The following note shows the special amendment and the interpretation of certain clauses of the articles, as agreed by the Governments of the United States and Spain:
NOTE.
(a) The amendment proposed by France is contained in brackets after Article IX.
(b) The interpretation placed upon Article X by England and France is to the following effect:
The question being raised as to whether under Article X a vessel might not avail herself of the carrying of sick or wounded to engage with impunity in traffic otherwise hazardous under the rules of war, it was agreed that there was no purpose in the articles to modify in any particular the generally admitted principles concerning the rights of belligerents; that the performance of such services of humanity could not be used as a cover either for contraband of war or for enemy merchandise; and that every boat which or whose cargo would, under ordinary circumstances, be subject to confiscation, can not be relieved therefrom by the sole fact of carrying sick and wounded.
Question being raised as to whether, under Article X an absolute right was afforded to a blockaded party to freely remove its sick and wounded from the blockaded town, it was agreed that such removal or evacuation of sick and wounded was entirely subject to the consent of the blockading party. It should be permitted for humanity’s sake where the superior exigencies of war may not intervene to prevent, but the besieging party might refuse permission entirely.
The full text of the French interpretation of Article X is subjoined.
The second paragraph of the additional Article X reads thus: “If the merchant ship also carries a cargo, her neutrality will still protect it, provided that such cargo is not of a nature to be confiscated by the belligerent.”
The words “of a nature to be confiscated by the belligerent” apply equally to the nationality of the merchandise and to its quality.
Thus, according to the latest international conventions, merchandise of a nature to be confiscated by a cruiser are: