conceived it to be within
his authority to suspend or nullify their operation, or to regard their
application in certain cases as a matter falling within his
administrative discretion. Especially is this true where a military
officer refuses to receive well grounded complaints, or declines to
receive demands for redress, in respect to the acts or conduct of the
troops under his command, from persons subject to the jurisdiction of
the enemy who find themselves, for the time being, in the territory
which he holds in military occupation. To provide against such a
contingency it was deemed wise to add an appropriate declaratory clause
to the prohibition of Article 23.'

It is very unfortunate that the book of General Davis is not at all
known on the Continent, and that therefore none of the continental
authors have any knowledge of the fact that a divergent interpretation
from their own of Article 23(h) is being preferred by an American
author.

It is likewise very unfortunate that neither the English Bluebook on the
Second Hague Peace Conference (see Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous
No. 4, 1907, page 104) nor the official minutes of the proceedings of
the Conference, edited by the Dutch Government, give any such
information concerning the construction of Article 23(h) as could assist
a jurist in forming an opinion regarding the correct interpretation.

It is, however, of importance to take notice of the fact that Article
23(h) is an addition to Article 23 which was made on the proposition of
Germany, and that Germany prefers an interpretation of Article 23(h)
which would seem to coincide with the interpretation preferred by all
the continental writers. This becomes clearly apparent from the German
_Weissbuch ueber die Ergebnisse der im Jahre 1907 in Haag abgehaltenen
Friedensconferenz_, which contains on page 7 the following:--

'Der Artikel 23 hat gleichfalls auf deutschen Antrag zwei wichtige
Zusaetze erhalten. Durch den ersten wird der Grundsatz der
Unverletzlichkeit des Privateigenthumes auch auf dem Gebiete der
Forderungsrechte anerkannt. Nach der Gesetzgebung einzelner Staaten soll
naemlich der Krieg die Folge haben, dass die Schuldverbindlichkeiten des
Staates oder seiner Angehoerigen gegen Angehoerige des Feindes aufgehoben
oder zeitweilig ausser Kraft gesetzt oder wenigstens von der
Klagbarkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Solche Vorschriften werden nun durch
den Artikel 23 Abs. 1 unter h fuer unzulaessig erklae