age sustained in time of war by peaceable trade and commerce. It is true we may suffer in such cases less than other communities, but all nations are damaged more or less by the state of uneasiness and apprehension into which an outbreak of hostilities throws the entire commercial world. It should be our object, therefore, to minimize, so far as practicable, this inevitable loss and disturbance. This purpose can probably best be accomplished by an international agreement to regard all private property at sea as exempt from capture or destruction by the forces of belligerent powers. The United States Government has for many years advocated this humane and beneficent principle, and is now in position to recommend it to other powers without the imputation of selfish motives. I therefore suggest for your consideration that the Executive be authorized to correspond with the Governments of the principal maritime powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerent powers. 151 1 The Secretary of State (Hay) to the Delegates to the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 (White, Low, Newel, Mahan, Crozier) 1 WASHINGTON, April 18, 1899. GENTLEMEN: Since the conference has its chief reason of existence in the heavy burdens and cruel waste of war, which nowhere affect innocent private persons more severely or unjustly than in the damage done to peaceable trade and commerce, especially at sea, the question of exempting private property from destruction or capture on the high seas would seem to be a timely one for consideration. As the United States has for many years advocated the exemption of all private property not contraband of war from hostile treatment, you are authorized to propose to the conference the principle of extending to strictly private property at sea the immunity from destruction or capture by belligerent powers which such property already enjoys on land as worthy of being incorporated in the permanent law of civilized nations. I am [etc.] 1 Foreign Relations, 1899, pp. 511-513. JOHN HAY 152 The American Delegates to the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 (White, Low, Newel, Mahan, Crozier) to the President of the Conference (Staal), June 20, 1899 1 1 EXCELLENCY: In accordance with instructions from their Government, the Delegation of the United States desire to present to the Peace Conference, through Your Excellency as its President, a proposal regarding the immunity from seizure on the high seas, in time of war, of all private property except contraband. It is proper to remind your Excellency, as well as the Conference, that in presenting this subject we are acting not only in obedience to instructions from the present Government of the United States, but also in conformity with a policy urged by our country upon the various powers at all suitable times for more than a century. In the Treaty made between the United States and Prussia in 1785 occurs the following clause: "Tous les vaisseaux marchands et commercants, employes a l'echange des productions de differents endroits, et, par consequent, destines a faciliter et a repandre les necessites, les commodites et les douceurs de la vie, passeront librement et sans etre molestes. Et les deux puissances contractantes s'engagent a n'accorder aucunes commissions a des vaisseaux assures en course, qui les autorisent a prendre ou a detruire ces sortes de vaisseaux marchands ou a interrompre le commerce." Art 23. In 1823 Mr. Monroe, President of the United States, after discussing the rights and duties of neutrals, submitted the following proposition: "Aucune des parties contractantes n'autorisera des vaisseaux de guerre a capturer ou a detruire les dits navires (de commerce et de transport), ni n'accordera ou ne publiera aucune commission a aucun vaisseau de particulier arme en course pour lui donner le droit de saisir ou detruire les navires de transport ou d'interrompre leur commerce." In 1854, Mr. Pierce then President, in a message to the Congress of the United States, again made a similar proposal. In 1856 at the Conference of Paris, in response to the proposal by the greater European Powers to abolish privateering, the Government of the United States answered expressing its willingness to do so provided that all property of private individuals not contraband of war on sea as already on land should be exempted from seizure. In 1858, under the administration of Mr. Buchanan, then President, a Treaty made between the United States and Bolivia con 1 1 MS., Minutes of the Sessions of the American Delegation. templated a later agreement to relinquish the rights of capturing private property upon the high seas. In 1871 in her Treaty with Italy, the United States again showed adhesion to the same policy. Article 12 runs as follows: "The High Contracting Parties agree that, in the unfortunate event of a war between them, the private property of their respective citizens and subjects, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by the armed vessels or by the military forces of either party; it being understood that this exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of either