emanating from the sovereign, who shall have given express authority for their being fitted out, and with a certificate from the proper naval authority that they have been placed under his control during their fitting out and on their final departure, and that they were then appropriated solely to the purpose of their mission, shall be considered neutral, as well as the whole of their staff. They shall be recognized and protected by the belligerents.

They shall make themselves known by hoisting, together with their national flag, the white flag with a red cross. The distinctive mark of their staff, while performing their duties, shall be an armlet of the same colors. The outer painting of these hospital ships shall be white, with red strake.

These ships shall bear aid and assistance to the wounded and wrecked belligerents, without distinction of nationality.

They must take care not to interfere in any way with the movements of the combatants. During and after the battle they must do their duty at their own risk and peril.

The belligerents shall have the right of controlling and visiting them; they will be at liberty to refuse their assistance, to order them to depart, and to detain them if the exigencies of the case require such a step.

The wounded and wrecked picked up by these ships cannot be reclaimed by either of the combatants, and they will be required not to serve during the continuance of the war.

The President thinks that the observation in regard to the necessity for the double flag may also be applied to this article.

Mr. Renault says in this connection that there are some provisions that ought to be generalized.

Article 14 is now read:

In naval wars any strong presumption that either belligerent takes advantage of the benefits of neutrality, with any other view than the interest of the sick and wounded, gives to the other belligerent, until proof to the contrary, the right of suspending the Convention, as regards such belligerent.

Should this presumption become a certainty, notice may be given to such belligerent that the Convention is suspended with regard to him during the whole continuance of the

war.

Mr. RENAULT says that this article will disappear. The subcommission will return to it later on.

The President now reads Article 15 (The present act shall be drawn up in a single original, etc.), and declares closed the general and provisional discussion of the articles submitted to the examination of the subcommission.

Mr. Odier asks whether all the members of the subcommission are really agreed to proceed to examine, article by article, the text intended to be adapted to maritime wars.

He thinks that this course of action has not the approval of the representatives of all the Governments.

Mr. Asser says that the competency of the subcommission has been clearly defined and he thought that an agreement had been reached on this point.

Baron von Stengel says that he does not deem it useful to examine the [51] additional articles one by one, but thinks it would be preferable to refer them for study to a special conference having full power to adopt formal texts. Mr. Asser recalls the fact that the Conference in plenary session decided that while the Commission was not competent to revise the Geneva Convention, it nevertheless had full latitude to formulate resolutions on Nos. 5 and 6 of the MOURAVIEFF circular. He does not believe that the subcommission can go to

the length of a decision, which for that matter the Conference could revoke if it

deemed proper.

Before adjourning the meeting, the President says he deems it preferable for the subcommission to postpone the appointment of its reporter.

This motion is carried.

SECOND MEETING

MAY 30, 1899

Mr. Asser presiding.

The minutes of the meeting of May 25 are read and adopted.

The President recalls the fact that the subcommission is to pursue, in regard to the various articles submitted to it, a discussion in which only personal opinions are to be expressed which by no means pledge the respective Govern

ments.

He says that after the tentative exchange of views which took place during the first reading of the additional articles, the subcommission will be able, at the second reading, to take up the examination of these provisions in a more precise and systematic manner.

He proposes to group the different provisions in categories, on each of which a special discussion may be held. The provisions desired may then be framed. Mr. ASSER adds that it would be advantageous, when these points were settled, to intrust to a special committee the task of drawing up final propositions which will be printed and distributed among all members. (Adopted.)

Subdivision of subjects into four groups

The President suggests the following subdivision of the subjects to be examined:

1st group: Provisions concerning vessels (Articles 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13.) 2nd group: Provisions concerning personnel of every kind (Articles 7, 8, and 11.)

DENT.

3rd group: General provisions (Article 14).

Mr. Renault says that he fully approves the order proposed by the PRESI

He wishes merely to observe that the questions relating to the status of the sick and wounded are distributed among Articles 6, 8, 10, and 13.

It would therefore be useful to create for the examination of these questions a new group which might occur before the group entitled "General provisions." The President thinks that this view will be approved without any trouble. It is therefore agreed that the third group shall concern the wounded and shipwrecked and the fourth the general provisions.

Discussion is now begun on the first group.

First group.- VESSELS

The PRESIDENT says that four categories should be distinguished under the denomination "vessels":

1. Military hospital ships;

2. Merchant vessels;

3. Hospital ships equipped at the expense of relief societies;

[52] 4. Boats (provided for in Article 6);

Mr. Asser asks whether this distinction ought to be maintained.

