Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

"(1) In order to obtain by means of requisitions or of contributions what is necessary for the fleet.

a

"Nevertheless, such requisitions and contributions must remain within the bounds prescribed by arts. 56 and 58 of the Manual of the Institute.

"(2) In order to destroy dockyards, military establishments, depots of munitions of war, or vessels of war found in a port.

"Moreover, an open town which is defended against the entrance of troops or of disembarked marines may be bombarded in order to protect the landing of soldiers and of marines if the open town attempts to prevent it, and as an auxiliary measure of war in order to facilitate an assault made by the troops and disembarked marines, if the town defends itself.

"There are specially forbidden bombardments whose sole object is to exact a ransom (Brandschatz), and, with greater reason, those destined only to induce the submission of the country by the destruction, without other motive, of peaceable inhabitants or their property. "ART. 5. An open town may not be exposed to bombardment by the sole fact:

"(1) That it is the capital of a state or the seat of government (but, naturally, these circumstances give it no guarantee against bombardment).

"(2) That it is actually occupied by troops, or that it is ordinarily garrisoned by troops of various arms, destined to rejoin the army in time of war."

9. DISCUSSIONS IN THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

$1174.

By Article XXV. of the "Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land," adopted at The Hague July 29, 1899, “ the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings which are not defended is prohibited."

In the deliberations of the second committee, the delegate from Italy proposed that this article should be made applicable to bombardments by naval forces. Objections were made to this proposal (1)

a 56. Impositions in kind (requisitions), levied upon communes, or the residents of invaded districts, should bear direct relation to the generally recognized necessities of war, and should be in proportion to the resources of the district. Requisitions can only be made, or levied, with the authority of the commanding officer of the occupied district.

58. The invader can not levy extraordinary contributions of money, save as an equivalent for fines or imposts not paid or for payments not made in kind. Contributions in money can only be imposed by the order, and upon the responsibility, of the general in chief, or that of the superior civil authority established in the occupied territory; and then, as nearly as possible, in accordance with the rule of apportionment and assessment of existing imposts.

because of the incompatibility of an absolute prohibition with the possible necessities of a naval force in regard to obtaining supplies, and (2) because of the inopportuneness of the proposal. The committee, on motion of its president, then expressed the opinion that the matter should be examined by a future conference. The British delegate, however, adverted to the fact that his Government had refused to take part in the Brussels Conference (1874) except on condition that naval questions should remain outside the deliberations. He added that he did not desire to touch the merits of the question, but to declare that for the reason indicated it was impossible for him to associate himself with the committee's expression of opinion; and at his request the fact that he abstained from voting on it was entered. on the record.

The conference, in its final act, July 29, 1899, voted certain wishes, among which was the following:

"The conference expresses the wish that the proposal to settle the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent conference for consideration."

This wish formed one of five which "were voted unanimously, saving some abstentions," the English delegates having abstained from voting.

Conférence Internationale de la Paix, III. 27-28; Blue Book, Misc. No. 1 (1899), 289; For. Rel. 1899, 513, 520.

II. MINES AND TORPEDOES,

§ 1175.

In February, 1866, Admiral Nuñez, then in command of the Spanish fleet before Valparaiso, Chile, on hearing that an attempt would be made from the town to destroy his vessels with torpedoes, caused the Chilean Government to be informed that if such an attempt was made he would instantly open fire on the town.

March 3, 1866, Admiral Denman wrote to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty that he intended to use two of his ships to enforce twenty-four hours' delay before the Spanish squadron should open fire on Valparaiso, in the event of the use of torpedoes against the Spanish ships. This intention the lords considered "not to be justified by any rule of international law." April 16, 1866, Lord Clarendon instructed the British minister in Chile that he had consulted the law officers of the Crown on the subject, and that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the course which the Spanish admiral had declared he would pursue would, under the circumstances stated," be justifiable by international law." "Her Majesty's Government," said Lord Clarendon, "think it impossible to deny the

belligerent right of Chile to employ torpedoes against the Spanish squadron; and equally impossible to deny the belligerent right of Spain to bombard the town which those instruments are employed to protect. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, however, it would be highly impolitic on the part of the Chilean Government to give cause to the Spanish commodore to put his threat into execution."

