In the meeting of the commission to which the result of this discussion was reported, the president, M. van Karnebeek, of the Netherlands, made an urgent appeal to the United States delegation to make the vote against asphyxiating gases unanimous, and said that six of the countries voting aye had done so only in case of unanimity. But Captain Mahan replied that it was "impossible to change his first vote, because it was based on a question of principle."

In the session of the conference, when the question was finally disposed of, the United States voted no, and Great Britain cast the same vote, unanimity not having been secured; but all the other countries voted for the prohibition, and the conference adopted the following declaration:

The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that effect by their Governments, inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868, declare as follows: The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."

This declaration was signed by the delegations of all the twenty-six countries represented, with the exception of those of the United States and Great Britain.

In defense of Captain Mahan's stand on this question, the following paragraph from the United States secretary of state's instructions to the delegation may be noted: "It is doubtful if wars will be diminished by rendering them less destructive, for it is the plain lesson of history that the periods of peace have been longer protracted as the cost and destructiveness of war have increased. The expediency of restraining the inventive genius of our peo

こ

ple in the direction of devising means of defense is by no means clear, and, considering the temptations to which men and nations may be exposed in a time of conflict, it is doubtful if an international agreement of this nature would prove effective."

On the other hand, it should be noted that our delegation was not united in its opposition to the prohibition of asphyxiating bombs. Ambassador White, the leader of the delegation, recorded in his diary at the time of the discussion of the question: "To this [Captain Mahan's argument] it was answered- and, as it seemed to me, with force that asphyxiating bombs might be used against towns for the destruction of vast numbers of noncombatants, including women and children, while torpedoes at sea are used only against the military and naval forces of the enemy. The original proposal was carried by a unanimous vote, save ours. I am not satisfied with our attitude on this question; but what can a layman do when he has against him the foremost contemporary military and naval experts? My hope is that the United States will yet stand with the majority on the record." 1

It should be noted, also, that in the Conference of 1907, Great Britain's first delegate, Sir Edward Fry, announced that his government, desirous of promoting the utmost possible unanimity among the nations, had instructed him to accept the declaration of 1899 against the use of asphyxiating gases. Since the governments of South and Central America, for the first time represented in 1907, had already accepted the acts of 1899, Great Britain's adhesion to the above declaration left the United States government alone in opposition to it.

1 Andrew D. White, “Autobiography," II, 319-320.

3. Torpedo Boats and Rams

The Russian proposal on this topic was: "A prohibition of the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo boats or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction; an agreement not to construct, in the future, vessels with rams."

The president of the naval subcommission opened the discussion of the question as to torpedo boats with the remark that "if one nation should adopt these terrible engines of war, all others should be left free to make use of them also." The delegates of Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy, and Denmark said that their countries would vote for the prohibition, but only in case unanimity could be secured. Captain Mahan, of the United States, said that he wished to leave his government in entire liberty to make use of such boats, but would await the decisions of the other delegates. Austria-Hungary's delegate believed that they should be permitted for the defense of seaports and roadsteads; the delegate of France believed that the submarine torpedo has an eminently defensive object and should be permitted; and the delegates of the Netherlands, Siam, and Sweden and Norway supported this conclusion for the reason that the submarine torpedo is the rightful weapon of the small and feeble. This difference of opinion being so great, neither the subcommission, commission, nor conference attempted to express any formal resolution on the use of torpedo boats.1 The construction of war ships with rams was another question which failed to receive a definite answer. It was

1 In the commission, a vote was taken on the Russian proposal, ten states voting for it, and nine against it; the United States voted against it.

argued that the prohibition could not extend to ships already made, nor to ships contracted for and under construction; nor could it be properly held to apply to a war ship which is not provided with a ram, but is strengthened at the bow in such a manner as to give and sustain a shock. Captain Hjulhammar, of Sweden and Norway, argued that by suppressing the ram and not the torpedo boat but little would be done in the cause of humanity; and that the ram is useful against transports in case of disembarkation, a matter of importance to states having a long extent of coast. And M. de Bille, of Denmark, argued that the ram constitutes a useful means of defense, and offers to small ships their only chance of defeating large ones.

Captain Schéine, of Russia, having failed to secure any agreement as to the construction of ships with rams, proposed that in time of peace the rams on war ships should be masked, so as to reduce the danger from them to other ships in case of collision. But on this proposal the argument was made that means of masking rams are as yet but too little developed; and although the subcommission reported the question to the commission, which alone was competent to deal with it, no action was taken upon it.

Captain Mahan was one of those who argued against the subcommission's competency to deal with the masking of rams; but in the commission the United States was one of the seven states that voted for the prohibition of the construction of ships with rams, on condition that the vote should be unanimous.1

1 These states were: The United States, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Persia, the Netherlands, and Roumania; four others voted for the prohibition

b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907

The Russian programme for the second conference contained no reference to "new kinds of firearms." This is not surprising, considering the decided rejection of Russia's proposals concerning them in 1899; and considering also the fact that it omitted from its programme for 1907 its entire armament policy, of which new arms, marine cannon, etc., formed a part. But, with the statement that "it is desirable at present to examine only those questions which are especially pressing, those, namely, which have arisen from the experience of the years just past," the programme specified the three questions of submarine mines, naval bombardment, and the transformation of merchant ships into cruisers, as requiring an international agreement.

1. Submarine Mines

The placing of torpedoes, or the use of submarine mines, was made prominent by the Russo-Japanese War; and the question of regulating it was considered by several of the great naval and maritime powers to be an urgent one.

When it came up for discussion in the first subcommission of the III Commission, the subcommission's president declared that its solution presented greater technical difficulties than any other question before the conference; but that if such solution could be reached, it would prove most valuable in the promotion of humanity and peace.

without reserve: France, Greece, Siam, and Bulgaria; and seven states voted against it: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey.