to place their equipment upon a plane of equality with the best. A vote was taken, accordingly, upon such permission being given to the "backward" nations, with the result that five delegations voted aye,1 and the other delegations either abstained from voting, or voted upon other phases of the question. As one of the delegates said: "It was impossible to state what the result of the vote was,the only thing evident was that the question was not entirely understood by the voting delegates." The president of the subcommission then put to a vote the proposition presented by Russia, with the result that all of the delegations voted against it, except that Russia and Bulgaria abstained from voting at all. Colonel Gilinsky afterwards explained that he had abstained from voting on the proposition because it had been made to imply that no state, even the backward ones, could introduce a better type of cannon than it already possessed; while he had intended it to mean that the new rapid-fire cannon should be considered the best type, and that no improvements on it should be permitted for a specified time. The subcommission's report was accepted by the conference, and no further attempt was made to prohibit the use of improved field artillery. 3. Muskets Colonel Gilinsky introduced his proposition as to muskets by saying that the musket at present in use in all armies is nearly of the same caliber and quality, and that therefore he would propose that a period be agreed upon 1 Those of the United States, Italy, Belgium, Servia, and Siam, during which no state should change the type of musket at present in use in its own armies. This proposition differed, it was noticed, from the Russian proposition. regarding field artillery, since it would not permit "backward" nations to introduce improved types of muskets; but Colonel Gilinsky defended this difference on the ground that "the type of musket is very nearly the same at present in all armies, while the type of field artillery differs greatly." He supported his proposition entirely on the ground of economy, and said that it would not preclude new inventions designed to improve the existing type of musket, but merely those which would modify it essentially or transform it into an automatic musket. "The automatic musket," he added, "exists for the present only as a proposition, and has not yet been adopted anywhere." In the discussion of this proposition, the objection was at once made, by General Zuccari, of Italy, that the difference between the muskets of different nations is not so small as stated, but that in reality it is quite great. And Colonel Kuepach, of Austria-Hungary, stated that an improvement, even a slight improvement, in muskets at present in use might change entirely their character or type. After a further exchange of views, it was agreed that the Russian delegates should present a detailed proposition specifying exact conditions. This they did, as follows: 1. The minimum weight of the musket shall be 4 kilogrammes. 2. The minimum caliber shall be 61⁄2 millimeters. 3. The weight of the bullet shall not be less than 10 grammes. 4. The initial vitality shall not exceed 720 meters. 5. The rapidity of firing shall be limited to 25 shots per minute. Colonel von Schwarzhoff, of Germany, analyzed these conditions, and objected to the first on the ground of humanity to the soldier. "It is far more humane," he said, "to lighten the load which the soldier must carry, than to fix a minimum weight for one part of his equipment; all that is taken from the weight of the musket would soon be replaced by an increase in that of powder and shot." As to the minimum weight proposed for both musket and bullet, Colonel von Schwarzhoff stated that there were six governments which would be obliged by the plan to make changes, little desirable either from the military or economical point of view. The initial vitality, he said, depends at least as much on the powder used as on the kind or weight of the musket and the form of the projectile; and, since each power is to be left at liberty to adopt new explosives, it would seem logical not to limit the initial vitality. The rapidity of firing does not depend less, he argued, on the skill and training of the marksman than on the mechanism of the musket; hence, in fixing a maximum it would be necessary to state whether it is a moderate rapidity to which the majority of soldiers may attain, or a rapidity which the best trained men can not exceed. He admitted, however, that the proposed maximum was large enough. A vote was then taken on the detailed proposition, with the result that fourteen delegations voted against it, four 1 for it, and two 2 abstained. 1 The Netherlands, Persia, Russia, and Bulgaria. 2 France, Roumania. 1 General den Beer Poortugael, of the Netherlands, had feared that the detailed proposition of Russia would meet with defeat, and' before it was put to a vote he proposed a general agreement between the powers "to use in their armies, during the next five years, only the muskets in use at the present time"; and that "the improvements permitted should be of a kind to change neither the present type nor caliber." Colonel von Schwarzhoff opposed this proposition on the ground that it did not define what improvements should be permitted: "In case of doubt, it would be necessary, for the loyal fulfillment of the agreement, to make known the improvement to the other powers and ask their consent before adopting it, an impossibility." The proposition was put to a vote and lost by a vote of ten to ten, with one abstention.1 At the next session of the subcommission, General Poortugael presented another general proposition, similar to the first but including the proviso that the powers might adopt any improvement in the best existing type of musket which should appear advantageous to them, and that all the powers might adopt the best type then in use. He supported this proposition in an ardent speech which, by unanimous consent, was spread in full upon the minutes. He first explained that the reason why he had presented another proposition despite the adverse action taken on the two others, was that his conscience told him that they 1 The four delegations which voted for the Russian detailed proposition, voted also for the Netherlands' general one; and in addition to these, the following delegations voted for the latter: Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland; France voted against the latter, and Roumania abstained; China, Mexico, Greece, and Luxemburg were absent; Montenegro, represented by Russia, did not vote. 166 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES included within the programme of the next conference, under the head of the laws and customs of naval warfare. E. THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF NAVAL a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899 When the revision of the laws and customs of warfare on land was under discussion, Count Nigra, of the Italian delegation, endeavored to have extended to naval warfare the rules adopted in regard to bombardment on land; and Ambassador White and Captain Crozier, of the United States delegation, endeavored to have extended to naval warfare the rules adopted in regard to the treatment of private property on land. But the utmost that could be secured from the conference was the adoption, almost unanimously, of the desire that these two phases of naval warfare should be referred to the next conference. The great work of codification, accomplished by the Conference of 1899, was performed solely within the field of warfare on land; but its success in this field stimulated the Conference of 1907 in its noteworthy attempt to codify the laws and customs of warfare on the sea. b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907 The Russian programme for the Conference of 1907 included the following paragraph: As for maritime warfare, whose laws and customs differ on certain points from country to country, it is necessary to establish definite rules harmonious with the rights of belligerents and the interests of neutrals. A convention concerning these matters will have to be |