August, 1918. The text of the Declaration of Independence of the Czecho-Slovak nation, adopted at Paris October 18, 1918, gives promise of a new State whose ancient heritage of independence strengthens hope in the virility of its institutions, and whose profession of allegiance to principles of democracy gains increased respect through the announcement of a readiness to assume a proper portion of the Austro-Hungarian pre-war public debt. CHARLES CHENEY HYDE. PLEASURE AND RACING YACHTS IN PRIZE LAW The prize courts in the present war have been called on to decide some novel points as to the status of private yachts, and to consider their rights in several particulars. The Austro-Hungarian steam yacht Oriental, two hundred and eighty tons burden, owned by Dr. Desiderius de Bayer Kruesay, of Budapest, was at Southampton at the outbreak of war and was there detained. Two days later Austria-Hungary agreed to days of grace and the yacht was released. However, the days of grace expired and she was still at Southampton and was again seized. It was found that she was flying from her stern post a Hungarian flag. There was no authorized flag of Hungary, but there was an Austro-Hungarian flag, and the flag in question was a part of this. It was claimed she was a Swedish vessel registered with the Royal Swedish Sailing Association, with a Swedish crew and captain, and jointly owned by Dr. Kruesay and Dr. Banck, of Helsingborg, Sweden. She had gone to Cowes for the Regatta and was thus in British waters. The President of the Prize Court, the Right Honorable Sir Samuel Evans, held that clearly, by the ship's papers and from the fact of her flying the Hungarian flag, her nationality must be held to be Hungarian; that the fact that the owner was admitted a member of a Swedish yacht club was absolutely immaterial; that the papers showed ownership in Dr. Kruesay alone, and by the settled rules of prize law, as well as by the Declaration of London, the test of nationality was the flag a vessel was entitled to fly. The Crown contended that the provision of the Hague Convention, giving vessels in a hostile port at the outbreak of war days of grace, applied only to merchant vessels and not to pleasure yachts. This contention seems to have been allowed, and the days of grace to have been granted by the Crown notwithstanding. for some reason, failed to avail herself of these days. She was therefore held clearly enemy property, condemned, ordered sold, and the proceeds paid into court. The yacht, The President refused an application for admission of an appeal. (The Oriental, 1 Lloyd's [1915], P.C. 355.) About six months later the same court was asked to condemn the celebrated German racing yacht Germania, one hundred and twentythree tons (net), owned by Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, of the Imperial German Yacht Club. She was estimated worth £45,000, and came to Southampton to take part in the Cowes Regatta, with a German skipper and crew and also an English skipper and mate. She was dry docked for repairs, but was seized August 4, 1914, in the wet dock at Southampton. An order merely for her detention during the war was at first made, but later her condemnation was claimed. On behalf of her owner it was urged that, being in a British port when hostilities broke out, the order for detention should remain in force, that she had never been given days of grace to enable her to depart, and that, as a racing sailing yacht of no value for commercial, naval or military purposes, she was not confiscable, and confiscation would be contrary to the comity of nations and the Hague Conventions. Austria-Hungary had given days of grace and therefore they were allowed to the Hungarian yacht above. Germany gave no days of grace. The President held that a racing yacht, clearly, did not come within the Sixth Hague Convention, which dealt only with matters relating to commerce and was meant only to protect those engaged in commerce. He held this yacht not within the term navire de commerce. That not being protected by the Hague Convention, it must be condemned. Repairs had been made before seizure and later to keep the yacht from deterioration, at the risk of repairers, and the court was prepared to decide against a claim interposed for them, but the Crown consented to a reference and the Court was glad of this. (The Germania, 4 Lloyd's P. C. 237.)1 The London Times of January 18, 1918, states that the Germania only realized £10,000, and was bought by Mr. H. Hannevig, a Norwegian resident in London, and transferred to his brother, Mr. C. Hannevig, of New York. Ten thousand pounds was deposited with the marshal as a guarantee that during the war she would not be transferred to an enemy, and this sum was, through the marshal, presented by Mr. C. Hannevig to the British and French Red Cross Societies, a new guarantee being substituted. (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 238, note.) It appears that a Belgian yacht, the Primavera, was seized by the Germans when they entered Antwerp, and condemned in the Hamburg Prize Court. The Court said it was not established that the nations have firmly adopted the practice of excluding yachts from the right of capture at sea. (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 265, note.) Mr. Bateson, K.C., contended in the English Prize Court that the German Court placed the Primavera in the same category as merchant ships, but his contention was not successful in inducing like action in the English courts. The cases seem to establish that the old classification of vessels as ships of state or merchant ships is not comprehensive. That yachts, either designed for pleasure cruising or for racing, and whether propelled by steam or sail, are a separate class, and not entitled to the special exemptions or privileges accorded to either of the other classes. