with especial regard to his fitness for the duty required. It was not ever thus in the past, nor even in the earlier stages of this war. Misunderstanding of their mission, suspicion of their neutrality, and a general sentiment entirely natural to military governments averse to permitting outsiders to interfere in any matters of administration, rendered the task of pioneer delegates of the Protecting Powers a peculiarly difficult one. While our country was yet neutral, Minister Garrett, as a delegate of the Protecting Power, was charged with the representation of British and French interests in respect to prisoners of war of these two nationalities held in German custody. The experiences undergone in this work by himself personally and by his authorized assistants were so full of discouragement and disappointment, involving not infrequently evasion, obstruction, and occasionally even downright rebuff by the military authorities (often subalterns) at the prisoner of war camps, that there had been made upon his mind an impression so vivid and permanent as to originate a fixed determination to embody in our convention with the Germans such provisions, definite, explicit, comprehensive and mandatory, as are found in these articles under immediate consideration.

ARTICLES 124-132.—As will easily be seen, these articles are concerned with the question of the payment of salaries to officers and others classed as officers while in the status of prisoners of war. In all of its essential elements this section is practically identical with a modus vivendi on the same subject which was about to be concluded between our Government and the German Government through the medium of diplomatic correspondence by way of the Spanish and Swiss foreign offices at the time when our dual conference was determined upon.

It will be recalled that Hague Convention IV, Article 17, provides as follows: "Officers taken prisoners shall receive the same pay as officers of corresponding rank in the country where they are detained, the amount to be repaid by their own government."

At the commencement of our participation in the war a considerable number of German naval officers who had been in our custody as internés automatically became prisoners of war. Some of them were under the immediate charge of the Navy Department, others

had already been turned over to the War Department. The question straightway arose concerning the rates of pay to be granted to these officer prisoners. Inasmuch as the State Department had uttered a pronouncement to the effect that the Government of the United States considered that the conventions of The Hague and of Geneva were not of themselves binding upon our Government, but that the Government would in general be guided by the underlying principles of those conventions, the War Department took as its guide in the matter of salary payments Article 17 of Hague IV; and the rates of pay therein prescribed were continued in their application to the German officers, prisoners of war, from the date of their capture during some six or eight months. In the meanwhile our Government was informed that the German Government had made no provision. whatever for paying any salary to American officers prisoners of war in German hands. After some months of fruitless negotiation, involving exchange of numerous notes on the subject, without obtaining any satisfactory assurance from the German Government, our Government directed the stoppage of all salary payments to German officers in our hands, from and after November, 1917. During the first half of the year 1918 exchanges of proposals between the two governments in relation to this subject resulted in nearly reaching an agreement in effect the same as that which appears embodied in the articles under present study. It is considered that the present arrangement, whereby a flat rate of pay is authorized, is much to be preferred to the old arrangement indicated in The Hague Convention, for the simple reason of the marked inequality in amounts of pay to corresponding grades allowed in the several countries. Also we deemed it to be very advisable to state definitely just what persons should be entitled to pay and just what pay they should be entitled to receive, rather than to have the matter more or less dependent on comparisons and interpretations.

ARTICLES 133-135.-The provisions of these articles, which concern transfers from one prison camp to another, the reunion of relatives who are contemporaneous prisoners, and so forth, are really more important than appears at first glance. I think that if the reader should state each one of them negatively it would speedily be borne in

upon his mind that the statement of their importance is not overdrawn. As with the case of many other provisions inserted in this agreement, so with these, our commission felt that nothing essential or important should be left to inference.

ARTICLES 136-138 require no explanation.

ARTICLE 139.-In considering any definition of prisoners of war and of the classes of persons who should properly be included in this category, it is interesting to reflect upon the changes in the conception of the condition of prisoners of war wrought within the last decade or so. In former days and in former wars it was generally thought that the lot of a prisoner of war was not to be envied in comparison with that of the civil population of invaded or occupied territory, and that it was greatly to be desired to be and to remain exempt from capture. In this latest great war, however, the abuses and ill-treatment of civilians not ordinarily classed as prisoners of war have been such as to bring forth a marked change of sentiment. It is now considered highly desirable that every person, male or female, liable to be taken by the enemy, should have, as far as possible, the definite specified status of prisoner of war so that there may be no question as to rights, duties, privileges and immunities.

