of demanding the surrender of the refugees on board of them, and not the right of capturing them or even of turning them from their route or imposing upon them a fixed itinerary. The French delegation, influenced by an incident in the recent Russo-Japanese War, proposed that the shipwrecked, wounded, or invalids received on board a neutral war ship should not be surrendered to their enemy, but should be kept under guard. This proposition was adopted by the conference, on the ground that such refugees should receive treatment analogous to that accorded to combatants who take refuge in neutral territority. One other rule, adopted from the Geneva Convention as applied on land, was that after each combat the two belligerents, in so far as military interests permit, shall take measures for rescuing the shipwrecked, wounded, and invalids, and for protecting them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment; they shall also take care that the burial, immersion, or incineration of the dead be preceded by an attentive examination of the corpses. This last reference to the burial and incineration of the victims of maritime warfare was intended to cover the case of a battle fought near the coast on which the bodies of many victims would be found. C. THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF BELLIGERENTS a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899 The Russian programme contained no reference to the exemption of private property from capture in maritime warfare; but the United States government instructed its delegation to introduce the subject before the conference at the first favorable opportunity. An attempt was made in an informal meeting of the first delegates on the day after the opening of the conference to secure general consent to its introduction. But this attempt failed, owing to objections strongly urged by the representatives of Russia, Great Britain, and France. The chief objection urged was that, unless the programme were strictly adhered to, and every topic not included within it were rigidly excluded, the conference would find itself overwhelmed by the flood of topics pouring in upon it from outside sources and would end in confusion, discord, and failure. A good deal of private persuasion was required to convince most of the first delegates that an exception to this wise rule should be made in favor of the topic which the United States delegation had so much at heart. Finally when, in July, the II Commission adopted the rule that private property should not be confiscated in warfare on land, Ambassador White, of the United States, believed that the best opportunity had arrived, and he prevailed on the commission's president, Professor de Martens, of Russia, to read a letter on the subject which he had written to the commission. Professor de Martens said that he was happy to state that "as early as 1823 Russia had expressed its sympathy with the American idea, which has a right to the benevolent interest of the whole world." "But," he continued, "will it be possible to discuss here this important question? If this inviolability be admitted, the maritime states will have to change radically their plans and projects. The question is so complex that it will be very difficult to find, under present circumstances, a solution acceptable by every one; and a decision will have 124 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES under a neutral flag, but shall be surrendered on demand to a ship of war of either belligerent; in case no such demand be made, the men thus rescued are not to serve for the rest of the war, unless duly exchanged, and the government of the neutral rescuer must prevent as far as possible such persons from serving until discharged. Captain Mahan supported his proposition before the special committee of experts,1 in a two hours' session, but failed to secure its adoption, either by the committee or the commission. On being informed that a further attempt to secure its adoption would probably imperil the unanimity with which the other articles had been received, the United States delegation instructed Captain Mahan to withdraw his proposed additions; this he did by letter to the committee, and with a statement to the conference that the delegation's reason for doing so was “not because of any change of opinion as to the necessity of the proposed additions, but in order to facilitate the conclusion of the labors of the conference." b. The Conference of 1907 The conference did not modify the rules of 1899 as far as the religious, medical and hospital staff of captured ships was concerned; but it did amplify the rules concerning the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked soldiers and sailors of such ships. It provided that any belligerent war ship may demand the surrender of the sick, wounded, or shipwrecked on board military hospital ships, the hospital ships of charitable societies or individuals, and merchant ships, yachts, etc., whatever may be the nationality of such vessels. 1 This committee was composed of one member each from Great Britain, Germany, Russia, and France. When this rule was debated in the subcommission, it was admitted that a belligerent war ship, exercising its right of visit to such ships and finding disabled men on board, would often find it to its own advantage not to burden itself with them, but to leave them where they were found. But it was argued that, if it should appear that such disabled men, and especially those rescued from drowning, would still be able to render important services to their country, they should not be permitted to escape, but might be demanded by the belligerent war ship and must be surrendered to it. This belligerent right was conceded on the express ground that both the Conventions of 1899 and 1907 regard such men as prisoners of war, since, in spite of their physical condition, they are combatants of a belligerent nation and have fallen into the power of the enemy. It was also urged that to compel a neutral ship to surrender the wounded, whom it had received out of charity, would be an act of inhumanity. But to this objection the reply was made that international law would permit not only the seizure of hostile combatants found on board a neutral ship, but the seizure and confiscation of the ship itself, for having rendered a non-neutral service; and, further, that if men rescued from drowning, for example, could escape capture solely because they had found refuge on board a neutral ship, the belligerent powers would eliminate the charitable activity of neutrals from the moment that such activity might result in an irreparable injury to themselves, and that thus humanity would be an even greater loser in the absence of the rule. It should be noted that the rule as applied to neutral merchant ships gives to belligerent cruisers only the right 126 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES of demanding the surrender of the refugees on board of them, and not the right of capturing them or even of turning them from their route or imposing upon them a fixed itinerary. The French delegation, influenced by an incident in the recent Russo-Japanese War, proposed that the shipwrecked, wounded, or invalids received on board a neutral war ship should not be surrendered to their enemy, but should be kept under guard. This proposition was adopted by the conference, on the ground that such refugees should receive treatment analogous to that accorded to combatants who take refuge in neutral territority. One other rule, adopted from the Geneva Convention as applied on land, was that after each combat the two belligerents, in so far as military interests permit, shall take measures for rescuing the shipwrecked, wounded, and invalids, and for protecting them, as well as the dead, against pillage and ill treatment; they shall also take care that the burial, immersion, or incineration of the dead be preceded by an attentive examination of the corpses. This last reference to the burial and incineration of the victims of maritime warfare was intended to cover the case of a battle fought near the coast on which the bodies of many victims would be found. C. THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF BELLIGERENTS a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899 The Russian programme contained no reference to the exemption of private property from capture in maritime warfare; but the United States government instructed its delegation to introduce the subject before the conference |