia in 1785 to the treaty of 1871 with Italy, the efforts made concerning the Declaration of Paris of 1856, the manifestations of public or parliamentary opinion. in Germany, the example supplied for more than forty years by the Italian code for merchant marine, the highest authority of the greatest political personages of England, the opinion of numerous eminent jurists in favor of the freedom of enemy commerce. The analogy with the rules prohibiting pillage in war on land, the trivial practical military advantage that the destruction of commerce gives nowadays, reasons of humanity, the unjustifiable disturbance of transactions which are of as much interest to all neutrals as to the belligerents themselves, the necessity Post, Fourth Commission, annex 10. 1907. 4 Ibid., annex 17 and minutes of the second meeting of the Commission, June 28, 1907. Ibid., annexes 12, 15 and minutes of the fourth meeting of the Commission, July 10, Ibid., annex 11. Ibid., annex 13. Ibid., annex 16. See ibid., minutes of second meeting, June 28, 1907; third meeting, July 5; fourth meeting, July 10; sixth meeting. July 17; seventh meeting, July 19; twelfth ineeting, August 7. 10 See Fourth Commission, sixth meeting, July 17, 1907. "Speech of his Excellency Mr. CHOATE (second meeting of the Fourth Commission, June 28, 1907) and of his Excellency Mr. URIAH ROSE (third meeting, July 5, 1907). of restricting fighting to the organized military forces of the belligerents and of excluding innocent private parties, the danger of provoking a spirit of vengeance and reprisal, were all set forth in a striking manner. The impossibility of admitting that war must be prevented or quickly terminated by making it as horrible as possible, the slight influence that commerce and the business world would really have in provoking or preventing war, the heavy burden of naval expenditures caused by the necessity of protecting commerce in case of war-nothing, it may be said, was omitted which might hold the attention. The delegations of certain countries-notably Brazil,' Norway, Sweden,3 and Austria-Hungary -likewise called attention to the continuity of their doctrine and their policy, and expressed an opinion in conformity with the proposition of the United States. 5 The delegation of China likewise supported it without restriction. [1043] The delegation of Germany, while admitting that it leaned towards the proposed inviolability, made the reservation that its adoption of this principle depended upon a preliminary understanding as to the problems arising from contraband of war and blockade. The delegation of Portugal declared that it supported this opinion." Finally, it is proper to state that among the Powers that declared themselves ready to adhere to the doctrine of the United States, a certain numbernotably the Netherlands, Greece, and Sweden 10-did not conceal their doubts as to the present possibility of a unanimous agreement. For reasons similar to those expressed in the German reservations, the delegation of Russia " remarked that, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, the question did not appear to be ripe practically, that its solution presupposed preliminary understandings and an experience which had yet to be gained, that in fact all that could be done at present was to maintain the status quo. The impossibility of separating the question of immunity from that of commercial blockade, the interruption of commerce, less cruel than the massacres caused by war, were the reasons which decided the British delegation,12 which, nevertheless, declared that its Government would be ready to consider the conclusion of an agreement contemplating the abolition of the right of capture, if such an agreement could further the reduction of armaments. The Argentine Republic 13 declared itself categorically in favor of the con See the speeches of his Excellency RUY BARBOSA (ante, second meeting of the Fourth Commission, June 28, 1907; third meeting, July 5, 1907). Declaration of his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP (third meeting, July 5, 1907). Declaration of his Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD (fourth meeting, July 10, 1907). 'Declaration of his Excellency Baron voN MACCHIO (second meeting, June 28, 1907; sixth meeting, July 17, 1907). 6 1907). 8 Speech of his Excellency Mr. FOSTER (fourth meeting, July 10, 1907). Speech of his Excellency Baron MARSCHALL VON BIEBERSTEIN (third meeting, July 5, Observation of his Excellency Marquis DE SOVERAL (third meeting, July 5, 1907). Declaration of his Excellency Mr. CLÉON RIZO RANGABE (third meeting, July 5, 1907). 12 Declaration of his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW (third meeting, July 5, 1907); of his Excellency Sir EDWARD FRY (ibid.); of Sir ERNEST SATOW (sixth meeting, July 17, 1907). 'Declaration of his Excellency Mr. LARRETA (third meeting, July 5, 1907; fourth meeting, July 10, 1907). 13 tinuance of the right of capture. Colombia1 declared that, whatever theoretical considerations might be advanced in favor of the abolition of the right of capture, this right offered an element of national defense, which, with due regard for its national interests, it could not give up. In the face of these divergent opinions, praiseworthy efforts were made to bring about the adoption of measures which would alleviate the unjustifiable hardships of present practice. Italy, while declaring that it upheld the principle, which it had sanctioned in its laws, expressed the desire, in case this principle could not yet be accepted by the Conference, that intermediate measures be presented and discussed before the discussion was closed. Brazil proposed that in connection with an agreement upon inviolability, which it desired to see reached, the Powers should agree to apply to naval warfare and property at sea the provisions of Articles 23, 28, 46, 47, and 53 of the Convention of 1899 respecting the laws and customs of war on land. Belgium proposed that, instead of striving for a result which there was little hope of reaching at present, the States should agree to lessen the [1044] hardships of capture, by substituting for confiscation simple detention or sequestration, to set the crews free, to prohibit the destruction of prizes, and, finally, to