The two papers together, the order and the plan, constitute what may be called the Constitution of the Sanitary Commission.

Under the first branch of their responsibility — inquiry — the information sought was to cover the wants of the troops under the heads, what must be, what is, and what ought to be their condition.

In respect to the other branch advice the Commission was to prepare plans, undertake to secure their approval and enforcement by the military authorities, and their support by the benevolence of the public, in short, to aid the Medical Bureau without displacing it or in any manner infringing upon its rights and duties.

A comparison of the measures adopted at Geneva in 1863 and recommended to the signatory powers for acceptance (see below) with those adopted by the Government of the United States in 1865 will show that there was no substantial difference so far as concerned results to be secured. The single motive actuating both the Geneva Conference and the United States Sanitary Commission was to devise a plan and means for aiding the medical services of the armies in campaign. At Geneva much was said about succor of the wounded and nothing about the general health and comfort of the troops. At Washington the succor of the wounded, although not specially referred to, was covered by the phrase "preserving and restoring the health and comfort of the forces." At Geneva it was proposed that all those connected with the medical services wear distinguishing marks or badges. At Washington there was no such proposal at the outset, but before the war was ended the helpers of the sick and wounded at the front and in the hospitals were wearing distinguishing marks. The delegates at Geneva asked that the nations confer upon the army sanitary services and their helpers the privilege of neutrality. This was asking for what both belligerents in the Civil War in America had more than a year before the meeting at Geneva already conceded as respected medical officers and other non-combatants taken prisoners. From and after the spring of 1862 all doctors and chaplains held as prisoners of war by the Union or Confederate forces, as well as those liberated on parole, were released.3 General Beauregard appears to have been

3 Par. IV, G. O. No. 60, June 6, 1862, for the Union Army, and par. II and III, G. O. No. 45, June 26. 1862, for the Confederate Army.

the first to propose this humane treatment of physicians, April 13, 1862, and General Bragg, the same for chaplains, June 16, 1862.

As early as the eighteenth century in European wars surgeons and chaplains, on exchange of prisoners, were commonly released without equivalents or ransom.*

The international usage in this regard is stated by Lieber in his "Instructions " 5 as follows:

The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hos pital nurses, and servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander has reasons to retain them.

This was published to the Union Army several months before the Geneva Conference met and more than a year before the International Congress convened.

It thus appears that the rules prescribed at the Geneva Congress, conferring the privilege of neutrality upon the sanitary or medical personnel and their attachés, was but the declaration of a status for this class of noncombatants that was in general harmony with many European precedents and strictly in accord with the American practice announced more than two years previously.

Thus America, in 1861, created a volunteer agency for war relief and this was soon developed into a powerful and efficient organization for safeguarding the health and succoring the sick and wounded. in war. After its efficiency had been demonstrated the Geneva Congress formulated rules of international law to the same end. The sole original feature of the Convention of 1864 is found in the requirement that those engaged in relieving suffering of the troops

See Hall Int. Law, I:422, who cites Moser IX, II:255 and 260; De Martens, Rec. VI:498-III:306; Precis p. 276; Dumont VII, I:231-Kluber 247; Heffter p. 126. Wellington Despatches, VII:591.

5 G. O. 100, War Department, April 24, 1863, "Instructions for the Government of Armies in the Field." This work of Dr. Francis Lieber is the earliest formal exposition of the international laws of war that was published in any language. As issued by the War Department the monograph had the approval of a board, appointed by the Secretary of War. consisting of Dr. Lieber, the author, and Major-Generals Cadwalader, Hitchcock, Martindale, and Hartsuff of the Army.

as well as the hospitals for the sick and wounded, and their means of conveyance display a distinguishing mark the Red Cross.

It is generally understood that the proposal to make the Greek Red Cross a universal badge of neutrality for those engaged in the succor of the wounded in war originated with the First International Conference that met in Geneva in October, 1863. The meeting was called by the Genevese Society of Public Utility, whose interest in the movement was brought about by M. Henri Dunant, the author of a pamphlet published in 1860, entitled Un Souvenir de Solferino. The author vividly portrayed the suffering of the wounded during the Italian campaign of 1859; showed how painfully inadequate were the means of relief controlled by the military commanders; urged the formation in each country of a permanent society for the succor of the wounded in war, the services of its benevolent volunteer personnel to be accepted as supplementing the efforts of the overworked official administrative staff; proposed that a condition of neutrality and freedom from capture by the enemy should attach to the official and nonofficial, regular and volunteer personnel of the medical services of the belligerent armies; and expressed the hope that some of the great military powers might accept these proposals by formal compact and so secure their recognition by the civilized world as governing in war.

