B. THE GENEVA CONVENTION I. HOSPITAL SHIPS a. The Conference of 1899 The document referred to generally as "The Geneva Convention," or "The Red Cross Rules," was called officially "The Convention of Geneva for the Improvement of the Condition of Soldiers wounded in Armies in the Field." It consisted of ten articles, agreed to by the representatives of twelve sovereigns,1 and based on the desire expressed in its preamble, “to alleviate, in so far as they can, the evils inseparable from war, to suppress the useless hardships and improve the condition of soldiers wounded on the field of battle." It was due largely to the generous initiative of Switzerland, and was signed at Geneva by the representatives of the twelve sovereigns on the 22d of August, 1864. Four years later, October 20, 1868, the representatives of fourteen sovereigns' adopted at a conference in Geneva fifteen additional articles. Five of these were amendments to the earlier articles, and the other ten were designed "to apply to fleets the advantages of the earlier convention." It was to these articles that the fifth and sixth items of the Russian programme for the first conference referred 1 These were the sovereign rulers of the Netherlands, Baden, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Hesse, Italy, Portugal, Prussia, Switzerland, and Würtemberg. 2 All of the former sovereigns were represented, with the exception of those of Spain, Hesse, Portugal, and Prussia; and in place of these, were representatives from the North German Confederation, Austria, Bavaria, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey. in the words: "An application to naval warfare of the stipulations of the Geneva Convention of 1864, on the basis of the additional Articles of 1868; and a neutralization of ships and boats employed in saving drowning sailors during or after naval battles." But as only Articles VI to XV of the Convention of 1868 applied to naval warfare, these alone were taken up by the conference for discussion. This discussion was carried through a special committee of experts, a subcommission, the II Commission, and the conference; it lasted from May 25 to June 20, and was productive of some of the most useful results of the conference. The first step was to admit, without opposition, that it was desirable to apply the Geneva articles to naval warfare. This step was in itself of marked importance; for the articles of 1868 had remained a dead letter, and the difficulties of their application were obviously so great that it seemed impossible to several of the naval powers to accomplish anything in this direction at the Conference of 1899. But thanks to the liberal and resolute policy of a few of the largest naval powers, the desirability of the step was admitted and the conference proceeded to take it. The first difficulty was to define precisely the scope of the term "hospital ships." This term was given a generous scope and was made to include three kinds: 1. Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships constructed or assigned by states especially and solely for the purpose of assisting the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.1 1 The French word used here is naufragés, the nearest translation of which in English is shipwrecked; but it implies, not sailors wrecked by storm on coasts or rocks, but those who have been placed in danger of drowning as a result of naval combat. 2. Hospital ships equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized relief societies, and belonging to one of the belligerent nations. 3. Hospital ships equipped wholly or in part at the cost of private individuals or officially recognized societies of neutral nations. In addition to these three kinds of hospital ships, strictly so called, neutral merchantmen, yachts, or other non-military vessels, having or taking on board sick, wounded, or shipwrecked belligerents, were also exempted from capture for so doing. All of these four kinds of vessels are to be respected and exempt from capture, provided they fulfill certain conditions. The "military," or government, hospital ships must have their names communicated, before they are employed, to the belligerents; the private or semiprivate hospital ships belonging to belligerent nations, or to neutrals, must have commissions from their governments, and their names must be communicated to the belligerents before they are employed. All three kinds of hospital ships must afford relief to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked of the belligerents, irrespective of their nationality; they must not be used for any military purpose; they must not in any way hamper the movements of the combatants; they must act at their own risk and peril during and after an engagement; and the belligerents have the right to control and visit them, refuse their assistance, order them away, make them take a certain course, put a commissioner on board, or even detain them if important circumstances require it. And the neutral merchantmen and yachts are liable to capture for any violation of neutrality committed by them. To distinguish hospital ships from war ships, as well as to prevent their being used for military purposes, it was agreed that the "military," or government, hospital ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside, with a horizontal band of green about one and a half meters wide; that the private or semiprivate hospital ships belonging to the belligerents or to neutrals shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of red about one and a half meters wide; and that all hospital ships shall make themselves known by hoisting, together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the Geneva Convention. The discussion of these three questions - the meaning of "hospital ships," the restrictions imposed upon them, and their distinguishing signs-was an animated and interesting one. On the first point, Captain Schéine, of Russia, argued that by placing all hospital ships under the control of the admiral of one or the other of the belligerent fleets, the field of battle would not be invaded by ships of a private character. But, on the motion of M. Renault, of France, it was decided that private or semiprivate ships should be permitted, provided they were kept under the control of one or other of the belligerents. This was a very important decision, as it enables the hospital ships of the Red Cross Society and of other societies and individuals to participate in the work of rescue. The French delegates also prevented this participation from being restricted by a Russian proposal that all hospital ships should be constructed on such a model that they could not be used as ships of war; the French argument prevailed that the previous notice and other restrictions required of them would be sufficient to prevent fraud. It was also argued, by Captain Mahan, of the United States, among others, that neutral hospital ships and merchantmen had been conceded a status and immunities hitherto unknown and not now justifiable; and Captain Mahan went so far as to say: "Upon reflection I am satisfied that no necessity exists for the authorization of hospital vessels under a neutral flag upon the scene of naval war, and that the adhesion of our government to such a scheme may be withheld without injury to any one." But this restricted policy was rejected in the interests of humanity. On the other hand, no delegate proposed that a merchantman belonging to one of the belligerent powers, and having on board sick or wounded, should also be respected and exempt from capture; the committee reporting the resolutions commented on this fact as follows: "The consequence of this silence is that such ships remain under the rule of the common law, and hence are exposed to capture; this rigorous consequence appears to us only logical and in conformity with principles." As to conditions imposed on hospital ships, it was suggested that notification of their character should be made "before the opening of hostilities"; but this was rejected in favor of the phrase "before they are employed." This decision was made for the reason that it would be cruel to prohibit belligerents from developing their hospital service after war has commenced and in accordance with its exigencies. It was also argued that since "military," or government, hospital ships were to be exempt, by Article I, from the rules applying to men-of-war during their stay in neutral harbors, a notification of their names and use should be made to neutral states as well as to the belligerents themselves. But the reply was made that the dis |