For this reason the English delegate demands the liberty of employing projectiles of sufficient efficacy against savage races.

Mr. RAFFALOVICH explains that the ideas expressed by Sir JOHN ARDAGH are contrary to the humanitarian spirit which rules this end of the ninteenth century. He shows besides that the distinguishing between the enemies to wage war against and the projectiles to be used would necessarily induce complications of equipment.

[12] Colonel GILINSKY has called attention to the fact that the ball of the small caliber gun does not stop the attack of savages, not because they are savages; it does not even arrest any more the attack of a civilized army, for such is the effect of the small caliber. In fact the man seriously wounded can still advance during some time and even fight. That is, therefore, an argument, in favor of guns of large caliber. The Russian caliber of 71⁄2 mm. (0.3 inches) stops the attack very well. By continually diminishing the caliber, too small a caliber is reached and with it the necessity of employing the dumdum bullets. As to the savages, they are unfortunately not secured against the use of explosive balls. In the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, the contracting Powers have decided not to employ these balls in war among themselves. It is clear that there is a hiatus in the Declaration of 1868, a hiatus which permits the employment not only of the dumdum bullets, but even of explosive balls, against savage tribes.

The PRESIDENT believes that he expresses the opinion of the assembly in saying that there can be no distinction established between the projectiles permitted and the projectiles prohibited according to the enemies against which they fight even in case of savages.

As a result of the discussion, the Russian formula, which had received the adherence of the majority, was given the following wording agreed upon by the delegates of Russia, France, and Roumania.

The use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body (making wounds uselessly cruel), such as explosive bullets, bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions, ought to be prohibited.

Nineteen countries declared themselves affirmatively (Germany, United States of America, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Japan, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Italy, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Bulgaria).

One country for the negative (Great Britain); one country (Austria-Hungary) abstained.

Launching of projectiles from elevated balloons

The proposition of the Russian Government prohibiting the hurling of projectiles from elevated balloons or by analogous means is discussed, and your reporter declares that his Government has authorized him to support it. In his opinion, to permit the use of such infernal machines, which seem to fall from the sky, exceeds the limit. When one is forced to make war, it should be carried on as energetically as possible, but it does not follow that all means are permitted. He calls to mind Articles 12 and 13 of the final protocol of the Conference of Brussels of 1874 and closes by saying that with the progress of science

things which, yesterday even, appeared incredible, are realized to-day. The use of projectiles or other engines, filled with soporific, deleterious gas which if discharged from balloons in the midst of troops would at once disable them, may be foreseen. As it is impossible to guard against such proceedings, it resembles perfidy, and everything which resembles that ought to be scrupulously guarded against. Let us be chivalrous even in the manner of carrying on war.

Colonel VON SCHWARZHOFF (Germany) having called attention to the fact that it was not the intention to prohibit the use of mortars or other cannons with an elevated range, but that the words similar methods are applied only to new methods, not yet invented, the subcommission, in accord with this interpretation, adds to dissipate every misunderstanding the word "new" between the words "methods" and “similar.”

Colonel GILINSKY adds besides, that, in the opinion of the Russian Government, the different ways of injuring the enemy used at present are quite sufficient. The proposition is put to a vote, and all the delegates declare themselves for the prohibition, with the exception of those of Great Britain, France and Roumania, who desire to limit the agreement to five years.

Guns

The question of guns has occupied the subcommission the longest time. It was discussed during four sittings.

Colonel GILINSKY (Russia) brought forward a proposition whose adoption would prevent new expenditures. The gun in use in the principal armies being nearly the same caliber and quality, the Russian Government proposes that the different countries should bind themselves by agreement, for a number of years to be determined, not to replace with others the guns now in service. It would only be a question of determining for a certain time the present type, excluding, for example, the automatic gun, which for the moment exists only in a [13] projected state and is not yet adopted anywhere. Improvements not modifying essentially the present gun and not changing it, would be permitted. Captain AYRES D'ORNELLAS, delegate from Portugal, does not dispute the fact that the gun is nearly the same in the different armies, but observes that the caliber differs, varying between 6 and 8; he demands whether the stipulation proposed aims only at guns and cannons in use or if it is applied equally to uncompleted arms which are about to be adopted.

