Who shall say, in the light of the facts in these three successive generations, to which I have called attention, that capture of private property at sea is not an inducement to naval officers that ought not to be presented? `

It was said by the previous speaker that we ought to leave these things to experts. But let me modestly suggest that the pages of history are open to us all; that lookers-on sometimes see most of the game; and that if we study history intelligently, we may after all come to as wise a conclusion on a point like this as purely naval or military officers. We do not undertake to navigate ships, although some of us have had to study that branch in our professions- but when it comes to dealing with a historical proposition like this, it seems to me that we may all study it intelligently and come to an intelligent conclusion.

Mr. President and gentlemen, I am very much indebted to you for the opportunity of expressing these views, and I am very glad to feel that if I am wrong in them I am erring with such great American statesmen as John Quincy Adams, Mr Seward, President Lincoln, and President McKinley: and may I not add, that great Secretary of State who was the predecessor of our President and to whom we owe so much for the honor paid everywhere to our American diplomacy, Mr. Secretary Hay.

The PRESIDENT. The subject is now open for discussion, under the rule which limits speakers to five minutes. I will ask the gentlemen who may wish to discuss the subject to give their names as they rise, as some of the members of the Society, unfortunately, I am not personally acquainted with.

REMARKS OF MR. SAMUEL J. BARRows,

OF NEW YORK.

Mr. President: As a member of the Interparliamentary Union I have been very much interested in the discussion of this subject, and recognize the great ability displayed in the papers that have been read to us, and I want to express my appreciation of the very clear statements that have been made.

My personal interest in this matter may be understood, perhaps, when I say that in 1899, the year of the Hague Conference, I presented at Christiana, as a fellow member with Mr. Bartholdt of the Interparliamentary Union, a resolution in regard to the inviolability of private property at sea. That resolution was carried by the Interparliamentary Union, showing that the position taken was not merely that of the United States, but that it represented the almost unanimous opinion of those present at that time. I do not think that the English delegates favored it, but they courteously on that occasion, I think, refrained from voting against it. As has been said, the position of England in this matter is traditional.

serve.

The question presented to us it not merely a commercial matter; it is an ethical matter. We are asked if the recognition of the principle will promote civilization. I consider that the ethical elements of our civilization are those that it is most important to preIf we go back to the very beginning of the ethical protest of the world against war, you can find it back in Homeric times, when Odysseus went out to get some poisoned arrows, and the man to whom he went said: "No; you can not have them, because it would be displeasing to the gods "the Greek way of making an ethical statement at that time. That was one of the early protests against unethical and therefore uncivilized elements in war.

All the way down from that time to ours there have been, on the one side, those who have protected civilization by restraining unethical forms of war, and on the other side those who have said that war must be made more terrible. The private interest which naval officers may have in war has been alluded to this morning; but we do not need to go back so far as the early wars with Napoleon to discover the British position. That position is very frankly stated by Captain Johnson, of the Royal Navy, in some elaborate articles defending the giving of prize money. He maintains this mode of compensating warfare is absolutely necessary; that it is necessary for the members of the English navy to be able to get some private gain from acting under the flag of their country. I consider that to be a form of piracy and I congratulate the distinguished Admiral who is here to-day that the navy of the United States has, through

the action of Congress, taken at the request of American naval officers, pulled down this piratical flag, and that we no longer go to war with the motive of making something out of the capture of belligerents. The time will come when England, too, will haul down that flag; but the existence and pressure of that motive of personal gain through the capture of private property prevents the decision of this subject on the purely American basis.

With regard to the illustration referred to by Admiral Stockton, of the taking and emancipation of the slaves during our civil war, we must remember also that at that time we had reached a new conception, but an authoritative ethical conception, that human beings were no longer property, and that was a very important element in deciding it.

