Does it not seem excessive to authorize the use of infernal machines which seem to fall from the sky?

I know well that when one is obliged to wage war one must wage it as energetically as possible, but this does not imply that all means are permissible.

At the Brussels Conference in 1874 it was decided, in Article 12 (which approximately agrees with Article 11 of the Russian preliminary draft), that the laws of war do not recognize belligerents as having an unlimited power as to the choice of means of injuring the enemy, and in Article 13 of the final protocol of that Conference, among others, the following things are notably forbidden in accordance with this principle: (a) the use of poison or poisoned weapons; (b) the murder, by treachery, of individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. Now, the progress of science, and of chemistry in particular, is such that things which were but yesterday most incredible may be realized to-day. We may foresee the use of projectiles or other things filled with deleterious or soporific gases and hurled from balloons among troops, placing them at once hors de combat.

General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL wishes to scrupulously eliminate every means. which resembles perfidy, and he endorses the Russian proposition.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff says it is necessary to state in voting for the proposition it is not desired to prohibit the use of mortars or other highfiring guns, but that the words "similar methods" apply solely to new methods not yet invented and analogous to the use of balloons. Finally, a declaration must be made as to whether the prohibition, once voted for and accepted by the Governments, shall remain in force forever or only for a period of time to be determined, for instance, for a period of five years, as was proposed for small arms.

The subcommission, in accordance with the interpretation of the delegate from Germany, adds, in order to remove any misunderstanding, the word "new between the words "methods " and "similar."

Colonel Gilinsky says that in the opinion of the Russian Government the present different ways of injuring the enemy are sufficient.

On this question, with the exception of the delegate from Great Britain and with the reservation of the delegate from Roumania to limit the understanding for five years, the subcommission gives a unanimous vote.

The meeting adjourns.

THIRD MEETING

MAY 31, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding.

The minutes of the previous meeting are now read.

Captain Crozier observes that he thought he was voting on the status of the question and not on its merits when he gave an affirmative vote regarding the prohibition of backward nations to improve their field artillery. He would have voted nay on the merits.

After this rectification, the minutes are adopted.

The President now reads the draft relating to bullets as adopted by the delegates from France, Roumania and Russia.

The use of bullets which expand or flatten easily when penetrating the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions, should be prohibited.

[50] Lieutenant Colonel von Khuepach says that in his opinion they ought to confine themselves to proposing a provision embodying a conventional restriction of the use of bullets which produce unnecessarily cruel wounds, without entering into details, especially as it would be impossible to entirely avoid mutilations; for a bullet constructed in any manner will cause such mutilations if it should be deformed by striking on a rock or other hard object before striking the human body.

General Sir John Ardagh agrees with the Austrian delegate, but he asks to add a few words regarding war against savages. Quite a large number of nations are interested in this question.

In civilized war a soldier penetrated by a small projectile is wounded, withdraws to the ambulance, and does not advance any further. It is very different with a savage. Even though pierced two or three times, he does not cease to march forward, does not call upon the hospital attendants, but continues. on, and before anyone has time to explain to him that he is flagrantly violating the decisions of the Hague Conference, he cuts off your head.

It is for this reason that the English delegate demands the liberty to use projectiles of sufficient efficacy against savage populations, and he endorses the Austrian draft.

Mr. Raffalovich believes that the ideas set forth by Sir JOHN ARDAGH are contrary to the humanitarian spirit which dominates this end of the nineteenth century. It is impermissible to make a distinction between a savage and a civilized enemy; both are men who deserve the same treatment.

Moreover, to have two kinds of projectiles, one for savages and the other for civilized peoples would be complicating the armament. It is possible to

contemplate the case of soldiers stationed outside of Europe and armed with bullets for use against savages, who would be called upon to fight against the regular troops of a civilized nation.

They would then have to have two kinds of cartridge belts.

Colonel Gilinsky says that the small-caliber bullet will not stop the attack of savages merely because they are savages; neither will it stop the attack of a civilized army, this being the effect of very small caliber. In fact, a severely wounded man can continue to advance for some time, and even fight, so that this is an argument in favor of bigger calibers. The Russian 71⁄2 mm. caliber as well as the MAUSER stop an attack very well. By constantly diminishing the caliber too small a caliber is reached, and hence the necessity perhaps of using the dumdum bullet. As to savages, they are of course not guaranteed against the use even of explosive bullets. In the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, the contracting Powers decided not to employ these bullets in wars among themselves. It is evident that there is a gap in the St. Petersburg Declaration, a gap which enables not only dumdum bullets but even explosive bullets to be used against savages.

His Excellency Abdullah Pasha states that experiments on all kinds of animals at which he has been present have shown the same result with the small as with the large-caliber bullets.

On the invitation of the PRESIDENT, Lieutenant Colonel von Khuepach frames his proposition as follows:

The use of bullets which cause uselessly cruel wounds shall be prohibited by convention.

Before submitting the two propositions under consideration to a vote, the President thinks he is expressing the opinion of the assembly by saying that no distinction should be made between those against whom the fighting is done.

Mr. Raffalovich asks that priority be given to the wording of General Mounier.

The President proceeds to have a vote taken on this formula, the result being as follows:

Nineteen nations decide in the affirmative, as follows: Germany, United States, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Bulgaria; one nation (Great Britain) votes in the negative; and one nation (Austria-Hungary) abstains from voting.

The subcommission now takes up the question of small arms.

General Mounier declares that he has asked instructions regarding the text of the Russian propositions. Not having received them as yet, he is obliged to reserve his answer.

