Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1906, (In two parts), Part II

The president of the United States delegation to the Geneva Conference to the Secretary of State.

Delegation of the United States,
Geneva Conference,
Geneva, July 10, 1906.

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, through our embassy at Berlin, the report of the delegation of the United States to the conference to revise the Geneva Convention of 1864.

It seems proper to say that the well-known professional reputation and high official rank of the three delegates from the army and navy were appreciated by the members of the conference and added weight to the opinions which the delegation expressed.

The delegation is under especial obligation to General Davis for his aid in the preparation of their report.

Meetings of the committees appointed by the conference were held twice each week day, at 10 o’clock in the morning and 3 o’clock in the afternoon. The president of our delegation attended all the meetings of all the committees, although he was formally a member of but three of the committees.

It may not be inappropriate to add that when the question of arbitration presented by M. de Martens was under consideration, the delegation, in announcing its attitude, stated its desire “to place on record their most hearty sympathy with the general principle of international arbitration, which has always had the earnest support of the Government which they have the honor to represent;” and they further stated their “belief that the fullest and most complete opportunity for the discussion of the principle contained in the clause which M. de Martens proposed would be afforded at the second conference at The Hague, which is to take place in the not distant future.”

The delegation also referred “to the fact that in the meantime the existing Hague Convention provides a way for securing the arbitral results which are contemplated in M. de Marten’s proposition.”

I may be permitted to express the individual opinion that in voting to accept the modification of M. de Martens’s proposition, as finally formulated by a special committee, the delegation acted not only in harmony with the well-known friendly attitude of the Government toward arbitration and The Hague Tribunal, both of which it has always sought to promote, but also in harmony with the ever-growing sentiment throughout the world that whenever circumstances make it right and proper international misunderstandings should be settled by arbitration.

Respectfully,

Wm. Gary Sanger,
President of the Delegation.

Report of the delegation.

Delegation of the United States,
Geneva Conference,
Geneva, July 10, 1906.

To the Honorable Secretary of State.

Sir: The delegates appointed by the President to represent the United States at the conference for the revision of the Geneva convention of August 22, 1864, beg leave to submit the following report. Their selection was accomplished in appropriate letters of designation, issued by the Department of State under date of April 26, 1906, and the delegation, as so designated, was composed of the following persons:

Hon. William Gary Sanger;

Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, U. S. Navy, president of the Naval War College;

Brig. Gen. George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate-General, U. S. Army;

Brig. Gen. Robert Maitland O’Reilly, Surgeon-General, U. S. Army.

Lieut. Daniel W. Wurtsbaugh, U. S. Navy, a member of the staff of the Naval War College at Newport, R. I., was designated by the Secretary of State to accompany the delegation in the capacity of technical assistant and special disbursing officer.

The members of the delegation assembled at Geneva, Switzerland, on Sunday, June 10, 1906, and established themselves in quarters convenient to the apartments in the Hotel de Yille, which had been set apart by the cantonal authori-of Geneva as a place for the meetings of the conference.

The opening session of the conference was held in the assembly hall of the University of Geneva at 4 p.m. on June 11, 1906, when the general body of delegates was called to order by the Hon. Louis Forrer, President of the Swiss Confederation. The delegates were welcomed by President Forrer in behalf of the Swiss Confederation and by M. Henry Fazy, president of the Council of State, in behalf of the city and Canton of Geneva. An appropriate response to the addresses of welcome was made by His Excellency M. Révoil, the ambassador of the French Republic at Berne, upon whose motion the Hon. Edouard Odier, the first Swiss delegate to the conference and minister plenipotentiary of Switzerland at St. Petersburg, was unanimously chosen as president of the conference. President Odier, at the close of the felicitous address with which the proceedings of the conference were formally opened, named M. Gustave Moynier an honored citizen of Geneva, who had been deeply interested in the organization of the original Red Cross Society, as the honorary president of the conference.

The first plenary session of the conference was held in the grand council hall of the Hotel de Yille at 2 p.m. on June 12. At this meeting, after a short address by M. Moynier, the honorary president of the conference, the roll of delegates was called and the names and official designations of the representatives of the several powers were announced. M. Vincent, the second delegate of Switzerland, was chosen vice-president, and the composition of the secretariat and administration of the conference was fixed upon and completed.

The following is the composition of the delegations representing the 35 powers which participated in the conference:

President of the conference: The Hon. Edouard Odier, minister of the Swiss Confederation to St. Petersburg.

Honorary president of the conference: M. Gustave Moynier, of Geneva, Switzerland.

Vice-president of the conference: M. Vincent, National Federal Council of Switzerland.

Argentine Republic: His Excellency Mr. Moreno, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Rome; Mr. Molina Salas, consul-general in Switzerland.

Austria-Hungary: His Excellency Mr. Heidler, Baron of Egeregg and Syrgenstein, privy councilor, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Berne, plenipotentiary; Mr. Joseph d’Uriel (chevalier), chief surgeon of the imperial and royal army of Austria-Hungary, chief of the medical corps, and chief of the fourteenth division of the imperial and royal ministry of war, associate delegate; Lieut. Col. Arthur Edler de Mecenseffy, general staff, associate delegate; Dr. Alfred Schücking, surgeon lieutenant-colonel, chief surgeon of the garrison of Salzburg, associate delegate.

Belgium: Colonel Count de T’Serclaes, general staff, chief of staff of the fourth military circumscription; Dr. A. Delterne, regimental surgeon of carbineers.

Brazil: Dr. Carlos Lemgruber-Kropf, chargé d’affaires at Berne; Col. Roberto Trompowski, engineer corps, military attaché to the Brazilian legation at Berne.

Bulgaria: Dr. Marin Rousseff, chief medical director; Capt. Boris Sirmanoff, general staff.

Chile: His Excellency Mr. Edwards, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary; Mr. Charles Ackerman, consul from Chile to Geneva.

China: His Excellency Mr. Lou Tseng Tsiang, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to The Hague; Mr. Ou Wen Tai, secretary of legation at The Hague; Mr. Yo Tsao Yeu, secretary of the special Chinese mission to Europe.

Congo: The delegates from Belgium are also the representatives of the Congo.

Corea: The delegates from Japan also represent Corea.

Denmark: Mr. Laub, surgeon-general, chief of the army medical corps.

France: His Excellency Mr. Révoil, ambassador to Berne; Mr. Louis Renault, minister plenipotentiary, jurisconsult of the ministry of foreign affairs, professor at the “Faculté de droit,” Paris; Colonel Olivier (staff certificate), reserve artillery, scientific expert; Doctor Pauzat, chief surgeon of the second class, scientific expert.

Germany: His Excellency Mr. A. de Bülow, chamberlain and privy councilor, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Berne; Brigadier-General Baron de Manteuffel; Doctor Villaret, medical inspector, surgeon-general (with rank of major-general); Doctor Zorn, privy councilor of justice, professor of law at the University of Bonn, and syndic of the Crown.

Great Britain and Ireland: Maj. Gen. Sir John Ardagh, K. C. M. G., K. C. I. E., C. B.; Prof. T. E. Holland, K. C, D. C. L.; Sir John Furley, C. B.; Lieut. Col. W. G. Macpherson, C. M. G., royal army medical corps; Lieut. Col. J. E. Edmonds, general staff secretary of legation.

