Page images
PDF
EPUB

It does not seem demonstrated to him that projectiles filled with asphyxiating gases are inhuman and uselessly cruel devices, and that they would not produce a decisive result.

2. He is the representative of a nation which is actuated by a keen desire to render war more humane, but which may be called upon to make war, and it is therefore necessary not to deprive one's self, by means of hastily adopted resolutions of means which might later on be usefully employed.

The Delegate from Siam has received general instructions to approve as far as possible any humanitarian measure, but he wonders whether the projectiles in question ought not rather to be considered as more humane instruments of war than others; consequently, he reserves his vote until he has referred the matter to his Government.

The Delegate from Great Britain is of opinion that it is unlikely that an invention of the kind will be made, but that at all events no doubts should exist on the point that the prohibition is to relate solely to projectiles whose express purpose is to spread asphyxiating gases. Along this line of ideas Sir JOHN FISHER sides in favor of prohibition.

The question is now taken up whether the Governments could agree to prohibit diving or submarine torpedoes.

The President asks the members of the subcommission to express their opinion on this subject. In his opinion, it is sufficient for one nation to adopt these terrible devices of war in order that all the others be free to make use thereof.

Captain Siegel believes that if all the other Governments agreed not to adopt vessels of this kind, Germany would join in in this understanding.

The Delegate from the United States wishes to preserve full liberty for his Government to use submarine torpedo boats or not and to await the decision. of the other Governments on this subject; he reserves his opinion.

The Delegate from Austria-Hungary declares that, for the time being, his country does not possess any submarine or diving torpedo boats, for these devices have not yet acquired the necessary perfection in order that they may be used practically; it is necessary therefore at present for Austria to confine itself to attentively follow the progress of this new invention, which, in the personal opinion of Count Soltyk, may be used for the defense of ports and roadsteads and render very important services.

The Delegate from Denmark asks to refer the matter to his Government, which, in his opinion, will agree to a prohibition if the nations unanimously adopt it.

[66] The Delegate from France thinks that the submarine torpedo has an eminently defensive purpose, and that the right to use it should therefore not be taken from a country.

The Delegate from England thinks that his country would consent to the prohibition in question if all the Great Powers were agreed on this point. It would concern itself little as to what decision the smaller countries reached.

The Delegates from Italy and Japan express a similar opinion to that of Mr. SIEGEL.

The Delegate from the Netherlands thinks that the submarine torpedo is the weapon of the weak, and he does not think its use can be prohibited.

The Delegate from Russia, under reservation with respect to unanimity. expresses himself in favor of prohibition.

The Delegate from Siam desires, in this as in the preceding case, to refer the matter to his Government, inasmuch as on the one hand he has received general instructions to agree, as far as possible, to any humanitarian measure, and as on the other hand he thinks, like Mr. TADEMA, that the necessities of defense of the small nations must be taken into serious consideration.

The Delegate from Sweden and Norway thinks that the United Kingdoms could not, for the reason expressed by the delegate from the Netherlands, agree to prohibition.

The Delegate from Turkey wishes to reserve to the defensive side the right to use submarine torpedoes.

The question of war vessels with rams is now taken up.

Admiral Sir John Fisher expresses, in regard to the prohibition to construct vessels of this kind, an opinion similar to that which he gave regarding submarine torpedoes.

Admiral Péphau endorses the opinion of Sir JOHN FISHER.

After an exchange of views, the President states that it is understood:

1. That the prohibition shall not extend to existing vessels, nor to those whose plans of construction are already under way.

2. That by vessel with a ram should not be meant a war vessel which, though not provided with a ram, is reenforced at the stem so as to be able to give and stand a shock.

Captain Mahan says that, being thus defined and provided there be unanimity, the prohibition appears acceptable.

Captain Siegel remarks that several navies have worked out a certain program for new constructions. Certain vessels provided for in these programs are already finished, others are under construction, while the rest, although the plans thereof are absolutely determined upon, have not yet been begun. It is impossible to change the plans, for the program calls for the same tactical and nautical qualities for all the vessels and these qualities would be changed if the form of the front part were not preserved.

Captain Sakamoto would also like to exclude from the prohibition the vessels already planned for in accordance with a determined organization.

The President says that the humanitarian purpose pursued by the Conference is too lofty to necessitate the taking into account of the plans drawn up by engineers; at all events the latter would have but to do their work over again.

However, he deems it necessary to admit all vessels with a ram in regard to which any steps had been taken toward their execution without their being under construction, for instance, those which have been ordered of the builders.

Captain Scheine has not been instructed to frame any fixed proposition regarding the question put to a vote.

In placing this question on the program, his Government rather entertained a desire to ascertain the opinions of the various Governments.

He wishes to ask for precise instructions.

Captain of Corvette Count Soltyk is authorized to declare that the superior command of the Austro-Hungarian navy can in no wise commit itself in regard to this question.

Captain Sakamoto agrees with the opinion that in case of unanimity the prohibition appears acceptable, with reservation made in regard to the date of beginning of the pledge.

Admiral Péphau likewise holds the opinion expressed by the majority of

his colleagues, with the restriction that the prohibition shall not take effect until after a subsequent date, up to which the Governments must be allowed the necessary time to determine the constructions already projected.