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY On November 11, 1918, the American and German delegates at Berne signed an agreement concerning prisoners of war, sanitary, personnel and civil prisoners. As the armistice was signed on the same date, the provisions of this Prisoners' Agreement were superseded by the terms of the armistice, and therefore it is unlikely that 1 The decision was affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council March 29, 1917. 4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 266. 2 Printed in Supplement to American Journal of International Law, January, 1919. the Prisoners' Agreement will ever be ratified and put into force. The provisions of this agreement, however, are of interest as showing the extent to which it was considered necessary to establish, by a most definite and explicit agreement, the enforcement of humane treatment of prisoners of war. The treatment of prisoners of war had been previously considered at the two Hague Conferences, and the agreement reached, which was substantially the same at both Conferences, was embodied in a section of the annex relating to the Laws and Custom of War on Land, attached to Hague Convention II, of 1899, and Hague Convention IV, of 1907. Both of the Conventions above mentioned provided that their provisions and regulations did not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents were parties to the Convention. Inasmuch as Serbia had never ratified the 1907 Convention it has not been applied in this war. The 1899 Convention, however, had been ratified or adhered to by all the belligerents engaged in the conflict until the entrance of Liberia on August 4, 1917, and therefore the provisions and regulations of this Convention were technically in force until that date. The general treatment provided for in 1899 Hague Convention II was that the prisoners of war "must be humanely treated;" that they "may be interned in a town fortress, camp or any other locality, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed limits, but they can only be confined as an indispensable measure of safety;" and their labor may be utilized according to their rank and aptitude, but "their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the military operations;" and that they "shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen." This agreement also contains regulations governing the employment at labor and the payment therefor, parole, establishment of a bureau of information and its functions, pay to officers, religious freedom, wills, burial, repatriation, etc. It further provides that "failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the government which has captured them." It would seem that these requirements were precisely the terms which any civilized and self-respecting nation would impose upon itself in the treatment of its prisoners without the obligation of any treaty stipulations. Furthermore a special agreement on this subject had been made in Article XXIV of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States and Prussia, signed July 11, 1799, revived by Article XII of the Treaty of May 1, 1828, and subsequently accepted by the German Government as binding upon the empire. By this agreement the two contracting parties solemnly pledged themselves that, in case of hostilities between them, prisoners of war should not be subjected to destructive treatment but they shall be placed . . . in wholesome situations; that they shall not be confined in dungeons, prison-ships, nor prisons, nor be put into irons, nor bound, nor otherwise restrained in the use of their limbs; that the officers shall be enlarged on their paroles within convenient districts and have comfortable quarters, and the common men be disposed in cantonments open and extensive enough for air and exercise, and lodged in barracks as roomy and good as are provided by the party in whose power they are for their own troops; that the officers shall also be daily furnished by the party in whose power they are with as many rations, and of the same articles and quality as are allowed by them, either in kind or by commutation, to officers of equal rank in their own army; and all others shall be daily furnished by them with such rations as they shall allow to a common soldier in their own service; . . . that each party shall be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners of their own appointment, with every separate cantonment of prisoners in possession of the other, which commissary shall see that prisoners, as often as he pleases, shall be allowed to receive and distribute whatever comforts may be sent to them by their friends, and shall be free to make his reports in open letters to those who employ him. In view of the above-quoted provisions governing the treatment of American and German prisoners, and the standards supposed to have been reached by twentieth century civilization, it is significant that in this war it was considered imperative by the American Government to insist upon a new prisoners' agreement with Germany, which will be found to contain 184 articles, together with seven elaborate annexes. From the provisions incorporated in this Prisoners' Agreement it would appear, that while in the year 1899 and also in the year 1907 the words "humane treatment" were regarded as having a universally accepted meaning, unnecessary of minute definition, in the year 1918, as a result of the treatment experienced by prisoners during this war, the American delegates deemed it advisable to set forth in the greatest detail the acts to be permitted and the acts to |