laws and regulations of the authorities before whom the vessel has been brought. The destruction of this cargo may be ordered according to the same laws and regulations.

(e) If the authority entrusted with the enquiry decides that the detention and diversion of the vessel or other measures imposed upon her were irregular, he shall assess the amount of the compensation which he considers to be due.

9. If the decision and assessment of the said authority are accepted by the detaining officer and the authorities to whom he is subject, the amount awarded shall be paid within six months from the date of the said assessment.

10. If the detaining officer, or the authorities to whom he is subject, contest the decision or the amount of the compensation assessed, the dispute shall be submitted to a Court of Arbitration consisting of one arbitrator appointed by the Government whose flag the vessel was flying, one appointed by the Government of the detaining officer, and an umpire chosen by the two arbitrators thus appointed. The two arbitrators shall be chosen, as far as possible, from among the Diplomatic, Consular or Judicial officers of the High Contracting Parties. These appointments must be made with the least possible delay. Any compensation awarded shall be paid to the persons concerned within six months at most from the date of the award of the court.

11. The Commanding Officer of a warship who may have stopped a vessel flying a foreign flag shall in all cases make a report thereon to his Government, stating the grounds on which he acted. An extract from this report, together with a copy of the proces-verbal, drawn up by the officer, warrant officer, petty or non-commissioned officer sent on board the vessel detained, shall be sent as soon as possible to the Government whose flag the detained vessel was flying and to such of the High Contracting Parties as may have expressed the desire to receive such documents.

[Enclosure 2]

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, Signed at Geneva, June 17, 1925 68

THE UNDERSIGNED PLENIPOTENTIARIES, in the name of their respective Governments:

WHEREAS the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; and

"In English and French; French text not printed. Submitted to the Senate by the President on Jan. 12, 1926; at the time of publication of this volume, the Senate's advice and consent to ratification had not been given.

WHEREAS the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of the Powers of the World are Parties; and TO THE END that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

DECLARE:

That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.

The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Government of the French Republic, and by the latter to all signatory and acceding Powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol, of which the French and English texts are both authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear to-day's date.

The ratifications of the present protocol shall be addressed to the Government of the French Republic, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding Powers.

The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present Protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic.

The present Protocol will come into force for each signatory Power as from the date of deposit of its ratification, and, from that moment, each Power will be bound as regards other Powers which have already deposited their ratifications.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol.

DONE at Geneva in a single copy, this seventeenth day of June, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five.

For Germany

H. VON ECKARDT

For the United States of America

THEODORE E. BURTON

HUGH S. GIBSON

For Austria

For Belgium

For Brazil

CONTRE-AMIRAL A. C. DE SOUZA E SILVA
MAJOR ESTEVÃO LEITÃO DE CARVALHO

For the British Empire

I declare that my signature does not bind India or any British Dominion which is a separate Member of the League of Nations & does not separately sign or adhere to the Protocol. ONSLOW

For Canada

WALTER A. RIDDELL

For the Irish Free State

For India

P. Z. Cox

For Bulgaria

For Chile

LUIS CABRERA

Général de Division

For China

For Colombia

For Denmark

A. OLDENBURG

For Egypt

For Spain

EMILIO DE PALACIOS

For Esthonia

J. LAIDONER

For Abyssinia

GUÉTATCHOU

BLATA HEROUY HEROUY

A. TASFAE

For Finland

O. ENCKELL

For France

J. PAUL-BONCOUR

For Greece

VASSILI DENDRAMIS

D. VLACHOPOULOS

For Hungary

For the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

J. DOUTCHITCH

GÉNÉRAL KALAFATOVITCH

CAPT. D. FRÉG. MARIASEVITCH

For Czechoslovakia

For Turkey

M. TEVFIK

For Uruguay

ENRIQUE E. BUERO

For Venezuela

FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE THE ADOPTION OF THE RULES DRAFTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE REVISION OF THE RULES OF WARFARE"

700.00116/193

70

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) 7° [No.] 829

WASHINGTON, January 26, 1924.

SIR: The Conference on the Limitation of Armament at Washington adopted on February 4, 1922, a Resolution "1 for the appointment of a Commission representing the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan to consider the following questions:

(a) Do existing rules of international law adequately cover new methods of attack or defense resulting from the introduction or development, since The Hague Conference of 1907, of new agencies of warfare?

(b) If not so, what changes in the existing rules ought to be adopted in consequence thereof as a part of the law of nations?

Article IV of the Resolution declared: "that the Commission shall report its conclusions to each of the Powers represented in its membership. Those Powers shall thereupon confer as to the acceptance of the report and the course to be followed to secure the consideration of its recommendations by the other civilized Powers."

With the unanimous concurrence of the Powers mentioned in the above resolution an invitation to participate in the work of the Commission was extended to and accepted by the Netherlands Government. Moreover, it was agreed that the program of the Commission should be limited to the preparation of Rules relating to Aerial Warfare, and to Rules relating to the Use of Radio in Time of War. A Commission of Jurists representative of the six Powers mentioned met in conference at The Hague from December 11, 1922, to February 19, 1923. That Commission has prepared a set of Rules for the Control of Radio in Time of War,72 and also a set of Rules

For previous correspondence concerning the revision of rules of warfare, see Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 1, pp. 47 ff.

To The same to the Ambassadors in Great Britain (No. 27), Italy (No. 477), and Japan (No. 87), and to the Minister in the Netherlands (No. 80).