Colonel Count Barantzew explains that the dominating idea of the Russian propositions is to retrench military expenditures by reaching an understanding in fixing the type of small arm now in use, while allowing backward countries to complete their armament. The Russian delegate would like to have a return made to the original Russian proposition, for the very preciseness of the details contained in the second proposition drawn up in reply to the desire expressed by the subcommission would perhaps necessitate some parleying which would have little chance of leading to any result.

[51] General den Beer Poortugael after stating that he agrees with Colonel

Count BARANTZEW, explains that it is for the same reason that he presented a draft couched in more general words.

After an exchange of views among several of the delegates, the President announces that he has just had communicated to him a text which is more or less analogous to the Russian (GILINSKY) proposition; and in order to enable the technical delegates to reach an understanding he suspends the meeting.

Upon the meeting being resumed, the following text proposed by General den Beer Poortugael and accepted by Colonel GILINSKY is put to a vote:

The nations agree to use in their armies, for five years from the date on which the present act is signed, only the guns (small arms) in use at the present time.

The improvements permitted shall be of such a nature as not to change either the existing type or caliber.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff does not think the proposition can be accepted, for it enables the improvement of existing guns without giving a clear and precise definition of the latter. It would be very difficult to determine what improvements could be adopted without constituting as a whole a new type of gun. What changes should be permitted? Where is the authority who would decide these questions? In case of doubt it would be necessary, in order honestly to carry out the clauses of the Convention, to make the new model known to the other Powers and ask them for their consent before adopting it. As this is hardly possible, he regrets to have to vote against the proposition.

It is the same with the United States, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Serbia, and Turkey.

The following voted for the proposition: the delegates from Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Persia, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, and Bulgaria, the latter however with reservations.

Major Hessaptchieff says that the Bulgarian delegation understands the proposition of the delegate from the Netherlands as follows: Each Power whose armament is inferior to that of another, shall always have the right to supersede its gun by the most perfected model now in service in the most advanced country from the standpoint of armament.

It is already an inalterable and even alphabetical principle in the military art to never have a small arm which is inferior to that used by a neighboring country.

Consequently, in order that the proposition of the delegate from the Netherlands may be practically applied, it would have to be admitted that the advantages and ballistical data of the most perfected gun now in use should not be exceeded by any of the Powers.

It is only under this condition that the Bulgarian delegation will accept ad referendum the proposition of the delegates from the Netherlands.

The Delegate from Roumania, referring to his declaration of May 26, reserves his decision and abstains from voting.

(Nine yeas, one yea with reservation, ten nays, and one abstention.)

The President thereupon puts to a vote the BARANTZEW text, with reserva

tion in regard to the final paragraph.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff, while doing homage to the skill with which Count BARANTZEW tried to remove the obstacles in the way of a general understanding, fears that all the difficulties are not yet overcome.

We all wish to make savings or at least to avoid heavy expenditures such as would be incident to the adoption of a new gun. But we can not renounce doing this unless we are quite certain that no Power will improve its armament beyond a certain measure.

The proposition enumerates what it is believed can be granted as a limit in the improvements permitted.

The delegate from Germany asks whether it is really useful and necessary to establish a minimum for the weight of the small arm.

Besides this economic question, we are pursuing humanitarian purposes. Mr. GROSS VON SCHWARZ HOFF believes that it is much more humane to lighten the weight which the soldier must carry than to fix a minimum for the weight of a part of his armament. It is true that everything that is taken away from the weight of the gun would doubtless soon be replaced by an increase of cartridges. Then it would be necessary to clearly explain whether it is a question of the weight of the gun alone, unloaded, or of the gun when loaded and provided with a bayonet. In the first the German delegate recalls to his military [52] colleagues that several guns now in use do not fulfil the condition imposed.

He believes these are the Belgian, Spanish, Italian, Norwegian, Roumanian, and German guns. Therefore, by prescribing a weight of 4 kg. we should be compelling the nations to make undesirable changes in their guns.

As to the weight of the bullet, there are likewise guns in use whose projectiles remain under the figure indicated. These are the Norwegian and Roumanian guns.

The delegate from Germany willingly grants that a velocity of 720 to 730 meters is not thus far exceeded and that it would be possible to stop at this figure; but the initial velocity depends at least as much on the powder used as on the system of the gun, the weight, and the form of the projectile. As the subcommission a few days ago reserved the liberty for each to adopt new powders, it would seem logical not to fix the initial velocity. For otherwise it might easily be possible to invent a new and less costly powder, more durable and efficacious than the powder now in use, without being able to adopt it because it would increase the initial force beyond 720 meters.

It will therefore be necessary at the very first to reverse the unanimous decision reached at the meeting of May 29.

The rapidity of fire depends no less on the skill and training of the firer than on the mechanism of the gun. In prescribing a maximum, it will therefore be necessary to state whether it is an average rapidity which the average soldier shall be permitted to attain or a rapidity which the best trained men shall not exceed.

He believes he has demonstrated that certain conditions do not sufficiently take into account the present status of armament, that others ought, if possible to be defined with more precision, and that a condition in regard to initial velocity would amount to annulment of the previous vote. All these reasons compel him, to his great regret, to vote against the proposition. He wishes to add that he has expressed only his personal opinion; if the delegates do not indorse this view and if they agree on this proposition or on another formula, the German Government will without doubt be quite ready to examine it.

The delegate from the United States votes nay.

The delegate from Austria-Hungary believes that it is impossible to settle the question by means of an affirmative or negative vote. As he already had the