nglish and
American writers look upon the meaning of the clause as doubtful. If Mr.
Cohen will look at p. 44 of my _Laws of War on Land_, 1909, he will find
that I carry this sceptical attitude so far as to include the clause in
question in brackets as "apocryphal," with the comment that "it can
hardly, till its policy has been seriously discussed, be treated as a
rule of international law." I have accordingly maintained, in
correspondence with my Continental colleagues, that the clause should be
treated as "non avenue," as "un non sens," on the ground that, while,
torn from their context, its words would seem ("ont faux air") to bear
the Continental interpretation, its position as part of a "Reglement,"
in conformity with which the Powers are to "issue instructions to their
armed land forces," conclusively negatives this interpretation. I will
not to-day trouble you in detail with the very curious history of the
clause; which, as originally proposed by Germany, merely prohibited (a
commander?) from announcing that the private claims ("reclamations") of
enemy subjects would be unenforceable. It is astonishing that no
objection was raised by the British or by the American delegates to the
subsequent transformation of this innocent clause into something very
different, first by the insertion of the words "en justice," and later
by the substitution of "droits et actions" for "reclamations." The
quiescence of the delegates is the more surprising, as, at the first
meeting of the sub-committee, General de Gundel, in the plainest
language, foreshadowed what was aimed at by the clause.

Art. 23 (_h_) is, I submit, incapable of rational interpretation and
should be so treated by the Powers. If interpreted at all, its sense
must be taken to be that which is now, somewhat tardily, put upon it by
our own Government.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 6 (1911).

I may perhaps refer here to my _Laws of War on Land_ (1908), p.
44, where I describe as "apocryphal" Art. 23 (_h_) of the Hague
Convention No. iv. of 1907; and to my paper upon that article
in the _Law Quarterly Review_ for 1912, pp. 94-98, reproduced
in the _Revue de Droit International_, the _Revue Generale de
Droit International Public_, and the _Zeitschrift fuer
Voelkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht_, for the same year.

The view there maintained was affirmed by the Court of Appeal
in _Porter_ v. _F