His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki does not admit that the prohibition can in any case refer to the transportation of troops. Rear Admiral Siegel asks what is meant by small it coasting trade? Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz replies that it does not include coasting trade, but only the boats which carry the catch of fish and those referred to in Rear Admiral HAUS's proposal.1 Rear Admiral Siegel asks further whether the fishing boats which benefit by the exemption include both sailboats and steamboats. Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz replies that they include only sailboats, the boats belonging to those engaged in fishing on a small scale, whose exemption is the result of humanitarian sentiments. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel then proposes that the term "fishing barks" be used. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki says that there are big sailboats. Rear Admiral Siegel considers it necessary to come to an agreement on the term "usual zone." The President notes that the committee is in agreement as to confining the benefits of exemption to sailing barks and rowboats, excluding steamboats. Jonkheer van Karnebeek says that the definition of "usual zone" requires also a definition of coastal fishing. The definition, which seems to be that of Mr. LOUIS RENAULT, namely, that coastal fishing is that carried on in territorial waters, seems to him too restrictive. In the first place, coastal fishing is carried on, as a matter of fact, outside of territorial waters. There are, moreover, French ordinances, among others those of 1854 and 1870, in which it is said: You shall not place any obstacle in the way of coastal fishing, even along the coasts of the enemy. That assumes, it would seem, that coastal fishing is not limited to the territorial zone. Coastal fishing appears to be rather that which is carried on anywhere at all and with any kind of boat by the population along the coast, and which constitutes the chief means of livelihood of this population. What distinguishes it from fishing on a large scale is that it is not, properly speaking, a real industrial enterprise, which would be beyond the means of this population. If a territorial limitation were placed upon the conception of coastal fishing, it would seem to be a backward step. Mr. Guido Fusinato thinks that this definition is a very difficult one to formulate. For his part, he is in favor of the form used in the Austro[971] Hungarian proposal, "engaged in the territorial waters." In order to prevent abuses of which they would be the first victims, it is necessary to lay out the limits within which vessels exempt from capture may carry on their business in time of war. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki says that in Japan small boats often go a long way. Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz cannot concur in Mr. GUIDO FUSINATO's opinion. There are spots along the coasts of various countries, Portugal among them, where the water is very deep; fishing boats cannot carry on their 1 Annex 50. calling there and are at times obliged to go as far as eight or even twelve miles. Even the law prohibits our fishermen to use dragnets in territorial waters. On the other hand, the tunny and sardine fisheries, in which vast business enterprises engage on a large scale, are carried on at more than three miles from the coast. The limitation of coastal fishing to territorial waters would therefore result, in time of war, in depriving these fishermen of their means of livelihood. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow shares this point of view. In many countries, in England for instance, fishermen are forced to go far beyond the bounds of the territorial zone; they go sometimes more than ten miles out into the English Channel. The term "coastal fishing" may be accepted; it excludes without any doubt the Newfoundland fisheries. Moreover, it would not be necessary to specify steamboats as not included among fishing boats, for a certain number of the latter use auxiliary steam motors. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel is of his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW's view, in so far as the zone within which immunity should be proclaimed is concerned. The protection should be extended to small barks, which fish not only in territorial waters, but in the waters near the coast as well. The question of vicinity is a question of fact; it must be passed upon by taking into account local conditions and the places where the fishermen are accustomed to ply their calling. Immunity covers all the operations of fishing; it therefore applies to the trip to the fishing ground, the stay of the boat in those waters, and the return or conveyance of the catch of fish to the coast. The expression "engaged in coastal fishing" seems to him clear and unequivocal. Mr. Guido Fusinato shares this view. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel recalls that the Belgian proposal on the immunity of private property at sea exempted from the right of capture not only fishing boats, but also the tackle on board and their catch of fish. He thinks that that goes without saying and need not be specifically stipulated. Captain Behr states that the exemption of fishing boats must admit of an agreement not to employ them for military purposes. This agreement should be put in the form of a proposal and printed and distributed. The President replies that such an agreement was the subject rather of a suggestion than of a formal proposal. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow says that to justify the exemption which it is proposed to establish for fishing boats, the Governments must bind themselves not to use them. [972] The President recalls that, as regards espionage, the distinction alluded to by his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW as to the complicity of the Government should be drawn. Rear Admiral Siegel asks, with respect to Article 4, whether to detain implies the right to keep for use for military purposes. Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz replies that Article 4 gives the belligerent the right to detain fishing boats for a certain length of time, to prevent them, for instance, from landing to convey information which might in certain cases aid in the success of military operations. Mr. Louis Renault proposes that the expression used in the convention on hospital ships be employed. It has a very broad meaning and gives very extensive powers to the commander of the naval forces. As this Convention is inspired by purely humanitarian sentiments, its spirit and form may well be used as a basis. