The last paragraph of the second article of the convention permits immediate bombardment for the destruction of the noxious material, but in such a case "the prohibition to bombard the undefended town. holds good" and the commander is bound to take "all due measures in order that the towns may suffer as little harm as possible." The reason for this seeming exception from immunity provided by article 1 is due to the fact that the local authorities may prevent the intervention of the enemy by the destruction of the noxious material. If, however, they refuse, it seems only proper to allow the enemy to use the force and the means necessary to destroy the articles in question. If damage occurs the local authorities would seem to be to blame, for they might possibly have destroyed the material without subjecting the community to the possibility of injury. In any case the convention insists that the town itself shall suffer as little harm as is consistent with the destruction of the property.

Article 3 is likewise declaratory of existing law and practice, for it permits bombardment for "requisitions for provisions or supplies in question." Lest, however, the demand for requisitions might amount to a ransom or might permit devastation, it is provided that the requisitions shall be in proportion to the resources of the place. The entire article, unobjectionable in theory as it is in practice, follows:

After due notice has been given, the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings may be commenced, if the local authorities, after a formal summons has been made to them, decline to comply with requisitions for provisions or supplies necessary for the immediate use of the naval force before the place in question.

These requisitions shall be in proportion to the resources of the place. They shall only be demanded in the name of the commander of the said naval force, and they shall, as far as possible, be paid for in cash; if not, they shall be evidenced by receipts.

It will be noted that the late Mr. Hall allowed, with certain reservations, bombardment to enforce contributions, and article 4, section 1, previously quoted, of the rules of the Institute of International Law likewise sanctioned such bombardment.

Article 4 of the convention denied the right in the following expressed terms:

Undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings may not be bombarded on account of failure to pay money contributions.

The remaining articles (5, 6, and 7) extend to naval bombardment the principles and restrictions already found in the laws and customs of war on land for bombardment (articles 25, 28, revised convention). The exact text of the concluding articles of the convention concerning bombardment by naval forces follows, and needs neither explanation

or comment:

ART. 5. In bombardments by naval forces all the necessary measures must be taken by the commander to spare as far as possible sacred edifices, buildings used for artistic, scientific, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick or wounded are collected, on the understanding that they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the inhabitants to indicate such monuments, edifices, or places by visible signs, which shall consist of large, stiff rectangular panels divided diagonally into two colored triangular portions, the upper portion black, the lower portion white.

ART. 6. If the military situation permits, the commander of the attacking naval force, before commencing the bombardment, must do his utmost to warn the authorities.

ART. 7. A town or place, even when taken by storm, may not be pillaged.

The convention, therefore, is as humanitarian as it is wise, and is in strict conformity with the practice and custom of enlightened nations. The only provision of this admirable little convention likely to produce criticism or justify objection is the concluding paragraph of article 1, prohibiting bombardment solely because automatic submarine contact mines are anchored off the harbor. How serious this may be only the future will show, but the convention as a whole is declaratory of the practice of enlightened nations and is in accord with the views of the most recent and authoritative publicists. By removing doubt and ambiguity, by making that certain which seemed to be uncertain and doubtful, the convention amply justified itself, and it can only be regarded as a genuine and further step in the march of universal progress.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

CONVENTION FOR THE ADAPTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION TO MARITIME WARFARE1

We are here to give an account of the charge confided to us to draw up a text upon which to base your deliberations. Before giving a brief outline of each one of the propositions which we have the honor to submit, it may be useful to make some remarks of a general

nature.

The authors of the convention of 1899 were naturally guided by the fundamental principles of the convention of 1864, considered the starting point for the provisions to be made to cover maritime warfare; they sought to find the rules which, in accordance with these principles, would permit the securing on sea of the humanitarian results already obtained on land. An agreement was easily reached in the conference and it may not be useless to recall that the drafting committee which had unanimously supported the project they had prepared was for the most part made up of naval officers.

