armed vessels or by the military forces of any of the said signatory powers. But nothing herein contained shall extend exemption from seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of any of the said powers. (Holls, Peace Conference at The Hague, p. 311.)

This was signed by the commission, consisting of Andrew D. White, Seth Low, Stanford Newel, A. T. Mahan, William Crozier, Frederick W. Holls.

The communication of the American commission showed that the attitude of the United States had been favorable to the exemption of private property from capture. The committee of the conference did not feel itself competent to take up the subject, but recommended that it be included in the program of a further conference. In speaking on this subject Mr. White said in behalf of the American commission:

The commission have found several of the delegations ready to accept this proposal, and sundry others whose opinions evidently incline toward its adoption, but we have not succeeded in securing a support sufficiently unanimous to justify us in pressing the matter further during the present conference. (Ibid., 314.)

Mr. White also made quite an extended argument for the exemption, and the proposition was inserted in the form of a wish in the Final Act of the First Hague Conference, as follows:

5. The conference expresses the wish that the proposal, which contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, may be referred to a subsequent conference for consideration. (Ibid., p. 379.)

Capture or destruction of enemy private property at sea. Topic I considered at the Naval War College Conference in 1905 proposed the question, "What regulations should be made in regard to private property at sea in time of war?"

In the discussion of this topic the attitude of the United States was traced from the early days of the Republic. It was shown that the attitude of the United States had usually been in favor of the exemption of private property at sea from capture.

From the general conclusions as to the policy of capture a few citations may be made.

CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY PROPERTY. 115

There is a growing opinion that the reasons for capture of the enemy's private property at sea are economic and political rather than military. The immunity to private property should not, however, be so extended as to interfere with necessary military operations. It would not be reasonable to exempt private property to such an extent as to cause the war to be of necessity prolonged or to result in greater destruction of life. Imperative military necessity, of which the superior officer on the field of action at the time must judge, must override rights of private property. The question of damages may be reserved for subsequent settlement. (International Law Topics and Discussions,

1905, p. 17.)

The equitable practice of days of grace will probably be continued. The use of improved means of communication will be extended. Privateering is abandoned. Prize money is beginning to be abolished. Land commerce is more and more developed. In time of war commerce is more easily transferred to neutral flags. The actual influence of the capture of private property does not seem to be great. The weakening of a naval force in order to pursue and capture private property is of doubtful expediency. Such considerations as these show why the tendency to guarantee the exemption of all private property at sea in time of war by an international agreement has been looked upon with increasing favor.

The proposed exemption, if it extended to all goods and property, would probably make necessary an extension of the list of contraband. Contraband as now used applies only to certain classes of goods carried by or belonging to neutrals. If enemy property is placed on the same basis as neutral property, the doctrine of contraband must be interpreted accordingly and the principles enunciated with this in view. (Ibid., p. 19.)

After lengthy discussion and considerable difference of opinion, it was found necessary in the conference of 1905 to make some special provision in regard to vessels. The brief statement was as follows:

The vessels of the enemy used in commerce may be enemy private property. Certain of these vessels may readily become of great service to the enemy. Vessels of like character, if belonging to a neutral, could not be classed as contraband. Owing to the ease with which many types of commercial vessels may be converted to warlike uses, it seems proper that such agencies of transportation should not be placed under the general exemption. The degree of exemption to be extended to vessels may properly be left to the belligerents to determine.

Considering the general conditions of modern naval warfare and commercial relations, as well as the trend of opinion, to

gether with the exceptional character of private vessels belonging to enemy citizens, an attempt to formulate a proper regulation in regard to the exemption of private property at sea may be considered expedient. Of course such exemption does not cover property of contraband nature, property involved in violation of blockade, property involved in unneutral service or otherwise concerned directly in the war. The regulation of exemption should apply, therefore, only to innocent property and ships.

Some such regulation in regard to vessels as the following seems to meet the requirements imposed by the above discussion and conclusions:

Innocent private ships, except belligerent vesse's propelled by machinery and capable of keeping the high seas, are not liable to capture.

It may be said that the word "innocent" applies only to such private property or ships as have no direct relation to or share in the hostilities. It may be assumed that innocent belligerent goods or ships may be taken in case of military necessity, and when so taken full remuneration shall be paid, after the analogy of similar action on land. (Ibid., p. 20.)

The proposed regulation in regard to the treatment of private property at sea was:

Innocent neutral goods and ships are not liable to capture. Innocent enemy goods and ships, except vessels propelled by machinery and capable of keeping the high seas, are not liable to capture. (Ibid., p. 20.)