Captain Hjulhammar observes that by abolishing the ram and not the torpedo little will have been done for the cause of humanity.

[67] Moreover, the ram is useful against transports in case of landing, a matter which is important to nations having an extensive coastline.

He is personally opposed to the idea of prohibition, but will ask the opinion of his Government.

The President says that as the order of the day of the subcommission is exhausted, the next meeting might be deferred, in accordance with the decision reached, to the following Monday.

He asks whether any one has any more propositions to make.

Captain Scheine proposes, subject to subsequent change of wording, that the contracting Powers recognize in neutral Powers the privilege of sending their agents to the theatre of maritime war, with the authorization and under the supervision of the competent military authorities of the belligerent Powers.

Several members observe that this question is not within the competence

of the Commission, or even of the Conference.

It is for the respective Governments to decide in each particular case what they can grant to neutral Governments in regard to this question.

There does not seem to be an urgent need to regulate this matter.

Captain SCHEINE says that the case recently presented itself and that an

exchange of views on this matter would be exceedingly useful.

The subcommission, without going any further into the discussion, postpones a continuance thereof to next Monday.

FOURTH MEETING

JUNE 5, 1899

Jonkheer van Karnebeek presiding.

The minutes of the third meeting are read and adopted.

In the first place the question of vessels with a ram is reverted to.

Mr. Bille says that his Government has just informed him that it can not adopt a prohibition against a vessel with a ram.

The definition of a ram, as accepted at the last meeting, namely, that by a vessel with a ram is not to be meant a vessel with reenforced stem, removes all excuse for this prohibition.

The ram can not, in the opinion of his Government, be considered as a weapon, but as an integral part of the hull.

He deems that it constitutes a useful means of defense, which affords small craft a single chance to overcome large ships.

Captain Scheine says that, as there is no unanimity among the members, the delegate from Sweden and Norway having at the previous meeting also opposed the prohibition of the ram, he will not insist on this proposition.

The President observes that as the mission of this assembly is merely to exchange its views on the subject, the question of the maintenance or abolition of the ram can not be settled here, but the opinions reproduced in the minutes have been acquired as a result of the deliberations and will have their value to the Governments which will have to pass on the question later on.

The question of the ram, terminated as far as the subcommission is concerned, therefore, remains on the order of the day for the full session of the Commission, and the reporter will kindly insert in his report the different opinions which have been expressed.

The PRESIDENT proposes afterwards to take up the first part of the proposition of Admiral PÉPHAU, thus worded: "The contracting nations undertake, for a period of ........ from ... ........, not to have the existing types of cannon undergo any radical transformation similar to that of the muzzle-loading cannon being replaced by the breech-loading," and he invites the delegates who have received instructions on this subject from their Governments to kindly express their opinions.

The Delegate from Germany remarks that he can not accept this proposition owing to its vague form. He explains his vote as follows:

The amendment offers the great advantage that it might be adopted without binding one's self.

It is very ably conceived and its terms enable anything to be inserted in it that is desired.

[68] But this advantage is at the same time a weakness and a ground to be invoked against its adoption.

If such a form of wording were accepted, no one would be satisfied, neither military men nor the public, which would at once understand that this means was chosen only in order to get out of a difficulty.

If we consent to adopt a formula of the kind in question, we shall become responsible for the sense. The text thereof is too vague and uncertain to permit of a certain interpretation.

The Delegate from the United States declares on behalf of his Government that he can not agree to the proposition.

The Delegate from Austria-Hungary makes the following declaration:

The Austro-Hungarian navy department, considering that, even though our firearms can, without doubt, compete with those of like class of other countries, my Government is not in a position to give up the improvement of its firearms even for a certain length of time to be determined later on.

It looks at the question of new explosives and powders for cannon and guns from the same standpoint.

The Delegate from Denmark declares that he is authorized to accept the proposition.

The Delegate from Spain says he can not accept it.

The Delegate from Great Britain likewise declares that the proposition is not acceptable by reason of the great difficulties which would stand in the way of putting it into practice.

The Delegate from Italy declares that he can not accept the proposition.

The Delegate from Japan believes that the proposition might be accepted by his Government, provided the length of the pledge were not too long and there were unanimity.

The Delegate from the Netherlands declares that though he deems the proposition very vague, he believes that his Government can accept it.

The Delegate from Portugal is of opinion that the proposition is very vague and can not be accepted.

The Delegate from Roumania believes that the Roumanian Government would willingly endorse the first part of the proposition of Admiral PÉPHAU relative to the radical transformations of existing types of cannon for naval artillery, provided the duration of the pledge were fixed, this proposition having been indorsed by Mr. SCHEINE.

The Delegate from Siam accepts.

The Delegate from Sweden and Norway abstains from expressing an opinion.

The Delegate from Turkey makes the following declaration:

The Imperial Ottoman Government procures abroad the necessary armaments for its ships.

If therefore other Powers accept the proposition of Admiral PÉPHAU, said Government, as soon as it has attained the same degree of perfection as the other Governments, will naturally take care not to exceed this degree as long as the other Powers do not change their armaments.

The President asks the subcommission to kindly express itself on the second part of the proposition in regard to the caliber of cannon.

Captain Scheine asks authority to present another and more precise propo

sition.

He proposes that the Governments undertake:

« PreviousContinue »