fortunately is less liberal than recent practice. Article 3 is as follows:

Enemy merchant ships which left their last port of departure before the commencement of the war and are encountered on the high seas while still ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities can not be confiscated. They are only liable to detention on the understanding that they shall be restored after the war without compensation, or to be requisitioned, or even destroyed, on payment of compensation, but in such case provision must be made for the safety of the persons on board, as well as the security of the ship's papers.

After touching at a port in their own country, or at a neutral port, these ships are subject to the laws and customs of maritime war.

The seeming exemption is rather illusory, for the exemption from capture is based upon the fact that at the time of seizure the enemy merchant ships were still ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities. If they had been informed of the existence of hostilities they would seem to be liable to capture, for the merchant vessels of to-day have discarded canvas for steam, and it rarely happens that a vessel is provided on the outbound voyage with sufficient coal for the return. It would seem, therefore, that the vessel is exposed to capture because it could not safely continue its voyage to the belligerent port, and, if it seeks to return to the home port, the vessel is liable to capture, with little chance of escape by reason of the lack of means to continue its voyage. If the merchant vessel is ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities it may not be captured, but it may be detained subject to restoration at the end of the war without compensation. The value of the vessel may be seriously depreciated in case of a long war. If requisitioned, it is unlikely that the transaction will be profitable to the original owner, and if destroyed it is improbable that the compensation will at all be adequate. The article in question, therefore, can not be considered an advance; it is a distinct limitation of customary rights. Article 4 of the convention is as follows:

Enemy cargo on board the vessels referred to in articles 1 and 2 is likewise liable to be detained and restored after the termination of the war without payment of compensation, or to be requisitioned on payment of compensation, with or without the ship.

The same rule applies in the case of cargo on board the vessels referred to in article 3.

The provisions depending upon articles 1 and 3, already quoted, would seem to require no special explanation or comment.

The convention as a whole was a compromise between those who believed in the existence of a right and those who refused to recognize the legal validity of the custom which has grown up in recent years. As in most compromises the result is unsatisfactory. The convention can not be called progressive, for it questions a custom which seems generally established and its adoption would seem to sanction less liberal and enlightened practice. The United States delegation therefore refused to sign the convention and its acceptance has not been recommended by the Department of State.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

CONVERSION OF MERCHANT SHIPS INTO WAR SHIPS

The seventh of the Hague conventions bears the title, " Convention relative à la Transformation des Navires de Commerce en Bâtiments de Guerre." The convention really relates to vessels which have already been converted into war ships rather than to their conversion. The articles bearing on the subject are as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

A merchant ship converted into a war ship can not have the rights and duties accruing to such vessels unless it is placed under the direct authority, immediate control, and responsibility of the power whose flag it flies.

ARTICLE 2.

Merchant ships converted into war ships must bear the external marks which distinguish the war ships of their nationality.

ARTICLE 3.

The commander must be in the service of the state and duly commissioned by the competent authorities. His name must figure on the list of the officers of the fighting fleet.

ARTICLE 4.

The crew must be subject to military discipline.

ARTICLE 5.

Every merchant ship converted into a war ship must observe in its operations the laws and customs of war.

ARTICLE 6.

A belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a war ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of war ships.

ARTICLE 7.

The provisions of the present convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.

These articles provide that war status will be conceded to merchant vessels only when under state authority, bearing the flag and distinguishing marks of belligerent nationality, subject to the command of a duly commissioned officer, with crew under military discipline, and observing the rules of war.

These articles take the converted merchant vessel out of the category of privateers and thus respect the first clause of the Declaration of Paris of 1856 by which “privateering is and remains abolished." The converted merchant vessels become a part of the navy.

This had already been provided for in the Regulations for the Naval Auxiliary Service of the United States in effect April 1, 1907. In Chapter I, 2, of these regulations it is provided that "these vessels shall be governed by the laws of the United States, by the Navy regulations as far as they may be applicable, and by these regulations."

This seventh convention provides for the responsible control of merchant vessels converted into war vessels. It is accepted as a general proposition that a belligerent under proper regulations will be allowed to use his resources upon the sea as well as upon the land. The fundamental objection to the use of converted merchant vessels has previously been the lack of government control and responsibility. Such control and responsibility is now secured. This convention might properly have the title, "A Convention to Secure the Observance of the Declaration of Paris in regard to Privateering."

According to the preamble itself of the seventh convention, it does not make provision for the subject proposed in the program of the Czar, viz., "conversion of merchant vessels into war ships." The preamble of the convention is as follows:

Whereas it is desirable, in view of the incorporation in time of war of merchant ships in the fighting fleet, to define the conditions subject to which this operation may be effected;

Whereas, however, the contracting powers have been unable to come to an agreement on the question whether the conversion of a merchant ship into a war ship may take place upon the high seas, it is understood that the question of the place where such conversion is effected remains outside the scope of this agreement and is in no way affected by the following rules.

The more important naval powers have agreements with the steamship companies under which in time of need certain vessels may be taken into the public service.

The place of conversion is a matter of utmost importance, and this subject by specific declaration remains outside the convention.

In general, a merchant vessel might be converted into a war vessel in a home port, on the high sea, or in a neutral port, and under exceptional circumstances within the jurisdiction of the other belligerent.

To conversion in a home port, followed by prompt notification as provided for in article 6 of the convention, little objection could be raised.

In the exceptional case of conversion within an enemy's jurisdiction there might arise a question of the exercise of good faith if a merchant vessel should forthwith be converted into a war vessel after it had been allowed to take on cargo or make repairs in an enemy's port during the days of grace allowed for departure of enemy vessels at the outbreak of war. It would seem that a regulation should be adopted by which vessels allowed such a privilege should retain their merchant character, at least until converted in a home port.

The main questions arise, however, in regard to conversion on the high seas, which the convention excludes because the powers can not reach an agreement, and conversion within neutral jurisdiction, which the convention does not mention.

The discussion during the Russo-Japanese war in regard to the conversion of the Smolensk and Peterburg of the Russian volunteer fleet after they had passed the Dardanelles, closed to war vessels, and were upon the open sea is too recent to need review. It showed the necessity of some international understanding in order to avoid friction. There is no provision at present which prevents change of character from time to time from merchant to war ship or vice versâ, unless it be article 6 of the convention, which provides that "a belligerent who converts a merchant ship into a war ship must, as soon as possible, announce such conversion in the list of war ships." It would seem that to render this article 6 definite there should be an additional clause to the effect that a vessel thus placed