opposed. The opposition argued that the laws of war on land permitted the neutral nation to send sick and wounded soldiers back to their own land; that the laws of war on the sea permitted belligerents to send their sick and wounded captives back to their own land; that it would be an infringement on the rights of neutrals to compel them to bear the burden of guarding belligerent guests during the whole course of the war; and, finally, that an epidemic of disease might break out in the port or town of their detention, in which case at least the neutral state should be free to send its guests home.

The supporters of the rule replied to these arguments that shipwrecked sailors were not so harmless as wounded soldiers, and neutral states receiving them should prevent their reëntry into the war; that there is a great difference between one of the belligerents restoring captives to their own country and a neutral state doing the same thing, since "the neutral is less competent to decide on their condition than is the belligerent"; that the burden of guarding sailors would be far less than that of guarding soldiers, since very few sailors would be landed in a neutral country in comparison wi h the large number of soldiers who would find their way to a neutral country after a land battle; and that the expenses incurred by a neutral state in caring for and guarding the belligerents it receives must be paid by the state to which they belong.1 A vote was taken on the rule, after this prolonged discussion, and resulted in its adoption by ten delegations against nine.2

1 This last provision was made a part of the rule as adopted.

2 It is to be noted that three of the ten delegations voting "aye" signed the convention at the end of the conference only on the condition of complete liberty of action so far as this rule was concerned; the United States, which was one of the nine delegations voting "no," also signed it under the same condition.

This vote in its favor was so indecisive that, at a subsequent meeting, it was decided to add the proviso that the rule would be operative on neutral countries only "in the absence of a contrary arrangement between the neutral state and the belligerents." This proviso was based on the supposition that belligerents would be so anxious to have their sick, wounded, and shipwrecked received by neutral states that they would make arrangements for their return to their own homes and thus relieve the neutral states of the burden of guarding them. This modification of the rule induced all but one of the nine delegations voting "no" to accept the rule and sign the convention. The other one, the United States, signed the convention, but excluded this rule; and Germany, Great Britain, and Turkey did the same.1

The United States naval representative, Captain Mahan, believed that the articles as adopted by the special committee, the subcommission, the commission, and the conference omitted an important topic, that, namely, of the rescue of belligerents by neutral vessels which chanced to be present on the arena of combat. This topic was suggested to Captain Mahan by the case of the rescue of the captain and men of the "Alabama" by the British yacht "Deerhound." In order to prevent a similar escape of a commander in chief and other important officers from the hands of a victorious belligerent through the intervention of a neutral boat, Captain Mahan proposed in the subcommission that men rescued by neutral vessels of any kind, hospital ships or others, shall not be considered

1 It was arranged in 1900 that the convention could be signed by these four countries, and that where this rule (Article X) should appear, there should be inserted the word “Exclu,” excluded.

114

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES

tinguishing marks of a hospital ship would be sufficient notice of its character when entering a neutral port; although it was admitted that it would be desirable for such notices to be inserted in the official journals of the belligerents, so that all the world might be informed.

In order to insure to the belligerents the efficient control of the private or semiprivate hospital ships fitted out by neutrals, it was urged (by Captain Mahan, among others) that such vessels, "being engaged in service identical with that of belligerent hospital vessels to which it was proposed to extend the utmost possible immunity, should frankly enter the belligerent service by hoisting the flag of the belligerent to which it offered its services. This being permitted by general consent, and for purposes purely humanitarian, would constitute no breach of neutrality, while the control of either belligerent, when in presence, could be exercised without raising those vexed questions of neutral rights which the experience of maritime warfare shows to be among the most difficult and delicate problems that belligerents have to encounter." This proposition was opposed vigorously by Captain Siegel, of Germany, who argued that "to compel such vessels to hoist a foreign flag would be an act incompatible with the sovereignty of the state to which they belong, an act which could be deemed but little friendly by the power not favored, and which would even constitute, perhaps, a violation of strict neutrality to the advantage of one of the belligerents." This view of the question prevailed, and all hospital ships were permitted to carry the flag of their own country.

When the question as to the distinctive flag for hospital ships arose in the subcommission, the representative of

Turkey said that in all cases where Turkish hospital ships have to perform their mission, the emblem of the Red Cross would be replaced by the Red Crescent; he said in addition that, since Ottoman ships of war have always respected the Red Cross as the emblem of the Geneva Convention, he would express the desire that by way of reciprocity the Red Crescent should be assured the same respect. The representative of Siam said that his government places beside the Red Cross, on the flag of the Geneva Convention, an emblem sacred in the Buddhist religion, also in red and called "The Flame." And at a later meeting of the full commission the representative of Persia made the following declaration:

"In accordance with instructions which I have just received from Téhéran, I am directed to inform the commission that the Persian Government will claim, as a distinctive flag, a white flag with the Red Sun. The adoption of the Red Cross as the emblem of hospitals was an act of courtesy on the part of the governments signing the Geneva Convention towards the honorable government of Switzerland, whose national flag was adopted, with the colors reversed. We should be happy to extend the same mark of courtesy to the honorable government of Switzerland, if that were not impossible because of agitations which would result from it in the Mussulman army."

Captain Mahan, of the United States, remarked that the emblem of the Red Cross has a religious character which is addressed particularly to Christian states, and he thought that it would be better to adopt another one which would be recognized by all. But the president of the subcommission remarked that it was not competent to enter on the discussion of a proposition tending to revise a clause of the Geneva Convention. This view prevailed, and the conference adopted the Red Cross as the

emblem of hospital ships, but recorded the declarations of Turkey, Siam, and Persia regarding it; and these three governments signed it as adopted.

1

b. The Conference of 1907

The last item on the Russian programme for the second conference was "the additions to be made to the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the Convention of Geneva of 1864, revised in 1906." This topic was assigned to the second subcommission of the III Commission, and was the first topic completed by the conference. When it came up for discussion, the delegations from Germany and France proposed modifications of detail in the former convention, while certain other delegations, notably that of the Netherlands, proposed modifications in its principles.

As to the kind of vessels to be used for hospital purposes, it was decided that, instead of permitting neutral merchantmen, yachts, and other non-military boats to take on board the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked, and then to hold them exempt from capture [as was done by Article VI of the former convention], belligerents should be given the right of requesting them to do so, and that only in case they acted upon such request, and not on their own initiative, were they to be given "special protection and certain immunities." This restriction of the charitable activity of neutral vessels was defended on the ground that such rescue work is not a right conceded to neutral ships by international law, or by logic or humanity; but that to request it should be a right conceded to belligerents

1 For this revision, see later, page 193.