The Austro-Hungarian delegate said that his Government had not such boats which were not sufficiently developed to be of practical use. Personally he thought they might be employed for the defense of ports and roads and render very appreciable service. The Danish delegate thought his Government would agree to forbid, if others would. The French delegate thought they had an eminently defensive object, and it was not necessary to prohibit them. The British delegate thought his Government would consent to forbid them if all the Great Powers would agree to do so. The delegates of Italy and Japan expressed an opinion similar to that of Capt. Siegel. The Netherlands delegate considered the submarine torpedo boat an arm of the feeble, and that it could not be forbidden. The Russian delegate, with a reserve as to unanimity, was for prohibition. The Siamese delegate reserved the question, (1) as he was instructed to adhere as far as possible to humane measures, but (2) as he thought it necessary seriously to consider the necessities of the defense of weak states. The delegate of Sweden and Norway concurred with The Netherlands delegate. The Turkish delegate wished to reserve the use of the weapon as a means of defense. Conférence Internationale de la Paix, 1899, part 2, p. 88. Captain Mahan, in his report on disarmament, with reference to navies, observes, in respect of his opposition to the proposal to forbid the use of projectiles the sole purpose of which was, on bursting, to spread asphyxiating or deleterious gases: "3. That it was illogical, and not demonstrably humane, to be tender about asphyxiating men with gas, when all were prepared to admit that it was allowable to blow the bottom out of an ironclad at midnight, throwing four or five hundred into the sea, to be choked by water, with scarcely the remotest chance of escape." (Holls, 495.) III. CUTTING OF CABLES. § 1176. Article X. of the convention of 1884 for the protection of subma rine cables outside territorial waters provides that, when there is reason to believe that an infraction of the convention has been "committed by a vessel other than a vessel of war," the master of the suspected vessel may be required to exhibit the official evidence of its nationality. Article XV. provides: "It is understood that the stipulations of this convention shall in nowise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." Lest there might, even after this article, be room for misunderstanding, Lord Lyons offered in behalf of the British Submarine Telegraphic Cables in their International Relations, by During the war with Spain, officers of the United States on several occasions cut submarine cables owned by neutrals, in order to prevent the adversary from making use of them in furtherance of hostile designs. The protection of submarine cables outside territorial waters is regulated by the international convention signed at Paris, March 14, 1884. This convention, to which the United States is a party, expressly provides that its stipulations "shall in nowise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." The precedents as to such action, prior to the war with Spain, were not numerous, since communication by cables is a comparatively recent thing. On the outbreak of the war, the Government of the United States considered "the advantage of declaring telegraph cables neutral," and to that end directed its naval forces in Cuban waters to refrain from interfering with them till further orders. This inhibition evidently was soon revoked. Early in May, 1898, two out of three cables were cut near Cienfuegos, with a view to sever connection with Havana. On May 16, an unsuccessful effort was made to cut the Santiago de Cuba-Jamaica cables; and two days later one of them was severed 1.3 miles off Morro Castle. May 20, the cable connecting Cuba and Hayti was broken outside the marine league off Mole St. Nicholas. July 11, the cable connecting Santa Cruz del Sur, Trinidad, Cienfuegos, and Havana, with Manzanillo and the east of Cuba, was cut; as was also, five days later, the line connecting Santa Cruz and Jucaro. All or nearly all the cables were the property of neutrals. The neutral (British) cable from Bolinao, in the Philippines, to Hong Kong was cut by Admiral Dewey. In all these cases the object of the interruption was to confuse and frustrate the military operations, whether offensive or defensive, of the enemy. Naval Operations of the War with Spain. 176, 186, 208, 209, 210, 211, 244, 255; and supra, § 1039. IV. PRISONERS, § 1177. "The Attorney-General of the United States has given it as his opinion, and in it I concur, that any American citizen, being a pilot, may lawfully exercise his usual functions as pilot on board of Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fauchet, Sept. 17, 1794, 7 MS. Dom. A French decree "that every foreigner found on board the vessels of war or of commerce of the enemy is to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can have no right to the protection of the diplomatic and commercial agents of his nation," is in contravention of the law of nations. Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, report, Jan. 25, 1806, 15 MS. Dom. Let. 70. "9. The crews of blockade runners are not enemies and should be treated not as prisoners of war, but with every consideration. Any of the officers or crew, however, whose testimony before the prize court may be desired, should be detained as witnesses." Instructions to U. S. Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General Orders, See Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, May 5, 1864, Count Bismarck in 1870 denied that sailors on captured merchant vessels could be made prisoners of war, and threatened and executed reprisals on France for acting on that principle. (Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 407.) After the outbreak of war between the United States and Spain in 1898, various Spanish merchant vessels, captured as prize by the American naval forces, were sent to Key West for judicial proceedings. The officers and crews, in order to afford them subsistence, were turned over to the military authorities and were "harbored and protected" at the Key West barracks. June 24, 1898, the United States, being desirous of making an arrangement for sending them away, notified the French ambassador, who was charged with the care of Spanish interests, that it would give instructions for their subsistence and protection on their way to a place of embarcation. June 30, 1898, notice was given that they would be sent to New York, where it was requested that they should be committed to the care of the consul-general of Austria-Hungary, to whom the protection of Spanish interests at that port was entrusted. In a case where a Spanish brig flying the flag of Honduras was captured while attempting to run the blockade of Havana, and was condemned and ordered to be sold, the United States, while disclaiming any desire to detain the persons found on board, stated that it did not think itself under any obligation to provide them with the means of transportation, especially as the devices resorted to by the brig for the purpose of escaping lawful capture must have been known to those on board." For. Rel. 1898, 789, 795-800. The Spanish steamer Panama, while on a voyage from New York to Havana, was, after the outbreak of war, between the United States and Spain, captured as prize by the American naval forces. Among those found on board was a Spanish subject, who gave his name as Mr. Jiminez Zapatero. As he had in his possession a lot of coast charts, which he threw overboard, and as he had in his trunk epaulets and a sword, and admitted that he had some years before been an officer in the Spanish navy, he was held as a military person and was sent to Fortress Monroe as a prisoner of war. Orders were given to furnish him with accommodations and treat him according to the rank that he should claim, but, as he refused to make any statement beyond giving his name, he was held as a private. After the conclusion of the protocol of Aug. 12, 1898, as a preliminary to the conclusion of a peace, he was released. For. Rel. 1898, 794, 798, 809. During the war between the United States and Spain, in 1898, the officers and crews of various Spanish vessels which were captured as prize by the American forces were, while in the custody of the latter, allowed to send to and receive from their families in Spain open communications, as well as to correspond in the same manner with the owners of the vessels. For. Rel. 1898, 789-790, 792, 793, 794. In July, 1898, the United States proposed to allow 1,600 Spanish sailors held at Portsmouth, N. II., as prisoners of war, to return on parole if the Spanish Government would send a neutral ship for them. The Spanish Government declined the offer on the ground that the Spanish naval code imposed a penalty upon prisoners of war who obtain their release by giving their promise not to bear arms again against the enemy. The Spanish Government added that, although this restriction would seem to apply rather to officers than to common seamen, from whom such an engagement was not generally expected, the ministry of marine did not feel itself in a position to consent to the adoption of a course with regard to one class of naval forces which would be punished as a fault with regard to another. For. Rel. 1898, 996–998. It was stated by the Japanese minister in Washington, on April 9, 1904, that his Government had released all the passengers on board of Russian merchant vessels captured by Japanese cruisers, and even the officers and members of the crew, except those whose presence was deemed necessary in the trial before the admiralty court. For. Rel. 1904, 433, 434. In May, 1904, the Japanese Government sought the return by Russia of the crew of a Japanese vessel which had been sunk by the Russian fleet off the coast of Corea, as had been done by the Russians in the case of another Japanese vessel. The matter was submitted to the viceroy who, "for considerations pertaining to the war,” declined to grant the request. (For. Rel. 1904, 435, 436, 721.) V. TREATMENT OF SICK AND WOUNDED. § 1178. By a convention signed at Geneva, Oct. 20, 1868, by representatives of North Germany, Austria, Baden, Bavaria, BelAdditional articles gium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, The to the Geneva Con- Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Wurtemburg, fifteen articles were proposed to be added to the convention of Aug. 22, 1864. Of these articles, ten (VI.-XV., inclusive) related to marine warfare. vention. In the subsequent discussions, an amendment to Art. IX. was proposed by France; and in a correspondence between England and France, Art. X. was elucidated. The fifteen articles, commonly called the "additional articles of 1868," with the French amendment to Art. IX. in brackets, and the elucidations of Art. X. annexed to the text, are as follows: "ARTICLE I. The persons designated in Article II of the Conventon shall, after the occupation by the enemy, continue to fulfil their duties, according to their wants, to the sick and wounded in the ambulance or the hospital which they serve. When they request to withdraw, the commander of the occupying troops shall fix the time of departure, which he shall only be allowed to delay for a short time in case of military necessity. "ART. II. Arrangements will have to be made by the belligerent powers to ensure to the neutralized person, fallen into the hands of the army of the enemy, the entire enjoyment of his salary. “ART. III. Under the conditions provided for in Articles I. and IV. of the Convention, the name ambulance' applies to field hospitals and other temporary establishments, which follow the troops on the field of battle to receive the sick and wounded. "ART. IV. In conformity with the spirit of Article V. of the Convention, and to the reservations contained in the protocol of 1864, it is explained that for the appointment of the charges relative to the quartering of troops, and of the contributions of war, account only |