ARTICLE 7

The religious, medical, and hospital staff of any captured ship is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and surgical instruments which are their own private property.

This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while necessary, and can afterwards leave when the commander in chief considers it possible.

The belligerents must guarantee to the said staff when it has fallen into their hands the enjoyment of their salaries intact.

ARTICLE 8

Sailors and soldiers on board when sick or wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected and tended by the captors.

ARTICLE 9

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents who fall into the power of the other, are prisoners of war. The captor must decide, according to circumstances, whether to keep them, send them to a port of his own country, to a neutral port, or even to an enemy port. In this last case, prisoners thus repatriated cannot serve again while the war lasts.

ARTICLE 10

The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are landed at a neutral port, with the consent of the local authorities, must, unless an arrangement is made to the contrary between the neutral State and the belligerent States, be guarded by the neutral State so as to prevent their again taking part in the operations of the war.

The expenses of tending them in a hospital and interning them shall be borne by the State to which the shipwrecked, sick, or wounded belong.

FOURTH MEETING

JULY 5, 1899

Mr. Martens presiding.

The minutes of the meeting of June 20 are read.

Captain Mahan expresses a desire to change the negative vote which he expressed at the above-mentioned meeting, instructions which he has received subsequently from his Government directing him to vote in favor of the amendment of Mr. BELDIMAN with regard to the revision of the Geneva Convention at the initiative of the Swiss Federal Government.

[19] Mr. Beldiman observes that this modification changes the result of the vote in regard to his proposition.

Taking into account the change in question, there would be fourteen affirmative votes and a few abstentions.

However, even without this modification there is reason for taking the vote again.

As a matter of fact, to count abstentions as negative votes could not be considered as being in conformity with parliamentry usage, nor with the mode of procedure observed hitherto in this Conference.

However, as it is desirable above all to secure unanimity, he does not insist either on the rectification of the vote or on the maintenance of his amendment.

He makes a new proposition: to annul the two preceding votes and unanimously adopt the vau expressed by President ASSER at the close of the last meeting of the first subcommission, couched in the following terms:

The Hague Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision of the Geneva Convention, utters the vau that steps may be shortly taken for the assembly of a special Conference having for its object the revision of that Convention. In the hope of winning the consent of all the members, he makes also the following motion:

In expressing the vau with regard to the revision of the Geneva Convention, the Second Commission adheres fully to the declaration made by Mr. ASSER, President of the first subcommission, at the meeting of June 20 and by which the delegate from the Netherlands stated that all the States represented at The Hague would be glad to have the Swiss Federal Council take. the initiative, in the near future, in convoking a conference with a view to revising the Geneva Convention.

If this motion were not unanimously carried, he would recover his freedom. of action.

The only purpose of the proposition is to avoid roll calls and decisions reached by a majority of votes.

The two propositions concerning the annulment of the previous votes and the adoption of the vau expressed by Mr. ASSER are approved.

The motion of Mr. BELDIMAN is seconded by Mr. MOTONO.

His Excellency Mr. White declares that the original vote of the United States in the subcommission was the result of a misunderstanding.

The American Government has the most earnest desire to do justice to Switzerland, which took the initiative in this great humane work and which developed the idea thereof.

It will therefore vote for the proposition of the delegate from Roumania.

The President defines the purport of the motion of Mr. BELDIMAN. It will not in any wise affect the freedom of action of the Governments; the latter will have the privilege of giving to the Swiss Government an answer based on their personal views and their interests.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote wishes to state that it is therefore not a question of a mandate given to Switzerland.

The President indorses this view.

The motion of Mr. BELDIMAN is unanimously adopted with this reservation. Mr. Beldiman says that it is understood that it will be submitted to the Conference in plenary session.

The minutes of the meeting of June 20 are adopted.

The President has the minutes of the meeting of July 1 of the second subcommission read.

They are adopted without modification.

The PRESIDENT declares that as the present meeting of the Commission is the last the minutes thereof will be communicated in the form of proof sheets to all the members, who shall indicate the rectifications which they desire to see inserted therein.

This mode of procedure is adopted.

The report on the "draft regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land," presented by Mr. ROLIN on behalf of the second subcommission, is adopted after a statement by the reporter of some modifications of form or additions by means of which he has been able to do justice at once to the observations which have reached him since the last meeting of the subcommission.

The examination of the articles of the draft voted by the second subcommission at its second meeting is now taken up.

With a view to accelerating the progress of the work it is decided on motion of the PRESIDENT to vote chapter by chapter.

[20] Chapters I, II, and III of the first section are adopted without modification. The five chapters of the second section are likewise adopted without modification.

In regard to Article 25, his Excellency Count Nigra, according to instructions which he has received, proposes to add the word ports to the words "towns, etc."

