SECOND MEETING

MAY 26, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding.

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert takes the chair and makes the following speech:

Among the tasks of high importance which lie before the Conference, our First Commission has perhaps the most sacred.

We have especially to study, to discuss, to realize the master ideal which has created this great international assembly: that of assuring to the peoples a durable peace and of seeing a barrier placed to the progressive and ruinous development of military armaments.

Such is the principal object of the message, henceforth famous, of August [2] 12/24, 1898; public opinion is not deceived in it and has already said it has been as by instinct that the Conference has been christened with its beautiful name of "Peace Conference" which it has itself since consecrated.

The august initative of Emperor NICHOLAS II was not a new act on the part of Russia.

Since the beginning of the century, the sovereigns of that vast empire have always busied themselves with bringing about an advance in this matter of the ideas of humanity.

When the first time, in 1816, the Congress of Vienna proposed, as to-day, to regulate the disarmament of Europe by the conventional determination of the normal effective force of the troops of each Power on a peace footing, the Russian Government warmly espoused that proposal.

It was the object of the celebrated letter of ALEXANDER I to Lord CASTLE

REAGH.

In 1868, an international military commission met at St. Petersburg and decreed the absolute prohibition of the use of certain explosives. For the first time, there were seen proclaimed solemnly, in a public act, these ideas which to-day seem quite natural, that civilized States are in duty bound to diminish as much as possible the calamities of war and that in more than one case the needs of humanity should be supreme over all others.

In 1874, it was by reason of sentiments no less noble and elevated, that Emperor ALEXANDER II took the initiative of the Brussels Conference.

It was desired at that time also to suppress all needless cruelties and with that aim it was proposed to define the laws and customs of war.

But how much greater is the present initiative! I know that the difficulties to be surmounted are considerable, but whatever they be, the meeting of this Conference will remain in itself a stupendous fact.

In the history of the world, it will be the first time, I think, that representa

tives of almost every civilized country are seen to meet peacefully, without a dispute to settle, without complaints to be redressed, without any thought of personal advantage, and this in the two-fold and liberal purpose of perpetuating harmony and softening the evils of war, or of regulating it for the day when it cannot be avoided.

And with Emperor NICHOLAS II himself, these are no new aspirations.

Some years ago he made a present of a bell to I know not what town of France, Châteaudun, I think, and on the bronze he had engraved these words: "May it never ring other than the hour of concord and of peace!"

May this beautiful device, gentlemen, inspire our labors.

We have to pursue together the realization of an ideal which for centuries has occupied the minds of thinkers and of statesmen, and whatever happens, I shall hold it the honor of my life that I have been called to make my contribution. Such is, I am sure, also the opinion of you all.

The PRESIDENT thinks it suitable first to settle the manner of reporting the proceedings and the publicity that will be given them.

He states the decisions taken in this respect by the Second Commission and proposes to adopt them.

The secretariat could take down the minutes and they would be read at the following meeting and each member could take note of them. Besides a succinct statement of the proceedings would be printed and distributed to the delegates who are members of the First Commission.

This proposal is accepted.

The President proposes next to settle the order of the deliberations and the part to be assigned to the plenary meetings and to the subcommissions.

The four propositions of the circular of December 30, 1898, which are within the jurisdiction of the First Commission raise several questions, some of principle, others of application.

There is first the main question: that of the possibility of an understanding on a conventional limitation of armed forces on land and on sea or of budgets relative thereto-whether the present figures be taken, whether it be agreed even to reduce them, or, lastly, whether there be fixed by contract some other limits not to be passed.

Another question of principle is found in propositions 2, 3, and 4: Should there be forbidden by conventions every new progress in the manufacture of engines of war by land or by sea, arms, powders, explosives? Even though invention may be able to proceed no further, should cannon, guns and explosives remain what they are to-day? And without doubt, although the circular does not say so, it is in the thought of the Russian Government that for the firearms of the present day there could not be substituted other engines of destruction due to some new idea and which for instance might borrow their force from electricity.

[3] Of these two discussions of principle, the first evidently ought to take place in a plenary meeting, and we shall have soon to decide where the second should take place. Then come more special questions whose moving principle is exclusively contained in the desire of restricting and softening the evils of war, according to the formula already consented to in 1868 at St. Petersburg. From this entirely humanitarian point of view, should the use of new explosives and more powerful powders be prohibited?

Should the use of those at present employed be restricted?

Should there be a prohibition of the discharge of either projectiles or explosives from balloons or by any other similar method? And, as to the navy, is there need of proscribing the rams of warships and torpedo boats, whether submarine or diving, as well as all engines of the same kind?

