of the members of the hospital staff temporarily retained by the enemy (cf. article 13 of the convention of 1906). It is not necessary to add that, for maritime as well as for land warfare, the official personnel only is concerned, the personnel of a relief society having no claim to receive a salary.

Article 11 corresponds to article 8 of the convention of 1899, which it completes in accordance with article 1, paragraph 1, of the Geneva Convention.

Article 12 is new; it corresponds to an amendment presented by the German delegation (third paragraph added to article 6), the provision of which it makes general. We do not think that the rule is new; if the formula is not to be found in the convention of 1899, the sense of the latter is unquestionable. It is an important point upon which there should be no doubt.

A belligerent, cruiser which meets a military hospital ship or a floating hospital, a merchant ship, whatever be the nationality of these vessels, has the right, either by virtue of article 4 of the convention or by virtue of the common law of nations, to visit them. It exercises it and finds on board shipwrecked men, wounded or sick; it has the right to have them delivered up to it, because they are its prisoners, as it is stated in article 9 of the conventon of 1899, reproduced in article 14 of our project. We have here only an application of a general principal, by virtue of which the combatants of a belligerent who fall into the power of the opposite party are by that fact its prisoners. Evidently, it will not always be to the interest of the belligerent to make use of this right. Often it will be to his advantage to leave the wounded or sick where they are and not to take charge of them. But, in such a case, it will be indispensable not to allow wounded or sick to go free who are still in a condition to render great services to their country; this fact is still more true in regard to shipwrecked men who are not incapacitated. It has been said that it would be inhuman to force a neutral vessel to deliver up the wounded which it had charitably picked up. To do away with this object, it is only necessary to reflect upon what would be the situation were there no convention. The positive law of nations would permit not only the seizure of individuals who are enemy com

batants, found on board a neutral vessel, but the seizure and confiscation of the vessel for having rendered an unneutral service. Let us add that if the shipwrecked men, for example, were permitted to escape captivity by the mere fact of their having been taken on board a neutral vessel the belligerents would disregard the philanthropic action of the neutrals the moment this action might result in causing them irreparable injury. Humanity would not gain by it.

It is well to add that article 12 of the project limits what the belligerent cruiser can do in regard to neutral merchantmen; it can not change their course and impose upon them a fixed course. Article 4 of the convention of 1899, preserved by the project, gives this right only in respect to vessels specially given over to the hospital service, which have to bear the consequences attendant upon the particular duties for which they are designated. Nothing of a similar character could be imposed upon merchant vessels which occasionally are willing to aid in a charitable work. There can be no argument against article 9 of the convention, which we propose to retain (article 14 of the project) because this article does not have to do with vessels, but only treats of the sick and wounded.

Article 13, proposed by the French delegation, is new; it fills a blank in the convention of 1899 and should not be the cause of any difficulty. The case arose during the recent war, and was decided, after some hesitation, in accordance with the idea of the project. Shipwrecked men, sick or wounded, picked up by a neutral man-ofwar are in exactly the same situation as that of combatants who take refuge in a neutral territory. They are not given up to the adversary, but they must be detained.

Article 14 reproduces purely and simply article 9 of the convention. Amendments proposed by the German delegation and the delegation of the Netherlands were withdrawn because of the restoration of article 10 of the convention.

The extent of article 14 has been determined by what was said above in regard to article 12 of the project; it has to do only with the treatment of individuals, not of vessels, which are provided for elsewhere.

Article 15 is only the reproduction of article 10 of the convention, which for special reasons, having nothing to do with the principle of the article, had not been ratified. Its restoration was allowed without difficulty upon the proposal of the French delegation. The situation in view was that where war vessels disembark wounded or sick in a neutral port, unburdening themselves in this manner. It might be a question whether the neutral was not furnishing assistance contrary to the laws of neutrality, and might not be held responsible by the other belligerent. The proposed solution seemed to take sufficient account of the respective interests. It has been remarked that article 15 seems to impose quite a heavy burden upon the neutral state, since it could not answer in all cases for the escape of the interned men; would it not be sufficient to say, as in article 13, that they have taken measures for the purpose indicated? It has been said in reply that the form of the two articles is explained by the difference in the situations. The commander of the neutral manof-war who has picked up wounded or sick can not keep the individuals which he has so picked up; the situation is different in the case of the authorities of a neutral country. Only it is understood that all that can be demanded of the authorities of the neutral country is not to be negligent; responsibility presupposes the fault.

