ship's having an official commission to be incorporated in the navy of one of the belligerents? It seemed to us that it would suffice if these ships which are primarily under the control of the government from whom they have received their commission were subjected to the authority of the belligerents in accordance with the provisions of article 4.

These reasons are, in the opinion of certain members of the commission, of no less force to-day. They feel that the text of article 11 of the convention of 1906 is not sufficient to invalidate them. Α neutral ambulance which wishes to help the belligerent in its relief work must in the very nature of things be incorporated in that service; it is hard to imagine its being free from control within the lines of the belligerent, who must be responsible to his adversary for its acts and who should in consequence have authority over it. The case seems to be different for a neutral hospital ship which operates on the open sea, where it enjoys an independence of action to which an ambulance can not lay claim. Moreover, it is added, a neutral hospital ship may intend not to help one belligerent more than the other, but to remain in the vicinity of the naval operations ready to render assistance to both parties. This presents no inconvenience because of the means at the disposal of the belligerents to prevent the abuses which might accompany the charitable assistance.

This reasoning did not convince the majority of the commission, which opined for a change in article 3, so as to make it in accord with article 11 of the convention of 1906. Reasons of military expediency necessitate, it is said, this action; that the independence allowed the neutral hospital ship would leave the way open to serious abuses which article 4 does not contemplate and could not repress.

That is why the commission proposes the modification of article 3, to conform to the convention of 1906. Article 3 refers solely to the obligation for the neutral hospital ship to place itself at the service (hospital service, of course) of one of the belligerents. Article 5, new, paragraph 4, makes the logical application of this provision respecting the flag to be displayed by the neutral ship so employed. It is worth while to note that the text of this is not, whatever may be said, in perfect harmony with article 11 of the convention of 1906, in accordance with which a neutral ambulance displays two flags that of the Geneva Convention and that of the belligerent

while the new paragraph of the fifth article provides that the ship shall carry three flags: the flag of the Geneva Convention, its national flag, besides the flag of the belligerent displayed at the mainmast. We know of no precedent along this line. The text proposed by the German delegation has been changed because it was thought unnecessary to exact that the hospital ship place itself in the service of the belligerent; it is enough to say that it place itself under its direction.

Article 4 is not changed. It seems to have provided the belligerents with sufficient powers to prevent abuses.

Article 5 is retained for the most part. Its object is to indicate the manner in which the hospital ships are to be distinguished.

A modification of the fourth paragarph and the addition of two new paragraphs are to be noted.

The modification has been explained above in relation to the provisions of the project bearing on the situation of neutral hospital ships. If the system adopted by the commission be not retained by the conference it would be necessary to return to the text of the convention of 1899.

66 * * *

The new paragraph 5 is intended to apply the provision of article 21, paragraph 2, of the convention of 1906, to the matter of which we treat. That provision reads as follows: Sanitary organizations which fall into the power of the enemy do not display any flag except that of the Red Cross as long as they continue in that situation." The situation is not identical for a hospital ship, which would not, it seems, fall into the power of the enemy in the same way as an ambulance, which, in point of fact, is within the lines of the enemy and more or less apt to be confused with his own organization. The provision was intended to apply to the case of ships detained in accordance with the terms of article 4, paragraph 5. In consequence the wording of the German amendment was slightly modified. The rule found in article 5, paragraph 5, new, has a very wide application and comprises all cases. If the hospital ship of a belligerent is retained by the adversary, it 'hauls down its national flag and only retains the flag of the Red Cross. In the case of a neutral hospital ship it hauls down the flag of the belligerent into the service of which it has entered but retains its own national flag.

Finally, the sixth paragraph, new, refers to the distinctive marks to make the hospital ships recognizable during the night. The German delegation proposed the following provision: "As a distinguishing mark all hospital ships shall carry during the night three lights — green, white, green-placed vertically, one above the other, and separated by at least three meters." Various objections were raised. The provision seemed imperative in its nature, but a hospital ship which accompanies a squadron can not be made to give away its presence to the enemy; it should be free to make its presence known or not, subject to the danger of being exposed to an attack if its character is not apparent. Further, a ship might make an illicit use of the lights, to effect its escape. The commission adopted a text which met these objections; the ships which wish to secure during the night the respect to which they have a right must take, in accord with the military authorities, the measures necessary to secure their recognition in other words, they must see that the characteristic painting indicated in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the same article appear distinctly. That, it seems, is possible and would not permit the abuses to which the lights might give rise.