United States proposition at The Hague, 1907.—In accordance with the vote of the First Hague Conference as expressed in the "wish" of the final act of the Conference, the immunity of private property at sea was included in the program of the Second Hague Conference in 1907. The subject was referred to the fourth committee, and the American proposition was in almost the same words as in 1899.

Mr. Choate, on June 28, 1907, made a long speech reviewing the attitude of the United States upon the question of inviolability of private property at sea. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III., pp. 750-764.) Mr. Choate, representing the American. delegation, speaks of the immunity of private property at sea, saying:

This proposition involves a principle which has been advocated from the beginning by the Government of the United States and

AMERICAN PROPOSITION, 1907.

117

urged by it upon other nations and which is most warmly cherished by the American people, and the President is of opinion that whatever may be the apparent specific interest of our own or of any other country for the time being, the principle thus declared is of such permanent and universal importance that no balancing of the chances of probable loss or gain in the immediate future on the part of any nation should be permitted to outweigh the considerations of common benefit to civilization which call for the adoption of such an agreement. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p. 766.)

Mr. Choate also speaks of this doctrine as "our favorite proposition," "the traditional policy of the United States," and at the same time saying, "I ought most frankly to concede that the United States has never been able to put this policy into practical operation." Mr. Choate cites the opinion of statesmen and writers in favor of exemption and argues that the reasons for exemption of private property on land apply to similar property at sea. He urges the exemption

First, on humanitarian grounds; secondly, we place it on a ground more important still, of the unjustifiable interference with innocent and legitimate commerce, which concerns not alone the nation to which the ship belongs, but the who e civilized world. We insist upon our proposition in the third place as a direct advance toward the limitation of war to its proper province, a contest between the armed forces of the States by land and sea against each other and against the public property of the respective states engaged. And, finally, we object to the old practice and insist upon our demand for its abolition on the ground that it is now no longer necessary, and that it tends to invite war and to provoke new wars as a natural result of its continuance. (Ibid., pp. 774–775.)

Mr. Choate supports his position by arguments, some of which have a bearing upon the military significance of this doctrine of exemption:

Apart from all historical and ethical points of view, it may well be claimed that there is another strong ground in support of the immunity of private property at sea, not needed for military purposes, for which we contend. From economical considerations it is no longer worth the while of maritime nations to construct and maintain ships of war for the purpose of pursuing merchant ships which have nothing to do with the contest. The marked trend of naval warfare among all great maritime nations at the present time is to dispense with armed ships adapted to such

service, and to concentrate their entire resources upon the construction of great battleships whose encounters with those of their adversaries shall decide any contest, thus confiring wa as it should be, to a test of strength between the armed forces and the financial resources of the combatants on sea and land. It is probable that, if the truth were known, there has been an actual diminution by all the maritime nations in the construction of war vessels adapted to the pursuit of merchantmen, and, indeed, a sale or breaking up of such vessels which had been for some time in service. Indeed, none of the great navies now existing could afford to employ any of their great and costly ships of war or cruisers in the paltry pursuit of merchantmen scattered over the seas. The game would not be worth the candle and the expense would be more than any probable result.

This presents in another form the idea already referred to that war has come to be, as it should be, a contest between the nations engaged and not between either nation and the noncombatant citizens or individuals of the other nation, and it results from it that the noncombatant citizens should be let alone, and that no amount of pressure that can be brought to bear upon them will have any serious effect in shortening the controversy. (Ibid., p. 777.)

Of the proposition that the "most effective way of preventing war is to make it as terrible as possible," Mr. Choate, after showing that the trend of the Geneva and other conventions is in the opposite direction, says:

Of course there is no truth or sanity in such a brutal suggestion. Our duty is not to make war as horrible as possible, but to make it as harmless as possible to all who do not actually take part in it, to prevent as far as we can, to bring it to an end as speedily as we can, to mitigate its evils as far as human ingenuity can accomplish that result, and to limit the engines and instruments of war to their legitimate use the fighting of battles and the blockading and protection of seacoasts. (Ibid., p. 778.)

Other arguments are also presented, and as these constitute what is regarded as an official statement of the position of the United States, the paragraphs concluding Mr. Choate's address may be cited:

Again, it is urged that the retention of this ancient right of capture and detention is necessary as the only means of bringing war to an end. That when you have destroyed the fleets of your enemy and conquered its armies it has no object in suing for peace as long as its commerce and its communication by trans portation with other nations in the way of trade is left undisturbed.