Greece: Mr. Michel Kebedgy, professor of international law at the University of Berne.

Guatemala: Mr. Manuel Arroyo, chargé d’affaires at Paris; Mr. Henri Wiswald, consul-general at Geneva.

The Netherlands: Lieut. Gen. Jonkheer J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael (retired), member of the state council; Col. A. A. J. Quanjer, chief medical officer, first Class.

Honduras: M. Oscar Hœpfl, consul at Berne.

Italy: Marquis Roger Maurigi di Castel Maurigi, ex-deputy, vice-president of the central committee of the Italian Red Cross Society; Surg. Maj. Gen. Giovanni Randone, inspector, medical corps; Mr. Vannutelli (chevalier), attacheé of the legation of His Majesty the King of Italy, secretary of the delegation.

Japan: His Excellency Mr. Tsunetada Kato, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Brussels; Colonel of Infantry Motojiro Akashi; Dr. Eijiro Haga, chief surgeon of the first class (with rank of colonel); Commander Prince Saneteru Itchijo (rank of lieutenant-colonel); Mr. Masanosuke Akiyama, LL. D., counsellor at law for the war department.

Luxemburg: The Belgian delegates also represent the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.

Mexico: Maj. Gen. Jose Maria Perez.

Montenegro: The delegates from Switzerland also represent the principality of Montenegro.

Nicaragua: The delegate from Honduras also represents the State of Nicaragua.

Norway: Captain Daae, of the medical corps of the Norwegian army.

Peru: Mr. Gustavo de la Fuente, first secretary of the Peruvian legation at Paris.

Persia: His Excellency Mr. Samacl Khan Momtaz-os-Saltaneh, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Paris.

Portugal: His Excellency Mr. Alberto d’Oliveira, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Berne; Colonel of Infantry José Nicolau Raposo-Botelho, ex-deputy, superintendent of the royal military college at Lisbon.

Roumania: Mr. Nicolas Ghica, minister plenipotentiary, general secretary of the ministry of foreign ffairs; Dr. Sache Stephanesco, colonel of reserves.

Russia: His Excellency Mr. de Martens, privy councilor, life member of the council of the ministry of foreign affairs of Russia; Major-General Yermoloff, of the general staff of Russia; Mr. de Hubbenet, M. D., state councilor; Mr. de Wreden, state councilor and fellow of the Imperial Medical School; Lieut. Col. J. Owtchinnikorf, professor of international law at the Naval Academy of St. Petersburg; Mr. A. Goutchkoff, Reel Cross delegate; Mr. Nicolas de Martens, secretary of the delegation.

San Salvador: Mr. Pedro J. Matheu, chargé d’affaires and consul-general in France; Mr. Santiago Perez Triana, chargé d’affaires and consul-general in Spain.

Servia: Mr. Milan Markovitch, general secretary of the department of justice; Doctor Sonclermayer, colonel, and chief of the medical division of the ministry of war.

Siam: Prince Charoon, chargé d’affaires at Paris; Mr. Corragioni d’Orelli, counselor of the legation at Paris.

Spain: His Excellency Count Silverio de Baguer y Corsi, minister resident; Col. Don José Jofre Montojo, general staff, aid-de-camp of the war department; Don Joaquin Cortes Bayona, first-class assistant inspector of the army medical corps.

Sweden: Mr. Sörensen (O. P.), chief surgeon of the second division of the army.

Switzerland: Mr. Odier, minister to Russia; Doctor Vincent, national counselor at Geneva; Colonel Mürset, chief surgeon of the federal army.

United States: Mr. William Gary Sanger, ex-Assistant Secretary of War; Brig. Gen. George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate-General of the Army; Brig. Gen. Robert M. O’Reilly, Surgeon-General of the Army; Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, president of the Naval War College; Lieut. D. W. Wurtsbaugh, U. S. Navy, scientific expert.

Uruguay: Mr. Alexandre Herosa, chargé d’affaires at Paris.

secretary’s office.

General Secretary: M. Ernest Rethlisberger (Berne).

Secretaries: Mr. Paul des Gouttes (Geneva); Mr. Philippe Dunant (Geneva); Mr. L. Vannutelli (Italy); Mr. Nicolas de Martens (Russia).

Assistant Secretary: Mr. Camille Odier (Geneva).

Attached to the secretary’s office, with duties embracing all matters of a personal nature and those relating to the protocol: Mr. Gustave Goegg (Geneva).

It is interesting to observe that the membership of the conference comprised 15 ambassadors and ministers, including chargés d’affaires; 18 officers of the diplomatic or consular service; 38 officers of the army, of whom 20 were members of the medical or sanitary departments of the states which they represented; 2 officers of the navy; 8 professors and publicists; and 4 officers of volunteer Red Cross societies. Although but few of the delegates directly represented the volunteer associations which have been organized in nearly all states of the civilized world, many of the representatives have been officially associated with these societies in various capacities, and most of the delegates were entirely familiar with the work which has been accomplished by them during the past forty years.

When the announcement of the names and designations of the delegates representing the signatory powers had been completed, a set of rules for the guidance of the conference and its committees was submitted by the president and unanimously accepted. The rules thus adopted conformed in substance to those usually followed by bodies composed of delegates representing sovereign states, and provided for the appointment of committees for the conduct of the business of the conference; they also provided for the preparation of a daily report of the proceedings of the conference and its committees, which was to be given to the public, through the secretariat, at the close of the conference.

As a basis for its deliberations the following questions were submitted to the powers, by the Government of the Swiss Confederation, some months in advance of the meeting of the conference:

1. The Geneva Convention lays down the principle that wounded or sick soldiers shall be received and attended to, whatever their nationality. (Art. 6, sec. 1.) Is it advisable to add that soldiers, when disabled, shall be protected against ill treatment and plunder?

Should it be further stipulated:

(a) That no burial or cremation of the dead shall take place without a previous careful examination of the bodies?

(b) That every soldier shall carry on his person a mark by which he can be identified?

(c) That the list of the dead, sick, and wounded taken in charge by the enemy shall be delivered by the latter as soon as possible to the authorities of their country or army?

2. Lay down the principle that the sick and wounded remain subject to the general laws of war, and that when they fall into the hands of the enemy they will be considered as prisoners of war. Rescind the provisions relative to the return of the sick and wounded. (Art. 6, sees. 2, 3, and 4.)

3. Would it not be well to enumerate more fully the sanitary personnel protected by the convention? (Art. 2.) Is it desirable to mention the personnel of voluntary relief societies and to determine the conditions on which such personnel will be neutralized?

4. Under article 2 of the convention, the sanitary and religious personnel participates in the benefit of neutrality only while on duty and as long as there remain wounded men to raise and to succor. Should it not be declared inviolable under all circumstances?

5. Stipulate that the sanitary personnel shall continue to discharge its duties even after occupation by the enemy, under the orders of the latter’s military authorities. As soon as its services shall no longer be required by the sick and wounded, the military authority shall, on its request, send it back and, if it be possible without detriment to military operations, furnish it with an escort: to the outposts of its army over the shortest route. On so retiring, the said personnel shall carry away articles and surgical instruments of its’ private property.

