ghts and rights of action of the nationals of the
adverse party'.

[Sidenote: Davis's interpretation of Article 23 (_h_)]

37. This is also the opinion of Davis, one of the American delegates to
the second Hague Conference; he gives the following explanation with
regard to Article 23 (_h_), in the third edition of his _Elements of
International Law_ (New York, 1908), p. 578:

In this article a number of acts are described to which neither
belligerent is permitted to resort in the conduct of his
military operations. It was the well-understood purpose of the
Convention of 1899 to impose certain reasonable and wholesome
restrictions upon the authority of commanding generals and
their subordinates in the theatre of belligerent activity. It
is more than probable that this humane and commendable purpose
would fail of accomplishment if a military commander conceived
it to be within his authority to suspend or nullify their
operation, or to regard their application 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 consider 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 prohibitions of Article 23. The prohibition is included in
section (_h_).

[Sidenote: Impossible to reconcile the divergent views about Article 23
(_h_).]

38. If, from the fact that Davis was an American delegate, we may
conclude that he represents the government view of the United States of
North America, we are confronted by the fact that official England and
America adopt an interpretation of Article 23 (_h_) which is entirely at
variance with that of Germany, and it is quite impossible to build a
bridge of reconciliation between the two camps. This regrettable fact
has its origin simply in the careless use of the legislative method. If
the German conception of Article 23 (_h_) be the correct one, the lines
of subsection (_h_) ought never to have found a shelter in Article 23,
for they have not the slightest connexion with hostilities between t