The PRESIDENT supposes that it would be understood that nations in arrears could put themselves on a level with the others.

He asks whether it would not be expedient to present a precise formula as to a minimum of caliber, and the delegate from the Netherlands proposes to accept any caliber from 6 to 8 mm.

After an exchange of views upon the technical details of the Russian proposition, the discussion ended on the 26th of May with declarations which made it apparent that there was a very great divergency of opinion among the delegates, the greater part of whom demanded clear and precise formulas.

The PRESIDENT expresses the hope that such formulas will be presented at the next meeting. It would be well to fix the minimum of caliber, the weight of the projectiles, the initial speed and the maximum of shots per minute, and to exclude automatic loading.

Count BARANTZEW, Russian delegate, having sent these requests by telegraph

to his Government, the members soon after received, in addition to the original proposition, two propositions, one from the Russian Government, the other from the delegate of the Netherlands.

The Russian proposition points out the modifications, improvements or changes that it would be permitted to make in the gun during a certain time to be fixed:

1. The minimum of the weight of the gun is fixed at 4 kilograms.

2. The minimum of the caliber at 61⁄2 millimeters.

3. The weight of the ball shall not be less than 10% grammes.

4. The initial speed shall not exceed 720 meters.

5. The rapidity of firing be limited to 25 shots per minute.

6. Explosive and dilatable balls, as well as automatic loading, are prohibited.

The formula presented by General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL was the following:

Countries agree to use in their armies and fleets, during five years, commencing from the moment when the present act shall be signed, only guns in use or being made at this time.

Concerning guns being made, only those will be tolerated of an existing model, varying only between 6 and 8 mm.

Improvements permitted must be of a nature to change neither the model, the caliber, nor the initial speed existing.

After a discussion upon balls, powders, and cannons, the question of guns was again broached in the sitting of May 31.

Colonel Count BARANTZEW has said that, although the subcommission found itself met by a second Russian formula, given in deference to an expressed desire, he hoped that they would revert to the text of the original proposition, which answered better to the intention of his Government (to stop expenses in establishing the gun). He fears that the data detailed in the second formula. will only be a matter for controversy.

After an exchange of views among several delegates, the PRESIDENT put at first to a vote the text proposed by your reporter, a text accepted by the Russian delegate.

Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, has expressed the opinion that it did not seem probable that the proposition could be accepted because it permits improvements in the existing guns without giving a clear and precise definition of these. It would be very difficult to establish what improvements are permitted or prohibited. What authority would decide this question? In case of doubt it would be necessary, in order to fulfil loyally the conditions of the convention, to reveal the new model to the other Powers, to ask their consent before adopting it; as that is impossible, he regrets that he is forced to vote in the negative.

The delegates from the United States, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Serbia, and Turkey express the same sentiment.

The delegates from Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Persia, Russia, [14] Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and Bulgaria have voted yea, the last country with reservations.

The delegate from Roumania abstained from voting for want of instruction from his Government.

The vote is summed up as follows, nine yeas, one yea with reservation, ten nays, and one abstention.

The PRESIDENT put afterwards to vote the Russian text. Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF has criticized, one by one, the different details of this formula, in conclusion of which, according to him, this proposition was inacceptable. He voted nay.

The delegate from Austria-Hungary, Lieutenant Colonel voN KHUEPACH, would be able to accept a conventional restriction, but only upon a principal question. If details are to be entered into, he thinks that it would be necessary that competent persons of all the countries represented should come to an agreement upon the possible limitations, before rendering them obligatory, as has been done for the revision of the convention of Geneva.

He has voted nay, as well as the delegates from the United States, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland and Turkey.

The delegates from the Netherlands, Persia, Russia, and Bulgaria have voted yea, this latter ad referendum. The delegate from France has declared that he was waiting for instructions.

There are then 13 nays, 1 yea, 1 yea with reservations, 2 abstentions.

