Chapter VI Text of the proposed article. the 20th of May, it was decided in connection with the establishment of the three Commissions to which were referred the various articles of the Russian circular of December 30, 1898/January 11, 1899, as follows: "Il est entendu qu'en dehors des points mentionnés ci-dessus, la Conférence ne se considère comme compétente pour l'examen d'aucune autre question. En cas de doute la Conférence aurait à décider si telle ou telle proposition émise dans les commissions. rentrerait ou non dans le cadre tracé par ces points.' "The fact that we have received the instructions herein referred to, from the President of the United States, shows that the scope of the Conference was believed by our Government to be wide enough to include this question. "The invitation from the Government of the Netherlands in response to which we are here invites us as follows, afin de discuter les questions exposées dans la seconde circulaire russe du 30 decembre 1898/11 janvier 1899, ainsi que toutes autres questions se rattachant aux idées émises dans la circulaire du 12/24 août 1898; avec exclusion, toutefois, des délibérations de tout ce qui touche aux rapports politiques des États ou à l'ordre de choses établi par les traités.' "We respectfully submit that a rule of war relating to the amelioration of its hardships as practised upon the sea attaches as fairly to the ideas put forth in the Russian circular of August 12/24, 1898, as the stipulations of the Geneva Convention or the Rules of War relating to operations on land of the Chapter VI Brussels Conference of 1874. If the Russian circular of December 30, 1898/January 11, 1899, did not specifically mention this question, the Government of the United States has assumed that it was because the Russian Government wished the Conference to decide for itself whether the question should be discussed. "It would certainly appear from the foregoing statements that there is here at least a case of doubt calling for submission to the Conference as is contemplated in the resolution adopted by the Conference on the 29th of May, and in view of this fact the Delegation of the United States of America. respectfully request that the matter be submitted by Your Excellency to the proper Commission or to the Conference itself, that it may be decided whether our proposal is among those which should now be considered. "In submitting this request allow us to present to Your Excellency the assurance of our most distinguished consideration. "ANDREW D. WHITE, President. "STANFORD NEWEL. “ Α. Τ. ΜΑΠΑΝ. "WILLIAM CROZIER. "FREDERICK W. HOLLS, Secretary." This letter was referred by the President to the Second Committee, and at the meeting of the full de Martens. Chapter VI Conference on July 5, M. de Martens of Russia, in Speech of M. a speech in which he paid a hearty tribute to the historic adherence of the United States to the great principle concerned, reported from this Committee that the Committee did not consider itself competent to discuss the subject, and that it was therefore not ready to consider the question upon its intrinsic merits, but that it had instructed him to report in favor of a resolution, to be adopted by the Conference, expressing the hope that the whole subject would be included in the programme of a future Conference. Ambassador White, the President of the American Commission, thereupon made the following speech:"MR. PRESIDENT:- The Memorial which I have had the honor of presenting to the Conference shows that for more than a century the Government of the United States has steadily and earnestly endeavored to secure the adoption of the principle therein advocated, namely: the principle of immunity 'from seizure in time of war of all private property, except contraband. Speech of "In heartily responding to the appeal of His Majesty, the Emperor of Russia, and to the invitation of the Government of the Netherlands to take part in this Conference, my Government desired not only to give its support to the main purposes announced in the Imperial Circular, but to place this principle once more before the world, in the hope that it might be definitely incorporated into International Law. "The Commission have found several of the delegations ready to accept this proposal, and sundry others whose opinions evidently incline toward its Chapter VI adoption, but we have not succeeded in securing a support sufficiently unanimous to justify us in pressing the matter further during the present Conference. "The doubt generally entertained as to the competence of the Conference in relation to this question, -a doubt based upon the terms of the invitation. which has brought us together, the fact that the delegates of various great Powers have not been furnished with special instructions bearing upon this subject, and, above all, the necessity which the Conference evidently feels of giving all possible time to those great questions which, at present, more directly interest the nations, all these circumstances make it evident that we cannot expect of this body at its present session a positive and final action regarding this subject. "But, though we are obliged, with sincere regret, to recognize this fact, our instructions impose upon us the duty to do all that lies in our power to the end that this great question may not be forgotten, but remain impressed upon the nations here represented. "We have not given up the hope of seeing it reach a happy solution. Nothing is more evident than the fact that eminent thinkers in the domain of International Law are more and more inclining to the doctrine which our Memorial advocates. More and more, also, it is becoming clear to the world at large, that the adoption of this principle is in the interest of all nations, and it is also more and more distinctly Chapter VI Speech of seen that every obligation to abstain from privateering is vain, save under the broad principle that all private property upon the high seas, with the exception of contraband of war, should be exempt from seizure; that the two methods of injuring an enemy in time of war are logically connected that to secure the abolition of one it is necessary to concede the other. Your eminent predecessor in the representation of the Russian Empire at a conference of great Powers, Count Nesselrode, expressed not only the profound conviction of a statesman and diplomatist but a great truth which is steadily gaining upon the world when he said, 'The adoption of the declaration in favor of this immunity which the United States has proposed, and which it steadily supports, would be a crown of glory to modern diplomacy.' "I am aware that an opposing argument has been used which, at first view, would seem to have considerable force, namely: that even if immunity be granted to private property, in so far as it is not contraband of war, a new question more intricate would immediately arise, namely: that of defining what is to be understood to-day as contraband of war. And we are reminded that, in a recent war between two great Powers, coal, breadstuffs, rice, and even merchant ships were regarded as contraband. But I certainly do not need to tell such an intelligent body as this, made up of men accustomed to great and difficult negotiations, that the difficulties in the way of a second step in a matter of this kind do not |