ANCHORED AND FLOATING MINES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1291, 1 September 1914, Page 4

ANCHORED AND FLOATING MINES.

A TERRIBLE WEAPON. There are three dmiincl kinds of mines that may fie used in naval war. These are: (1) Such as are anchored at sea or in harbours, and are exploded by means of an electric button pressed from the shore; (2) such as arc anchored at sea, which explode if brought into contact witii a. passing vessel; and (3) such as arc allowed to float about a); the mercy of the wind and tide, and which also explode by contact. Of the first type there i» little to be said. As they are under control, they are liable r.o do no accidental damage. If they are fired, the act is deliberately done. Those (ailing under tho second and third categories are much more dangerous. Even (hough anchored they may break loose and become a menace to passing vessels, while those that are quite iniaiiehored may he a terrible source of danger alike to friend and foe. The Uliinetse Government complained after the Russo-Japanese War that between 500 or 600 of its nationals lost their lives through unaiicliored contact mines, China being a neutral jn tho conflict. British vessels, too, had to feel their nay warily througli a sen of initios while in .Japanese waters at the time, and it is surprising that there were not more fatalities. AFFORD A CHEAP DEFENCE. At tho Hague it was pointed out by Count Uastiglia. the, Italian naval delegate, that Dunes provide a cheap fori ll of defence for States with weak navies, .and wore of value for the purpose of coast defetK.u, even in tho hand* of States with strong mines. Another delegate', 'Admiral piotfcl, o, the German navy, said that ruinclajmg ought not to bo restricted tc the territorial waters pi tb? belligerent* becum : lacy might have to he laid perhaps twenty redes from a blockaded coast to defend it. He also pointed cut that a squadron flying from a pursuing fleet might hare to drop unaiuhgrpjj pfines in order To check pit;suit. »«d to make them J,.triples* an hour after deposit, as had been suggested, wo tid deprive them of the value for that ■o Lord Lorcburn pronounces ernp! atigjlly against mines. ' THE HAGUE CONVENTION. A ; uprs made at the last Peace Convention, at The Hague, to place some re is, fictions on the use of mines. Very little headway, however, was made, delegate. holding very divided views. Mr F. E. tjmiili, K.C., who'has just been appointed disseminator-in-chief of war news in London, gives a graphic account of the discussion” by delegates at Tho Hague on the subject of contact mines. It would

seem that already in 1906, the year before Tho Hague Conference njet, the Institute of International Law adopted rules prohibiting the placing of anchored or floating mines in the high eeas, and prohibiting belligerents from placing mines in their own waters, or those of the enemy, which were liable on displacement to bo a danger to navigation outside »uch waters. This latter rule was to apply to neutrals who might place in their waters any mechanical contrivances for the safeguarding of their own neutrality ; and neutrals were to bo forbidden to place such in tho passage of straits loading to tho open sea. In all cases notification to neutral commerce was to bo obligatory, and the Slate, violating these rules was to be responsible for the damage done. DIVERGENT VIEWS. At The Hague Conference held next year there was much divergence of opinion. Great Britain was anxious for the total prohibition of automatic submarine contact mines, which are unauchored, or which do not become harmless on breaking from their moorings; for the total prohibition of tho employment of such mines for the purpose of commercial blockades; and for restriction of tho right of laying mines in the territorial waters of tho belligerents (with an extension of 10 miles instead of three miles, as usual), subject to proper warnings to neutrals in the case of the defence of military ports having at least one graving dock, and provided with tho equipment necessary for the construction and repair of ships of war, is maintained in time of peace. There was, however, an unwillingness on fhe part of the States with small navies to give up the right to use unnnehored mines, though it was agreed that they ought to be so constructed as to become harmless after a short time. There was also an objection on tho part of Germany to fhe restriction of tho. right of laying mines in territorial waters. Finally, after much discussion, a convention was drawn up, and was signed, subject, io many reservations, Great Britain in particular declaring that it could not be taken as conclusive, or as more, than a first step towards the provision of adequate guarantee* for the protection of the undoubted lights of neutral shipping. Tho convention was ratified on behalf of Great Britain in November, 1909. with the reservation of the right to treat as unlawful acts not prohibited by it. The convention by its preamble is admittedly merely provisional, “until such time as it may be found possible to formulate rules on t!io_ subject which shall insure to (lie interests involved all the guarantees desirable.’’ DETAILS OF CONVENTfO v Tho laving of unauchored automatic eontact mines N forbidden unless they are so constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after those who laid them have lost, control over them, 'this, it is only lair to State, was objected to by Germany, which was, however, willing to forbid the use of unanehored mines altogether tor five r*»rs. an offer which was not accepted by a sufficient majority. It was also forbidden to lay anchored mines which do not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their moorings, or to use torpedoers which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark. But. tho whole effect of these restrictions was weakened by a subsequent provision that Bowers who do not, own perfected mines of the description referred to. and which, consequently, could not at. that, time carry out tho rules, undertook to convert the material of their mines “as soon a.? possible,” so as to bring it into conformity with these requirements. Great Britain attempted without, success to pro-, euro the. insertion of a time limit. RESULT IN PRACTICE.

Simmons efforts were made fo ha re (ho area limited within which mines might be laid, but no agreement could lie arrived ar, except that : “Tin' laying of automatic contact ininesoff thecoasisaml ports of the enemy with the solo object of intercepting commercial shipping is forbidden.” This Germany objected to on the ground that it meant nothing, as the belligerent who lays the mine* would invariably declare that he had some other object in view. There is. therefore, practically nothing in the convention to prohibit blockade by mines. On behalf of (treat Britain .Sir Ernest Satow pointed out that the convention imposed no restriction as to the placinir of anchored mines, “which consequently may lie laid wherever (bo belligerent chooses; in hi« own waters for s'clf-dcfence. in the waters of iho enemy as « means of attack, or. lastly, on the high seas so that neutral navigation will inevitably rim great risks in time of naval war. and may tie exposed to many a disaster.” The 'only substantial result of (he conference was the prohibition of the use of floating mines or anchored mine-. which may break hsose unless they are so constructed as to become harmless within a very short, time, and this will only be substantial if States do not fall back on lit* loophole?) above referred to.