He bases his action on the following considerations:

The same amendment was presented by the delegate from Denmark in 1874. He was instructed by his Government to call the special attention of the delegates to the ever-increasing importance of the question regarding the protection to be given to submarine cables. He was instrumental in having embodied in the Protocol a recommendation that the Governments should take up this question.

However, there was a lack of time to deal with the subject and the Danish delegate had to be content with proposing the same amendment in regard to landing cables.

The Government of Denmark wondered whether the opportunity now presented should not be seized in order to resume consideration of the question of submarine cables at the point where the Brussels Conference left it. However, as the question is not referred to in the MOURAVIEFF circular, it may be contended that the Conference has no jurisdiction on this subject. It may be further objected that the question of submarine cables comes under the sway of maritime law and therefore remains outside the scope of the draft Declaration of Brussels.

Finally, there is no doubt but that this question offers special difficulties whose solution in this commission might be further impeded by the fact that the delegates would perhaps have to consult their Governments at length on the subject. For these reasons Mr. BILLE refrained from making reference, in the amendment to Article 6, to submarine cables in their whole extent. He was content to propose that landing cables in territorial waters, that is, within a radius of three marine miles from the coast, be classed with land telegraphs. This amendment cannot offer any of the difficulties which might have been raised by the mention of submarine cables.

If the amendment should be accepted the gap created by this omission would nevertheless still remain. Equity will always require that the submarine cables connecting the belligerent with other countries enjoy international protection on the same basis as inland telegraphs, and that neutral property have at least the same privileges as are insured to enemy private property. Mr. BILLE expresses confidence that this Conference will not wish to exclude submarine cables, which represent enormous interests, from the domain of this mutual insurance company against the abuses of force in time of war which, according to the happy words of the President of the Commission, it is the purpose to organize among the States.

By means of the foregoing observations, Mr. BILLE therefore desires to have it appear in the minutes that the question of submarine cables remains to be solved, and he would like to be able to add that if this Conference declares itself incompetent in this regard, it nevertheless desires to see it submitted to another conference better prepared to regulate it.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert recalls the proposition which he formulated to the effect that a new paragraph worded as follows be added to Article 6:

The plant of railways coming from neutral States, whether the property of those States or of companies, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible and shall not be used for military operations.

Like Mr. BILLE, he wishes to state a few words in support of his proposition.

The plant of railways coming from neutral States should in all cases be governed by other rules than those of the belligerents.

It is a question here not only of private property but of the property of foreigners and of things which their owners themselves could not devote to the use of war without ceasing to be neutral.

There is therefore a threefold reason why the belligerent should not be allowed either to seize such material or to use it for himself.

It is useless to lay stress upon the extreme importance possessed nowadays by transportation material in time of war, and on the fact that this material cannot be used in a manner contrary to the obligations of neutrality.

His Excellency Mr. Eyschen would like to add a few observations of a practical nature to the considerations of equity and justice set forth by Mr. BEERNAERT.

In recent wars the right of requisition of material coming from neutral [117] railroads has occasionally been abused. After being requisitioned it has been retained throughout the campaign when it could and ought to have been returned.

The effect of the proposed amendment would be especially felt in the relations of railroads situated on the frontiers of two countries and furthermore in the relations created by the great international trains.

It often occurs that highly important relations exist between two industrial basins situated in contiguous countries, as, for instance, where coal is situated. on one side and minerals on the other. In this case an exchange of several thousand cars is made each week. It also happens that a certain part of a country is dependent upon a seaport situated on neutral territory whose commerce in the first country compels it to send a considerable amount of rolling stock there. The maintenance of all these peaceful and fruitful relations should be assured during war. If they are disturbed, not only the capital invested in industry and commerce will suffer, but labor will also be involved, and what shall we say of the numerous workmen reduced to idleness and destitution both within and beyond the frontier.

As to the gravity of the common interest presented by large international trains which insure a continuity of relations between the nations of the continent, it is useless to dwell thereon. They are the work of the economic solidarity of the peoples.

These two groups of essentially peaceful and sympathetic interests seem, like the wounded, works of art, etc., justified in demanding to be spared except in case of absolute necessity.

Now, the legitimate interest of the belligerent does not seem to be opposed to the neutralization of rolling stock coming from States which remain disconnected with the war. For, if we continue to refuse the latter any guaranty of restoration of their material, the belligerent may retain what he had thereof at the time of the declaration of war, but, from that day on, the relations between the belligerent State and the neutral country will cease, and industry, commerce, and labor in the two countries will suffer in consequence. In the face of the complaints of its own nationals the belligerent will have to leave in the industrial and commercial centers a large part of its own equipment, which would have become available if the neutral equipment had been able to supply the insufficiency created by the war.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff thinks that he ought now to explain briefly his view of this question. In his opinion it comes within the chapter reserved for the rights and duties of neutrals, whereas the present discussion treats only of the respective position of the belligerents.

The question would provoke many difficulties, whose consequence may not at once be appreciated, and it ought to be referred to the subsequent conference mentioned before in this subcommission.

Mr. Lammasch proposes to add to the enumeration contained in Article 6 the word "telephones," and he asks the drafting committee to kindly take account of his proposition.