Let me say, in conclusion, that all the way down, as I have said, you can trace this opposition of the ethical and unethical elements in war. There is the attempt, on the one hand, to make war more terrible, and on the other there is the voice of our civilization saying: "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther. You must not put poison in the wells of the community." Why? Because it is absolutely wrong and inhuman, and against the spirit of our civilization. I consider that there are ethical elements in the question before us that I have not time to discuss, but which are the deepest elements in the whole matter. I consider the ethical element to be above all utilitarian elements, and I hold that the United States should stand by those ethical principles, in practice as well as in theory.

So

REMARKS OF MR. WILLIAM BARNES,

OF NANTUCKET, MASS.

Mr. President: We may all recollect that when Havana was first taken by the British Admiral he received as the price of the capture a sum which I can not mention at the present time, but which was reckoned in the millions of dollars. That may have influenced British opinion clear up to the present time.

As far as we Americans are concerned, it is our business to lead all of the nations in all humanitarian movements, wherever they are,

so it would hardly seem to be debatable that it is our business to save private property, nonoffending property, in time of war, and I hope our votes will be unanimous.

The PRESIDENT. Do any other gentlemen desire to participate in the discussion?

Admiral STOCKTON. I want to appear once more, not in the rôle as an individual member of this Society, but as representing the navy of the United States. I take it for granted that the speakers would know that it was hardly necessary to place naval officers in the rôle of pirates. In 1899, in the navy personnel act, which was passed without a protest from any officer in the naval service, prize money was abolished once and forever from the United States navy. Let us hope that we will have that credit at least from those who have put us in the extremely unpleasant rôle in which we unfortunately must return to the domestic circle as pirates.

Mr. BARROWS. I will say that I had the honor myself, as a member of Congress, of voting for that bill which abolished prize money in the United States, and we recognized that it came from the naval officers. They desired to have it done. It was done. quietly; nobody knew it, but the naval officers of the United States said it must be done.

The PRESIDENT. Is there any other discussion? If not, we will pass to the second subject on the program: "Is the trade in contraband of war unneutral, and should it be prohibited by international and municipal law?"

Upon that the first paper will be read by Gen. George B. Davis, the Judge-Advocate-General of the army.

ADDRESS OF GEN. GEORGE B. DAVIS, U. S. A.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Society: The rules of contraband, in common with the other requirements of the law of nations upon the subject of maritime search and capture, represent a compromise between the conflicting interests of belligerents and neutrals. The neutral has no part in the war, and desires to maintain his

relations of amity with both belligerents. Having regard solely to his own interests and those of his subjects, it is his desire to continue his ante bellum trade, and it is also his desire to increase it in those articles for which the war has created a great and unusual demand- arms and munitions of war. The belligerents are in a somewhat different case. Each would like to trade in contraband with neutrals, and is willing to furnish a market for warlike material, but neither is willing that his enemy should enjoy the same advantage; and it is between these opposing and conflicting claims and interests that we must seek for the lines of delimitation between the rights and duties of belligerents and neutral states in time of war.

As the law now stands the neutral state may furnish no aid to either belligerent in his military or naval operations; but the neutral subject may continue to manufacture and sell contraband as in time of peace, and may consign his output to old markets, or he may find new markets for his wares in belligerent territory. If he does this, however, he does it at his peril, and can look to his own government for no sympathy or protection if his contraband ventures are captured on the high seas on their way, to a belligerent destination.

On the high seas, in his own territorial waters or those of the enemy, a belligerent may search all neutral vessels and, if they contain contraband goods, he may capture them and send them in to a home port for adjudication. And here we have the complete terms of the compromise. The neutral subject continues, in time of war, the pursuits in which he was engaged in time of peace, taking an increased risk as to contraband ventures to hostile ports. The enemy, if sufficiently enterprising and vigilant in the exercise of his belligerent right of search, can prevent his adversary from being benefited by the illicit commerce of the neutral subject. In the terms of the compromise the rights of the parties have been fully and reasonably regarded, and neither can complain when the enforcement of the remedy, which is provided by the law of nations, rests in his independent discretion.

The statement of the rules governing contraband to which your attention has been invited is one in which English and American decisions and practice have been fully regarded, but have not been