party." It may be here mentioned that various Powers represented at this Conference have at times indicated to the United States a willingness, under certain conditions, to enter into arrangements for the exemption of private property from seizure on the high seas. It ought also to be here mentioned that the doctrine of the Treaty of 1871 between Italy and the United States had previously been asserted in the Code of the Italian Merchant Navy as follows: "La capture et la prise des navires marchands d'un Etat ennemi par les navires de guerre seront abolies par voie de reciprocite a l'egard des Etats qui adoptent la meme mesure envers la marine marchande italienne. La reciprocite devra resulter de lois locales, de conventions diplomatiques, ou de declarations faites par l'ennemi avant le commencement de la guerre." Art. 211. And in the correspondence with Mr. Middleton, the Representative of the United States at the Russian Court, Count Nesselrode, so eminent in the service of Russia, said that the Emperor sympathized with the opinions and wishes of the United States, and that "as soon as the Powers whose consent he considers as indispensable shall have shown the same dispoition, he will not be wanting in authorizing his ministers to discuss the different articles of an Act which will be a crown of glory to modern diplomacy." In this rapid survey of the course which the United States have pursued during more than a century, Your Excellency will note abundant illustration of the fact above stated-namely that the instructions under which we now act do not result from the adoption of any new policy by our Government or from any sudden impulse of our people, but that they are given us in continuance of a policy adopted by the United States in the first days of its existence and earnestly urged ever since. Your Excellency will also remember that this policy has been looked upon as worthy of discussion in connection with better provisions for promoting peace and diminishing the horrors of war not only by eminent statesmen and diplomatists in the active service of various great nations, but that it has also the approval of such eminent recent authorities in international law as Bluntschli, Pierantoni, De Martens, Bernard, Masse, De Lavelye, Nys, Calvo, Maine, Hall, Woolsey, Field, Amos, and many others. We may also recall to your attention that the Institute of International Law has twice pronounced in its favor. The proposition which we are instructed to present may be formulated as follows: "The private property of all citizens or subjects of the signatory powers, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure on the high seas or elsewhere by the 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." As regards the submission of this question to the Conference at this time, we most respectfully present the following additional observations: At the second session of the Conference held on 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 mentionnes ci-dessus, la Conference ne se considere comme competente pour l'examen d'aucune autre question. En cas de doute la Conference aurait a decider si telle ou telle proposition emise dans les commissions rentrerait ou non dans le cadre trace 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 exposees dans la seconde circulaire russe du 30 decembre 1898/11 janvier 1899, ainsi que toutes autres questions se rattachant aux idees emises dans la circulaire du 12/24 aout 1898, avec exclusion, toutefois, des deliberations de tout ce qui touche aux rapports politiques des Etats ou a l'ordre de choses etabli par les traites." We respectfully submit that a rule of war relation [relating] to the amelioration of its hardships as practiced 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 Brussels Conference of 1874. The Government of the United States has assumed that if the Russian circular of December 30, 1898/January 11, 1899, did not specifically mention this question, 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 on the 20th 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 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. 153 ANDREW D. WHITE SETH LOW STANFORD NEWEL A. T. MAHAN WILLIAM CROZIER FREDERICK W. HOLLS The United States Naval War Code of 19001 [Articles 19, 32, 34-45] BELLIGERENT AND NEUTRAL VESSELS ART. 19. A neutral vessel carrying the goods of an enemy is, with her cargo, exempt from capture, except when carrying contraband of war or endeavoring to evade a blockade. THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SEARCH ART. 32. The following mode of procedure, subject to any special treaty stipulations, is to be followed by the boarding vessel, whose colors must be displayed at the time: The vessel is brought to by firing a gun with blank charge. If this is not sufficient to cause her to lie to, a shot is fired across the bows, and in case of flight or resistance force can be used to compel the vessel to surrender. The boarding vessel should then send one of its smaller boats alongside, with an officer in charge wearing side arms, to conduct 1 Issued June 27, 1900, General Orders No, 551, |