6. Stipulate that the belligerents shall guarantee to the sanitary personnel that may fall into their hands full enjoyment of their whole salaries. (See art. 7 of The Hague Convention for the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare.)

7. Provide that neutrality ceases for the sanitary personnel if it commits hostile acts otherwise than in self-defense, there being, however, no prohibition of the carrying of arms.

8. Rescind the provisions relative to inhabitants of the seat of war. (Art. 5.)

9. Article 1 of the convention stipulates that military ambulances and hospitals will be recognized as neutral and protected and respected as such by the belligerents so long as any sick and wounded are therein.

Would it not be opportune to modify this provision in the sense that ambulances—that is to say, according to the interpretation given by the, conference of 1868—the field hospitals, and other temporary establishments that follow the troops on-the field of battle for the relief of the sick and wounded are to be considered as neutrals under all circumstances, and that therefore if they should fall into the hands of the enemy they should be returned to their army by him as soon as they are no longer required for the care of the sick and wounded?

The same article declares that neutrality ceases if the ambulances or hospitals are under a military guard. It might be preferable to say that the neutrality of sanitary establishments ceases if they are used by the enemy for warlike purposes, and to add that the fact of their being protected by a picket or by sentries does not deprive them of that prerogative. The picket or sentries, if captured, will be considered as prisoners of war.

10. Examine whether it would not be appropriate to insert in the new convention a clause providing that the buildings and equipments of standing government hospitals will remain subject to the laws of war, but shall not be used for other purposes as long as they may be needed for the sick and wounded soldiers therein.

11. Examine whether it would be appropriate to stipulate that the stock of recognized and authorized relief societies shall be considered under all circumstances as private property.

12. Examine the question as to whether it is tit to adhere to the lied Cross on a white ground as the sole distinctive badge (art. 7 of the convention), or whether it would be well to admit exceptions for non-Christian states, such as Turkey, for instance, which substituted the red crescent for the Red Cross.

13. Examine whether it will be advisable to stipulate that the contracting states shall be bound to take requisite legislative action for the punishment of all infringements of the convention.

14. Examine, lastly, whether it is desirable to insert in the new convention a clause binding the signatory states to see to it that the convention and the penalties incurred by the transgressors are made known to the troops and people.

With a view to facilitate the work of the conference and to expedite its proceedings, four committees were formed and the following assignment of subjects was made:

1. The sick, wounded, and dead.

2. Personnel of sanitary formation.

3. Sanitary material, medical stores, and supplies.

4. Emblem of the convention, with the measures necessary to prevent its abuse, together with questions which were not especially assigned to other committees.

At the first meeting of each committee a president, vice-president, and secretary were elected and a suitable administrative staff was agreed upon.

The following is the composition of the several committees:

• First committee (treatment of the sick, wounded, and dead): President, General von Manteuffel; vice-president, Professor Holland; reporter, Colonel Olivier; secretary, Count de T’Serclaes; assistant secretaries, M. Dunant, M. Vannutelli.
  • Austria-Hungary: Lieutenant-Colonel de Mecenseffy, Surgeon-General d’Uriel, Lieutenant-Colonel Schücking.
  • Belgium: M. Logie, Colonel de T’Serclaes.
  • Brazil: M. Lemgruber-Kropf, Colonel Trompowski.
  • Bulgaria: Doctor Rousseff.
  • Chile: M. Edwards.
  • China: M. Lou Tseng-Tsiang.
  • Denmark: Surgeon-General Laub.
  • France: Professor Renault, Colonel Olivier.
  • Germany: General von Manteuffel, General Villaret.
  • Great Britain: Sir John Ardagh, Professor Holland, Lieutenant-Colonel Macpherson.
  • Greece: Professor Kebedgy. Guatemala: M. Arroyo.
  • The Netherlands: Lieutenant-General den Beer Poortugael, Colonel Quanjer. Italy: Marquis Maurigi, Surgeon-General Randone.
  • Japan: M. Kato, Colonel Akashi, Commander Prince Itchijo, Doctor Haga, Professor Akiyama.
  • Norway: Captain Daae.
  • Peru: M. de la Fuente.
  • Portugal: Colonel Raposo-Botelho.
  • Russia: M. de Martens, Doctor de Hubbenet, Doctor de Wreden, M. Goutchkoff.
  • Siam: Prince Charoon.
  • Sweden: Chief Surgeon Sorensen.
  • Switzerland: M. Odier.
  • United States: Admiral Sperry, General Davis.
• Second committee (personnel of sanitary formations): President, Lieutenant-Colonel Schücking, Medical Department; vice-president, Marquis Maurigi; reporter, Surgeon Pauzat; secretary, M. Ghica; assistant secretaries, Chevalier Vannutelli, M. des Gouttes.
  • Argentine Republic: M. Moreno.
  • Austria-Hungary: Surgeon-General d’Uriel, Lieutenant-Colonel de Mecenseffy, Doctor Schücking.
  • Belgium: Colonel de T’Serclaes, Surgeon Delterne.
  • Brazil: M. Lemgruber-Kropf, Colonel Trompowski.
  • Bulgaria: Captain Sirmanoff.
  • Chile: M. Edwards.
  • China: M. Lou Tseng-Tsiang, M. Yo Tsao Yeu.
  • Denmark: Surgeon-General Laub.
  • France: Professor Renault, Doctor Pauzat.
  • Germany: General de Manteuifel, General Villaret.
  • Great Britain: Sir John Ardagh, Sir John Furley, Professor Holland, Lieutenant-Colonel Macpherson.
  • Greece: Professor Kebedgy.
  • Guatemala: M. Arroyo.
  • The Netherlands: Lieutenant-General den Beer Poortugael, Colonel Quanjer.
  • Italy: Marquis Maurigi, Surgeon-General Randone.
  • Japan: M. Kato, Colonel Akashi, Commander Prince Itchijo, Professor Akiyama, Doctor Haga.
  • Norway: Captain Daae.
  • Peru: M. de la Fuente.
  • Persia: M. Momtaz-os-Saltaneh.
  • Portugal: Colonel Raposo-Botelho.
  • Roumania: M. Ghica, Colonel Stephanesco.
  • Russia: M. de Martens, Doctor de Hubbenet, Doctor de Wreden, Lieutenant-Colonel Owtchinnikoff.
  • Servia: Colonel Sondermayer.
  • Siam: M. d’Orelli.
  • Sweden: Chief Surgeon Sörensen.
  • Switzerland: M. Vincent, Colonel Mürset.
  • United States: Admiral Sperry, General O’Reilly.
  • Uruguay: M. Herosa.
• Third committee (sanitary material, medical stores, and supplies). President, Hon. William Cary Sanger; vice-president, Lieutenant-Colonel Macpherson; reporter, M. Kebedgy; secretary, M. Edwards; assistant secretaries, Nicolas de Martens and Philippe Dunant.
  • Austria-Hungary: Lieutenant-Colonel Schücking, Surgeon-General d’Uriel, M. de Mecenseffy.
  • Belgium: M. Logie.
  • Brazil: M. Lemgruber-Kropf, Colonel Trompowski.
  • Bulgaria: M. Rousseff.
  • Chile: M. Edwards.
  • China: M. Lou Tseng Tsiang.
  • France: Professor Renault, M. Olivier, M. Pauzat.
  • Germany: General Manteuifel, General Villaret.
  • Great Britain: Sir John Ardagh, Sir John Furley, Professor Holland, Lieutenant-Colonel Macpherson.
  • The Netherlands: General den Beer Poortugael, Colonel Quanjer.
  • Italy: Marquis Maurigi, M. Randone.
  • Japan: M. Kato, Colonel Akashi, Prince Itchijo, Professor Akiyama, Doctor Haga.
  • Mexico: General Pérez.
  • Norway: Captain Daae.
  • Peru: M. de la Fuente.
  • Roumania: Colonel Stephanesco.
  • Russia: M. de Martens, General Yermoloff, Doctor de Hubbenet, Doctor de Wreden, M. Owtchinnokorf.
  • Servia: Colonel Sondermayer.
  • Siam: M. d’Orelli.
  • Sweden: Doctor Sörensen.
  • Switzerland: M. Vincent, Colonel Mürset.
  • United States: General Davis, General O’Reilly.
• Fourth committee (emblem of the convention, with the measures necessary to prevent its abuse, together with questions which were not especially assigned to other committees). President, M. de Martens; vice-president, M. Kato; reporter, Professor Renault; secretary, M. Markovitch; assistant secretaries, M. des Gouttes, M. Nicolas de Martens.
  • Argentine Republic: M. Moreno, M. Salas.
  • Belgium: Colonel de T’Serclaes.
  • Brazil: Colonel Trompowski, M. Lemgruber-Kropf.
  • Bulgaria: Captain Sirmanoff.
  • Chile: M. Edwards.
  • China: M. Lou Tseng Tsiang.
  • Denmark: Surgeon-General Laub.
  • France: M. Revoil, Professor Renault, Doctor Pauzat.
  • Germany: M. de Bülow, Professor Zorn.
  • Great Britain: Sir John Ardagh, Professor Holland, Sir John Furley, Lieutenant-Colonel Macpherson.
  • Greece: Professor Kebedgy.
  • Guatemala: M. Wiswald.
  • The Netherlands: General den Beer Poortugael.
  • Italy: Marquis Maurigi.
  • Japan: M. Kato, Colonel Akashi, Commander Prince Itchijo, Professor Akiyama, Doctor Haga.
  • Norway: Captain Daae.
  • Peru: M. de la Fuente.
  • Persia: M. Momtaz-os-Saltaneh.
  • Portugal: M. d’Oliveira.
  • Roumania: M. Ghica.
  • Russia: M. de Martens, General Yermoloff, Doctor de Hubbenet, Doctor de Wreden, Professor Owtchinnikoff, M. Goutchkoff. Servia: M. Markovitch.
  • Siam: Prince Charoon, M. d’Orelli.
  • Sweden: Doctor Sörensen.
  • Switzerland: M. Odier.
  • United States: Colonel Sanger, General Davis.
  • Uruguay: M. Herosa.

