overnments concerned,
_Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 194.

This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the
Conference of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909,
which resulted in a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which
constituted a fairly complete code of the law of contraband.
Reference has already been made, in comments upon letters
comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration, the
demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in
section 10, _infra_, pp. 196-207.

* * * * *

SECTION 6

_Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals_

_(Mines)_

On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which
follow, as also in the writer's British Academy paper on
_Neutral Duties_, as translated in the _Marine Rundschau_, see
Professor von Martitz of Berlin, in the _Transactions_ of the
International Law Association, 1907. The Institut de Droit
International has for some years past had under its
consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at
conclusions which will be found in its _Annuaire_, t. xxi. p.
330, t. xxii. p. 344, t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.

The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention, No.
viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on
November 27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden "(1) to lay
unanchored automatic-contact mines, unless they are so
constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after he who
has laid them has lost control over them; (2) to lay anchored
automatic-contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as
they have broken loose from their moorings; (3) to employ
torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed
their mark." By Art. 2, (which is, however, not accepted by
France or Germany) it is forbidden "to lay automatic-contact
mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object
of intercepting commercial navigation."

MINES IN THE OPEN SEA

Sir,--The question raised in your columns by Admiral do Horsey with
reference to facts as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, well
illustrates the perpetually recurring conflict between belligerent and
neutral interests. They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights
of the respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise. It
is beyond doubt