If a neutral merchant vessel, having occasionally picked up wounded or sick, even shipwrecked men, arrives in a neutral port without having met a cruiser and without having entered into any agreement, the individuals which it disembarks do not come under the provision; they are free.

"

Article 16 is new; it is borrowed from the convention of 1906 (article 3). It has been thought strange that the words "interment and "cremation" were left in. Naturally, they will not often apply in the case of naval operations. But it must be remembered that a conflict may take place near the shore and that the provision applies to the individuals who may be on land.

Article 17 is new.

1906.

It corresponds to article 4 of the convention of

Article 18 is a reproduction of article 11 of the convention of 1899.

Article 19 is new.

of 1906.

It corresponds to article 25 of the convention

Article 20 is new. It corresponds to article 26 of the convention of 1906. We consider it very important. The best of rules become a dead letter if measures are not taken in advance for the instruction of those who will have to apply them. Especially the personnel of the hospital ships or floating hospitals will often be called upon to fulfill a very difficult mission. They must be convinced of the necessity of not taking advantage of the immunities which they enjoy to commit belligerent acts; the result would be to ruin the convention and all the humanitarian work of the two peace conferences.

Article 21 is new. It corresponds to articles 27 and 28 of the convention of 1906, and has given rise to no difficulty.

Article 22 is new. It presents no difficulties in the case of military operations taking place at the same time on land and sea; the new convention must be applied to the forces afloat, and the convention of 1906 to the forces which operate upon land.

Article 23 is a reproduction of article 12 of the convention of 1899. Article 24 is a reproduction of article 13 of the convention of 1899, changing only the date of the Geneva Convention.

Article 25 is new and corresponds to article 31 of the convention of 1906.

The convention, the project of which we submit to you, will replace the convention of 1899 in the relations between those powers which both sign and ratify it. If we suppose two powers having signed the convention of 1899, and one of them only to have signed the new convention, the convention of 1899 will necessarily continue to govern their relations.

Article 26 is a reproduction of article 14 of the convention of 1899.

Such is the project which we submit for your approval. It is a modest work, in which he have been guided by our forerunners of 1899 and 1906. We nevertheless consider it very useful and we think that the enactment of the project into a diplomatic convention will constitute a real progress in the direction of the codification of the law of nations. LOUIS RENAULT.

THE ELEVENTH CONVENTION PROPOSED BY THE HAGUE CONFERENCE OF 1907

All progress towards world reform yet accomplished has been made at a slow pace. Only those who forget this are impatient at the outcome of the Hague conference of 1907.

Much of its time was devoted to matters of comparatively small moment. It was wise to have it so. Forty or fifty sovereign powers can hardly come into a position to deal to advantage in legislative fashion with large questions until they have found themselves able to agree on those of less importance. The natural thing therefore happened. Vast changes in international relations, such as would be produced by general arbitration treaties, world prize courts, or fixed limitations of armaments, were civilly mentioned and passed on for future consideration. But, a few projects of that character having thus been gently put aside, a great many projects of minor interest were discussed thoroughly and frankly, and finally placed in such shape as to give promise that they will soon become part of the law of the civilized world.

In this way the last in number of the four commissions, from which was to come the material for the action of the conference, became perhaps the most prolific of results. It was constituted to act in a narrow field. It had nothing to do except with what was related to naval warfare. It had nothing to do with that, except with reference to humanizing it and establishing certain juridical relations which might grow out of it affecting the interests of private individuals.

Let the attention of any small body of men, trained to share in the functions of government, and therefore necessarily familiar with the larger features of law, be concentrated in our day upon the study of the juridical relations arising out of certain facts, and they will, by the very nature of their task, be inclined to agreement. They are considering universal ideas. They are considering them in the