ARTICLES 140-150.-These articles provide for the prompt return to the jurisdiction of their own state of origin of the sanitary personnel serving in connection with its armed forces. Under the old conventions, these persons may not properly be classed as prisoners of war, but should receive a degree of immunity appropriate to their humane profession and activities. It was to insure immunity in this respect that the definite provisions of these articles were adopted. In all fairness it should be said that our opponents at the council table showed every evidence of a genuine desire to agree with our views in relation to the sanitary personnel. In one respect, however, the German delegation desired an extension of immunity to which we could. not accede. This involved the inclusion in the class of sanitary personnel of all German doctors and clergymen resident within the United States. The German Government's request in this particular had been denied in diplomatic correspondence prior to the assembling of the Conference, and our Commission, thoroughly convinced of the

undesirability of repatriating the vast number of German doctors and clergymen in the United States, who, by the very nature of their respective professions were in position to obtain and to utilize secrets. of possible great importance, stood out against the German suggestion. As to the pay of the sanitary personnel while in the hands of the enemy, it will be noted that in the third paragraph of Article 148. having reference to the pay provisions of Section 17, the stipulation of Article 132 regarding reimbursement by the state of origin at the close of hostilities were omitted. This omission was by design and was based on the theory that sanitary personnel working with and for the enemy are entitled to compensation at the expense of such enemy for services rendered.

ARTICLES 151-172.-I do not feel free at the present time to examine and expose in detail the reasons, arguments, requirements, and concessions contained in the provisions of these articles treating of civilian citizens and civil prisoners. They represent the maximum that we were willing to concede and less than the minimum that the Germans hoped and expected to obtain. The mutual situation in relation to the civilian question was altogether one-sided and unsymmetrical. Our best and most reliable advices put the number of American citizens (civilians) in Germany at a figure round about 2,100; while the number of German civilians under the jurisdiction of our Government was, in round numbers, nearly 1,800,000. The German delegation produced figures and endeavored to convince us that there were in Germany some 7,500 American civilians whose lot would be vitally affected by provisions for repatriation, or internment in a neutral country. There is no doubt that they raked the German Empire with a fine-toothed comb in order to round up so many Americans or quasiAmericans. While we were skeptical to the point of unbelief in relation to this figure, all that we could do diplomatically was to politely express a mild surprise that our information concerning this subject. was so imperfect. As a matter of fact we believed it to be definite and thoroughly good. It is highly probable that in order to augment their "trading stock" the Germans had included in the category of American citizens (civilian) in Germany every undesirable resident who was acquainted with the American language or who had any

American affiliations and could by the extremest stretch of a willing imagination be vested with American citizenship in spite of the rigorously restrictive German laws concerning transfer of citizenship. and allegiance through the process of naturalization. In order to spike this particular gun we inserted Article 161. Read it and note the limiting effect of its terms "no dumping permitted."

During the discussion in plenary session in connection with this section of the agreement an interesting colloquy, illustrative of the opposing attitudes of mind and points of view, occurred, the spokesmen being Prince von Hohenlohe for the Germans and Mr. Davis for our Commission. I take the liberty of reporting it verbatim, the German version in translation, of course:

Prince von Hohenlohe: The points upon which I have enlarged will, no doubt, occupy our attention for a considerable time to come, but I feel obliged to point out now that there is one other question the settling of which is included strictly in the German delegation's mission. I am thinking of the betterment of the fate of civilian prisoners, who, without participating in the war, are suffering as innocent victims thereof. The latest conferences which have met to discuss the question of prisoners have in consideration of this point occupied themselves earnestly with the lot of civilian prisoners, and they arrived at the conclusion that the internment of civilians should once for all be abolished. I especially direct attention to the agreement reached in April between the German and French Governments, the wording of which is as follows:

"The internment of civilians of one party in the territories of the other or in the occupied territories shall in future not be allowed."

In the same way the German and British Governments have agreed, at The Hague, that the civilians of both parties who, on the day the agreement came into force, might be in the power of the other party (officers and members of crews of merchant ships included) might, if they wished it, and without consideration of age or sex, be repatriated. I cannot help thinking that what was arrived at in the agreements with France and England should also be agreed on, with some good will from both sides, in the present negotiations.

Mr. Davis: Mr. President-In the matter of the civilian proposals, the American delegation has considered the proposal submitted by the German delegation, particularly with reference to the abolition of internment, and has reached the definite conclusion that an agreement with the German proposal is distinctly outside the powers which the American delegation possesses. The proposal, in effect, not only changes a rule of international law as we understand it, but also