56 Brit. & For. State Papers (1865-1866), 937, 939.

"The employment of torpedoes is so recent a belligerent device that it is believed the powers as yet have had no opportunity to consider the general regulations, if any, to which they should be subjected. For this reason I now forbear to express any opinion upon the proceeding to which you advert,” i. e., the indiscriminate placing by order of Turkey of torpedoes in the bed of the Danube during the war with Russia.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shishkin, Russian min., June 12, 1877,
For. Rel. 1877, 476.

In 1880 the British minister at Lima reported to his Government that the Peruvians had, during the then pending war with Chile, made use of boats containing explosive materials, with the object of destroying the enemy's ships, and that in some instances these boats had been set adrift on the chance of their being fallen in with by some of the Chilean blockading squadron. The British minister was instructed by Lord Granville "to protest in the strongest manner against a practice which is fraught with so much danger to the vessels of neutral powers in the free navigation of the high seas, and to state that Her Majesty's Government will hold the Peruvian Government responsible for any damage which may be caused to British vessels by the practice in question."

Sir Edward Thornton, British min., to Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, Jan. 17, 1881, MS. Notes from Great Britain.

With reference to the report that Peru had made use of "boats containing explosive materials," which had "in some instances been sent adrift on the chance of their being fallen in with by some of the Chilean blockading squadron," the American minister at Lima was instructed, should he find on inquiry the report to be well founded, to make a "strong representation" to the Peruvian Government, and to say that the United States must hold Peru responsible for any damage done to American vessels. A means of warfare so dangerous to neutrals, if it had been adopted, should, it was said, "be at once checked, not only for the benefit of Peru, but in the

interest of a wise and chivalrous warfare, which should constantly afford to neutral powers the highest possible consideration."

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Christiancy, No. 119, Jan. 25, 1881, For
Rel. 1881, 857.

During the insurrection in Brazil in 1893 the American minister at Rio de Janeiro reported that the commanders of foreign vessels had asked the insurgents to cease firing while they searched the harbor for floating torpedoes. The American minister asked whether he might join with his colleagues of the diplomatic corps to the end of securing like action on the part of the Government forts. The Department of State instructed him "to join in the request, which should be made to both parties, if the floating torpedoes are proving a damage to neutral vessels, that they permit the removal of those torpedoes.'

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Brazil, tel., Nov. 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 75.

"Under the direction of the Chief of Engineers submarine mines were placed at the most exposed points. Before the outbreak of the war permanent mining casemates and cable galleries had been constructed at nearly all important harbors. Most of the torpedo material was not to be found in the market, and had to be specially manufactured. Under date of April 19, district officers were directed to take all preliminary measures, short of the actual attaching of the loaded mines to the cables, and on April 22 telegraphic orders were issued to place the loaded mines in position.

"The aggregate number of mines placed was 1,535, at the principal harbors from Maine to California. Preparations were also made for the planting of mines at certain other harbors, but owing to the early destruction of the Spanish fleet these mines were not placed."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LVI.
As to the notice given of the mines in New York Harbor, see Mr. Day, Sec.
of State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, British ambass., May 11, 1898, MS.
Notes to British Leg. XXIV. 183.

Accompanying the notice given by the United States of the placing of
mines there were regulations for the navigation of the entrances to
harbors, pending war.

At the conference at The Hague, in 1899, the president of the second subcommittee of the second committee suggested for discussion the subject of the use of submarine torpedo boats, intimating at the same time that if one nation adopted these terrible weapons all should be free to do so.

Capt. Siegel thought that, if other nations would agree not to adopt ships of this kind, Germany would adhere to the understanding. Capt. Mahan reserved his opinion and that of his Government.

The Austro-Hungarian delegate said that his Government had no 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 submarine 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

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »