honor to state at the meeting of May 26, Austria-Hungary, possessing a satisfactory type, has no reason for changing her present type of gun, at least as long as it is not inferior to that of other Powers.

For this reason the delegate could accept the proposition of a restriction by way of convention; but this provided it settles only the question as a matter of principle.

Details would, in his opinion, constitute an obstacle to any convention.

As to the initial velocity, he has nothing to add to what has just been said by Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, and he endorses it fully.

As to the other points, he thinks it would first be necessary for the competent authorities of all the countries represented to reach an understanding on the possible limits before rendering them obligatory. This was the procedure followed in the revision of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, to his regret, he will have to vote nay.

The following also voted nay: United States, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland and Turkey.

The following voted yea: Netherlands, Persia, Russia, and Bulgaria, the latter ad referendum.

The delegate from France declares that he is awaiting instructions.

The delegate from Roumania abstains from voting, and maintains his declaration made on the subject at the meeting of May 26; inasmuch as, in his opinion, the question has remained in exactly the same state since that day, he does not deem it necessary to vote either in the affirmative or negative.

Mr. Raffalovich asks that it be stated that the second Russian draft was submitted to the assembly in response to the desire expressed by the latter to have the data of the weapon more accurately specified. The first proposition faithfully represented the idea of the Russian Government, namely, to limit the expenditures by fixing the present armament.

An exchange of views takes place on paragraph 6 of the BARANTZEW text. The President remarks that the prohibition embodied in the St. Petersburg Declaration is limited and that the assembly will surely be in favor of generalizing it. (Assent.)

Following a short discussion, it is agreed to add the word explosive to the definition of the bullet whose use is prohibited (see above the proposition of General MOUNIER, which was voted on and which reads thus in its final text:)

The use of explosive bullets and of those which expand or flatten easily [53] on penetrating the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions, shall be prohibited.

After a few explanations concerning the definition of automatic loading, the question of the conventional prohibition of this system is put to a vote.

The delegates voted as follows: Nine in the affirmative (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Persia, Russia, Siam, Switzerland, and Bulgaria); six in the negative (Germany, United States, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden and Norway.)

The following refrained from voting: France, Japan, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia and Turkey.

The President remarks that it has been a question thus far only of the

modes of destruction by means of firearms and new explosives, and that science might borrow others, for instance chemistry and electricity.

The circular of Count MOURAVIEFF does not explain itself directly on this point, but this is certainly its spirit. He asks whether the subcommission thinks it can declare itself competent on this subject or whether it intends to reserve the decision of the question for the First Commission or the plenary Conference. The assembly decides in favor of the latter plan. The subcommission appoints as reporter General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL.

The meeting adjourns.

FOURTH MEETING

JUNE 7, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding.

The minutes of the preceding meeting are read and adopted.

The President states that General DEN BEER POORTUGAL has made further attempts to reach an understanding as to the small arms. He has substituted the following wording instead of the text first distributed:

For a period of five years from the date of the present act, the nations agree not to replace the guns now in use in their armies by guns of any other type.

However, they do not forbid themselves making any improvement or perfection in the guns now in use which may appear advantageous to them.

The nations which have a gun of an antiquated model, that is, of a caliber above 8 mm. or having a magazine, may adopt existing models.

General den Beer Poortugael delivers the following address: Under ordinary circumstances I should certainly have entertained scruples, after the debates and decisions of this high assembly, about offering a new proposition on the subject of small arms. But as the task which we have to pursue is not an ordinary one, and as I am convinced, fellow delegates, that none of you is less imbued than I with the imperious duty incumbent upon us not to give up until we have settled the question submitted to us, I am afraid that I would offend you should I ask to be excused for involuntarily causing you pain. I therefore prefer to enter on the subject at once and explain to you why I deemed it my duty to submit to you the proposition which you have in your hands.

My conscience tells me that we ought to do everything possible to reach an agreement on the question of small arms. Of all the questions indicated in the first four points of the MOURAVIEFF circular, and which the First Commission is assigned the mission of solving, the question of the small arm is obviously the one whose solution offers the least difficulty. For you know that almost all the armies are in possession of good guns of the same type and calibers varying only between 6, 7, and 8 millimeters.

Gentlemen, it is my belief that, not only from an economic point of view, [54] but also from the point of view of statesmanship, which fortunately is the same for every State, it is necessary and even urgent that we should do something,

Whole populations in every civilized land expect that of us; it would be very sad to disappoint their hope.

They ask, they beseech that a stop shall be put to throwing millions, nearly billions, into the gulf of incessant changes, which are made so rapidly that sometimes the weapon is changed three or four times before it is used. They ask,

they beseech that a stop shall be put to the extravagant expenditures devoted to the implements of warfare, so that satisfaction can be given to the social needs which are growing more and more pressing and which, without money, must remain neglected. They ask, they beseech that we stop, if only for a time, and if only to take breath, in this frantic competition to hold the record for military inventions.