A few days after the subcommission came together again to examine a new proposition presented by the Netherland delegate, viz.:

During a period of five years, commencing with the date of the present act, the countries agree not to replace the guns actually in use in their armies by guns of another model. But they do not prohibit the making of any improvement or any perfecting of the guns actually in use, which might seem advantageous to them.

The countries which have a gun of an out-of-date model, that is to say, of a caliber superior to 8 millimeters or without stock can adopt the existing models.

The delegate from the Netherlands explained in a speech which, upon the proposal of the PRESIDENT and of Mr. RAFFALOVICH, has been inserted in the procès-verbal and printed, the economical and political motives which have decided him to make this new proposition.

Colonel VON SCHWARZHOFF observes that the purpose of economy would not be attained because the improvements introduced in the guns of one country would oblige other Governments to adopt them in their turn, and that the latter, being obliged to expend more or less considerable sums for their guns, should, at least, preserve the liberty of choosing the gun which should seem best to them. Not knowing beforehand whether their gun actually in use would lend itself to the necessary transformations, they could not agree to preserve the model of it. The delay fixed at five years would probably double the expenditures first, for the improvements of the guns in use, afterwards for the making of a new gun.

The author of the proposition has replied that it was hardly probable that in the short space of five years there would be any necessity for notable improvements in the existing guns, and he adds that in any case there exists a considerable difference between the expenses to be made with a view of introducing an improvement in the existing gun, outlays usually inconsiderable, and those imposed by a complete change of armament, which requires 3 guns per man and amounts for an army of 500,000 infantry to 75,000,000,000 florins.

The delegates from Bulgaria, Messrs. STANCIOFF and HESSAPTCHIEFF, have

made the objection that if the proposition were adopted, States which have guns of 8 millimeters (0.31 inch) and which could not change them would be in a condition of inferiority as compared with countries at present in arrears and which would have the liberty of adopting a better model.

The author of the proposition has replied that the guns of 8 millimeters are very satisfactory, that several armies are provided with them and that Russia, from whom the proposition emanates, has a gun whose caliber differs very little from 8 mm.

Mr. MIYATOVITCH (Serbia) says that he accepts that proposed wording, while suggesting the addition that countries in arrears shall have the opportunity of improving their gun also.

He does not insist on this amendment in presence of the declaration of the PRESIDENT that the first paragraph of the resolution of the Netherland delegate guards this right also to states in arrears.

To the objection bearing upon the impossibility of the control to be exercised, raised incidentally by the English delegate and the Netherland delegate, Messrs. RAFFALOVICH and GILINSKY have replied that the most effective guaranty would be found in the good faith of the contracting Governments, as well as in the censure of opinion.

Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF remarks that it is not a question of bad [15] faith; he has in view the disputes which may arise in good faith relative to the import of certain modifications.

On the vote, two countries only have voted nay (Germany, Italy).

Nine countries have voted yea (Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Persia, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden and Norway).

Nine countries did not vote. The United States, Austria-Hungary, France, Japan, Turkey, Bulgaria (for want of instructions), Great Britain, Portugal and Switzerland.

From what precedes it follows, gentlemen, that your subcommission has only the proposition relative to the prohibition of bullets which expand or flatten easily when penetrating the human body, as well as that relative to the discharge of projectiles from balloons, to submit to you. The question of the gun remains open, six delegates, who refrained from voting, having done so for want of instructions from their respective Governments.

Gentlemen: In asking you to unite with me in expressing our indebtedness to our honorable president for the authoritative manner in which he has directed our debates, for the extreme clearness with which he has explained the most difficult technical points, I am only anticipating your desires; also I beg to express our thanks to our secretaries, who have been so impartial in drawing up the procès-verbal of our meetings, a considerable and difficult task.

June 11, 1899.

DEN BEER POORTUGAEL.

Annex II to the Minutes of the Meeting of June 22 REPORT PRESENTED IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND SUBCOMMISSION BY COUNT SOLTYK

GENTLEMEN: While taking the liberty of submitting to you the report on the discussions which have taken place at the meetings of the second subcom