cordingly voted upon, with the result that twenty-two delegations voted in favor of it, two delegations (Great Britain and the United States) voted against it, and one (Portugal) abstained from voting, while Luxemburg's delegation was not present.

The final declaration adopted by the conference, after a long and animated debate upon it in subcommission, commission, and plenary session, was in the form of the original proposition, and was signed by representatives of all of the twenty-six powers, with the exception of Great Britain, the United States, and Portugal.1

b. THE CONFERENCE OF 1907

Bullets

The Russian programme for this conference mentioned, among the topics connected with warfare on the land: "Declarations of 1899. One among them having expired, question of its renewal."

At the second meeting of the first subcommission of the II Commission, on July 10, 1907, General Davis, of the United States, presented the following proposition: "The use of bullets which inflict unnecessarily cruel wounds, such as explosive bullets, and, in general, every kind of bullet which exceeds the limit necessary for putting a man immediately hors de combat, should be forbidden."

At the last meeting of the subcommission, August 7, after the other work assigned to it had been finished, its president, M. Beernaert, of Belgium, stated that the

1 The British and Portuguese delegations in the Conference of 1907 an nounced the adhesion of their governments to this declaration.

Convention of 1899 had been completed by two other declarations, one relative to the prohibition of bullets which expand in the human body, and the other dealing with the prohibition of asphyxiating projectiles; and that no one had demanded the revision of these two declarations.

Lord Reay, of Great Britain, then announced that his government, which did not sign the latter declaration, would give in its adhesion to it that day.

The president, after expressing his gratification for this adhesion, passed to the declaration concerning bullets. He expressed his opinion that all discussion on the subject of this declaration should be held, as in the case of the preceding one, inadmissible; that these two declarations, having been concluded for an indefinite term, can be denounced only on condition of notice given one year in advance, and that no power had expressed such an intention; that, moreover, the modification or abrogation of these declarations does not figure on the programme, and that the restrictive proposition of the United States, likewise, is not a part of it.

These observations of the president encountered no contradiction; and after the British and Portuguese representatives had announced that their respective delegations would sign the declaration prohibiting the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, and the president had congratulated the conference "on these precious adhesions," the subcommission adjourned sine die.

The adhesion of Great Britain and Portugal to the dec- · laration of 1899 concerning bullets left the United States delegation alone to contend for its view of the matter. It did not shirk what it considered to be its duty, and at the

meeting of the II Commission on the 8th of August, General Davis recalled some of the facts above mentioned, and made the following statement:

"In view of these facts, the United States delegation finds it difficult to understand 'that no one has demanded the revision of these two declarations.' Its desire in submitting its proposition of July 8 was to secure consideration for it by the commission.

"In the minutes of July 31, there was given an interpretation to the programme, an interpretation which the delegation of the United States, to its great regret, can not accept; the interpretation, namely, that the declarations of 1899 can be modified only at the suggestion of a power which has denounced them. The government of the United States is not one of the signatories of the third declaration, and hence is not in a position to denounce it in the manner and form prescribed in the convention.

"In conclusion, I address myself especially to the delegates who bear officers' commissions in the armies of the nations represented here. You are familiar with the whistling of bullets, you are accustomed to the sight of the dead and wounded. We have regulated the operations of warfare, we have improved the condition of neutrals: these are acts of high justice; but we should not forget the combatant officers and simple soldiers who bear the burdens of warfare. I hope that this conference, convoked in the name of humanity, will not forget the lot of those who bear the inevitable losses and the cruelties of battles.

"The duty of the delegation of the United States has been fulfilled; the duty of the conference commences at the point where that of the delegation ends.”

M. Beernaert, of Belgium, who was president of the II Commission, as well as of its first subcommission, replied that General Davis's remarks would be placed upon the record, but said that the question raised by him had been placed before the commission [really, the subcommission], and that no one had opposed the solution which it had received. He ruled that the question was no longer open for

discussion, and expressed the opinion that in other respects also it had been well settled. The programme prepared for the conference more than a year ago by the Russian government, he asserted, included the regulation of warfare and the renewal of the declaration relative to balloons; but no proposition was made as to the two other declarations, and no power had denounced them; hence they retain their obligatory force for one year or more. In regard to General Davis's proposition itself, M. Beernaert said, in conclusion, that it was identical with the one presented by Captain Crozier in 1899, which was then unanimously rejected as insufficient; and that Captain Crozier himself then signed the declaration in its present form.1

The commission then adjourned, and the question of bullets was not taken up again.

B. THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1864

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

When the II Commission was assigning its tasks to the consideration of its two subcommissions, a debate occurred as to the competence of the conference to revise the convention adopted at Geneva in 1864 for the regulation of warfare on the land. M. Odier, of Switzerland, took the view that it would be better to refer the revision to a special conference, in which medical and sanitary experts, and representatives of all the powers which had signed the convention,2 might be present. This view was adopted

1 The last two of these statements were incorrect, — according to the official record of 1899.

2 All of these powers were represented in the Conference of 1899; but some of the minor German states which were independently represented in 1864 were represented in 1899 by delegates from the German Empire.

by the commission, although the sentiment was expressed by M. Asser, of the Netherlands, that the existing conference would have the right, even though it might be deemed inexpedient to exert the right, of revising the said convention.

M. Asser, as president of the subcommission which dealt with the application of the Geneva rules to maritime warfare, proposed to the subcommission the adoption of the following desire (vœu):

"The Conference of The Hague, taking into consideration the preliminary measures initiated by the federal government of Switzerland for the revision of the Convention of Geneva, expresses the desire that, after a short interval, there shall be convoked a special conference, whose object shall be the revision of the said convention."

When this desire was reported to the commission, M. Beldiman, of Roumania, moved to add, after the words "a short interval," the words "and under the auspices of the Swiss Federal Council." In making this motion, he recalled that Switzerland has acquired an imperishable claim to the gratitude of the civilized world for all that concerns the establishment and development of the Red Cross, and suggested that just homage would be rendered to Switzerland by the adoption of his amendment.

The commission's president, M. de Martens, of Russia, said that it would impose a burden upon the Swiss government to decide that it alone had the right of convoking the Conference of Revision; and he cited a precedent of 1892 to show that Switzerland had not always taken precedence in regard to the Red Cross movement. M. Asser, of the Netherlands, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, of Great Britain, supported M. de Martens's view, while representatives of Germany, Japan, and Italy supported M. Beldiman's mo