"That in view of these ideas all the individual benefit to the profit of agents of the state which exercises the right of capture ought to be excluded and that the loss suffered by individuals from the taking of prize ought to be finally borne by the state to which they belong; "The French delegation has the honor of proposing to the fourth commission that it express the wish that states which exercise the right of capture appropriate the portion of prizes given to the crews of the capturing vessels and promulgate the necessary measures, so that the loss, caused by the exercise of the right of capture, will not rest entirely upon the individuals from whom the wealth may have been captured."--This "Voeu" known as annexe 16 of the fourth commission appears in French text in Second Hague Conference Acts and Documents, iii, 1148; English translation in Westlake, International Law, ii, 313. For discussion of the measure see Second Hague Conference, Acts and Documents, iii, 792, 809, 842, 845, 906, 909. Before a vote was taken the two portions of the motion were separated. The final result as given on page 909 of the volume cited was as follows: On Abolition of prize money; Aye--Germany, Austria-Hungary, Chile, China, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Norway, Holland, Persia, Russia, Servia, Sweden, Turkey, 16. Nay--United States, Argentina, Cuba, Mexico, 4. Not Voting--Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equador, Spain, Great Britain, Hayti, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Salvador, Siam, Switzerland, 14. On State insurance against private loss; Aye--Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Montenegro, Holland, Russia, Servia, 7. Nay--Germany, United States, Argentina, Chile, China, Cuba, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Persia, Sweden, Turkey, 13. Not Voting--Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equador, Spain, Greece, Hayti, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Salvador, Siam, Switzerland, 14. Although the United States has abolished prize money, her delegates voted against the proposition on this occasion on the grounds that it was a matter for internal regulation, and that they did not wish to take the emphasis from the broader project of total abolition of the right to capture private property which they advocated. Though England abstained from voting, her delegate expressed opposition to the "Voeu" in debate. [13] Second Hague Conferences, iii, 906. [14] Bentwich, The Law of Private Property in War, p. 72. _BIBLIOGRAPHY._ _General._ Atherley-Jones, L. A. Commerce in War. London, 1907. Baker, Sir Shurston. First Steps in International Law. London, 1899. Bentwich, Norman. The Declaration of London. London, 1911. The Law of Private Property in War. London, 1907. Bluntschli, J. C. Le Droit International Codifié. French translation from German by M. C. Lardy. 4th Edition. Paris, 1886. Bonfils, Henry. Manuel de Droit International Public. 3rd Edition. Paris, 1901. Bowles, T. G. Maritime Warfare, London, 1878.