and Great Britain supported this argument, and after Colonel Gilinsky, of Russia, had failed to carry a prohibition of ten years, the commission unanimously adopted Captain Crozier's motion for prohibition of five years duration. This prohibition was adopted unanimously by the conference at its session on July 21, and became one of the three prohibitive declarations appended to the Final Act +

b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907

The five years prohibition of the use of balloons, imposed by the first conference, expired July 29, 1904) Before and after that date, there were various evidences that the development of the use of balloons had made noteworthy progress. While the second conference was in session, there came reports to The Hague that in Germany a dirigible balloon, with a speed of thirty miles an hour, had made a successful ascent; that in France the air ship “La Patrie," made in the shape of a cigar, dirigible at will, and having a speed of thirty-one leagues an hour with the wind and eighteen leagues against the wind, had maneuvered successfully at the military review of Longchamps; that the French prime minister and minister of war had spent two hours in "La Patrie," sailing, or flying, at will around Paris, and had determined to organize a corps of military aerostats to be associated with the forts on the German frontier. And it was freely predicted that within four or five years the air would be as full of air ships as the streets are now of automobiles. In the midst of such reports and predictions (August 7), the first subcommission of the II Commission took up the discussion of the proposition made by the Belgian

delegation to renew the prohibition of 1899 for another period of five years Lord Reay, of Great Britain, supporting this proposition, said that two elements, the earth and the sea, are quite sufficient for warlike operations; the air should be left free. "What purpose will be served," he asked, "by the protective measures already adopted [for war on land], if we open to the scourge of war a new field more terrible perhaps than all the others?"

The Russian and Italian representatives proposed that a permanent prohibition be placed upon the bombard ment, by air ships, of unfortified towns and cities but this proposition was decided to have been already included within the laws and customs adopted for war on land, and it was accordingly withdrawn The French delegation argued that the said laws and customs made unnecessary any regulation concerning warfare in the air. But the Belgian proposal to renew the prohibition of 1899 for five years was supported by the representatives of Austria, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, and China, and it was adopted in the subcommission by a vote of twentynine to six, and in the commission without being submitted to a vote.

In the plenary session of the conference, on the 17th of August, Great Britain's delegation offered the amendment, to the Belgian proposition, that the prohibition be extended "until the end of the third Peace Conference." This amendment was accepted by a vote of twenty-eight to eight (with eight abstentions); and then the prohibition was adopted by a vote of twenty-nine to eight (with seven abstentions).1

1The negative vote was cast by Germany, Argentina, Spain, France, Montenegro, Persia, Roumania, and Russia. The seven abstentions were: Chili, Colombia, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, and Venezuela.

The Japanese delegation explained that its abstention from the vote was due to the lack of unanimity on the question among the great military powers, and said that it did not see much use in binding itself as regards some powers, while as regards the others it would be necessary to continue to study and perfect the means of warfare in the air. In accordance with this interpretation of the conference's vote the air ship will have at least seven years to show what it can do. If it should prove itself thoroughly efficient, it seems probable that it will be admitted as an engine of warfare, as well as of communication and espionage. Should this prove to be the case, dire predictions are made as to its political, financial, and military results. One eminent prophet has said that before it boundaries and nationalities would be obliterated, forts and custom houses would become useless. From the financial point of view, it is urged that when the transportation of dutiable goods is made by balloons, governments can no longer depend upon customs dues in time of war, and that then their war budgets will be more directly felt and more bitterly resented than at present; that, although the cost of constructing a balloon is relatively small-about $50,000,- the manufacture of shells for combating them will have to be developed, and they themselves will become more and more expensive through the introduction of new means of ascending higher and flying faster in order to avoid the shells. Thus, financially, the result of air war ships would be both to increase enormously the cost of armaments and to diminish the sources of revenue for supplying it. From the military point of view, it is urged by a German lieutenant colonel that air war ships would make war "more bloody and infernal

than it is at present"; that "frightful ravages would be wrought where their projectiles strike"; that "soldiers would dream of being exposed constantly, even during the night, to a death-dealing rain, and great panics would ensue; and that hence it is above all the moral effect of such arms which should form the chief objection to their use." One eminent Austrian statesman has gone still farther in this military critique, and has predicted that "all the armaments in the world would be rendered obsolete by the advent of war ships in the air."

Whether or not these and similar arguments will be used in the next conference in favor of renewing, or making permanent, the prohibition of balloons as war ships, or of recognizing them as regular engines of warfare, will depend, of course, upon the progress made in aerostatics during the next seven years; but even now it may be assumed that the subject will become of increasing importance in each recurring conference.

The United States delegation took no part, in the Conference of 1907, in the discussion of the question, but voted with the majority, in both subcommission and conference, in favor of the temporary prohibition. Professor Renault, of France, repeated the arguments used in 1899 by Captain Crozier, of the United States, in favor of a temporary as against a permanent prohibition. The French delegation, however, opposed any other restriction on warfare in the air than had been adopted for warfare on the land. And this opposition probably caused a negative vote to be cast in the conference by the German delegation, which had voted in the subcommission in favor of the temporary prohibition on condition that the affirmative vote should be unanimous.

XI. WARFARE ON THE SEA

A. NEW ARMS AND METHODS

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

The second topic mentioned in the Russian programme of January 11, 1899, was "the prohibition of the use in armies and fleets of any new kinds of firearms whatever, and of new explosives, or any powders more powerful than those now in use, either for muskets or cannon." When this topic came up for discussion in the naval subcommission of the I Commission, the first difficulty which arose was as to the precise meaning of the term "new kinds of firearms." Captain Schéine, of Russia, answered this question by saying that "the term should be understood in the sense of an entirely new type, and should not include transformations and improvements." But to this it was objected by Admiral Péphau, of France, that "a new type" — of cannon, for example — was merely an old type gradually modified and improved. Again, it was asked, by Captain Sakomoto, of Japan, if “new type” included one already invented, but not yet adopted. And, finally, the term “prohibition" was objected to as being inadmissible; for, if it was to be applied to the invention and construction of such engines of warfare, it could be enforced—if at all—only by a law of each nation; and if it was to be applied to the introduction of such arms from abroad, it would be an infringement on national sovereignty.