We have now before us a new Geneva Convention of July 6, 1906, destined to replace the convention of August 22, 1864. The former was signed by the representatives of more than thirty states and has already been ratified by eleven of them. The question has naturally arisen if it would not be well to take advantage of the new convention to complete the work of 1899. This does not mean that the convention of 1864 in its essential features is modified by that of 1906; the fundamental principles remain the same. The aim has been to combine the results of experience and the commentaries of jurists, to fill in the gaps, and to do away with uncertainty, but not to undertake something new. We are in the same situation as regards. the convention of 1899. We do not believe that there is need of any essential changes; it can only be necessary to find out if in the light

1 This article is a translation of Prof. Louis Renault's admirable report to the Second Peace Conference. For the Geneva Convention of 1906 the reader is referred to the article on that subject by Gen. George B. Davis, which appeared in this JOURNAL, 1:410. - MANAGING EDITOR.

of the convention of 1906 there is not need of completing the convention of 1899, at the same time remaining true to the spirit from which it evolved.

A great debt of gratitude is due to the German delegation for the conscientious work which it has undertaken for the purpose of adapting to the convention of 1899 the extensions and amendments added to the convention of 1864. Our labor has been much simplified thereby. The object will be simply to see if there are not in certain respects differences between naval and continental war such as to explain the reason for not applying purely and simply to the one the solution adopted for the other. Sometimes analogies are more apparent than real.

The proposals of the French delegation have likewise in view the completion rather than the modification of the convention of 1899 by providing for the cases which were overlooked in the latter. Certain amendments proposed by the delegation of the Netherlands tended, on the contrary, it would seem, to modify the principles of the convention of 1899.

The commission had first to decide the question, "Should the convention of 1899 remain in an amended or completed form; or should a new convention be drawn up in which the provisions retained and the new ones adopted were combined?" The second method was adopted without hesitation. The supplementary texts are somewhat long and deal with matters too distinct to be combined without great difficulty. In a matter of this kind, where rules to cover difficult situations are laid down, the text adopted should be clear, precise, and easy of consultation.

The convention of 1899 contains fourteen articles; the project which we submit has twenty-six. This difference should not cause dismay. It must not be thought that any very great changes have been made in the work of 1899, which conserves its own structure unaltered by the proposed additions, which should not be the cause of any serious dispute.

The title of the convention must evidently be changed. The substitution of the date of "July 6, 1906," for that of "August 22, 1864," suffices.

Articles 1 and 2, relating to military hospital ships and to the hospital ships of belligerents, are articles 1 and 2 of the convention of 1899 retained without change.

Article 3,2 on the contrary, modifies article 3 of the convention of 1899. The majority of the commission has in fact adopted an amendment proposed by the German delegation based upon article 11 of the convention of 1906. To understand the difficulty which arises it is necessary to compare the case provided for by the latter convention with the analogous case which occurs in maritime warfare. A relief society of a neutral country wishes to come to the aid of one of the belligerents. Subject to what conditions can this be done? Such a society must first receive the consent of the government of its own country, then the consent of the belligerent whom it wishes to aid and under whose direction it must place itself. It will temporarily form a part of the sanitary service of the belligerent, as is shown by the obligation imposed by article 22, paragraph 1, to display the national flag of the belligerent besides the flag of the convention.

In 1899 it was a question as to the situation of hospital ships of neutral countries disposed to offer their charitable aid. No precedents existed, since the convention of 1864 did not provide for the case of neutral ambulances, and until the convention of 1906 it was a disputed question whether such ambulances could fly their national flag or whether they should display that of the belligerent. In this connection the committee of 1899 expressed the following sentiment:

It has been proposed to require that neutral hospital ships place themselves under the direct authority of one of the belligerents. A careful study has shown us that such a provision would give rise to serious difficulties. What flag would the ships in question fly? Would there not be something in the nature of a violation of neutrality in the fact of a

2 ARTICLE 3. Hospital ships, equipped entirely or in part at the expense of private persons or of officially recognized societies of neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture, upon the condition that they are placed under the direction of one of the belligerents, with the previous assent of their own government and with the authorization of the belligerent itself, the latter having notified their names to the adversary at the commencement of, or during the course of, the hostilities, and in any case before it is employed.