These last questions belong to the technical domain, and we shall all be agreed in referring them to our two subcommissions.

It will then remain to be decided, if the second question of principle, which I indicated just now, shall be discussed here or in each of our two subcommissions.

Finally, we have to settle the order of our deliberations. At first sight, it would seem quite natural to begin at the beginning, and discuss first that problem, fundamental and of high importance, which is submitted to our investigation. But I believe it right to recommend a contrary procedure, and it is the inaugural address of our honorable president that has suggested the idea to me. Limitation of armaments, which forms the frontispiece of the circular of the Russian Government, appeared in his address as a conclusion and as a kind of crown-a triumphal crown-of our mutual efforts.

Yesterday, too, an analogous procedure was followed by the Second Commission on the motion of Mr. MARTENS. In the examination of the project discussed at the Brussels Conference, the last chapters were taken up first, so as to reserve until the last those questions on which an agreement appeared more difficult of formation. It is by harmony that we should desire to arrive at harmony.

I think, gentlemen, that for us, too, this way would be perhaps the best and the surest; but it is for you to decide, and I confine myself to expressing on this subject my personal opinion.

If you agree with this, I shall first open a general discussion bearing on the whole of the business that has been assigned us; you will decide whether it is here that we shall enter upon the discussion of the second question of principle that I have pointed out, and we shall then decide on the questions to refer to the subcommissions.

These various proposals are consented to.

The general discussion is opened; but no one asks the floor.

The President then consults the assembly on the point whether it intends to discuss in full the question of principle relating to the reciprocal prohibition of the use of new military improvements.

Colonel Gilinsky thinks that this discussion should be left to the subcommission.

General den Beer Poortugael agrees with this opinion.

The President remarks that, if the assembly so decides, the question of principle is to be discussed in the naval subcommission as well as in the military subcommission.

The proposal of Mr. GILINSKY is put to vote and adopted by a very great majority.

The President remarks that, if the assembly so decides it, the question of principle is to be discussed in the naval subcommission as well as in the military subcommission.

They will have to consider four special questions:

Is there need:

1. Of decreeing by convention a prohibition on putting into use new firearms, new explosives, and more powerful powders than those adopted at present:

2. Of limiting in wars on land the use of explosives of a formidable power and in present existence?

3. Of prohibiting the discharge of projectiles or of any explosive from balloons or by similar methods?

4. Of proscribing the use in naval wars of torpedo boats, submarine or divers, or other engines of destruction of the same nature; and the construction in the future of war vessels with rams?

The two first questions ought to be studied by the two subcommissions, the third is within the competence of the military subcommission, the fourth within that of the naval subcommission.

[4] The Commission agrees to these proposals.

The President invites the members kindly to indicate to what subcommission they would belong.

The meeting adjourns.

THIRD MEETING

JUNE 22, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding..

The minutes of the meetings of May 23 and 26 are read and adopted. Mr. Raffalovich moves the printing of the speech of his Excellency Mr. BEERNAERT in the meeting of May 26. (Assent.)

The President recalls that the first subject in the order of the day is the discussion of the reports presented in the name of the two subcommissions; these conclusions are unfortunately few in number. A decision is to be reached at first upon those of the report of General DEN BEER POORTUGAel.

The first relates to bullets.

The PRESIDENT has read the different formulas which have been successively presented on this subject.

The subcommission has adopted the following text by nineteen votes against one and one abstention:

The use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as exploding bullets, bullets with hard jackets whose jacket does not entirely cover the core or has incisions in it, should be prohibited.

The discussion is opened.

General Sir John Ardagh reads the following declaration:

I ask permission to present to this high assembly some observations and explanations on a subject which has already been submitted to vote.

It is the question of bullets.

In the meeting of May 31, an article was accepted by a considerable majority against the use of bullets with a hard jacket whose jacket does not entirely cover the core or has incisions in it.

It seems to me that the use of these words describing technical details of construction will result in making the prohibition a little too general and absolute. It would not seem to admit of the exception which I would desire to provide for, that is, the present or future construction of some projectile with shock sufficient to stop the stricken soldier and put him immediately hors de combat, thus fulfilling the indispensable conditions of warfare without, on the other hand, causing useless suffering.

The completely jacketed bullet of our LEE-METFORD rifle is defective in this respect. It has been proven in one of our petty wars in India that a man perforated five times by these bullets was still able to walk a considerable distance to an English hospital to have his wounds dressed. It was proven just recently, after the Battle of Om-Durman, that the large majority of the Dervishes who