[929] FIRST MEETING AUGUST 3, 1907 His Excellency Mr. Martens presiding. The President, in opening the meeting, recalls the mission of the committee and the object in view in the designation of the members thereof, who were appointed either in their capacity as members of the Bureau or the Fourth Commission, or as members of the committee: Mr. KRIEGE (Germany). Rear Admiral SPERRY (United States of America). His Excellency Mr. LARRETA (Argentine Republic). His Excellency Baron VON MACCHIO or Mr. HEINRICH LAMMASCH (AustriaHungary). His Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL (Belgium). His Excellency Mr. RUY BARBOSA (Brazil). His Excellency Mr. MATTE (Chile). Mr. LOUIS RENAULT (France). His Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW or his Excellency Lord REAY (Great Britain). Mr. GUIDO FUSINATO (Italy). His Excellency Mr. KEIROKU TSUDZUKI (Japan). His Excellency Mr. HAGERUP (Norway). Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK (Netherlands). Captain BEHR (Russia). His Excellency Mr. MILOVAN MILOVANOVITCH (Serbia). His Excellency Mr. HAMMARSKJÖLD (Sweden). Secretary: Mr. FROMAGEOT. With regard to the privilege accorded members of the committee to be replaced by one of the members of their delegation, the PRESIDENT requests that the substitute be admitted by the committee. [930] His Excellency Lord Reay asks that the substitute shall have the right to vote. This request is officially noted. The President proposes that the committee designate Mr. FROMAGEOT as reporter. With regard to the division of the work, the PRESIDENT thinks that the question of contraband of war, being one most difficult of solution, might advantageously be examined by a subcommittee composed of Mr. KRIEGE, his Excellency Mr. RUY BARBOSA, Mr. LOUIS RENAULT, his Excellency Lord REAY, Rear Admiral SPERRY, and Captain BEHR. The PRESIDENT informs the committee that it is to consider the question of the conversion of war-ships into merchant ships [sic]. With a view to facilitating the discussion, he has prepared a draft Convention, but before taking up the examination thereof, it is necessary to pass upon the place where conversion may be effected. It is agreed that conversion may be effected in the waters of the belligerent or of his allies, as well as in ports actually under his authority; but that it may not be effected in neutral ports. The point that is still in doubt is whether a belligerent may effect the conversion on the high seas. His Excellency Lord Reay cannot admit that conversion may be effected on the high seas. Mr. Guido Fusinato is of the same opinion, except, however, as regards vessels which left their national ports before the outbreak of hostilities. We must have regard for their special situation. They may be in distant waters, and they cannot be forced to reenter one of their national ports in order to be converted therein. Again, they cannot be suspected of bad faith, of attempting to deceive neutrals as to their character, which accusation may be brought against vessels which leave their ports for the purpose of conversion on the high seas.1 Captain Behr holds that conversion may be effected on the high seas. He cites the instance of a war-ship that captures an enemy merchant ship. The former must be allowed to convert the latter into a war-ship on the high seas and under the conditions required in such a case. Mr. Kriege fully concurs in the opinion of Captain BEHR. Jonkheer van Karnebeek states that in the opinion of the delegation of the Netherlands, the belligerent's right to convert a vessel on the high seas should not be recognized. It is a question of not reestablishing in a disguised form privateering, which was prohibited by the Declaration of 1856, and of protecting private property at sea, as far as the present legal system admits. It is necessary, therefore, to endeavor to limit the right of conversion. To this end. conversion cannot be permitted except in national ports and the ports of allies." The President replies that the conditions under which conversion may be effected are such as to exclude any danger of this kind. He insists upon knowing the reasons in law and justice in support of the prohibition of conversion on the high seas. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki is of the opinion that, as a matter of fact, there is no logical reason for prohibiting conversion on the high [931] seas, but from the point of view of neutral interests there are practical difficulties which it is essential to take into account. He likewise believes that this prohibition should be extended to allied ports, first, because the term ally is not sufficiently specific, and, secondly, because conversion is an act of sovereignty and may not be effected except in places where an act of sovereignty may be performed. This is not the case as regards ports of allies, in which a belligerent merely receives hospitality.3 The President believes that it would be difficult to limit the right of sovereignty on the high seas and that neutrals would find a sufficient guarantee in the notice that could be given them. Captain Behr thinks that it is indisputable that the facilities afforded for conversion will be an annoyance to neutrals, who will see the number of vessels |