To facilitate the deliberations of the committees the paragraphs of the project submitted to the powers by the Swiss Federal Council were apportioned among them in accordance with the following arrangement:

To the first committee, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the questions submitted by the Federal Council.

To the second committee, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

To the third committee, paragraphs 9, 10, and 11.

To the fourth committee, paragraphs 12, 13, and 14.

In the deliberations of the committees the widest freedom of discussion was not only permitted but encouraged. Members of one committee were permitted to attend the meetings of the other committees, to take part in their discussions, and to submit projects for consideration or adoption. In all votes, however, whether in committee or in full conference, each State was entitled to a single voice. In each committee votes were taken upon subjects submitted in the form of questions or statements of principle, leaving to the subcommittees appointed for that purpose the duty of recasting them in the form of articles, with a view to their consideration by the several committees prior to their submission to the conference in plenary session.

Triweekly sessions were held by each of the committees into which the general membership of the conference was divided, and the discussion of the questions referred to them was prosecuted with such diligence and industry during the morning and afternoon sessions of each day that their work was completed, ready for submission to the conference, on June 27. At two plenary sessions which were held on June 27 and 28 the drafts of the several paragraphs assigned to them for preparation were approved and referred to a committee for editorial revision and arrangement, with a view to their incorporation in the final draft of the convention. The treaty in the form proposed by its editing committee was formally adopted at a plenary session of the conference which was held in the hall of the Grand Council of State on July 5, 1906. The convention was signed on July 6, 1906, by the plenipotentiaries, whose full powers had been examined and verified at a plenary session of the conference on the preceding day.

Although a copy of the convention as finally adopted is among the inclosures to this report, a brief summary of its more important provisions will now be presented.

The convention of 1864 may be said to have fairly represented the best existing practice among continental armies in respect to the management and control of the sick and wounded, and in the immunities which were habitually accorded to the personnel of the medical and sanitary services who were charged with their care and treatment. That convention embodied, in the form of an international agreement, the practice which had theretofore rested upon customs and usages and derived its obligatory force from the implied consent of the states which accepted and applied them in the conduct of their military operations. To accomplish this the framers of the old convention attempted to apply the principle of neutrality to the sick and wounded and to the personnel and matériel of the sanitary establishments which habitually accompanied the operations of armies in the field.

In the new convention much of the inexactness of expression which characterized the old undertaking has been eliminated. Descriptive words and phrases have been brought into close and exact relation with the conditions of modern war. The terms “neutral” and “neutrality,” as applied to the immunity granted to those charged with the care and treatment of the sick and wounded by the convention of 1864, have been replaced by words and clauses which define their status with the greatest accuracy. The term “neutral” is used throughout the new convention in the sense attributed to it in statutes and treaties and in the works of text writers of standard authority, and is restricted, as will presently appear, to cases of internment and to volunteer aid societies, organized under the authority of neutral states, which tender their services to a belligerent in time of war.

The terms used to describe the status of the sick and wounded and the personnel and matériel of the sanitary establishments in which they are entertained and cared for have a clear and unmistakable meaning; they are calculated to conduce to efficiency and certainty of execution, and it is difficult to see how they can give occasion for variance in interpretation.

In the new instrument the term sanitary formation is applied to all establishments, whether fixed or movable, which are provided by public appropriation or private charity for the treatment of the sick and wounded in time of war. To each of the movable sanitary formations a surgical and administrative personnel is attached; tents, bedding, ambulances, and other means of transportation are provided, together with a sufficient equipment of surgical instruments and medical and hospital supplies. To the personnel and matériel constituting such a movable sanitary formation the quality of inviolability is attached by the terms of the convention, and, in the event of its falling into the hands of the enemy, the entire establishment, when its sick and wounded have been evacuated or transferred to fixed or base hospitals, is required to be returned to the lines of its own army with the least practicable delay.

The commanding general of the belligerent forces into whose hands such an establishment falls is charged with the performance of this duty, but it is permitted to exercise a reasonable discretion in respect to the time when and the method and route by which the restoration shall be accomplished. While it continues in the hands of the enemy its administrative personnel become entitled to receive the pay and allowances which are assigned to their respective grades in the service of the belligerent in whose hands they are; and, upon their return to their own lines, they are permitted to take with them their private property, including horses, personal baggage, and such arms as are habitually carried by them in active service. A similar immunity is granted the official personnel of a movable sanitary formation which has been placed at the service of a belligerent by a volunteer aid society.

