which they would not be slow to exercise, and that humanity would dictate compliance with the request on the part of neutral vessels.

In regard to distinguishing marks, it was decided that hospital ships should hoist at night three lights, green, white, green, placed vertically one under the other; and when to this plan the objection was made that it would betray to the enemy the maneuvers of the fleet with which the hospital ships sailed, it was decided that this distinctive sign should be used only in time of battle. The question of the flag under which neutral hospital ships should operate gave rise in the second conference as in the first to considerable discussion. M. Renault, of

France, argued in favor of the independence of such ships being maintained by the use of the flag of the neutral nation; but the belief prevailed that such independence would result in serious interference with the military rights of belligerents. It was accordingly decided that neutral hospital ships complying with the request of a belligerent to render aid should hoist that belligerent's flag, together with the Red Cross flag, and be submitted. to the belligerent's control. This was the proposition which was supported in 1899 by Captain Mahan, of the United States, and by several other delegates, and which was vigorously and successfully opposed by Captain Siegel, of Germany. In the 1907 conference, Captain (now Admiral) Siegel admitted that in view of the latitude given to neutral hospital ships in regard to their armament, their personnel, and their use of wireless telegraphy, it would be desirable that the belligerent flag should replace that of the neutral nation.

As to the armament of such ships, it was voted that

"they have no need of other cannon than those which are requisite for the making of signals."

The use of radiography on board hospital ships was permitted in the interest of efficiency; and the argument that it might be used to send dispatches injurious to the belligerent was met by the statement that the removal of radiographic apparatus, by order of the commander of a belligerent force, would be very easy, and that it would be possible also to receive messages by means of it and at the same time to prevent their being sent.

The Turks and the Persians reserved the right of replacing the Red Cross by the Red Crescent and the Red Lion (or the Red Sun), respectively; and their appeal for reciprocity in this regard was accepted, not by the conference as a whole, but by several separate delegations. Great Britain accepted their appeal in a plenary session of the conference, and Russia, in accepting it in a reunion of the commission, recalled the fact that "during the war of 1877-1878 the Red Cross and the Red Crescent acted together in protecting the humanitarian interests of which they are the symbols."

2. THE PERSONNEL OF CAPTURED SHIPS

a. The Conference of 1899

The articles of the Geneva Convention have to do with two classes of persons on board captured ships; namely, the religious, medical, and hospital staff, and the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors.

The conference decided that the religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured ship should be inviolable and that its members must not be made prisoners of war; that

on leaving the captured ship they may take with them their private property, including their scientific instruments; that this staff shall continue to fulfill its functions as long as it is necessary, and that it can then leave the ship when the commander in chief considers it possible; and that the belligerents must guarantee to the staff that has fallen into their hands the enjoyment of their emoluments intact.

In the debate on this article, a delegate from Japan asked if the emoluments referred to were meant to be those accorded by the government of the captured or the captor ship, and argued that they should be those of the captor. But a delegate from France replied that if this view prevailed, emoluments in certain cases would be nothing at all, and that it would be simpler and more just to assure to the staff its accustomed emoluments. An Austrian delegate argued that it would cause great inconvenience to restore the staff to liberty, and that it should be kept under the surveillance of the commander in chief; but the principle was insisted upon that it should be considered inviolable, and its members not held as prisoners of war, but should be permitted to leave the ship as soon as possible. The commander in chief was to decide when this time had arrived, but he should act wholly under the idea that he was not dealing with prisoners of war, and did not have the power of dealing with them capriciously. Captain Mahan's suggestion, that “a time should be fixed after which the staff should necessarily be liberated," was not adopted.

Sick, wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors, to whatever nation they belong, must be protected and cared for by their captors, but they are regarded as prisoners of war; the captor must decide, according to circum

stances, whether it is best to keep them, or to send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral port, or even to one of their own ports; and in the last cited case, prisoners thus restored to their country can not serve again during the continuance of the war, unless duly "exchanged."

In making these rules the conference refused to use the term "victims of maritime war," and accepted that of "sick, wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors." This was done on the motion of delegates from Japan and Turkey, who said that during the recent Chino-Japanese and Greco-Turkish wars, sick and wounded soldiers belonging to land armies were captured while being transported by sea. The phrase adopted includes all sick or wounded soldiers and sailors found on board captured ships, whether their sickness or wounds were incurred before or after coming on board. The use of the word "captor" was also objected to, since it might exclude the sick and wounded on board hospital ships and neutral merchantmen which are exempt from "capture"; but on the motion of Captain Schéine, of Russia, it was decided that " 'capture" in such cases would be accomplished by a mere "visit," made by a war ship to them.

As to the status of "prisoner of war" which was retained for the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked, the objection was made that it is a useless and cruel one. But the reply was made and accepted that the fundamental principle to be applied is that "a belligerent has in his power hostile combatants; it matters little that they are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, or that they have been taken on board a vessel of any particular kind. They must be treated humanely, of course, this is also a fundamental principle; but they are the prisoners of their captor."

A delegate from Siam objected to the proviso that the captor may send such prisoners to one of their home ports, saying that it had no practical use. But it was shown that such a course might be taken when there was no other port near, or when the prisoners were very seriously ill or wounded. Both humanity and interest would dictate such a course; for the captor would burden neither himself nor his country with the hopelessly sick or wounded. The Siamese motion that this clause be stricken out was accordingly rejected. A Japanese motion, that the word "serve" be replaced by "take up arms again," was also rejected; although it was conceded that the sick and wounded captured by the enemy and restored to their country could only serve in civil offices, ambulance corps, etc., and not as combatants, unless duly exchanged.

In the case of the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick landed at a neutral port, it was provided that they could be so landed only with the consent of the neutral state; but that once landed there, they must be guarded by the neutral state so that they can not again take part in the war. This rule led to an animated debate, was adopted by a bare majority of the delegations, and was rejected by a number of important governments who signed the convention only on the condition that this article be inoperative in so far as they were concerned.

The first part of the rule was accepted by every one. A neutral country does not break the laws of neutrality by receiving such guests; but they can not be forced upon it by the belligerents: humanity and its own wishes alone can dictate their reception. But the second part of the rule, that the neutral nation, once receiving them, must prevent their taking part again in the war, was strongly