General Sir John Ardagh will support the proposition of Mr. BILLE if the latter will eliminate therefrom the definition of the territorial sea as three marine miles.

Mr. Bille is not willing to admit this modification. The extent to which the cables would be protected would remain indefinite as far as their submerged part were concerned. He by no means intended to raise the question of the limit of the territorial sea. By taking three miles as the limit in this provision, which is entirely practical in its scope, no risk will be run of acting in contradiction to the views of certain Governments. The idea has been entertained of extending this limit but as far as he knows no desire has been expressed of fixing it at less than three miles.

Mr. Beldiman proposes to reserve this question also for the drafting committee, which Mr. BILLE will kindly join.

General Sir John Ardagh defines his opinion to the effect that if any limit is mentioned and determined by figures an encroachment will be made on the question of protecting submarine cables. From the standpoint of the labors of this subcommission it is sufficient to deal only with landings.

The President, with a view to accelerating the labors of the subcommission, requests the delegates to kindly communicate to the drafting committee such amendments as they may have to propose to Articles 7 and 8.

Colonel Gilinsky is of opinion that Mr. BILLE'S amendment renders it necessary to assign to the committee at least one of the naval technical delegates. Mr. Renault thinks that the proposition of Mr. GILINSKY demonstrates that the amendment of Mr. BILLE is outside of the domain of the Brussels Declaration. They ought to have refrained from determining the limit of the

territorial sea. Too many difficulties would arise if the subcommission [118] (which for that matter does not appear to him competent to deal with the subject) wished to fix a limit for the special point contemplated by the amendment of Mr. BILLE.

Mr. Bille observes that it is a question here solely of classing landing cables with land telegraphs.

As these cables are costly and difficult to lay, there are at least the same reasons for indemnifying the States owning them in case of damage. He therefore does not believe that the question here involved is one that would come rather within the competence of naval specialists, the protection he wishes to extend to these cables being justified by their position on the territory. He does not oppose having the question referred to the drafting committee.

The President states that this will be done, it being the duty of the committee to first decide on the question of its competence.

The meeting adjourns.

ELEVENTH MEETING

JUNE 20, 1899

Mr. Martens presiding.

The minutes of the tenth meeting are read and adopted.

The President states that in accordance with its instructions the drafting committee in its meeting of June 17 discussed the second paragraph of Article 6, and Articles 7 and 8, with the assistance of Messrs. BILLE and ODIER.

As set forth in the report addressed to the subcommission, this committee agreed unanimously regarding the wording which it proposes for these articles, as well as for the new provisions. It is now for the subcommission to approve the results attained.

Paragraph 2 of Article 6 is adopted in accordance with the text proposed, as follows:

Railway plant, land telegraphs, including landing cables, telephones, steamers and other ships, apart from cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and generally all kinds of munitions of war, although belonging to companies or to private persons, are likewise material which may serve for military operations, and which cannot be left by the army of occupation at the disposal of the enemy. Railway plant, land telegraphs, including landing cables and telephones, as well as steamers and other ships above-mentioned shall be restored and compensation fixed when peace is

made.

The new provision concerning the railway plant of neutrals, proposed by his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT to the subcommission, and the wording of which was modified by the drafting committee, is now read:

The plant of railways coming from neutral States, whether the property of those States or companies or of private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible.

Chevalier Descamps, in making a reservation in regard to the form of the commentary given to this proposition by the drafting committee, wishes to remark that it is not a question in this article of the relations between belligerents themselves, but of the relations between the belligerents and the States which remain aloof from the war. In his opinion the provision in its vague form would tend rather to cause than to avoid difficulties. The necessities of war can never from any standpoint constitute the standard for the relations between belligerents and neutrals. It would be neither in accordance with justice nor with honor to attempt to strike an enemy through the heart of a friend.

1 See annex C.

He therefore makes reservations in regard to the scope which the com[119] mentary of Mr. ROLIN seems to assign to this article. The belligerents cannot use the resources of neutrals for the purposes of the war.

The President says that the considerations of Mr. DESCAMPS will be inserted in their proper place in the minutes.

The article is unanimously adopted in accordance with the proposition of the drafting committee.

Article 7 is read and unanimously adopted with the text of 1874, as proposed by the drafting committee:

The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Article 8 is read:

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure or destruction of, or willful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science should be made the subject of legal proceedings by the competent authorities.

In regard to the first paragraph, the President says that at the request of the delegate from Persia the committee expressed the conviction that there is no distinction to be made on this subject between the different forms of religion; the expression "institutions dedicated to religion" therefore likewise applies to mosques.

The first paragraph is unanimously adopted with the wording of 1874 in accordance with the conclusion of the committee.

For the second paragraph the wording proposed by the drafting committee is unanimously adopted as follows:

All seizure or destruction of, or willful damage to, institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.

The examination of the second chapter of the draft Declaration of Brussels is now taken up: "Who should be recognized as belligerents; combatants and non-combatants." Two propositions were laid on the table at the end of the last meeting and distributed to the members.1

Articles 9 and 10 are read:

ARTICLE 9

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

1. That they be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. That they have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

3. That they carry arms openly; and

4. That they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

1 See the texts hereinafter.