When a belligerent finds it necessary to furnish a guard for the police protection of a hospital or other sanitary establishment, the individuals composing it, in the event of its capture, are returned to the lines of their own army, with the personnel and matériel of the sanitary formation, without becoming prisoners of war.

What has been said in respect to the personnel of the movable sanitary formation applies with equal force to the official personnel allowed to the buildings, hospitals, and other fixed establishments which pass into the occupation of the enemy as a consequence of his military operations. If the matériel in possession of such establishments is the property of the belligerent state, such property, including the buildings in which it is installed, becomes subject to the laws of war, but with the express condition that it must not be diverted from the use to which it has been assigned or appropriated so long as it is necessary for the treatment and accommodation of the sick and wounded. If matériel furnished by volunteer associations, which enjoy the benefits and privileges of the convention, is found in such fixed hospitals upon their occupation by the enemy, the convention provides that it shall be regarded as private property and, as such, shall be subject to the right of requisition, as recognized by the laws and usages of war.

It will be observed that the immunity which is accorded to the matériel furnished by private societies is substantially the same as that given by the customary and conventional law of nations to private property in territory which passes by temporary conquest into the military occupation of the enemy. If it is taken, by way of requisition, its appropriation by the enemy is subject to the rules and conditions which are embodied in The Hague Convention in respect to the treatment of private property in occupied territory. It would have been desirable to secure the insertion of a clause giving a broader immunity from capture to this class of property, or restricting its application, when taken by way of requisition, to the use of the sick and wounded; but there were decided differences of view in this regard among the delegates, and the clause as adopted represents a compromise of widely divergent opinions.

The new convention contains a stipulation that the protection accorded to the personnel of all sanitary formations is forfeited if acts detrimental to the enemy are committed, save in individual self-defense or in the protection of the sick and wounded in its charge. It was for this reason that the clause recognizing their right to carry arms was inserted in the convention. The mere fact that arms, cartridges, or other articles constituting the war equipment of troops in active service are found in the possession of individuals, or in the storerooms of fixed or movable hospitals, does not confer a hostile character upon such establishments nor deprive the individuals in whose possession they are found of the benefits conferred by the convention.

The privileges conferred upon volunteer aid societies by the terms of the convention are not only extremely liberal but are in harmony with the most advanced humanitarian views in respect to the treatment of the sick and wounded in time of war. To enable such an association to take part in relief work in the theater of active military operations it is necessary that it should receive the formal recognition of its own government, the fact of such official recognition being communicated by that government to other states, either in time of peace or prior to its being employed in the theater of active operations. While employed in the field the personnel of such societies becomes subject to the control and supervision of the belligerent in whose service its aid is rendered.

If a volunteer aid society, established and authorized by a neutral state, desires to render aid to either belligerent, it must first obtain the consent of its own government and the authorization of the belligerent whom it desires to serve. The belligerent accepting the services of a neutral aid society is required to notify the enemy that such authorization has been accorded.

The details of organization of these societies, together with the preparation of regulations governing their activity in the field and fixing their relations with the sanitary department of the army, were wisely left to the discretion of the individual powers. It is proper to observe, however, that the furnishing of relief by such associations to communities suffering in time of peace from pestilence or famine, or from the visitation of floods, fires, or earthquakes, will always constitute a proper subject for their humanitarian endeavor; and the use or display of the insignia of the convention upon such occasions does not come within the prohibitory requirements which are embodied in articles 27 and 28 of the new convention.

It was the sense of the committee that the field of activity of these societies should be restricted to the second line of sanitary formations and to the fixed hospitals established at the bases of supply, in which the sick and wounded are habitually collected for permanent treatment; but as the control and supervision of their philanthropic activity is vested by the terms of the convention in the state which authorizes them, it was not deemed best to insert such a stipulation in the text of an international agreement.

The convention of 1864 was silent as to the status occupied by the sick and wounded who, by the vicissitudes of war, pass into the control and possession of the enemy. This defect, which is a very important one, is remedied in the new agreement by a clause providing that at the instant of capture the sick and wounded pass into a status of captivity, and thereby become entitled to the benefits accorded to prisoners of war by the generally accepted rules of international law. They also become entitled to the privileges and immunities which are expressly conferred upon prisoners by the terms of The Hague Convention of 1899.

The requirements of the new undertaking, in respect to the consideration to which the sick and wounded are entitled, are clear and specific, and include within their scope not only the combatant members of the military establishment, but such noncombatants as habitually accompany the army in an official capacity. All these are required to be collected and cared for, without regard to nationality, and this duty is made equally incumbent upon both belligerents by clauses which charge the occupant of the battlefield with the duty of caring for the wounded who have fallen in battle, and require a retiring belligerent to make reasonable provision for the care and treatment of the wounded, who are left behind. These clauses are very broadly stated, and are intended to apply not only to the case where a successful belligerent occupies the battlefield, but also to a case in which both of the opposing armies occupy new positions at some distance from the field in which the losses were incurred.

After each combat the occupant of the field is required to take the necessary measures for the protection of the wounded and the examination and identification of the dead. To that end all individual medals, or tokens, together with all letters, valuables, and personal belongings found upon the field or upon the bodies of those who have fallen in battle, are to be collected and transmitted to the lines of the enemy. The names of the sick and wounded who have fallen into the hands of the opposing belligerent, or who have been admitted into his hospitals for treatment, and who have recovered or have died, are also to be forwarded to the enemy’s outposts with a view to their transmission to relatives and friends.

Authority is vested in the commanding generals of the opposing armies to enter into cartels for the immediate return of the wounded to their own lines at the close of the battle, and to repatriate the sick and wounded when they have so far recovered as to be able to undertake the homeward journey. They may also send them to a neutral state for treatment and internment, with the consent of the neutral government, but upon the condition that the internment shall continue until the close of the war.

The important question of convoys of the sick and wounded is made the subject of detailed regulation in the new convention. If a moving convoy is intercepted by a belligerent, he is authorized, if such a course is dictated by military necessity, to take possession of the means of transportation in which the sick and wounded are being conveyed to their destination. In so doing, however, he charges himself with the care of the patients who are undergoing transportation, and must return the official sanitary and administrative personnel and matériel to their own lines with the least practicable delay. Ambulances and other vehicles, together with hospital trains and steamers, which have been specially fitted for the transportation of the sick and wounded, are to be returned to the army to which they belong, but while in the possession of the enemy are to be used exclusively for the accommodation of the sick and wounded. Means of transportation belonging to a belligerent, but not specially fitted for hospital uses, are subject to capture; and vehicles obtained by requisition, including ordinary railway trains and river boats, or commercial vessels temporarily utilized for the conveyance of the sick and wounded, together with the drivers, crews, or other employees necessary to their management or use, are made subject to the operation of the laws of war.

The appeal to the charity of the inhabitants of occupied territory in behalf of the sick and wounded, which was embodied in the convention of 1864, but which was found to be so impracticable in its application as to require substantial amendment in the agreement of 1868, has been replaced by a provision more completely in harmony with existing conditions, which authorizes commanding generals to appeal to the charitably disposed inhabitants of the theater of war to collect and care for the sick and wounded, and authorizes them to promise special protection and an immunity from the removable hardships of war to those whose favorable acceptance of the appeal is evidenced by efforts to ameliorate the lot and relieve the suffering cf those who have been disabled by wounds or disease.

It was also recognized that the methods which now prevail in the treatment of the sick and wounded no longer permit their isolation in scattered dwellings and outbuildings, which are difficult of access and in which sanitary conditions can not be controlled. For that reason the collection of patients in tents and suitable hospital buildings, under the most advanced conditions in respect to sanitation and antiseptic treatment, was strongly favored by the conference.

The employment of the insignia of the convention was made the subject of careful and extended treatment—this with a view to prevent its abuse and restrict its use to the personnel and matériel to which its protection is intended to be accorded. The heraldic sign of the red cross upon a white ground was recognized and continued as the emblem and distinctive sign of the sanitary service of armies in the field. The use of the term “heraldic “in describing the insignia of the convention excludes the view that any religious association attaches to the distinctive emblem of the convention’s philanthropic and humanitarian activity. Turkey was not represented in the conference, and it is worthy of note that the representatives of Japan, China, Persia, and Siam expressed a willingness on the part of their Governments to accept the red cross as the official insignia of the convention.

The convention contains a provision that the emblem of the red cross shall be exclusively used, both in time of peace and war, to designate the personnel and matériel of the sanitary formations which it is the purpose of the convention to protect. It also provides that, in the event of capture, the flag of the convention shall alone be displayed, so long as the sanitary formation which it protects remains under the control of the enemy. With a view to prevent the usurpation or abuse of its name or insignia, especially in the form of trade-marks or commercial labels, the signatory powers whose legislation in this regard is insufficient agree to take, or to propose to their respective legislative bodies, such measures as are necessary to secure to the name and emblem of the convention a complete immunity from abuse. As considerable time will be required for the preparation and adoption of legislation of the kind above described, the convention contains a clause requiring the signatory powers at the end of five years from its date of signature to communicate the results of their efforts in this regard to the General Council of the Swiss Confederation.

The convention also contains an undertaking that the signatory governments shall take the necessary measures to instruct the personnel of their military establishments in the detailed application of its rules to the care and treatment of the sick and wounded who are made the subject of its several stipulations. They also agree to bring a knowledge of the scope and operation of the convention to the attention of their respective citizens or subjects.

In the formal instructions which were communicated to the delegates in the department’s letter of May 16, 1906, two matters were made the subject of special consideration. The first of these made it the duty of the representatives of the United States to endeavor to secure a full report of the deliberations of the conference, to the end that the public opinion of the civilized world, to which the humanitarian purpose of the convention especially appeals, might be fully advised of its proceedings. At the second plenary session of the conference, held on June 13, 1906, in the Grand Council Hall of the Hotel de Yille, a rule was unanimously adopted directing that full reports of the deliberations of the conference and its committees should be prepared, with a view to their publication through the secretariat at the termination of the work of the conference. As furnished from day to day, these reports have been duly transmitted to the department.

The suggestion that the rules governing the care and treatment of the sick and wounded in maritime warfare should be brought before the convention for discussion with a view to their adaptation to the conditions of modern naval warfare was informally discussed with the representatives of several of the great maritime powers. It was found that but two Governments, the United States and Japan, were represented by naval delegates, and that none of the delegations felt justified, in view o£ their instructions, in entering upon the discussion of the application of the rules of the Geneva Convention to maritime warfare without further advices from their respective governments and without the presence and assistance of naval representatives in any discussion which might arise. As the work of the conference, as outlined in the questions submitted to the powers by the Government of the Swiss Confederation, would be considerably delayed if the consideration of this subject was insisted upon, it was determined to exercise the discretion conferred upon the delegation by its letter of instructions and to refrain from bringing it to the formal attention of the conference.

A proposition was submitted by M. de Martens, the Russian plenipotentiary, providing that questions of interpretation arising in the operation of the convention should be referred to The Hague Tribunal for decision. As such cases fall within the jurisdiction conferred upon that tribunal in the convention of 1899, it was not believed necessary, in view of the formal acceptance of that undertaking by the Government of the United States, to renew the obligation with which that Government was already charged. The proposition submitted was subsequently replaced by a voeu submitted by Baron von Biilow, the German plenipotentiary, expressing a desire on the part of the conference that questions arising in the operation of the convention in time of peace should be referred to The Hague Tribunal for adjustment. This expression of opinion, which is embodied in the acte finale of the conference, not being in contravention of the existing treaty obligations of the United States, was concurred in by the delegation.

A copy of the official text of the convention, accompanied by an English translation of the same, is inclosed herewith.

Respectfully submitted.

• Wm. Cary Sanger,
  President of the Delegation.
• C. S. Sperry,
  Rear-Admiral, U. S. Navy.
• Geo. B. Davis,
  Judge-Advocate-General, U. S. Army.
• R. M. O’Reilly,
  Surgeon-General, U. S. Army.

Translation of the convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field.

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia; His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Congo Free State; His Majesty the Emperor of Korea; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the United States of America; the President of the United States of Brazil; the President of the United Mexican States; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Honduras; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau; His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; His Majesty the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, etc.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, being equally animated by the desire to lessen the inherent evils of warfare as far as is within their power, and wishing for this purpose to improve and supplement the provisions agreed upon at Geneva on August 22, 1864, for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field, have decided to conclude a new convention to that effect, and have appointed as their plenipotentiaries, to wit:

• His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia: His Excellency the Chamberlain and Actual Privy Councilor A. de Bulow, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Berne; General of Brigade Baron de Manteuffel; Medical Inspector and Surgeon-General Doctor Villaret (with rank of general of brigade); Doctor Zorn, privy councilor of justice, ordinary professor of law at the University of Bonn, solicitor of the Crown;
• His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic: His Excellency Mr. Enrique B. Moreno, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Berne; Mr. Molina Salas, consul-general in Switzerland;
• His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary: His Excellency Baron Heidler de Egeregg et Syrgenstein, actual privy councilor, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Berne;
• His Majesty the King of the Belgians: Colonel of Staff Count de T’Serclaes, chief of staff of the fourth military district;
• His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria: Dr. Marin Rousseff, chief medical officer; Captain of Staff Boris Sirmanoff;
• His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile: Mr. Augustin Edwards, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary;
• His Majesty the Emperor of China: His Excellency Mr. Lou Tseng Tsiang, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to The Hague;
• His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Congo Free State: Colonel of Staff Count de T’Serclaes, chief of staff of the fourth military district of Belgium;
• His Majesty the Emperor of Corea: His Excellency Mr. Tsunetada Kato, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Japan to Brussels;
• His Majesty the King of Denmark: Mr. Laub, surgeon-general, chief of the medical corps of the army;
• His Majesty the King of Spain: His Excellency Mr. Silverio de Baguer y Corsi, Count of Baguer, minister resident;
• The President of the United States of America: Mr. William Cary Sanger, former Assistant Secretary of War of the United States of America; Vice-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, president of the Naval War College; Brig. Gen. George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate-General of the Army; Brig. Gen. Robert M. O’Reilly, Surgeon-General of the Army;
• The President of the United States of Brazil: Dr. Carlos Lemgruber-Kropf, chargé d’affaires at Berne; Colonel of Engineers Roberto Trompowski; Leitao d’Almeida, military attaché to the Brazilian legation at Berne;
• The President of the United Mexican States: General of Brigade José Maria Perez;
• The President of the French Republic: His Excellency Mr. Revoil, ambassador to Berne; Mr. Louis Renault, member of the Institute of France, minister plenipotentiary, jurisconsult of the ministry of foreign affairs, professor in the Faculty of Law at Paris; Colonel Olivier, of reserve artillery; Chief Surgeon Pauzat, of the second class;
• His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India: Maj. Gen. Sir John Charles Ardagh, K. C. M. G., K. C. L. E., C. B.; Prof. Thomas Erskine Holland, K. C, D. L. C.; Sir John Furley, C. B.; Lieut. Col. William Grant Macpherson, C. M. G., R. A. M. C.;
• His Majesty the King of the Hellenes: Mr. Michel Kebedgy, professor of international law at the University of Berne;
• The President of the Republic of Guatemala: Mr. Manuel Arroyo, chargé d’affaires at Paris; Mr. Henri Wiswald, consul-general to Berne, residing at Geneva;
• The President of the Republic of Honduras: Mr. Oscar Hœpfl, consul-general to Berne;
• His Majesty the King of Italy: Marquis Roger Maurigi di Castel Maurigi, colonel in his army, grand officer of his Royal Order of the SS. Maurice and Lazare; Maj. Gen. Giovanni Ranodne, military medical inspector, commander of his Royal Order of the Crown of Italy;
• His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: His Excellency Mr. Tsumetada Kato, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Brussels;
• His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau: Staff Col. Count de T’Serclaes, chief of staff of the fourth military district of Belgium;
• His Highness the Prince of Montenegro: Mr. E. Odier, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Swiss Confederation in Russia; Colonel Miirset, chief surgeon of the Swiss federal army;
• His Majesty the King of Norway: Captain Daae, of the medical corps of the Norwegian army;
• Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands: Lieut. Gen. (retired) Jonkheer J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, member of the council of state; Col. A. A. J. Quanjer, chief medical officer, first class;
• The President of the Republic of Peru: Mr. Gustavo de la Fuente, first secretary of the legation of Peru at Paris;
• His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia: His Excellency Mr. Samad Khan Momtaz-os-Saltaner, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Paris;
• His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, etc.: His Excellency Mr. Alberto d’Oliveira, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Berne; Mr. José Nicolau Raposo-Botelho, colonel of infantry, former deputy, superintendent of the Royal Military College at Lisbon;
• His Majesty the King of Roumania: Dr. Sache Stephanesco, colonel of reserve;
• His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias: His Excellency Privy Councilor de Martens, permanent member of the council of the ministry of foreign affairs of Russia;
• His Majesty the King of Servia: Mr. Milan St. Markovitch, secretary-general of the ministry of justice; Colonel Doctor Sondermayer, chief of the medical division of the war ministry;
• His Majesty the King of Siam: Prince Charoon, chargé d’affaires at Paris; Mr. Corragioni d’Orelli, counselor of legation at Paris;
• His Majesty the King of Sweden: M. Sorensen, chief surgeon of the second division of the army;
• The Swiss Federal Council: Mr. E. Odier, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in Russia; Colonel Mürset, chief surgeon of the federal army;
• The President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay: Mr. Alexandre Herosa, chargé d’affaires at Paris;

Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following:

chapter i.—the sick and wounded.

Article 1. Officers, soldiers, and other persons officially attached to armies, who are sick or wounded, shall be respected and cared for, without distinction of nationality, by the belligerent in whose power they are.

A belligerent, however, when compelled to leave his wounded in the hands of his adversary, shall leave with them, so far as military conditions permit, a portion of the personnel and matériel of his sanitary service to assist in caring for them.

Art. 2. Subject to the care that must be taken of them under the preceding article, the sick and wounded of an army who fall into the power of the other belligerent become prisoners of war, and the general rules of international law in respect to prisoners become applicable to them.

The belligerents remain free, however, to mutually agree upon such clauses, by way of exception or favor, in relation to the wounded or sick as they may deem proper. They shall especially have authority to agree:

1. To mutually return the sick and wounded left on the field of battle after an engagement.

2. To send back to their own country the sick and wounded who have rendered, or who are in a condition to be transported and whom they do not desire to retain as prisoners.

3. To send the sick and wounded of the enemy to a neutral state, with the consent of the latter and on condition that it shall charge itself with their internment until the close of hostilities.

Art. 3. After every engagement the belligerent who remains in possession of the field of battle shall take measures to search for the wounded and to protect the wounded and dead from robbery and ill treatment.

He will see that a careful examination is made of the bodies of the dead prior to their interment or incineration.

Art. 4. As soon as possible each belligerent shall forward to the authorities of their country or army the marks or military papers of identification found upon the bodies of the dead, together with a list of names of the sick and wounded taken in charge by him.

Belligerents will keep each other mutually advised of internments and transfers, together with admissions to hospitals and deaths which occur among the sick and wounded in their hands. They will collect all objects of personal use, valuables, letters, etc., which are found upon the field of battle, or have been left by the sick or wounded who have died in sanitary formations or other establishments, for transmission to persons in interest through the authorities of their own country.

Art. 5. Military authority may make an appeal to the charitable zeal of the inhabitants, to receive and, under its supervision, to care for the sick and wounded of the armies, granting to persons responding to such appeals special protection and certain immunities.

chapter ii.—sanitary formations and establishments.

Art. 6. Mobile sanitary formations (i. e., those which are intended to accompany armies in the field) and the fixed establishments belonging to the sanitary service shall be protected and respected by belligerents.

Art. 7. The protection due to sanitary formations and establishments ceases if they are used to commit acts injurious to the enemy.

Art. 8. A sanitary formation or establishment shall not be deprived of the protection accorded by article 6 by the fact:

1. That the personnel of a formation or establishment is armed and uses its arms in self-defense or in defense of its sick and wounded.

2. That in the absence of armed hospital attendants, the formation is guarded by an armed detachment or by sentinels acting under competent orders.

3. That arms or cartridges taken from the wounded and not yet turned over to the proper authorities are found in the formation or establishment.

chapter iii.—personnel.

Art. 9. The personnel charged exclusively with the removal, transportation, and treatment of the sick and wounded, as well as with the administration of sanitary formations and establishments, and the chaplains attached to armies shall be respected and protected under all circumstances. If they fall into the hands of the enemy they shall not be considered as prisoners of war.

These provisions apply to the guards of sanitary formations and establishments in the case provided for in section 2 of article 8.

Art. 10. The personnel of volunteer aid societies, duly recognized and authorized by their own governments, who are employed in the sanitary formations and establishments of armies, are assimilated to the personnel contemplated in the preceding article, upon condition that the said personnel shall be subject to military laws and regulations.

Each stats shall make known to the other, either in time of peace or at the opening or during the progress of hostilities, and in any case before actual employment, the names of the societies which it has authorized to render assistance, under its responsibility, in the official sanitary service of its armies.