The official reports of the first Geneva Conference and contemporaneous publications established the accuracy of the proposition that the idea of a distinctive and universal badge for the sanitary personnel serving with the armies and a recognition of their neutrality was proposed, discussed and adopted at the First International Conference. These proceedings were reported October 29, 1863, and immediately thereafter published to the world.

The result of the deliberations at Geneva, as respected volunteer aid for the wounded, was expressed in ten resolutions, in substance proposing the creation in all countries of committees and subcommittees of volunteers to aid the army medical services in the

• See Project of Declarations, prepared by the Society, in SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, p. 235.

7 SUPPLEMENT to this JOURrnal, p. 236.

care of the wounded, and in time of peace to prepare and organize for such cooperation, with accumulated supplies, and trained civil personnel. The individuals so employed were to wear "as a distinctive badge a white brassard (armlet) with a red cross."

Besides the declaration of principles expressed in the resolutions, the conference also recommended:

(a) That the army medical services, their volunteer assistants, and the inhabitants of the theater of war who might give shelter and succor to the wounded, be granted all the rights and privileges of neutrals that the laws of war sanction; and

(b) That all persons, official and unofficial, serving with the armies and with ambulances and hospitals wear a distinctive uniform or sign, and that a uniform flag be adopted for all ambulances and hospitals.

There was no description of, nor any allusion to, the kind or form of the proposed cross to be shown on armlets by the volunteer helpers, save that it be red.

In the proceedings of the Conference there is nothing to indicate that there was any idea of simulating the national flag of Switzerland, formed by the combination as a cross of five rectangles, but there is circumstantial evidence that leads to such a conclusion.

The conference sitting at Geneva had no governmental sanction, and there was no basis for a hope that their declarations could be made effective save as favored and adopted by the governments. This condition of affairs those sitting at Geneva clearly recognized. It was manifest that their declarations would be without intended beneficial effect unless they were officially adopted and accepted as international law.

So much encouragement to M. Dunant and his associate delegates resulted from the transactions at Geneva, and so apparent had it become that the action taken at the unofficial meeting would be of little use until it should be ratified by the nations and become a part of the laws of war, that early in 1864 a further movement was set on foot in Geneva to bring about the organization of an International Congress, composed of official delegates having plenary powers and whose action, if duly ratified. would be binding on the signatory

nations.

On June 6, 1864, the Swiss Federal Council (supported by the Emperor of the French) issued a call for such a congress to meet in Geneva on August 8th, the same year, for the purpose of considering the resolutions and recommendations previously adopted at the conference. An invitation for the United States to send delegates was extended, but at this time the Civil War was in progress and the American Government could not bind itself in advance to accept the dicta of European powers in respect to so important a matter. Mr. Seward is reported to have remarked concerning this European meeting:

8

Our Government, while always ready to forward all humanitarian action, has a well-understood policy of holding itself aloof from all European Congresses or compacts of a political nature * . The Congress at Geneva being for the modification of international laws of war is one of great significance and the sending of delegates officially empowered to represent and act for the United States was from the many difficulties apparent, nearly or quite impossible. The Government wishes to act as a free agent, with option in the premises, and in its own good time.

* * *

But

The representatives of some sixteen governments were present at the Congress, including two delegates from the United States. those from America were accredited only for the purpose of giving and receiving such suggestions as might be thought likely to promote the humane ends which have prompted the meeting.

It plainly appears from the reports of the American delegates and the compte rendu of the Congress that many members were entirely incredulous as to the possibility of securing adoption by the nations of so chimerical an idea as the ratification of the project for a treaty on the lines formulated by the conference of the year before, one that would permit the presence within the theater of hostile operations, and without the consent of military authorities, of possible spies or conspirators disguised or acting as volunteer Red Cross agents and employees.

8 See report of Mr. Chas. S. P. Bowles to the Sanitary Commission, September 15, 1864.

9 Messrs. George C. Flagg, U. S. Minister to Switzerland, and Charles S. P. Bowles, European Agent of the U. S. Sanitary Commission.