Denmark's objects was attained, but on its adoption, the statement was made and indorsed that it had to do only with land connections, and did not at all affect the seizure or destruction of submarine cables in the open sea. This last article was numbered 54, and was put in the place of Article 54 in the 1899 code, which had to do with. the property of railways entering an occupied territory from neutral states. The latter article, together with Articles 57 to 60, inclusive, were transferred to the convention of 1907 in regard to the rights and duties of neutrals. Thus the code of laws regulating warfare on the land, which comprised sixty articles in 1899, was reduced to fifty-six in 1907. 6. THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES This topic did not form a part of the programme of the first conference; but, because of events which transpired in the course of the next few years, the Russian government placed it upon the programme for the second conference. It was presented to the consideration of the second subcommission of the II Commission in the form of the following questions: Should the opening of hostilities be preceded by a declaration of war or an equivalent act? Should a fixed time elapse between the declaration and the opening of hostilities? Should the declaration be announced to the powers, and by whom? In response to the above questions, the French delegation proposed an agreement between the contracting powers that "hostilities should not commence between them without a previous and unequivocal warning which shall have the form either of a declaration stating the causes of the war, or that of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war." General Yermolow and Colonel Michelson, of Russia, General Poortugael, of the Netherlands, General Amourel, of France, and Baron von Bieberstein, of Germany, supported this proposition and urged in its favor the following considerations: an international agreement on the subject is desirable because positive international law does not yet require such previous warning; a previous warning is desirable to relieve governments of the necessity of remaining fully armed and on the qui vive against sudden attack in time of peace; to enable them to reduce their effective armaments in time of peace, and thus to reduce the financial burden of armies and fleets; to prevent an unexpected attack upon commerce; to give expression to the modern belief that every war, before it is commenced, should be justified or explained to the family or society of nations by the statement of definite causes; and to afford an opportunity to neutral governments of offering their good offices to end the dispute, or of persuading the disputants to submit their difference to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. These arguments were accepted as conclusive by the subcommission, which adopted the French proposition by an affirmative vote of all the delegations save two, with two abstentions. The commission and conference adopted 1 1 The Brazilian and Dominican delegations voted no, for the reason, apparently, that the proposition did not fix a definite time between the warning and the blow. Cuba abstained because the proposition was regarded as it by unanimous vote, and it was embodied in a separate treaty (Convention III). It will be observed that the French proposition did not include a statement as to the delay which must follow “a previous warning" before hostilities are commenced. The Netherlands delegation moved to fix this delay at "not less than twenty-four hours"; and General Poortugael, in offering this amendment to the French proposition, argued that unless some such definition of "a previous warning" be adopted, the latter might be reduced to a half hour or less and become a mere form; he also showed by historic examples that even the denunciation of armistices is followed by a fixed delay before hostilities are resumed. Colonel Michelson, of Russia, supported the Netherlands amendment and urged that the proposed delay, short and insufficient though it was, should be adopted, with the hope that a longer delay may be secured in the future. But the French, German, and Japanese delegations opposed this amendment, without stating the reasons for their opposition, and when it was put to a vote the subcommission rejected it by sixteen noes, thirteen ayes, and five abstentions.1 The French proposition included the rule that "the state of war should be notified without delay to the neutral powers." This rule was advocated by the Netherlands, French, and Italian representatives for the reasons that opposed to the constitutional right of the Cuban congress to declare war; and China abstained apparently because the proposition implied the necessity of the declaration of war being accepted by the power to whom it is sent, and because it did not define "war" which, as the history of China amply shows, has often been made under the guise of "expeditions." 1 Six of the eight great powers, including the United States, voted against this amendment, Russia voted for it, and Austria-Hungary abstained. war between two states often involves others because of treaties of alliance; that neutral merchants and navigators at a distance from their homes should be duly notified; that war often causes great annoyance to neutral countries which, having duties to perform in their relations with belligerents, have the right to be promptly informed when their duties begin. The Belgian delegation proposed that the notification of the war to neutrals might be made by telegraph or cable, but that it should not take effect as far as they were concerned until forty-eight hours after its reception. The French and German delegations opposed this amendment for the reason that the delay might be utilized by neutrals for the commission of acts contrary to the rules of neutrality, for the sale of war ships to the belligerents, for example. The right of neutrals to receive prompt notification of the war was unanimously admitted by the subcommission; but the question of when this notification should go into effect was referred to a special committee1 with power to report directly to the commission. The committee's report was reached after but little discussion and was adopted unanimously by both commission and conference. The rule as reported provides that "the state of war must be notified without delay to the neutral powers, and will go into effect as regards them only after the reception of a notification which may be made by telegraphic means; but the neutral powers can not invoke the lack of notification if it be proved conclusively that they knew in fact of the state of war." 1 This committee was composed of eighteen members, representing fourteen countries. The United States representative on it was General G. B. Davis. When the rule in regard to a previous declaration of war was first proposed, the United States delegation reserved its opinion upon it pending instructions from the home government. At the next meeting of the subcommission, one week later, General Porter stated that the United States Constitution gives to the Congress the exclusive power of declaring war; but that "it is with great satisfaction that this delegation declares that the proposition presented by the French delegation is not in contradiction with the law cited above and, for this reason, the delegation of the United States of America takes pleasure in adhering to it. It is proper to add, however, that although this is true as regards offensive military operations, the invariable policy of the government of the United States of America has been to invest in the President, as commander in chief of the constitutional forces on land and sea, the full power of defending the territories and the property of the United States of America in case of invasion, and of exercising the right of national defense at all times and in all places." The convention was, accordingly, voted for and signed by the United States delegation and ratified by the Senate. The Cuban delegation, because of the same constitutional consideration as that expressed by the United States delegation, voted against the rule in the subcommission, but afterwards voted for it in the commission and conference, and signed the convention containing it. |