Art. 11. A recognized society of a neutral state can only lend the services of its sanitary personnel and formations to a belligerent with the prior consent of its own government and the authority of such belligerent. The belligerent who has accepted such assistance is required to notify the enemy before making any use thereof.

Art. 12. Persons described in articles 9, 10, and 11 will continue in the exercise of their functions, under the direction of the enemy, after they have fallen into his power.

When their assistance is no longer indispensable they will be sent back to their army or country, within such period and by such route as may accord with military necessity. They will carry with them such effects, instruments, arms, and horses as are their private property.

Art. 13. While they remain in his power, the enemy will secure to the personnel mentioned in article 9 the same pay and allowances to which persons of the same grade in his own army are entitled.

chapter iv.—matériel.

Art. 14. If mobile sanitary formations fall into the power of the enemy, they shall retain their materiel, including the teams, whatever may be the means of transportation, and the conducting personnel. Competent military authority, however, shall have the right to employ it in caring for the sick and wounded. The restitution of the matériel shall take place in accordance with the conditions prescribed for the sanitary personnel, and, as far as possible, at the same time.

Art. 15. Buildings and matériel pertaining to fixed establishments shall remain subject to the laws of war, but can not be diverted from their use so long as they are necessary for the sick and wounded. Commanders of troops engaged in operations, however, may use them, in case of important military necessity, if, before such use, the sick and wounded who are in them have been provided for.

Art. 16. The material of aid societies admitted to the benefits of this convention, in conformity to the conditions therein established, is regarded as private property and, as such, will be respected under all circumstances, save that it is subject to the recognized right of requisition by belligerents in conformity to the laws and usages of war.

chapter v.—convoys of evacuation.

Art. 17. Convoys of evacuation shall be treated as mobile sanitary formations subject to the following special provisions:

1. A belligerent intercepting a convoy may, if required by military necessity, break up such convoy, charging himself with the care of the sick and wounded whom it contains.

2. In this case the obligation to return the sanitary personnel, as provided for in article 12, shall be extended to include the entire military personnel employed, under competent orders, in the transportation and protection of the convoy.

The obligation to return the sanitary matériel, as provided for in article 14, shall apply to railway trains and vessels intended for interior navigation which have been especially equipped for evacuation purposes, as well as to the ordinary vehicles, trains, and vessels which belong to the sanitary service.

Military vehicles, with their teams, other than those belonging to the sanitary service, may be captured.

The civil personnel and the various means of transportation obtained by requisition, including railway matériel and vessels utilized for convoys, are subject to the general rules of international law.

chapter vi.—distinctive emblem.

Art. 18. Out of respect to Switzerland the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by the reversal of the federal colors, is continued as the emblem and distinctive sign of the sanitary service of armies.

Art. 19. This emblem appears on flags and brassards, as well as upon all matériel appertaining to the sanitary service, with the permission of the competent military authority.

Art. 20. The personnel protected in virtue of the first paragraph of article 9, and articles 10 and 11, will wear attached to the left arm a brassard bearing a red cross on a white ground, which will be issued and stamped by competent military authority, and accompanied by a certificate of identity in the case of persons attached to the sanitary service of armies who do not have military uniform.

Art. 21. The distinctive flag of the convention can only be displayed over the sanitary formations and establishments which the convention provides shall be respected, and with the consent of the military authorities. It shall be accompanied by the national flag of the belligerent to whose service the formation or establishment is attached.

Sanitary formations which have fallen into the power of the enemy, however, shall fly no other flag than that of the Red Cross so long as they continue in that situation.

Art. 22. The sanitary formations of neutral countries which, under the conditions set forth in article 11, have been authorized to render their services, shall fly, with the flag of the convention, the national flag of the belligerent to which they are attached. The provisions of the second paragraph of the preceding article are applicable to them.

Art. 23. The emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” may only be used, whether in time of peace or war, to protect or designate sanitary formations and establishments, the personnel and matériel protected by the convention.

chapter vii.—application and execution of the convention.

Art. 24. The provisions of the present convention are obligatory only on the contracting powers in case of war between two or more of them. The said provisions shall cease to be obligatory if one of the belligerent powers should not be signatory to the convention.

Art. 25. It shall be the duty of the commanders in chief of the belligerent armies to provide for the details of execution of the foregoing articles, as well as for unforeseen cases, in accordance with the instructions of their respective governments, and conformably to the general principles of this convention.

Art. 26. The signatory governments shall take the necessary steps to acquaint their troops, and particularly the protected personnel, with the provisions of this convention and to make them known to the people at large.

chapter viii.—repression of abuses and infractions.

Art. 27. The signatory powers whose legislation may not now be adequate engage to take or recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use, by private persons or by societies other than those upon which this convention confers the right thereto, of the emblem or name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, particularly for commercial purposes by means of trade-marks or commercial labels.

The prohibition of the use of the emblem or name in question shall take effect from the time set in each act of legislation, and at the latest five years after this convention goes into effect. After such going into effect, it shall be unlawful to use a trade-mark or commercial label contrary to such prohibition.

Art. 28. In the event of their military penal laws being insufficient, the signatory governments also engage to take, or to recommend to their legislatures, the necessary measures to repress, in time of Avar, individual acts of robbery and illtreatment of the sick and wounded of the armies, as well as to punish, as usurpations of military insignia, the wrongful use of the flag and brassard of the Red Cross by military persons or private individuals not protected by the present convention.

They will communicate to each other through the Swiss Federal Council the measures taken with a view to such repression not later than five years from the ratification of the present convention.

general provisions.

Art. 29. The present convention shall be ratified as soon as possible. The ratifications will be deposited at Berne.

A record of the deposit of each act of ratification shall be prepared, of which a duly certified copy shall be sent, through diplomatic channels, to each of the contracting powers.

Art. 30. The present convention shall become operative, as to each power, six months after the date of deposit of its ratification.

Art. 31. The present convention, when duly ratified, shall supersede the convention of August 22, 1864, in the relations between the contracting states.

The convention of 1864 remains in force in the relations between the parties who signed it but who may not also ratify the present convention.

Art. 32. The present convention roay, until December 31, proximo, be signed by the powers represented at the conference which opened at Geneva on June 11, 1906, as well as by the powers not represented at the conference who have signed the convention of 1864.

Such of these powers as shall not have signed the present convention on or before December 31, 1906, will remain at liberty to accede to it after that date. They shall signify their adherence in a written notification addressed to the Swiss federal council and communicated to all the contracting powers by the said council.

Other powers may request to adhere in the same manner but their request shall only be effective if, within the period of one year from its notification to the federal council, such council has not been advised of any opposition on the part of any of the contracting powers.

Art. 33. Each of the contracting parties shall have the right to denounce the present convention. This denunciation shall only become operative one year after a notification in writing shall have been made to the Swiss federal council, which shall forthwith communicate such notification to all the other contracting parties.

This denunciation shall only become operative in respect to the power which has given it.

In faith whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention and affixed their seals thereto.

Done at Geneva, the sixth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and six, in a single copy, which shall remain in the archives of the Swiss Confederation and certified copies of which shall be delivered to the contracting parties through diplomatic channels.

(Here follow the signatures.)