In short, the Imperial Government has proposed to accept the rapid-firing gun as the existing type and to forbid improvements for a determined time. He believes that the rapid-firing gun that exists in several armies is no longer a secret. It is adopted already in Russia, Germany, France, and it is being experimented with in other countries.

Colonel Gilinsky adds that the Russian proposition tends to permit the whole world to accept the best gun, that is to say, the rapid-firing gun. The proposition actually existing which has been voted upon, stipulates on the contrary that there should not be a change in the field artillery of the present gun and that the backward countries would have the option of placing themselves on a level with the others. He emphasizes the difference between the Russian proposition and the text put to vote, especially on the third vote; "to prohibit for a time to be determined modification of armament (cannon) while excluding the use of every new invention."

Under these circumstances he thought he should abstain.

The President says that this explanation of the Russian delegate will be inserted in the minutes.

He states then, that no other correction is requested and declares the report of General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL adopted. (Assent.)

He conveys the thanks of the subcommission to the reporter for his excellent work. (Assent.)

The meeting adjourns.

[59]

SIXTH MEETING

JUNE 26, 1899

His Excellency Mr. Beernaert presiding.

On the proposal of the PRESIDENT the subcommission decides to entrust the examination of the propositions of Colonel GILINSKY concerning theme No. 1 of the MOURAVIEFF circular to a committee composed of Messrs. Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZ HOFF, General MOUNIER, Colonel GILINSKY, General Sir JOHN ARDAGH, Lieutenant Colonel von KHUEPACH, General ZUCCARI, Captain BrändSTRÖM, and Colonel COANDA, to which will be added Mr. RAFFALOVICH, delegate, as secretary.

The meeting adjourns.

[60]

SECOND SUBCOMMISSION

FIRST MEETING

MAY 26, 1899

Jonkheer van Karnebeek presiding.

Jonkheer van Karnebeek opens up the meeting and appeals to the indulgence of his colleagues, circumstances having called him to the presidency in spite of the fact that he does not possess any special knowledge in maritime matters.

He is of opinion that it would be useful to begin by naming a reporter, who could begin taking down notes right away without being prevented from taking part in the discussion.

The subcommission having endorsed this idea and having left the nomination of a reporter to its president, Jonkheer van Karnebeek asks whether Count SOLTYK would be willing to assume this office.

The subcommission applauds this choice.

Captain of Corvette Count SOLTYK accepts this appointment and asks his colleagues to lend him their kind assistance.

The President states that in view of the decision reached by the Commission in plenary session, the subcommission will in the first place have to examine whether it will be possible, as regards navies, to prohibit by means of a conventional arrangement the putting into use of new firearms (first part of theme 2 of the circular of December 30, 1898). As portable firearms are of comparatively little importance to navies, it will be necessary to take cannon particularly into consideration.

Admiral Péphau deems it very difficult to define the scope of this question. What is to be meant by "new firearms?" Is it a question also of prohibiting transformations?

The President thinks that the prohibition can not contemplate modifications of detail, but only sufficiently important transformations in order to make a new instrument of war of a certain firearm.

Captain Scheine likewise thinks that the expression "new firearms" ought to be understood as meaning an entirely new type, and that it does not comprise transformation and improvements.

Captains Sakamoto and Mahan ask whether a new type " means a type not yet invented.

Admiral Péphau remarks that the definition of Mr. SCHEINE but lays down. the question in other terms. What is a new type? An old cannon gradually modified and improved becomes a new type.

Count Soltyk shares this opinion. A new type is as a matter of fact but an old type, which is being improved daily.

Captain Mahan says we might conceive of a new type as being an acquired notion, and examine independently the question as to whether we should consent to accept the prohibition of the construction of any of them.

Admiral Fisher is of opinion that each country wishes to use the best weapon it can procure. Any restriction placed on the freedom of action in this regard would place civilized peoples in a dangerous situation in case of war with less civilized nations or savage tribes.

Captain Scheine thinks that a prohibition for an indefinite time would affect too numerous and too grave interests. Such an intention never entered the mind of his Government. In his opinion, it would be proper to limit the prohibition to a specified and not too long period of time, say three or four years. Moreover, existing cannon cannot be modified to any considerable extent in this interval.

However, by proceeding in this manner, a point of departure would be had. The question would be determined and would take form.

The President is of opinion that this proposition is of great importance, and that it might serve to put an end to the ruinous competition in which the nations are engaged in the manufacture of new firearms, which competition will [61] never come to an end, since after each effort they find themselves again at the same level.

This is really the basis of the idea of those who submitted this question to the deliberations of the Conference. Moreover, the only effective means would perhaps be to have recourse to penal clauses against the inventors of new means of destruction.

Admiral Péphau thinks that it will never be possible to prevent inventors from ruining nations.

Admiral Fisher says that these inventions serve rather to hinder and retard warfare. In order to accomplish what Mr. SCHEINE proposes it would be necessary to have a committee of "control."

But would the nations not consider such a "control as an assault on their sovereignty?

Captain Siegel and Admiral Péphau state that it would be impossible to establish such a "control." There is no starting point, for one thing, and then the firearms in every country are undergoing transformation.

The President asks whether it is proper to summarize the discussion as follows: "however desirable it may be, in the opinion of the subcommission, to put an end to the competition in question, the question appears so difficult to solve that it will have to remain in the state where it now is."

Captain Scheine insists on his proposition. The fixing of a period of three or four years will promote the cause without jeopardizing the interests involved, and at all events the principle of the thing would have been sanctioned.

After an exchange of views, from which it is found that the subcommission thinks that the question should be more thoroughly explained and its scope more precisely indicated, Mr. Scheine, at the request of the PRESIDENT, declares that he will endeavor to present his proposition in a more precise form at the next meeting.

The second question, that of explosives, is now taken up.

The President thinks that as far as it is concerned an agreement will be established more easily.

Admirals Fisher and Péphau observe on the contrary that in this matter the

same difficulties are here as in regard to cannon: it is the starting point that is lacking. Moreover, no nation will consent to divulge the composition of the explosives which it is now using.

The President says the question is up whether it is necessary to take as a basis the explosives adopted up to the present by the nations, or all those which may be considered as already existing or known.

Mr. Rolin is of opinion that before all else it would be important to know the explosives in use. He observes thereupon that the use of explosives, especially for the small nations, constitutes a special means of defense.

If the consent were given to prohibit their use, these nations would be deprived of one of their most important means of defense.

Captain Scheine proposes a conventional pledge by virture of which the Governments would abstain from introducing explosives during a certain period of time.

The President proposes to connect the suggestion made by Mr. SCHEINE to the analogous motion relating to firearms, and he asks Mr. SCHEINE to kindly state his ideas in a definite manner so that they might be submitted to the examination of the subcommission at a future meeting.

BEEK.

Captain Scheine says he will try to satisfy the request of Mr. Van Karne

The President proposes to pass on to the question of the limitation of the use of explosives of formidable force already existing.

Admiral Péphau and Captain Tadema think it would be desirable to determine the cases in which the use of these explosives will be permitted.

His Excellency Count von Welsersheimb backs this view.

Captain Scheine is of opinion that it will be necessary to take a pledge not to use explosives otherwise or in other cases than they are now used.

The President says that in this manner the question is laid down more precisely.

Admiral Péphau expresses doubts as to the possibility of assuming an engagement in the sense indicated.

Captain Tadema thinks the question deserves serious examination.

On the proposition of the President, the discussion is postponed to the next meeting.

The meeting adjourns.