The new article 6 is based upon article 23 of the convention of 1906. It can give rise to no difficulty.

Article 7, new, provides for a situation analogous to that covere by articles 6 and 15 of the convention of 1906, but more infrequen: to-day, at least, in naval warfare than in war on land. The amendment of the German delegation might have led to a slight confusion where it says: "During the conflict the sick quarters on board the war vessels shall be respected as much as possible." The first thought was only in reference to fighting at a distance, which is by far the more frequent, and naturally it was hard to understand how during such a conflict the sick quarters could be respected. But the provision refers to a conflict on board, which makes it perfectly comprehensible. A slight modification in the text of the amendment alone was necessary to dispel this obscurity.

Article 8 is new.

The principle laid down in the first paragraph is borrowed from article 7 of the convention of 1906, which is self-evident.

The second paragraph is due to article 8 of the convention of 1906, all the provisions of which it has not seemed necessary to reproduce. The personnel of the hospital ships and the sick quarters of menof-war may be armed, either to maintain discipline on board or for the protection of the sick and wounded. This fact is not of a nature to warrant the withdrawal of protection as long as the arms are only used for the purposes indicated. For the same reason the agent placed on board a hospital ship by a belligerent in conformity with section 5 of article 4 should not be made prisoner of war in case he falls into the power of a cruiser of the country to which the hospital ship upon which he is belongs. His presence is explained, like that of the picket guarding sick quarters, by the necessity of permitting ship to fulfill its charitable mission; this motive justifies in each case the exemption from captivity.

The German delegation had provided for the case in which "the hospital ship is armed with light pieces of artillery to guard against the dangers of navigation, and more particularly as a protection against all acts of piracy." A discussion took place in the drafting committee in regard to the artillery with which a hospital ship might be provided, and finally the opinion which prevailed was that the arming of the ship was by no means necessary. Merchant ships are not armed and do not run greater risks. Of course it would be permissible to have a cannon on board for signal purposes.

The delegation of the Netherlands has proposed to offer explanations relative to the presence on board of a radio-telegraphic outfit. After discussion the majority of the commission felt that the presence of such an outfit was not a fact in itself of such a nature as to justify the withdrawal of protection. A hospital ship may have to communicate with its own squadron or with land for the purpose of fulfilling its mission. It is not every use of a radio-telegraphic outfit but only certain uses which may be considered illicit, and it is well to recall here article 4, paragraph 2, by which the governments agree not to make use of hospital ships for any warlike purpose. The carrying out of such a provision, like many others, is left to the good faith of the belligerents. Moreover, the provisions of article 4 would allow commanders of men-of-war to take the measures necessary to prevent abuses; an agent could overlook the usage of

radio-telegraphy; in case of need the apparatus of transmission might be removed.

Article 9 is entirely new, although it contains in substance article & of the convention of 1899.

According to paragraph 1 the belligerents may appeal to the charitable zeal of neutral merchantmen to take the wounded or sick on board and care for them. This provision is based upon article 5 of the convention of 1906; it is stipulated that the assistance of the neutral ships is entirely voluntary, and the text of the German amendment was modified to prevent any misunderstanding.

Paragraph 2 governs the situation of ships which have responded to this appeal as well as those which have of their own accord picked up the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked [belligerents] (The condition of individuals on board will be examined further on.) It is said that these ships enjoy special protection and certain immunities. These expressions, borrowed from the convention of 1906 (article 5), have been criticised on the ground of their vagueness, which can not be controverted. It is hardly possible to proceed otherwise; all depends upon circumstances. A war ship may call upon a ship perhaps far off, promising, for example, not to search it. It is evident that the advantages of the immunities do not hold the place here that they do on land, where the inhabitants to whom an appeal is made are exposed to a series of rigorous measures on the part of the invader or the occupant. Above all, it is a question of good faith. A belligerent should keep to the promise which he has made in order to obtain a service, and the neutral ought not to be permitted by a show of zeal to escape the risk to which his conduct may have rendered him liable. It is, however, certain, on the one hand, that the ships in question may not be captured for the transportation of the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of a belligerent, and, on the other hand, as is expressly stated by article 6 of the convention of 1899, they remain subject to capture for the violations of neutrality which they may have committed (contraband of war, blockade running).

Article 10 is a reproduction of article 7 of the convention of 1899, with an unimportant modification designed to harmonize the provisions regarding land and maritime war as regards the treatment