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow agrees with Mr. Louis RENAULT and leaves the drafting of a text to the reporter. His Excellency Mr. Milovan Milovanovitch inquires whether the detained vessel may be requisitioned. He thinks that in the interest of the owners it is necessary to limit the time of detention and not to permit permanent detention upon payment of an indemnity. His Excellency Baron von Macchio recalls that the Austro-Hungarian proposal, while inspired by humanitarian sentiments, reserves to belligerents the right to requisition fishing boats. Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz thinks that it would be very difficult to determine the time limit in advance. The boats may be employed for the carrying of a message or for the transportation of wounded. It may also be desired to remove them from waters where there are torpedoes. Mr. Louis Renault does not think that it is necessary to fix a time limit, for there can be no doubt that the belligerent will release the boats as soon as he can. The President notes that the committee is in agreement upon the right of the belligerent to exercise a certain control over fishing boats, to force them to go away, to detain them for a certain time. He asks whether the committee is in favor of the right of requisition. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel, in spite of his desire to protect boats engaged in coastal fishing, does not think that they can be exempted from requisition. They are subject thereto just as small vehicles are on land. Whether in port or at sea, they remain subject to requisition by the State to which they belong and by the enemy belligerent in whose sphere of operations they happen to be. That is what is sanctioned by the Austro-Hungarian proposal. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow is not in favor of the right of requisitioning fishing boats, as it is not in harmony with the prohibition to employ them for military purposes. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel replies that these boats may be used for the carrying of a message, the transportation of wounded, and that there is no reason to give them the benefit of exceptional treatment which small vehicles on land do not receive. [973] His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow insists upon the necessity of not employing these boats, which, when all is said and done, constitute a negligible quantity. His Excellency Mr. Milovan Milovanovitch remarks that the humanitarian purpose in mind must not be lost sight of. If the committee admits the right of requisition, it disregards this purpose and deprives the owners of fishing boats of their means of livelihood. If it is the intention to allow them the opportunity of making a living, the belligerent must not be given the right to confiscate them or to requisition them permanently. The President considers this a question of principle which the committee must pass upon. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel points out that the rejection of the Austro-Hungarian proposal would result in the introduction of two special provisions for fishing boats: there would be a first provision which would recognize 1 Annex 50. inviolability of private property in their individual case, just as it is recognized in general on land; and there would be a second provision which would sanction for their benefit, contrary to the rule on land, exceptional treatment in the matter of requisitions. The President, having explained the two conflicting opinions, puts the question to vote. The right of requisition is adopted by a vote of 9 to 5. Rear Admiral Siegel inquires whether big sailboats with gasoline engines are included in the class of steamboats. It is his personal opinion that they should be. Captain Behr proposes that boats having a "mechanical motor " be excluded from the exemption. They are not the property of poor fishermen, there is no reason why they should benefit from the exemption. His Excellency Mr. Hagerup remarks that there are frequently small barks with gasoline or benzine motors, which, however, cannot be considered large boats. The exclusion of such boats from the exemption would render the Convention useless to Norway. Lieutenant Commander Ivens Ferraz says that there are also sailboats which have mechanical motors for auxiliary purposes. The President notes the agreement of the committee that steamboats be excluded from the exemption and that sailboats and rowboats receive the benefit thereof. His Excellency Baron von Macchio requests the inclusion of sailboats and rowboats with an auxiliary motor. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki is of the opinion that the question should not be settled by the Conference, but that the belligerent be left entirely free to decide to which class small steamboats belong. The President notes that the committee is of the opinion that it be left to the belligerent to decide questions of fact and proposes that a vote be taken at the next meeting on the text which the reporter will prepare, taking into account the Portuguese proposal,1 the Austro-Hungarian amendment, as well as the observations that will appear in the minutes of to-day's meeting. [974] Mr. Guido Fusinato asks that this text mention the proposal laid before the Commission by his Excellency Count TORNIELLI concerning vessels charged exclusively with scientific missions. His Excellency Mr. van den Heuvel seconds this proposal. His Excellency Mr. Hagerup remarks that the Austro-Hungarian proposal, in mentioning the right of requisition and the obligation of paying an indemnity, refers for the application of this right to the rules in force in land warfare. He supposes that Mr. LOUIS RENAULT will not approve this reference; but aside from this criticism in the matter of form, his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP does not consider an indemnity limited to the value of the boat sufficient. He thinks that, in order to satisfy the just observations of his Excellency Mr. MILOVAN MILOVANOVITCH, there should be added a supplemental indemnity to offset the loss of work, which might be estimated at 10 per cent. His Excellency Baron von Macchio and Rear Admiral Siegel have no objection to make to this proposal. Mr. Louis Renault remarks that this proposal will make the treatment of 1 Annex 49. * Annex 50. fishing boats still more exceptional and falls under the criticisms already made by his Excellency Mr. VAN DEN HEUVEL. His Excellency Mr. Keiroku Tsudzuki states that he does not concur in his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP's suggestion. His Excellency Sir Ernest Satow informs the committee of his intention to lay before it a proposal concerning the conditions under which fishing boats may be requisitioned. The President requests his Excellency Sir ERNEST SATOW to be good enough to file his proposal so as to admit of its discussion next Friday, together with the text to be drawn up by Mr. FROMAGEOT and the proposal that his Excellency Mr. HAGERUP is to present. |