AT THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE: 11-1899 283 



Crozier, with reference to the doings in the subcommit 

 tees. Captain Mahan reported that he had voted against 

 forbidding asphyxiating bombs, etc., evidently with the 

 idea that such a provision would prove to be rather harm 

 ful than helpful to the cause of peace. 



Captain Crozier reported that his subcommittee of 

 committee No. 2 had, at its recent meeting, tried to take 

 up the exemption of private property from seizure on 

 the high seas in time of war, but had been declared out 

 of order by the chairman, De Martens, the leading Rus 

 sian delegate, who seems determined to prevent the sub 

 ject coming before the conference. The question before 

 our American delegation now was, Shall we try to push 

 this American proposal before the subcommittee of the 

 second committee, or before the entire conference at a 

 later period 1 and the general opinion was in favor of the 

 latter course. It was not thought best to delay the arbi 

 tration plan by its introduction at present. 



In the evening dined with Minister Newel, and had a 

 very interesting talk with Van Karnebeek, who had al 

 ready favorably impressed me by his clear-headedness 

 and straightforwardness ; also with Messrs. Asser, mem 

 ber of the Dutch Council of State, and Rahusen, member 

 of the Upper Chamber of the States General, both of 

 whom are influential delegates. 



All three of these men spoke strongly in favor of our 

 plan for the exemption of private property on the high 

 seas, Van Karnebeek with especial earnestness. He said 

 that, looking merely at the material interests of the Neth 

 erlands, he might very well favor the retention of the 

 present system, since his country is little likely to go into 

 war, and is certain to profit by the carrying trade in case 

 of any conflict between the great powers ; that, of course, 

 under such circumstances, a large amount of commerce 

 would come to Holland as a neutral power; but that it 

 was a question of right and of a proper development of 

 international law, and that he, as well as the two other 

 gentlemen above, named, was very earnestly in favor of 



