from the present convention, this notification shall Chapter V have its effect only after it has been made in writing to the Government of The Netherlands and communicated by it immediately to all the other Contracting Powers. This notification shall have no effect except for the Power which has made it. and ratifica This treaty was signed on July 29 by the repre- Signatures sentatives of sixteen Powers; namely, Belgium, Den- tions. mark, Spain, the United States of America, the United States of Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria. It has since been signed and ratified by all the Powers represented at the Peace Conference. The United States Senate, on February 5, 1900, ratified it unanimously. On September 4, 1900, the solemn deposit of the Deposit of ratifications took place in the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs at The Hague, and the first steps toward the organization of the Court were taken. ratifications. ments to the At that time the Russian members of the Inter- First appointnational Court of Arbitration had been announced, Court. comprising M. de Martens, Count Mouravieff, Minister of Justice and brother of the late Minister of Foreign Affairs who signed the call for the Conference, M. Fritsch, President of the Senate, and M. Pobyedonoszeff, Procureur-General of the Holy Synod. It was also announced that President McKinley had appointed Ex-Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland as two of the American members of the Court; the latter however declined, while the former accepted the appointment. The policy of the United States. CHAPTER VI THE IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE THE Government of the United States of America has for many years advocated the exemption of all private property, not contraband of war, from capture on the high seas. Considering that the chief reason for the calling of the Peace Conference was the burden and cruel waste of war, which nowhere affects innocent private persons more severely or unjustly than in the damage done to peaceable trade and commerce, especially at sea, the American Government considered that the question of exempting private property from destruction or capture on the high seas was evidently a most proper one for consideration. Accordingly, the American representatives were authorized to propose to the Conference the principle of extending to strictly private property at sea the immunity from destruction or capture by belligerent Powers which such property already enjoys on land, as worthy of being incorporated into the permanent law of civilized nations. 1 A compilation of expressions of opinion on the subject on the part of public men and the press in the United States, edited by Charles Henry Butler, Esq., was printed by the Department of State in pamphlet form, and a copy was sent to each member of the Conference. the way. An informal inquiry, made in the early days of Chapter VI the Conference, soon convinced the American Com- Difficulties in missioners that it would be impossible to secure unanimity upon this question. It was even contended that the subject itself was not germane to the discussions, as it had not been expressly mentioned in the circular of Count Mouravieff of December 30, 1898. This contention was vigorously combated by the American representatives in private discussions with other delegates, and finally the following communication was addressed to the President of the Conference: "JUNE 20, 1899. Memorial of the American "TO HIS EXCELLENCY, M. DE STAAL, Ambassador, Commission. etc., etc., President of the Peace Conference. "Excellency,-In accordance with instructions from their Government, the Delegation of the United States desire to present to the Peace Conference, through Your Excellency as its President, a proposal regarding the immunity from seizure on the high seas, in time of war, of all private property except contraband. "It is proper to remind Your Excellency, as well as the Conference, that in presenting this subject we are acting not only in obedience to instructions from the present Government of the United States but also in conformity with a policy urged by our country upon the various Powers at all suitable times for more than a century. "In the Treaty made between the United States and Prussia in 1785 occurs the following clause: — Chapter VI the American "Tous les vaisseaux marchands et commerçants, Memorial of employées à l'échange des productions de différents Commission. endroits, et, par conséquent, destinés à faciliter et à répandre les nécessités, les commodités et les douceurs de la vie, passeront librement et sans être molestés. ... Et les deux Puissances contractantes s'engagent à n'accorder aucunes commissions à des vaisseaux assurés en course, qui les autorisent à prendre ou à détruire ces sortes de vaisseaux marchands ou à interrompre le commerce.' (Art. 23.) "In 1823 Mr. Monroe, President of the United States, after discussing the rights and duties of neutrals, submitted the following proposition: "Aucune des parties contractantes n'autorisera des vaisseaux de guerre à capturer ou à détruire les dits navires (de commerce et de transport), ni n'accordera ou ne publiera aucune commission à aucun vaisseau de particuliers armé en course pour lui donner le droit de saisir ou détruire les navires de transport ou d'interrompre leur commerce.' "In 1854 Mr. Pierce, then President, in a message to the Congress of the United States, again made a similar proposal. "In 1856, at the Conference of Paris, in response to the proposal by the greater European Powers to abolish privateering, the Government of the United States answered, expressing its willingness to do so, provided that all property of private individuals not contraband of war, on sea as already on land, should be exempted from seizure. "In 1858, under the administration of Mr. Bu chanan, then President, a Treaty made between the Chapter VI United States and Bolivia contemplated a later agree ment to relinquish the right of capturing private property upon the high seas. "In 1871, in her Treaty with Italy, the United States again showed adhesion to the same policy. Article 12 runs as follows: "The High Contracting Parties agree that, in the unfortunate event of a war between them, the private property of their respective citizens and subjects, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or by the military forces of either party; it being understood that this exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of either party.' "It may be here mentioned that various Powers represented at this Conference have at times indicated to the United States a willingness, under certain conditions, to enter into arrangements for the exemption of private property from seizure on the high seas. "It ought also to be here mentioned that the doctrine of the Treaty of 1871 between Italy and the United States had previously been asserted in the Code of the Italian Merchant Navy as follows: "La capture et la prise des navires marchands d'un État ennemi par les navires de guerre seront abolies par voie de réciprocité à l'égard des États qui adoptent la même mesure envers la marine marchande |