The bureau of information, provided for in 1899, was made the subject of a Japanese and a Cuban amendment, both of which were unanimously adopted without discussion (Article 14). They charged the bureau with the additional duty of keeping a record of the prisoner's registration numbers, name and forename, age, place of residence, rank, corps, date and place of capture, confinement, parole, exchange, escape, admission to hospitals, wounds, disease, and "all other particulars," and of forwarding this record to the prisoner's own government after the conclusion of peace.

3. MEANS OF INJURING THE ENEMY

a. The Conference of 1899

The conference first established, without opposition or discussion, the general principle that "belligerents have not an unrestricted right of adopting means of injuring the enemy" (Article 22).

It then recognized the validity of special treaties which prohibit certain of these means, and enumerated seven upon which it placed its own prohibition. These seven are as follows: 1. The use of poison or poisoned arms; 2. The treacherous killing or wounding of individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; 3. The killing or wounding of an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion; 4. The declaration that no quarter will be given; 5. The use of arms, projectiles, or materials of a nature to cause superfluous injury; 6. The improper use of a flag of truce, a national flag, military ensigns, or the enemy's uniform, as well as of the distinctive signs

of the Geneva Convention; 7. The destruction or seizure of the enemy's property, unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of war (Article 23).

These seven prohibitions were adopted unanimously, and with very little discussion. The Brussels rule used the word "murder " instead of "killing" in the second and third prohibitions; the Hague Conference substituted the milder word, and also added "wounding," which the Brussels rule did not include. General Order No. 100 prescribed the death penalty for killing or wounding a disabled enemy; but the Hague convention leaves penalties to the belligerent's own laws. The Hague rule in regard to quarter is more drastic than that of the United States, which permitted the declaration of “no quarter” as a retaliatory measure and in the special case where a commander believes himself in such great straits that his own salvation makes it impossible for him to encumber himself with prisoners; the Hague prohibition of the declaration of no quarter is absolute.

When the prohibition of destroying or seizing the enemy's private property, except in case of dire military necessity, was adopted, Captain Crozier, of the United States, endeavored to have this rule applied to private property on the sea as well as on land; but the subcommission decided that its duty was solely to revise the laws of warfare upon land.1

The Brussels rule, that "ruses of war and the use of means of procuring information about the enemy and the country are considered legitimate" (Article 24), was adopted without discussion or definition.

1 An account of the United States delegation's more formal endeavor and its result has already been given on pages 126-133.

Siege, assault, and bombardment, as means of injuring the enemy, were carefully regulated. It was unanimously agreed to prohibit the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are not defended (Article 25). General Poortugael, of the Netherlands, proposed to prohibit also the bombardment of such places by naval forces as well as by armies. Delegates from Belgium and Italy supported this proposition; and when they were reminded that the subcommission had decided, in the case of the seizure and destruction of private property, that its duty was solely to revise the laws of warfare upon land, they replied that bombardment of a town, even from the sea, pertained to land warfare, as much or more than to naval; that it is warfare within territorial waters; that even when it is from the sea its object is to affect land operations; and that when marines are disembarked they become by that fact land troops. In spite of these ingenious arguments, it was decided to consider the question as one pertaining to naval warfare and to refer it to another conference.

Before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, the commander of the attacking force is required to do all that he can to warn the authorities; he must take all necessary measures to protect, as far as possible, buildings devoted to religion, art, science, or charity, and hospitals and other places where the sick and wounded are collected; these buildings are all to be spared, provided they are not used at the time of the bombardment for military purposes, and the besieged are expected to indicate them by special signs visible and notified in advance to the besiegers (Articles 26 and 27).

The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited (Article 28).

b. The Conference of 1907

Two more means of injuring the enemy were added to the list of prohibitions adopted in 1899.

The German delegation proposed to prohibit the repudiation (as extinguished, suspended, or non-receivable) of the private claims of the subjects of hostile powers. The argument advanced in favor of this proposition was that its adoption would prevent the passage of laws in time of war which make it impossible for the subject of a hostile state to enforce the execution of a contract by resort to the courts of his country's enemy. The subcommission regarded this proposition as a fortunate expression of one of the results of the principles established in 1899, and adopted it unanimously, with the modification of the use of the words "rights and actions at law" instead of "private claims." It rejected the Russian proposal to make this prohibition conditional on the said subjects not taking part directly or indirectly in the war; its committee rejected, also, another Russian proposition to permit, under certain circumstances, a belligerent to seize an enemy's credits or claims which might be used to prolong the war.

The second prohibited means of injuring the enemy was proposed by the German delegation. The proposition was adopted and was added to Article 23 under the following form: "A belligerent is also forbidden to compel the subjects of its enemy to take part in the operations of the war directed against their country, even when they have been in the belligerent's service before the war commenced." The rule of 1899 forbade any compulsion to be exerted upon the population of an occupied territory

to take part in military operations against their country (Article 44); while the German amendment of 1907 extended this rule to all the subjects of the hostile party, whether residing in their own country, occupied by the belligerent, or residing anywhere else within the belligerent's power. The arguments advanced in support of this amendment were that soldiers retained by force within the ranks of an army can be only a source of weakness to it; and that, even if this were not true, the demands of justice and humanity made upon warfare would prevent such a measure. This principle was admitted without much discussion, and the German amendment was adopted unanimously.

But when the Austrian delegation proposed to restrict the German amendment to the provision that a belligerent should be forbidden to compel its enemy's subjects to take part as soldiers in the operations of the war directed against their own country, and thus made it permissible for a belligerent to exact other services from its enemy's subjects against their country, a long discussion arose. In the course of this discussion, the German amendment itself was imperiled; and, although the Austrian proposition was finally withdrawn, it caused seven delegations to withhold their vote and signature from an amendment which was afterwards adopted in regard to the services rendered to belligerents by the people of the territory occupied by them (Article 44).1

When the renewal of the declaration of 1899, which prohibited for a term of five years the hurling of projectiles

1 For an account of this later amendment (Article 44) and the opposition to it (which was practically the support of the Austrian amendment to Article 23), see pages 256-259.