adopt a set of rules relative to the rights of belligerents in naval warfare as to enemy private property.5 6 In the same spirit the Netherland delegation, after having proposed that every vessel carrying a passport proving that it will not be used as a war-ship be exempt from capture, declared that it supported, with the reservation of a few modifications, the project submitted by the delegation of Belgium." Finally, the French delegation, indicating its entire sympathy with the liberal spirit of the proposed doctrine, declared that it was ready to support it if a unanimous agreement could be reached; but as such an agreement did not seem possible at present, and as the solution of this question depended upon the solution of other questions no less delicate, the French delegation proposed to condition the continuance of the present practice upon respect for the conditions of modern war as waged between State and State. This delegation remarked that, within these limits and from the point of view of law and equity, the hindrance or interruption of enemy commerce, as a means of paralyzing the business activity of the enemy, is perfectly justifiable, that this is a powerful means of coercion, and is legitimate so long as it is directed against the resources of the State and not against private individuals, and that it may not be a source of gain for individuals. With these considerations in mind, a double vœu was proposed wth a view to generalizing the abolition of the old custom of the capturing crews sharing in the prizes, and to making the States share in the losses resulting from capture. 1 Speech of his Excellency Mr. SANTIAGO PÉREZ TRIANA (ante, third meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 5, 1907). Declaration of his Excellency Count TORNIELLI (second meeting, June 28, 1907). Speech of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT (fourth meeting, July 10, 1907); of his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL (ibid.). See post, Fourth Commission, annex 14, previously cited. Declaration of his Excellency Vice Admiral RÖELL (fourth meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 10, 1907). 8 See minutes, sixth meeting, July 17, 1907. Speech of Mr. LOUIS RENAULT (third meeting, July 5, 1907). Such were the circumstances under which a vote was taken on this important question. The proposition of the United States of America (inviolability), which was first put to vote, obtained from the forty-four States represented, 21 yeas, 11 nays, 1 abstention, 11 States not answering on roll-call.1 In the absence of a sufficient number of votes to ensure a unanimous agreement, or at least an almost general agreement, the Commission took up the Brazilian proposition (assimilation to land warfare). As the consideration of this proposition resulted in an equal division of those voting and a large number of abstentions," the delegation of Brazil withdrew it.3 [1045] The Belgian proposition (substitution of sequestration for confiscation), after having received a majority when taken under consideration,* could not, upon the discussion of the articles, obtain a support which was considered sufficient, and the Royal delegation requested its withdrawal.5 In view of the diversity of opinions expressed, and in the hope of inducing all the delegations to vote for the same measure, the president of the Commission proposed that a vau be adopted to the effect that henceforth, at the beginning of hostilities, the Powers should declare of their own accord whether and under what conditions they had decided to renounce the right of capture. But even on this point objections were raised in various quarters, and this compromise vau was withdrawn. As a result the Commission had to pass upon the double vau proposed by the French delegation (abolition of sharing in the prize, and the State sharing in the losses by capture). This vau, in spite of an amendment proposed by the delegation of Austria-Hungary, likewise resulted in an indecisive vote and several abstentions." Such is the summary of the long discussion of one of the most important questions in the program of the Fourth Commission. I have endeavored to give a faithful account, without, however, taking up too much of your time. I 1 Minutes, sixth meeting, July 17, 1907. Thirty-three States out of the forty-four represented at the Conference took part in the vote. The twenty-one States that voted in favor are: Germany (with the above-mentioned reservations), United States of America, AustriaHungary, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Greece, Haiti, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey; the eleven States that voted against are: Colombia, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, Montenegro, Panama, Portugal, Russia, Salvador; Chile abstained. 2 See ante, minutes of the seventh meeting of the Fourth Commission, July 19, 1907. Twenty-five States took part in the vote. Thirteen States voted for; twelve States voted against. Declaration of his Excellency Mr. RUY BARBOSA (ibid.). Minutes, seventh meeting, July 19, 1907. Twenty-eight States took part in the vote: twenty-three States voted for; three States voted against; two States abstained. Minutes, seventh meeting, July 19, 1907. Thirty States took part in the vote on Article 1 of the proposition. Fourteen States voted for; nine States voted against; seven States abstained. See the declaration of withdrawal of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT (ibid.). 6 Speech of his Excellency Mr. MARTENS, president, (seventh meeting, July 19, 1907). 7 Post, Fourth Commission, annex 16. Minutes, twelfth meeting, August 7, 1907. The first part of the vau tending to generalize, in the laws of the various countries, the abolition of the right to share in prizes allowed captor crews gave rise to the following vote: thirty-four States took part in the vote; sixteen States voted for; four States voted against; fourteen States abstained. The second part, tending to have introduced in the various legislations the principle of the State's sharing in losses by capture, gave rise to the following vote: thirty-four States took part in the vote; seven States voted for; thirteen States voted against; fourteen States abstained. |