respect to measures which it may deem necessary to employ for the protection and preservation of the prize.**

The value of the provisions of article 23 can only be ascertained by experiment. Any plan which tends to preserve property without imposing an undue burden on the neutral deserves at least the respect of maritime states.* 45

Article 24 declares:

If, notwithstanding the notification of the neutral power, a belligerent ship of war does not leave a port where it is not entitled to remain, the neutral power is entitled to take such measures as it considers necessary to render the ship incapable of taking the sea during the war, and the commanding officer of the ship must facilitate the execution of such

measures.

When a belligerent ship is detained by a neutral power, the officers and crew are likewise detained.

The officers and crew thus detained may be left in the ship or kept either on another vessel or on land, and may be subjected to the measures of restriction which it may appear necessary to impose upon them. A sufficient number of men for looking after the vessel must, however, be always left on board.

The officers may be left at liberty on giving their word not to quit the neutral territory without permission.

In case a belligerent war ship, after due notification, does not leave a neutral port where it is no longer entitled to remain, the right of the neutral to take whatever measures it may deem necessary to render the ship incapable of further service during the war must be clear to all. That it is the duty of the commander to facilitate the execution of such measures necessarily follows.

The detention of the officers and crew in such case is analogous to the treatment accorded troops of a belligerent which seek refuge in neutral territory. The neutral must itself determine the measures of restriction to be imposed. That such a state should be permitted to accord certain freedom to officers is reasonable and in harmony with modern practice.

44 Id., 26.

45 See Oppenheim, Inter. Law, II, 350.

Article 25 declares:

A neutral power is bound to exercise such surveillance as the means at its disposal allow to prevent any violation of the provisions of the above articles occurring in its ports or roadsteads or in its waters.

This articles embodies the principle expressed in the second article of the Neutrality Rules of the Treaty of Washington, May 8, 1871. The Report to the Conference states that the principle itself encountered no opposition, and that the chief effort on the part of the comité was to find a declaration which would not impose on neutral states a responsibility out of proportion to the means at their disposal. The language used wisely imposes upon the neutral a duty measured by "the means at its disposal," which, as has been already seen, more aptly describes the extent of the obligation of such a state than the term due diligence" employed in the Treaty of Washington.1

Article 26 declares:

46

The exercise by a neutral power of the rights laid down in the present convention can under no circumstances be considered as an unfriendly act by either of the belligerents who has accepted the articles relating thereto.

This article was presented to the comité by M. Tcharykow, of Russia. In reply to the objection that such a provision was unnecessary it was argued that the convention itself constituted a wholly new regulation of conduct; that those states which adhered thereto would be extremely desirous of being safe from criticism and complaint if its provisions were followed. It seems fortunate that article 26 was not eliminated.+7

Article 27 declares:

The contracting powers shall communicate to each other in due course all laws, proclamations, and other enactments regulating in their respective countries the status of belligerent war ships in their ports and waters, by means of a communication addressed to the Government of the Netherlands, and forwarded immediately by that Government to the other contracting powers.

46 Report to the Conference, 28.

47 Id., 29.

2

Article 28 declares:

The provisions of the present convention do not apply except to the contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.

A general conclusion as to the advantages of the thirteenth convention can be of slight value. That its provisions do not impose undue hardships upon a neutral is apparent. The extent of the obligation of such a state is justly declared to be determined by the means at its disposal in every situation. The most striking feature of the convention is the permission given to a belligerent war ship, first, to remain more than twenty-four hours in the waters of such neutral states as may have enacted special provisions permitting such sojourn; and secondly, to fill its bunkers built to carry fuel, in such neutral countries as may have adopted that method of determining the amount to be supplied.

CHARLES CHENEY HYDE.

48 The remaining articles (29 to 33) relate solely to the details of ratification, coming into force, denunciation of, and adhesion to the convention, and to the functions to be exercised by the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs in that connection. For that reason the text is not quoted.

THE LAUNCHING OF PROJECTILES FROM BALLOONS

In the marked development which has recently taken place in aërial navigation, attention has not infrequently been directed to the practicability of "bombarding" fortified and unfortified places by dropping projectiles from balloons. When exposed to such an attack no place can be said to be “defended," so that the suggestion applies with equal force to fortified places, in the ordinary sense of that term, and to arsenals and fleets. To constitute an international usage, an act must have been so frequently repeated as to enable it to be subjected to classification and orderly arrangement with a view to determine whether it constitutes a lawful act of war. For a number of years past, and especially since the operations of war have been made the subject of conventional regulation, the view has been held by several states of first-class importance that what is not expressly forbidden in these undertakings may be done. From this point of view such a use of balloons as was prohibited in the declaration of 1899 would, in the absence of such a prohibition, constitute a legitimate operation of war.

The launching of projectiles from balloons belongs in the same class of undertakings as the proposition to subject coast cities to ransom at the demand of a powerful fleet: that is, both have been proposed, but neither has been seriously considered by a responsible belligerent; indeed, neither practice has any existence in fact, but both have been regarded as constituting a sufficiently serious menace to humanity to warrant an international conference in formulating prohibitory declarations with a view to prevent their occurrence. There can be no doubt that the measures of prevention to which the peace conferences of 1899 and 1907 resorted were both wise and timely. The instruments with which injury may now be inflicted are, to say the least, sufficiently destructive. Belligerent states are at no loss as to the efficiency of the agencies to which they may resort in the prosecution of the destructive operations of war, and there is abounding wisdom in restricting the employment of the

destructive agencies now in use to the elements upon which they are habitually employed.

It will be remembered that the declaration of 1899 was agreed to by the Peace Conference at The Hague for a period of five years; it therefore expired, by its own limitation, on July 28, 1904. The terms of the new declaration are substantially the same as those of the instrument which has expired, and contain the requirement that

The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.

A proposition submitted by the Italian delegation requiring the officers and crews of balloons or aërial vessels to belong to the military establishment of the state which maintains them, though accepted by the committee, was not embodied in the declaration. Its inclusion was hardly necessary, as those who direct the movements of balloon and air-ships in the interests of a belligerent become, in the operation of their contracts of employment, a portion of the combatant force of the state which utilizes their services.

The number of states that have not yet signed is somewhat unusual and leads us to express the hope that their signatures will be attached at an early day.

GEORGE B. DAVIS.