Cartel ships. Cartel-ships form another exception. They are vesssels employed in services connected with the exchange of prisoners of war. Each of them should carry a permit emanating from the supreme government of the enemy state, authorising her to pursue her humane mission without molestation. In the case of the Carolina Sir W. Scott decided that a subordinate authority might issue such a protection; and in the case of the Daifjie he laid down that to enjoy the benefit of it the cartel ship need not have prisoners actually on board. She is protected from capture on both the outward and the return voyage, and even when she has done no more than enter on her functions by being put in a state of preparation to perform them. But the mere intention to become a cartel-ship will not be sufficient; and a vessel on her way from one port to another of her own country for the purpose of taking on herself that character may be captured, unless she has obtained a pass from a commissary of prisoners, who is an official of one belligerent residing in the country of the other in order to carry out the arrangements connected with exchange. Belligerents may employ either public or private vessels in their cartel service; but the carriage of merchandise, despatches, or passengers is strictly forbidden, and also the performance of any hostile acts, or even the taking on board of the means to perform them in the shape of armament. The law of the matter rests solely on usage as interpreted by prize court decisions, and is at present of little importance owing to the disuse of exchange in recent wars. But the practice may be revived at any time, and therefore it cannot be passed over unnoticed. Lawrence, pp. 453, 454; The Carolina, 1 C. Rob. 336; The Daifjie, 3 Another mode of intercourse between belligerents is by Cartels, which are agreements entered upon during war, or in anticipation of it, in order to regulate some kinds of such intercourse as is to be allowed in the course of the struggle. They prescribe, for instance, the formalities to be observed in the exchange of prisoners, the reception of flags of truce, and the interchange of postal or telegraphic communications. Whatever regulations are laid down in them should be observed in good faith, and without any attempt to wrest them from their humane purposes, and turn them into means of obtaining information or gaining military advantage. Cartels for the exchange of prisoners were frequent incidents of wars between civilized powers, and may become frequent again in the event of a revival of the custom of exchange. The arrangements connected with the process were made and supervised by officers called commissaries, who were appointed by each belligerent, and allowed to reside in the country of the enemy. Cartel-ships were vessels employed in the conveyance of prisoners to and from the place of exchange. They were free from hostile seizure on the conditions set forth when we were considering the extent to which public vessels of the enemy are liable to capture. Lawrence, pp. 558, 559. The exchange of prisoners as between the belligerents is usually regulated by cartels; commissaries being appointed on either side to supervise their execution. Cobbett, pt. II, p. 107. Cartel ships. Enemy vessels actually engaged in cartel service are exempt from capture, both when carrying exchanged prisoners, when returning from such service, and-as we may gather from the decision in The Daifjie-even when proceeding to take up such service, so long as that intention is clearly established. But such vessels will forfeit their privilege if they engage in mercantile traffic or otherwise abuse their position. Cobbett, pt. II, p. 170; The Daifjie, 3 C. Rob. 139. No exchange of prisoners shall be made except after complete capture, and after an accurate account of them, and a list of the captured officers, has been taken. Lieber, art. 110. Treating captured rebels as prisoners of war, exchanging them, concluding of cartels, capitulations, or other warlike agreements with them; addressing officers of a rebel army by the rank they may have in the same; accepting flags of truce; or, on the other hand, proclaiming martial law in their territory, or levying war taxes or forced loans, or doing any other act sanctioned or demanded by the law and usages of public war between sovereign belligerents, neither proves nor establishes an acknowledgment of the rebellious people, or of the government which they may have erected, as a public or sovereign power. Nor does the adoption of the rules of war toward rebels imply an engagement with them extending beyond the limits of these rules. It is victory in the field that ends the strife and settles the future relations between the contending parties. Lieber, art. 153. Cartels. In the customary military sense a cartel is an agreement entered into by belligerents for the exchange of prisoners of war. In its broader sense it is a convention concluded between belligerents for the purpose of arranging or regulating certain kinds of nonhostile intercourse otherwise prohibited by the existence of the war. A cartel is voidable as soon as either party has violated it. U. S. Manual, p. 102. United States v. Wright, 28 Fed. Cas., 796.-Both belligerents are bound to observe the terms of the cartel, and they "are of such force under the law of nations that even the sovereign can not annul them.” U. S. Manual, p. 102, note. A cartel, in the wider sense of the term, is used to signify a convention concluded between belligerents for the purpose of permitting certain kinds of non-hostile intercourse which would otherwise be prevented by the conditions of war. For instance, communication by post, trade in certain commodities, and such like, may be agreed upon by a cartel. As used in a strictly military sense, however, a cartel means an agreement for the exchange of prisoners of war. Edmonds & Oppenheim, art. 338. Treaties of Exchange.-These have for their object the mutual discharge or exchange of prisoners of war. Whether the opponent will agree to an offer of this kind or not, depends entirely upon himself. The usual stipulation is: An equal number on both sides. That is only another way of saying that a surplus of prisoners on the one side need not be handed over. German War Book, pp. 135, 136. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMUNICATION. [For citations under the heading of article 54, Hague Convention IV, 1907, concerning the treatment of submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory, see "The Laws of Neutrality," United States Government Printing Office, 1918, pp. 31-33.] 2. A cable connecting the territories of two belligerents or two parts of the territory of one of the belligerents may be cut anywhere except in the territorial sea and in the neutralized waters appertaining to a neutral territory ("neutralized" by treaty or by declaration in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris resolutions of 1894). 5. In applying the preceding rules, no difference is to be made between State cables and cables owned by individuals, nor between cables which are enemy property and those which are neutral property. Institute, 1902, p. 162. ARTICLE 54. C. Submarine Cables. In the conditions stated below, belligerent States are authorized to destroy or to seize only the submarine cables connecting their territories or two points in these territories, and the cables connecting the territory of one of the nations engaged in the war with a neutral territory. The cable connecting the territories of the two belligerents or two points in the territory of one of the belligerents, may be seized or destroyed throughout its length, except in the waters of a neutral State. A cable connecting a neutral territory with the territory of one of the belligerents may not, under any circumstances, be seized or destroyed in the waters under the power of a neutral territory. On the high seas, this cable may not be seized or destroyed unless there exists an effective blockade and within the limits of that blockade, on consideration of the restoration of the cable in the shortest time possible. This cable may be seized or destroyed on the territory of and in the waters belonging to the territory of the enemy for a distance of three marine miles from low tide. Seizure or destruction may never take place except in case of absolute necessity. In applying the preceding rules no distinction is to be made between cables, according to whether they belong to the State or to individuals; nor is any regard to be paid to the nationality of their owners. Submarine cables connecting belligerent territory with neutral territory, which have been seized or destroyed, shall be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. Institute (1913), pp. 188, 189. Whether postal or telegraphic communication is forbidden or allowed is a subject upon which the belligerents decide purely in accordance with their own convenience. Hall, p. 571. When messages were first exchanged by Transatlantic cable between England and America in 1888, President Buchanan, in replying to a congratulatory despatch from Queen Victoria, inquired whether "all the nations of Christendom will not spontaneously unite in the declaration that it shall be forever neutral, and that its communicetions shall be held sacred in passing to the place of their destination, even in the midst of hostilities." It need hardly be stated that the President's hope has not been realized. The International Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables, signed at Paris on April 16, 1884, is expressly declared by its 15th article to "in no wise restrict the action of belligerents "; and H. R. 54, it will be observed, relates only to cables connecting neutral with occupied territories. Holland, p. 58. At the Hague Conference of 1899 it was proposed to add the words "cables d'aterrissage "-" shore ends of cables "-to the list of property (railways, telegraphs, etc.), which a belligerent was entitled to seize, subject to his restoring them or paying compensation. The proposal was abandoned owing to Great Britain's refusal to accept any provision which seemed to trench upon maritime war law. No similar objection was raised in 1907 to the much wider provision on the same subject contained in Article LIV, which is an offspring of the last Hague Conference. Spaight, pp. 416, 417. Chili paid compensation for cutting the cable of a British Company in her war with Peru. But when Admiral Dewey cut the HongKong-Manila cable at Manila in 1898 the United States declined to admit the claim to compensation preferred by the British Company which owned the line. Spaight, pp. 417, 418. Submarine Cables.-The enormous development of international communications during the last half-century could not be better illustrated than by a comparison of the chart of the existing submarine cables of the world with that of fifty years ago. The necessity of taking special measures for the protection of this important institution of modern life soon became apparent, and led |