and explosives from balloons, came up for discussion, the Russian and Italian delegations proposed that it should be forbidden, forever, to bombard undefended towns, etc., either by artillery or by the launching of projectiles or explosives from balloons. The direful results of such bombardment were emphasized, and the injuries it would inflict upon non-combatants and neutrals, and upon useful and beautiful public buildings, were pointed out. M. Renault, of France, declared that the prohibition of the bombardment of undefended towns, etc., adopted in 1899, included bombardment from balloons and from every other source. But since no such interpretation had been passed, judicially, upon that rule, and since it had been expressly adopted as applying to warfare on the land and not to warfare on the sea, the commission insisted on amending the rule. This it did by first adopting the Russo-Italian proposition by a vote of thirty-one to one, with three abstentions;1 and at the next session by voting unanimously to add to the prohibition of 1899 the words "bombardment by any means whatever." The commission on naval warfare had already agreed to prohibit the bombardment of undefended towns, etc., by naval forces,2 and had added to the list of buildings which must be protected in case of the bombardment of defended towns historical monuments. This last measure had been adopted, appropriately, on motion of the delegation from Greece; and when M. Beernaert, of Belgium, proposed its addition to the laws of warfare on land, it was adopted unanimously and without discussion.. 1 Cuba cast the one negative vote; France, Sweden, and Turkey abstained. 2 Cf. pages 100-104. 4. SPIES, FLAGS OF TRUCE, ARMISTICE, CAPITULATIONS a. The Conference of 1899 The Brussels rules regarding spies were adopted almost intact. They first define a spy as follows: Only that individual can be considered a spy who, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses, obtains or seeks to obtain information in a belligerent's zone of operations, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party. Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are not considered spies; nor are soldiers or civilians who openly prosecute their mission of conveying dispatches either to their own army or that of the enemy; nor are individuals sent in balloons to deliver dispatches and to maintain communication between the various parts of an army or a territory (Article 29). The Brussels rule defining a spy used the words “in places occupied by the enemy" instead of "in a belligerent's zone of operations." Colonel von Schwarzhoff, of Germany, proposed this change and explained that by "zone of operations" he meant the territory on which is an army either in march or in repose, and including the neighboring districts where this army exercises a certain influence by the reach of its arms, by its patrols, and by short reconnoitering expeditions. M. Beernaert, of Belgium, doubted the wisdom of thus enlarging the scope of the definition—and thus increasing the perils of spies, - but withdrew his objection, and the change was adopted. Colonel Gilinsky, of Russia, feared that by excluding from the class of spies those civilians who openly convey dispatches, an easy way would be opened to civilians to act as real spies while carrying dispatches as a pretext. He therefore moved to exclude from the class of spies only civilians "attached to armies" who convey dispatches, or better still to strike out the clause entirely. But the commission voted to retain the clause as a safeguard against false interpretations injurious to civilians who, in good faith, carry dispatches; for it believed that those acting on false pretenses could be detected; and these may be treated as spies. The Brussels rule in regard to the trial and punishment of spies was as follows: "The spy taken in the act will be tried and dealt with according to the laws in force in the army which has seized him." General Mounier, of France, demanded the suppression of this rule in the Hague convention, for the reason that it is harsh treatment to condemn a spy acting, perhaps, on the orders of his superiors and in virtue of a declaration signed by his own government. This argument had weight with the conference; for it did not prescribe that a spy should be punished, but changed the rule so as to read: A spy taken in the act can not be punished without previous trial (Article 30). The conference also adopted the Brussels rule that a spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is captured by the enemy, shall be treated as a prisoner of war and shall incur no responsibility for his previous acts of espionage (Article 31). The rights and duties of individuals bearing flags of truce are briefly stated. They must be authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into negotiations with the other, and must be accompanied by a white flag. They have a right to inviolability, as have also the trumpeter, bugler, or drummer, the flag bearer, and the interpreter who may accompany him (Article 32). The commander to whom a flag of truce is sent is not obliged to receive it under all circumstances; he can take all necessary steps to prevent the envoy from profiting by his mission to procure information; and in case of abuse, he has the right to detain the messenger temporarily (Article 33). The messenger loses his right of inviolability if it is positively and undeniably proven that he has taken advantage of his privileged position to provoke or commit an act of treason (Article 34). Thus far the Hague rules follow those of Brussels concerning the bearers of flags of truce; but another Brussels rule provided that a commander may declare in advance that he will not receive such messengers during a specified period, and that if they come to him during that period, and after his declaration had been received, they shall lose their right of inviolability. Colonel von Schwarzhoff, of Germany, proposed the suppression of this rule for the reason that circumstances may occur which make the desirability of negotiating with the enemy superior to the enemy's desire to receive no messengers; Count Nigra, of Italy, advocated the suppression of the rule for the reason that it is opposed to the spirit of international law; and General Mounier, of France, favored its suppression for the reason that the commander, according to Article 33, is not obliged, under all circumstances, to receive flags of truce. The rule was accordingly suppressed in the Hague convention, with the remark made by Colonel von Schwarzhoff that Article 23 should be interpreted to mean that a commander need not receive a flag of truce within his outposts. Armistices were defined and regulated as follows: An armistice is a suspension of military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed, the belligerent parties may resume operations at any time, provided always that the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice (Article 36). An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends all military operations of the belligerent states; the second, only those between certain fractions of the belligerent armies and within a fixed radius (Article 37). An armistice must be notified officially, and in good time, to the competent authorities and the troops; and hostilities must be suspended immediately after the notification, or at a fixed date (Article 38). The contracting parties must settle, in the terms of the armistice, what communications may be held, on the theater of war, with the population and with each other (Article 39). The Brussels rules provided that any violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right to denounce it. Colonel von Schwarzhoff asserted that a simple denunciation of the armistice is not sufficient in all cases of its violation; for example, if the violation consists in a sudden attack upon a troop of soldiers, they would not, under the rule, have even the right of defending themselves. This is an extreme case, he admitted; but other cases demand not only the right of denouncing the armistice, but also of immediately resuming operations. M. Rolin, of Siam, opposed this addition to the rule for the reason that it is desirable now, as it was in 1874, to forbid a resumption of hostilities without previous notice; and General Zuccari, of Italy, said that the denun |