At the very least, let us try to agree on the question which lends itself most readily to agreement; to do otherwise would be to deceive the nations cruelly.

Let us discard all distrust, which is a bad counselor. Let us not forget that in this very question of muskets, Russia, which made the original proposition, is equipped at present with a musket of large caliber, that of 7.62 millimeters, while neighboring States, Sweden and Norway, and Roumania, have better muskets of a caliber of 6.5 millimeters. This, then, is an evident proof of disinterestednessa sacrifice, if you will, laid on the altar of the common welfare.

Let us not forget that it is the generous thought of the young and august emperor of the largest empire in the world, who has revealed his desire for prolonged peace; that, in his journey in Palestine, another emperor, young, generous, and genial, at the head of the formidable Power of Germany, solemnly expressed on the classic soil which we Christians call the Holy Land, his firm desire of maintaining peace; and that, as all the world knows, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, the illustrious sovereign who lately celebrated his jubilee in circumstances so sad, who lives only for the welfare of the peoples whom he governs, is animated by sentiments equally peaceful.

Let us not forget, either, as the honorable president of the Conference, Mr. STAAL, has said, that "the eagerness with which all the Powers have accepted the proposition contained in the Russian circulars is the most eloquent proof of their unanimity with peaceful ideas."

In this state of things why do we hesitate-we who have met here to give a body, so to speak, to these ideas,-why do we hesitate to do the minimum; that is to say, to agree that only for the short time of five years we will all keep the muskets that we have now, except that those States which have inferior muskets —those without magazine—may choose any existing type?

If, gentlemen, after all that has happened and is expected, this Conference, proudly announced and constituted, and unparalleled in history, accomplished nothing in the way of economies so ardently desired-if we place not a single restriction on the ruinous transformation of armaments, we shall forge weapons for the enemy common to all Governments, for those who wish to revolutionize the established order of the world and who will not hesitate to scatter among the people venomous germs and a doubt as to the sincerity of the Governments whom we represent.

Those false prophets who make war only upon each other will say to the people: "Come with us all you who are oppressed and who ask for bread and peace; we alone can give them to you." And the people will throw themselves into their arms and will become their prey.

It remains for me to justify the formula proposed.

Attack has been made, and to my mind justly, on the details (which were demanded, moreover) of the second Russian draft; they are not to be found in the one which is presented to you.

It has been said that it was going too far to consider as the present gun,

even the gun in process of study; in the present formula the stage of study is not to be found.

The delegates of those States which have old-fashioned firearms have voted against the preceding propositions, because they desire to have the option of changing their guns of ancient type. The present draft gives them every satisfaction in allowing them, as is just, to choose among the best guns in existence.

If it is asked what is the present gun, I answer that every State knows very well what is the best gun now in use. I believe at first that we might leave out improvements; but it has been observed and, I think, with reason, that that would be inadmisssible; it has indeed happened that defects of mechanism have come to notice that rendered a gun dangerous for the marksman. That is why I propose that every improvement be allowed, because I recognize that it is [55] very difficult to lay down limits; this is, therefore, a clear and precise definition.

If it is asked how we can control the matter so that the permitted improvement or perfecting does not carry with it a change of type, I take the liberty of replying as did the president of the Brussels Conference, Baron JOMINI: "It would be a wrong to the contracting parties to imagine that they could have the intention of not abiding by their agreement."

Gentlemen, it is with nations as with individuals. FRANCIS I, defeated and made prisoner at Pavia by CHARLES V, wrote to his mother from the Château of Pizzeghettone, these memorable words: "Madam, all is lost but honor."

He did not cease to be the great king, when he had regained all that he had lost, because honor still stayed with him. But far different would it be to forfeit an oath or an accepted agreement, for:

Honor is like an isle with a steep and landless shore.

When once it has been lost, it cannot be regained any more.

I am convinced, then, gentlemen, that to be sure that the Governments will evade neither the spirit nor the letter of the agreement, there is no better watchman than the nation's honor.

Let us believe it! (Applause.)

The President proposed to the subcommission that it decide to have the remarkable address of General den Beer Poortugael annexed in full to the minutes.

Mr. Raffalovich suggests that it be printed and distributed with the summary record in order to bring the General's address to the attention of the Governments represented. (Assent.)

Colonel Gilinsky, in the name of the Russian delegation, thanks General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL for the hearty support that he has brought to the proposal of his Government.

Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff says, that as a simple technical delegate he is not in a position to follow General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL into the domain of statesmanship. He admits that after all the efforts made, it would be very desirable to arrive at an agreement; but he questions whether the proposal of the Dutch delegate is well suited to bring that about. The technical object is to realize economies or prevent new expenditures in the equipment of infantry; now, the formula of General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL permits all States to introduce improvements in their muskets, provided that they do not change their