He acknowledges that it is only a question of regulating land warfare; now, the bombardment of a port by an army comes within this domain. Moreover, he thinks that the time is opportune to decide whether the provisions of Article 25 should not likewise govern bombardments made by naval forces.

Mr. Rolin sees no objection to the word "ports" being added, provided it is a question only of a bombardment by land forces; but the addition appears superfluous to him, for a port always comes within the category of "towns, villages, dwellings or buildings" and the addition in question might cause ambiguity.

His Excellency Count Nigra takes note of this declaration and asks that it be inserted in the minutes.

As regards the second question raised by his Excellency Count NIGRA, Mr. Rolin observes that, in the opinion of the subcommission, it comes within the jurisdiction of the full Commission; the latter should therefore adopt a special provision.

Up to the present no proposition of this kind has been made.

His Excellency Count Nigra declares that he embraces the opportunity to formulate one.

He proposes that Article 25 be likewise applicable to bombardments directed toward land by naval forces.

Mr. Rolin sees an objection to the motion of Count NIGRA. A naval force may be led to bombard towns or ports even if they are undefended, particularly for the purpose of compelling them to furnish it provisions, coal or other supplies which it has demanded of them. A land force would have neither ground nor excuse to do so. But a naval force has no other means of exercising its authority, whereas a land force has the resource of occupation, and bombards only for the purpose of enforcing surrender.

The reasons are therefore not the same for the two kinds of bombardment. We might confine ourselves to stating that bombardment by fleet is not permitted for the sole purpose of terrorizing the inhabitants or uselessly destroying property.

His Excellency Count Nigra simply asks that the Commission pass on the following question:

Can the provisions of Article 25 likewise be applied to bombardments made by naval forces?

General den Beer Poortugael will not admit that identical rules cannot govern both land and naval warfare. He refers to the Annuaire of the Institute of International Law for the Venice session, where it was decided that the rules of land warfare should be applicable to maritime wars.

In his opinion the question is one of capital importance. Nevertheless, he does not consider the time opportune to discuss it; he simply desires to call it to the attention of the Commission in the hope that it will be examined more closely at a subsequent conference.

Mr. Rolin thinks that he disagrees with the previous speaker only on a question of words, for the resolution of the Institute of International Law mentioned by him, after stating that the same rules are applicable, points out the exceptions to said rule.

Mr. Beldiman indorses the conclusions of his Excellency Count NIGRA and hopes that the Commission will enter into explanations on the question.

The President recalls the fact that the drafting committee, although having. no instructions to deal with this matter, has exchanged some views on the subject.

In the unanimous opinion of its members the question of the bombardment of ports is one of the most complex.

He personally reminded the committee of the deliberations of the Venice session.

Upon examining the rules which were formulated there, it will be seen that they are very complicated.

After labors which lasted several years, the Institute was able to reach only a compromise, because the condition of towns in the interior of countries is different from the condition of those situated on the coast.

The former may be bombarded only for the purpose of compelling them to surrender, while the latter may also be bombarded in order to compel them to furnish provisions to the naval forces threatening them.

And even these rules give rise to misunderstandings and ambiguities.

Along this line of ideas, the PRESIDENT proposes to leave intact the text [21] of Article 25, and to offer a resolution recommending that this subject be examined by a conference to be held later. This will be the only way of getting out of this complex question.

His Excellency Count Nigra and Mr. Beldiman agree with this view.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote cannot join in the expression of the vau, for, as was declared previously by Sir JOHN ARDAGH, the British Government cannot consent to accede to the Brussels articles unless naval questions are left out of the deliberations. He does not wish to broach the fundamental substance of the question, but he declares that for the reason indicated, it is impossible for him to endorse the proposition of the PRESIDENT.

The President observes that the vau in question is but the expression of a desire which involves no pledge.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote abstains and asks that note be taken of his abstention in the minutes.

The proposition of the PRESIDENT is adopted unanimously, except that the delegate from Great Britain abstains.

As to Article 33, Mr. Rolin remarks that the drafting committee has modified the second paragraph of the text adopted on the second reading by changing "in order to prevent" into "to prevent." This modification is approved.

Section III is adopted.

Article 46 gives rise to the following discussion:

The President calls attention to the letter which the United States delegation addressed to the President of the Conference in regard to the inviolability of private property at sea in time of war.

He is happy to state that as early as 1823 Russia expressed her sympathy for this idea.

It is entitled to the benevolent interest of everybody; but will it be possible to discuss this important question here? If this inviolability is admitted, maritime nations will have to change radically their plans and projects. The question is so complex that it will be very difficult under present circumstances to find a solution acceptable to all. Now, a decision would be of no value unless. unanimously adopted.

He therefore proposes to refer the examination of this question also to a subsequent conference better prepared to solve it and to work out a project. which might enlist the votes of all.

If the Commission adopts this proposition, it will have shown evidence of