Page images
PDF
EPUB

pean states, to be held in conformity with a custom not unusual with them, but not in accordance with the habits or policy of this Government;" and (2) that, even had it been consistent with the policy of the United States to take part in the congress, the official invitation was received too late to permit the sending of a representative and the preparation of suitable instructions.

Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to the diplomatic officers of the United States, circular, July 27, 1874, MS. Circulars, I. 666.

The programme of the Hague Conference, as embodied in the Russian circular of Dec. 30, 1898, contained the following article:

"7. Revision of the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war elaborated in 1874 by the conference of Brussels, and not yet ratified."

The American delegates to The Hague were instructed to give their earnest support to "any practicable propositions" based on this article.

A convention on the subject was adopted by the conference. The American delegates, although they approved the convention, thought it best to withhold their signatures and to refer it to their Government, with the recommendation that it be submitted to the proper authorities for special examination and signed, unless such examination should disclose imperfections not apparent to the American commission. It was afterwards signed by the United States, ratified, and put into operation.

See For. Rel. 1899, 511, 512, 516.

The convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land signed at The Hague July 29, 1899, by the plenipotentiaries in the peace conference refers in its preamble to the Brussels conference of 1874. It is in reality like all other international arrangements on the same subject since that time, but a revision of the project adopted by the Brussels conference, a body whose discussions and conclusions were marked by high intelligence and great practical wisdom. The Hague convention does not purport to provide for all cases and to cover all questions that arise in the conduct of war. In this relation, however, it declares that it is not the intention of the contracting parties that the cases not provided for shall be left to the arbitrary judgment of the military commanders," but that " until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued," the " populations and belligerents," in the cases not included in the convention, “remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public conscience."

For the proceedings of the Brussels Conference and correspondence relating thereto, see British Parl. Papers, Miscellaneous, No. 1 (1874), No. 2 (1874), No. 1 (1875), No. 2 (1875), No. 3 (1875).

"ARTICLE I. The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land' annexed to the present Convention.

"ARTICLE II. The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in Article I are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of them.

"These provisions shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the belligerents."

“ARTICLE IV. Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to adhere to the present Convention.

"For this purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written notification, addressed to the Netherlands Government, and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

"ARTICLE V. In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, such denunciation would not take effect until a year after the written notification made to the Netherlands Government, and by it at once communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.

"This denunciation shall affect only the notifying Power." (Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. II. 1808–1809.)

XV. INDIAN WARS.

§ 1165.

The question whether an Indian tribe, some of whose members have committed depredations upon the property of persons subject to the authority of the United States, was "in amity" with the United States, within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1891 (26) Stat. 851), so as to entitle the claimants to a judgment against the United States and the tribe for the value of the property, is a question of fact, depending upon whether the tribe was in the relation of actual peace with the United States, and not upon whether there was a subsisting treaty between it and the United States which had never been formally abrogated by a declaration of war by either party.

Marks v. United States, 161 U. S. 297.

The existence of hostilities and military operations constitutes an Indian war, without formal declaration by Congress or proclamation by the President.

Marks v. United States, 28 Ct. Cl. 147.

Where a party of bad white men or bad Indians engage in rapine or murder, and the rest of the community or tribe do not take up arms, it is crime, not war; but where every man on the one side is ready to kill any man on the other, and military operations take the place of peaceful intercourse, amity ceases to exist, and the purpose of the statute allowing indemnity is at an end.

Dobbs v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 308.

The treaty of the Creek Nation with the rebel government abrogated the treaty with the United States, and the provisions in the treaty of 1866, wherein the United States reaffirmed and reassumed all obligations existing under the earlier treaty, can not be held to cover the period during which the Creeks were in rebellion.

Connor v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 675.

A public war, within the Constitution and the rules and articles of war, has existed with the Seminoles since the day Congress recognized their hostilities and appropriated money to suppress them.

Butler, At. Gen., 1838, 3 Op. 307.

[blocks in formation]

1. The American Revolution. § 1166.

2. War of 1812. § 1167.

3. Bombardment of Greytown. § 1168.

4. Crimean war. § 1169.

5. Bombardment of Valparaiso. § 1170.

6. British-French discussions, 1882-1888. § 1171.

7. Chilean revolution, 1891. § 1172.

8. Rules of the Institute of International Law, 1896.

9. Discussions in The Hague Conference. § 1174.

II. MINES AND TORPEDOES. § 1175.

III. CUTTING OF CABLES. § 1176.

IV. PRISONERS. § 1177.

V. TREATMENT OF SICK AND WOUNDED. § 1178.

VI. COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.

1. Right of neutrals to trade. § 1179.

2. Rule of 1756; "continuous voyages." § 1180.

3. Prohibition of trade between enemies. § 1181.

4. Acceptance of enemy's license or protection. § 1182.

[blocks in formation]

6. Corporations. § 1194.

IX. EXEMPTIONS FROM CAPTURE.

1. Goods on neutral vessels. § 1195.

2. Vessels in or sailing for port at outbreak of war.

3. Particular exemptions. § 1197.

4. Proposed general immunity. § 1198.

X. VISIT AND SEARCH.

1. A belligerent right. § 1199.

2. Mode of exercise. § 1200.

3. Mail steamers and mails. § 1201.

§ 1173.

§ 1196.

L

[blocks in formation]

7. Sending in of prize; duty to send in; question of destruction. § 1212.

[blocks in formation]

During the year 1776 John Paul Jones, in command of the sloopof-war Providence, 14 guns and 107 men, on a cruise ranging from the Bermudas to Nova Scotia, made several incursions ashore for the purpose of seizing British stores, releasing American prisoners, and destroying British shipping."

Two descents were made by Jones on the British isles, at Whitehaven and St. Mary's Island. The purpose of the descent at Whitehaven was the destruction of the shipping; of that at St. Mary's Island, the seizure of the Earl of Selkirk as a hostage for the better treatment of American prisoners then in England. The Earl was not at home at the time. Plate, taken from his castle by some of the landing party, was afterwards restored by Jones at his own expense. Whitehaven was defended by two small forts. As to the case of the Earl of Selkirk, Mr. Buell, Jones's biographer, expresses the opinion that "a project to seize the person of a noncombatant nobleman with a view of holding him as a hostage or of coercing him to use his

• Buell, Paul Jones, Founder of the American Navy, I. 52; Captain Mahan, Scribner's Magazine, July, 1898, XXIV. 22,

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »