The United States naval delegate, Admiral Sperry, was a member of the committee of examination which had special charge of the subject of belligerents in neutral waters, and took a part, though not a prominent one, in the debate. He stated that the American view of the subject is inspired above all by respect for neutrality and impartiality. Great Britain's plan formed the basis of the rules adopted, but this was based partly upon the Treaty of Washington of 1871 between the United States and Great Britain. The United States delegation cast its vote with Great Britain's and against Germany's in the two most debated questions, those of the fuel supply and the length of the stay in neutral ports.

2. Blockade

The question of blockade was not discussed by the Conference of 1899, nor was it mentioned in the Russian programme of 1907. But Professor de Martens, of Russia, president of the IV Commission of the second conference, introduced it among the series of questions which he formulated as the basis of the commission's deliberations. His questions concerning it were as follows: As to blockade in time of war, is there need of modifying the terms of the Maritime Declaration of Paris of 1856? Is it desirable to state in a formal convention

1

1 The Declaration of Paris of 1856 was issued by a congress representing France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia [Italy], and Turkey. It contained the four following rules: 1. Privateering is, and shall remain, abolished; 2. A neutral flag covers the enemy's merchandise, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral merchandise, with the exception of contraband of war, can not be seized under the enemy's flag; 4. Blockades, to be obligatory, must be effective, that is to say, they must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. This

the consequences, universally recognized, of the breaking of an effective blockade?"

In response to these questions, the Italian delegation presented a series of propositions designed to give as much liberty as possible to the commerce of neutrals with belligerents, by defining rigidly the meaning of an "effective" blockade, which alone, by the Declaration of Paris and the law of nations, can be considered binding upon neutral ships. In accordance with these propositions, a blockade is effective only when maintained by naval forces sufficient really to prevent the passage of ships, and stationed in such a way as to create an evident danger to ships which desire to attempt it.

The words stationed and evident, in the above definition, were designed to exclude blockade by cruisers and by submarine mines from the category of effective blockades, and were opposed, consequently, by Sir Ernest Satow, of Great Britain, who desired to substitute for them the words maneuvering and real.

The Italian propositions also aimed at the restriction of blockade by providing that a ship may be seized for violation of the blockade only at the moment when it is attempting to break the established lines. General Porter, of the United States delegation, opposed this restriction and proposed that any ship which, after a blockade has been duly announced, sets sail for a blockaded port or place, or which attempts to break the blockade, may be seized for violation of the blockade. The

declaration has been ratified by numerous other governments than those represented at the congress by several at the Hague Conference of 1907but not by the United States; the reason why the United States has not ratified it has been that, while abolishing privateering, it did not abolish the capture of the enemy's, as well as neutrals', private property on the sea.

Netherlands representative opposed General Porter's proposition on the ground that it was in line with the old fictitious, or "paper," blockade which has been superseded for half a century by an "effective" blockade, and that by permitting the seizure of a ship anywhere on the ocean, and before it has really attempted to break the blockade, as well as on the lines of actual blockade, it would be an unjustifiable detriment to neutral commerce.

The Italian propositions were supported by Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Greece, in Europe, and by Brazil and Argentina; while the British and American propositions were supported by Japan. In view of the marked difference between the "Continental" and the "Anglo-American" systems of blockade, and after a discussion of the question in both the commission and its special committee, it was decided that it was not possible for the existing conference to reach an agreement upon it. The committee, in reporting this decision to the commission, accompanied it with the hope that, in case of its further discussion being postponed, "a profound study of it by the governments may secure, in the near future, the sanction of a uniform practice which the commercial interests and the peace of the world demand."

The subject was not taken up again, but the conference evidently intended that it should be placed upon the programme of the next conference; for it is implied by the resolution adopted that the said programme shall include a regulation of the laws and customs of maritime warfare.

3. Contraband of War

This topic was not mentioned upon the Russian programme, but President de Martens, of the IV Commission, introduced it under the form of the following questions:

"Upon what is founded the right of belligerent powers to prohibit commerce in objects constituting contraband of war? Within what limits, of law and of fact, may this right be exercised by belligerents? Within what limits, of law and of fact, should this right be respected by neutrals?" In response to these questions, propositions were presented by the delegations of Great Britain, Germany, France, Brazil, and the United States.

The British proposition was the first to be presented, and was the most radical of all. It stated that the British government was "ready to abandon the principle of contraband in case of war between the Powers who shall sign a Convention to this effect"; and it provided that "the right of visit shall be exercised only for the purpose of proving the neutral character of the merchant ship." Lord Reay, of the British delegation, supported this proposition before the commission by a speech in which he argued that with changed conditions of warfare and commerce it has become the custom constantly to extend the definition of contraband of war, and thereby to increase the injury to neutral commerce; but that, at the same time, it has become increasingly more difficult, if not quite impossible, to prevent commerce in contraband. The enormous extension of transportation by land, thanks to steam railways; the progress of science which, by multiplying instruments of warfare on land and sea, has increased in an equal measure the number of articles

necessary for the operations of a fleet or an army; the great increase in the dimensions of a ship of modern commerce: such are the reasons why the old rules no longer accomplish the desired end of preventing neutrals from trafficking in contraband. Hence it is that the belligerent has been led to attempt the adaptation of old-time rules to modern conditions, and has only succeeded, in reality, in creating a condition of affairs which places excessive obstacles in the way of neutral commerce without gaining for himself an advantage equal to the wrong done to neutrals. Established usage permits at present a belligerent to declare, at the beginning of a war, what comprise the objects which he intends to treat as contraband of war, and to add others to the list in the course of hostilities. It is evidently in the interests of the belligerent to make a list as complete as possible, and it has often been done in terms so vague that the interests of neutral commerce have been injured beyond what is reasonable. After pointing out the difficulties of enforcement, and the danger to peaceful relations, of the present distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband, an argument which he based upon Great Britain's own experience as both belligerent and neutral since 1899,Lord Reay appealed to the commission to adopt the British proposition, and thus to abolish “a frequent cause of international differences" and to "contribute to the work of peace and justice which is the object of our efforts."

The German, French, and United States delegations proposed to define more clearly the meaning and liability of absolute and conditional contraband; and the Brazilians proposed to abolish the distinction between absolute and