Mr. Siegel observes that in his opinion a boat is a direct appurtenance of a ship to which it belongs; he thinks that Article 6 contemplates likewise boats which are disconnected with the belligerent vessels.

Mr. Asser recalls the fact that the subcommission decided at its previous meeting that in order to enjoy the immunities provided in Article 6, boats should be obliged to sail under the flag of one or the other of the belligerents.

Mr. Siegel says that in subjecting boats to this decision the purpose in view is to facilitate for the superior commander the supervision of the ships admitted to the field of battle.

Nevertheless this question causes some difficulties.

The vessels in question may be of two kinds:

1. Hospital ships equipped at the expense of relief societies, recognized and commissioned by their Governments.

2. Merchant vessels, pleasure and fishing craft, etc., which happen to be on the field of battle.

Mr. SIEGEL is of opinion that the former may be assimilated to Government vessels and that to compel them to fly a foreign flag would be an act incompatible with the sovereignty of the State to which they belong, an act which might be considered unfriendly to the Power not favored and which might perhaps even constitute a violation of strict neutrality for the benefit of one of the belligerents.

If freedom is granted to merchant vessels to fly, if they deem fit, a foreign flag together with the flag of their own country, there would still remain the fact that an unfriendly act was being committed, which would probably increase the risks of the enterprise.

Mr. SIEGEL adds that it seems to him useful, under these circumstances, to leave to hospital ships the right to fly, together with the white flag with red cross, exclusively their national flag, adding thereto, if deemed necessary, a distinctive mark to be determined upon.

Mr. Renault thinks that the question might be reserved. He says that, in his opinion, the method which ought logically to be followed in the discussion would be as follows: We must first examine the question of the treatment to be accorded to each of the several categories of hospital ships, and not until we come to regulating the details of the intervention of neutral vessels will it be possible to examine profitably the proposition of Mr. SIEGEL.

Mr. Siegel is not opposed to this postponement, which is decided upon.

First category: Article 9

Article 9 and the additional paragraph thereof are now read:

At the request of Mr. SCHEINE, Mr. Renault declares that the French delegation maintains the terms of the proposition made by France in 1869 with the consent of the British Government to the effect that Government hospital ships should be exempt from capture provided they have not on board either arms,

ammunition, or war material. It would be useful to add to this provision a clause to the effect that the existence of these vessels should be made known officially by the one belligerent to the other.

Count Soltyk asks whether a distinction ought to be made between the hospital ships referred to in Article 9 and the floating maritime hospitals contemplated in the additional article. Are these latter unfit for navigation?

Mr. Renault says it is desirable to find a form of wording which will blend Article 9 and its additional provision in such a way as to take into account only the latter.

The President says he is going to put to a vote the proposition of the French delegation together with the German amendment relative to the previous and reciprocal communication from one belligerent to another.

Mr. Scheine asks that the following proposition be passed upon:

The combatants shall have a right to prohibit these ships from making any communication or taking any direction, and even to stop them, if they deem it necessary in order to guard the secrecy of the war operations.

Mr. Renault and Admiral Péphau are of opinion that this proposition, which may be applied to all vessels in general, might be given a place, after being properly worded, among the provisions suggested by the French delegation. [53] Mr. Ovtchinnikow asks that it be carefully stipulated that the vessels contemplated in the additional paragraph of Article 9 must be stripped of all war material and shall not serve either for reconnaissance or for military observations.

Admiral Péphau says that this interpretation naturally arises from the very text of the article which states that the armament "must be appropriated to the special purpose of the vessels referred to."

We might, however, insist more strongly in the final draft on these vessels being exclusively hospital in character.

The President puts the proposition of the French delegation to a vote. This proposition is carried by 14 votes to 2.

Voting for: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Roumania, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey.

Voting against: The United States of America and Great Britain.

The President puts to a vote the proposition of Mr. SCHEINE relating to the rights of the combatants with respect to the movements of the hospital ships.

This proposition is adopted unanimously by the aforementioned delegations, with the exception of Switzerland, which declared that it would abstain.

Second category: Article 10

The President opens the discussion on the second category of ships and reads Article 10.

He recalls the fact that the British Government expressed certain doubts with respect to the interpretation of this article as regards the cargo, which doubts ought to be taken into account in the final draft.

Mr. Renault says that the obscurity of Article 10 is due to the fact that an attempt was made to regulate two absolutely different cases by means of one