The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-05-09

use of language, no defended" is a much
broader term than ''unfortified.''
AS to Article %. it must be determined
whether the dropping of bombs from air
craft should be classed as lombard
ment" or as an assault If that meth
cd of attack can be properly termed a
bombardment, 1t must be shown affirm
atively that a commander of an attack
ing force did not do all in his power to
warn the authorities prior to a lombard
ment, before he can be charged with a
violation Of the provision. In the case
of attacks by aircraft, evidence of the
power to warn and of failure to do so has
not been furnished.
But. even II this evidence were fur
nished IT may not unreasonably be as
serted that in the case Of aerial onense
the conditions are quite different from
those attending bombardment by land
batteries: that i'm the former case the ele-
ment of surprise is essential to success:
that preliminary notice would give the
enemy opportunity to send his aircraft
aloft to intercept the attacking force:
and that warning under these condi-
lions would be an unreasona BILE require
ment. If these assertions are correct.
then Article 26 was never intended to
apply to an aerial attack.
There appears then, to be no substan-
tial reason to affirm that the United
States. as a party to The Hague conven-
tons. should enter protest against
the practice of dropping aerial bombs
upon places occupied by the enemy.
1t may be added that, while this dis
cussion relates to aerial operations by
the German forces. the belligerents of
both sides have employed this method of
attack upon the enemy.
Destruction of Historic Monuments.
3. Destroying historic monuments.
The question of the violation of the
rules of land warfare relative 10 the i'm
munity from attack of certain classes of
buildings is raised under the following
provisions in Article y of Convention III
of The Hague conventions of 1899:
In sieges and commandments all ne
cessary steps should be taken to spare
as far as possible edifices devoted to re-
liEion, art. science, and charity, hos
pitfalls. and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are
not used at the same time for military
purposes.
The besieged should indicate these
buildings or places by some particular
and visible signs. which should previous
ly he notified to the assailants."
Similar provisions were incorporated in
Convention " OF 1907, with the addition
between the words charity" and hos
pitals'' of the words historic monu-
ments.'
Convention II of 1899 was ratified by
all of the belligerents in the present war
and by the United States but Conven-
ton " of 1907 was not ratified by Ser
ba.
To establish a viola ton of the pro-
vision quoted from Convention II of
1900 no similar COnNanfion
" of 1907 whichever may be considered
TO be in force. it is requisite to show ID
that certain of the class of buildings
mentioned have been injured by bonn
bardment; (9 that all necessary steps"
were not taken to spare them "as far as
possible" 49, that they were mot being
used at the same time for military pur
poses" and a. that they were indicated
by distinctive and visible signs which
were notified to the assailants before
hand.
These four propositions. each of which |
is essential to substantiate a claim of
violation of the treaty, have not bee n
established, nor does 1t appear that they |
have even been asserted by those who |
charge violation of the treaty stipula
tons. Furthermore, the meaning of all |
necessary steps" and "as far as posi- |
ble'' is open to a latitude of nterpreta |
ZION Dy Inc commander OF an dttdchlilS |
force which involves his conception of
the operations necessary to military sue |
cess. Deplorable as may be the destruc-
ton of a cathedral or hospital by bonn |
bardment. the fact alone is not suffi- |
cient to constitute a breach of The !
Hague convention. The other elements |
establishing a wanton and needless act |
must he conclusively shown.
1t should also be added in this connec- !
ton that the treaty itself determines the |
remedy to be applied in case of an I'M |
justifable destruction of buildings of
the immune class. for Article ; of Con- |
vention " of 1907 provides:
A belligerent party which violates the
provisions of the said regulations shall |
if the case demands. be liable to pay
compensation. 1t shall be responsible
for all acts committed by persons form
ing part of its armed forces
Obviously this article contemplates an
investigation of a more or less judicial
nature as to the facts determining liza
bility and the amount of damages sus-
tanned. protest by a third party would
be to impute guilt and to charge liability
Bomb I'd ments.
T. Bombarding seacoast towns
The bombardment fseacoast towns by
the naval forces of a belliGerent is dealt
with in the following articles of Con-
vention TX OF 1907:
Article /. The bombardment by naval
forces of undefended ports. towns. VIII
lagos. dwellings, or buildings is forbid
den.
"A place cannot be bombarded solely
because automatic subma rine contact
mines are anchored of the harhor.
Article . Military works. military or
naval establishments. depots of arms or
war material workshops or plant which
could he utilized for the needs of the
hostile fleet or army. and the ships of
war in the msrbor. are not. however. in
cluded in this prohibition. The COM
of a naval force may destroy
them with artillery. after a summons
followed by a reasonable time in waiting.
IL all other means are impossible. and
when the local authorities have not
themselves destroyed them within the
time fixed.
He incurs no responsibility for anyl
damage which may be caus-
ID by a bombardment under such cir
IF for military reasons immediate ac
ton is necessary, and no delay can be
allowed the enemy 1t Is understood that
The prohibition to lombard the unde-
Tended town holds good. as In the case
given in paragraph l. and that the COM
nander shall take all due measures in
order that the town may suffer as little
Is possible.
Article 6. If the military situation per-
Nf he ott ,