elaborated, and it wil inm oe of GS TEMETELLE DITLOS = the task devolved upon the apering comTED

As parts of this convention the wo subjects of bombardmem, mes merchant vessels in va se

of belligerents, the delay of fer at vessels at the beginning of malte conduct of belligerent va shis 11 te destruction of neutral prizes

been discussed above, and ter im

no small part of a naval mode the mem
the programme continued: In the sit mem
should be introduced rules f van

be applicable equally to varie of the ex outlining the work of the IT Comment Fat Martens's last question was: Trim var ie a the convention of 1899 relative to the event maims y warfare on land applicable to the openins of varie on the sea?" This question vid vastly muret a wide range of consideration is to fansed by the commission itself, but referred to its commmee if emmnation, which, in turn, referred for cocadenton nd report to Jonkheer van Karebeek of the Netherlands. This last-named gentleman, with the assistance of M Beernaert, of Belgium, the president of the II Commission (which had to deal with questions of warfare on land, examined and reported upon the applicability of each one of the fifty-eight articles adopted in 1899 to control warfare upon land. He reported to the committee that forty-six of the fifty-eight articles were applicable, that four were not applicable, and that there was doubt as to the applica

1

bility of the remaining eight. The committee decided that time would not admit of the discussion of the report by the existing conference; and recommended that a special desire (vou) be adopted in plenary session that the codification of maritime laws of combat be made a specific part of the programme of the next conference. This vœu was unanimously adopted, and, on motion of Sir Ernest Satow, of Great Britain, the further vœu was adopted that "meanwhile, the powers shall apply as far as possible to naval warfare the principles of the convention of 1899 relative to warfare on land."

1 The report was not commenced until August 28, and presented to the committee until September 6.

XII. WARFARE ON LAND

A. NEW ARMS AND METHODS

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

"From the moment when every chance of an armed conflict between nations can not be absolutely prevented, it becomes a great work for humanity to mitigate the horrors of war." These are the words by which President de Staal invited the attention of the conference to the subject of warfare on land. The Russian programme had mentioned two aspects of the subject, the use of new kinds of firearms and explosives, and the laws and customs of warfare. The first of these was taken up for discussion in the military subcommission of the I Commission. This discussion occupied five meetings of the subcommission, and was based upon propositions introduced, explained, and défended, for the most part, by Russia's military delegate, Colonel Gilinsky. These propositions had a precedent in the Convention of St. Petersburg of 1868, when the representatives of seventeen European powers met on the invitation of the Russian government and agreed upon a short "Declaration." This declaration asserted that the progress of civilization should have for its result all possible diminution of the calamities of war; that the only legitimate object of warfare is the weakening of the military forces of the enemy; that for this purpose it is enough to put hors de combat the largest

possible number of men; that this object would be exceeded by the use of weapons which would uselessly aggravate the sufferings of men put hors de combat, or which would make their death inevitable. The declaration was followed by an agreement between the contracting parties to renounce the use, in warfare with each other, of projectiles weighing less than four hundred grammes and being either explosive or charged with explosive or inflammable materials.

1. Explosives

In the spirit of this declaration and agreement Colonel Gilinsky presented to the conference several important propositions. The first of these was a proposal to restrict the use, in military operations, of the formidable explosives already existing, and to prohibit the use of still more powerful ones. Captain Crozier, of the United States, took the lead in opposing this proposition, and he did so on the ground that its adoption would be an obstacle to one of Russia's prime objects in calling the conference, that is to say, economy. If by a more powerful explosive is meant one which gives a greater velocity to a projectile of a given weight, or the same velocity to a heavier projectile, then an explosive is powerful in proportion to the volume of gas produced by the heat of combustion; hence it is quite possible to invent an explosive which, supplying a larger volume of gas at a lower temperature of combustion, would be more powerful than any now in use and, at the same time, because of the low temperature, would cause less strain upon the musket and permit its longer, use. This argument was accepted as conclu

sive, — although other arguments, unexpressed, were doubtless present in the thought of the delegates, and it was unanimously voted that each state should be left in entire liberty as to the use of explosives for propelling missiles.

Colonel Gilinsky then proposed to prohibit the use of new explosives - that is, "high explosives," or those used as the bursting charge of projectiles - more powerful than any now used. This proposition was rejected, without discussion, by a vote of nine ayes and twelve noes.1

Colonel Gilinsky's third proposition was to prohibit the use, for field artillery, of bursting, or mining, shells. This proposition was also rejected, without discussion, by a vote of ten ayes and eleven noes.2

2. Field Guns

The Russian proposition on this topic was that the type of cannon at present in use in several armies, that is to say, the new rapid-fire cannon, should not be changed. during a period to be agreed upon. Colonel Gilinsky based this proposition on the argument of economy, "the reduction of the military expenses which burden the nations." But the representative of France said that if the proposition implied that those countries having inferior artillery could adopt the best now in use, it would entail even greater expenses upon them by inciting them

1 All of the eight "great powers," except Russia, voted in the negative with Spain, Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Roumania. 2 Denmark voted this time with the affirmative; the other negative votes were as before.