convoy of evacuation, may arrest it, if military necessities demand, provided that he take care of the sick and wounded which it convoys."

The "red cross on a white ground," adopted as the distinctive emblem of hospitals, etc., in 1864, was retained in 1906; but, in order to emphasize the fact that the use has only a humanitarian, and not necessarily a religious, theological, or ecclesiastical significance, the rule was stated as follows: "Out of respect to Switzerland, the heraldic sign of the red cross on a white ground, formed by the inversion of the federal colors, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the sanitary service of armies." This emblem is to figure on the flags, arm bands, and all the material belonging to the sanitary service. It is to be worn on an arm band on the left arm, by the agents of the sanitary service, who are to carry also a certificate of identification; both the arm band and certificate are to be supplied and stamped by the competent military authority.

The distinctive flag of the Red Cross can be hoisted over only sanitary establishments and with the consent of the military authority. It should be accompanied by the national flag of the belligerent to whom the establishment belongs. But if military hospitals fall into the hands of the enemy, they should hoist no other flag than that of the Red Cross, so long as they are in such situation. The sanitary establishments of neutrals should hoist, with the flag of the convention, the national flag of the belligerent with whom they take service; and if they fall into the enemy's hands, they should hoist only the convention's flag, so long as they are in such situation.

The emblem of the red cross on a white ground, and the words Red Cross or Cross of Geneva, can be employed

whether in time of peace or in war time, only to protect or to designate the sanitary establishments, their personnel and equipment, which are protected by the convention. The signatory governments undertake to pass, or propose to their legislatures, laws sufficient to prevent at all times the said emblem and words from being used by individuals or societies other than those to whom the convention gives the right of so doing. This agreement was adopted for the expressed purpose of preventing a commercial use of the red cross emblem or words as a mark of manufacture or trade; and it was agreed that if the several governments did not secure requisite legislation for this purpose, the convention itself would be held to prohibit as illegal such use of the emblem and words.

Although there was a good deal of debate over the adoption of the thirty-three articles of the convention, the delegates from all the countries represented signed them all, with the exception of the three which forbade the use of the red cross emblem and words for any other purpose than that recognized by the convention. The British delegation alone withheld their signatures from these three articles, and they did so for the twofold reason that five or six years are necessary in Great Britain to pass a law, even a popular one, and that they were unwilling to promise that their government should undertake to pass any law.

There was one other measure adopted by the conference which lacked unanimity. This was not an article of the convention, but was the expression of the following desire (væu):

"The conference expresses the desire that, for the purpose of securing an interpretation and application as exact as possible of the

Convention of Geneva, the contracting powers shall submit to the Permanent Court at The Hague, if the cases and circumstances admit of such a procedure, the differences which, in time of peace, may arise between them in regard to the interpretation of the said convention."

The original of this proposition was made in the name of the government of Russia by Professor de Martens; it was amended by M. von Bülow, of Germany; and was supported by a number of delegates from other countries. M. von Bülow expressed the prevailing sentiment in the words:

“I am convinced that we can all adhere to this væu, and thus give to the world a fine proof of concord and harmony at the end of our humanitarian task. The Convention of Geneva and that of The Hague are sisters, destined to walk together along the path of civilization towards the triumph of justice and humanity."

All of the thirty-six delegations present in the conference voted for this vau, with the exception of those of Corea, Great Britain, and Japan.

C. THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

When the laws and customs of warfare on land were under discussion in the military subcommission of the II Commission, and the question of belligerents harbored by neutrals came up for consideration, M. Eyschen, of Luxemburg, seized the opportunity to emphasize the indefinite status of the rights and duties of neutrals in international law. He asserted that a precise definition of these rights and duties would be to the advantage of both neutrals and belligerents, and would facilitate the task in war time of

governments, parliaments, the press, and of every one else concerned.

A number of delegates gave hearty support to the importance and necessity of the task indicated by M. Eyschen, and the subcommission requested him to lay before it a statement of the precise points which might be considered by it with a definite result.

M. Eyschen performed this task at the next meeting, and in justification of the initiative which he as a representative of Luxemburg had taken in the matter, spoke of the peculiar situation in which Luxemburg had been placed by the Treaty of London of 1867. "That treaty," he said, “had desired to relieve Luxemburg of its former strategic importance. It decreed that Luxemburg should cease to be fortified; that from being a fortress it should be converted into an open place; that its fortifications should not be restored in the future; and that there should be neither maintained nor created in it any military establishment whatever. The country itself can have only the number of troops necessary to preserve good order."

The subcommission was again greatly impressed by the importance of the subject thus introduced; but, on consideration, it shared the doubts of President de Martens as to the possibility of accomplishing in a few weeks a task which the most eminent jurisconsults, like, for example, those of the Institute of International Law, had been unable to accomplish in the course of a quarter century. It adopted unanimously, however, the desire (veu) that “the question of the rights and duties of neutrals be inscribed on the programme of the next conference." This desire was adopted unanimously and without discussion by the commission and

the conference in plenary session; and the only phases of the question which were discussed and settled by the first conference had to do with the relation of belligerents in occupied territory to the property of railways coming into that territory from neutral states, and with the relation of neutral states to sick and wounded belligerents received within their territory. These rules, five in number, are given together with the rules regarding neutral rights and duties which were adopted by the Conference of 1907.

b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907

In compliance with the desire of the Conference of 1899, the Russian government placed upon its programme for 1907 the elaboration of a convention stating the rights and duties of neutrals on land. The subject was brought forward in a proposition containing four articles by the French delegation, and General Amourel, of that delegation, in presenting it said that it did not of course provide for everything needed, and that the powers would be obliged to add to it some regulations determining all the conditions in which they expected to exercise their neutrality; but that the adoption of the proposed rules would afford a point of departure, a definite basis, the same for all powers, well known in advance, and having the great advantage of originating in a free and calm discussion.

The convention which was adopted as the result of this discussion is divided into two parts: first, the rights and duties of neutral states, in relation to belligerents in time of war; and, second, the rights and duties of the citizens of neutral states residing within belligerent territory.