a national sentiment in support of the practice by a condemnation of it without proof?

The Conference is now approaching an end, and this subject is the only one of actual practice upon which there is division.

The division is decided; it is even acute, and it operates to destroy all value of the action taken.

I therefore ask the delegates who may not have been convinced of the improvement in humane restrictiveness, which the article would acquire from the proposed amendment, to vote for it, in order that something tangible may be secured, instead of the nothing which would result from the status quo.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote supports the amendment of Captain CROZIER and agrees with the remarks that he has made.

Jonkheer van Karnebeek recalls what passed in the Commission on this subject. The amendment has already been presented by the American delegation in almost similar terms, but it had not found sufficient support, for the majority of the members of the Commission had been of opinion that, whatever was the humanitarian aim that inspired the motion concerned, the formula which expressed it was too vague and did not have sufficient range; it was for that reason that on the request of one of the members, priority had been given to the original text, which was voted unanimously with the exception of two votes.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote announces that his Government desires to make a very important declaration on the subject of dumdum bullets. This declaration not having yet been transmitted, he asks that the minutes remain open for its insertion.

It is so decided.'

General den Beer Poortugael does not know whether it is the intention of the assembly to renew the discussion on the question of bullets; for his part, he thought that all that concerned this matter was settled; nevertheless, if they wished to return to it, he desired to remark that in his opinion, by admitting the CROZIER proposal, the work accomplished would be destroyed. He thinks, like Mr. CROZIER, that the general principle enters equally into his formula, but it has, he believes, insufficient range.

It is a question of a general statement of a necessary limit. Now what is understood by this necessary limit or by needlessly cruel wounds? We do not know; a criterion would be necessary in order to be able to determine it. We must be able to say: here is a bullet entirely different from that which has been adopted heretofore. There must be a specified limit and not a general limit. Otherwise, no result will be reached.

If Mr. CROZIER has said that we are here condemning the dumdum bullet, he is mistaken. It seems that it is very difficult to condemn in advance [58] a bullet that is not known. Action has been taken in a general way on the use of bullets with an envelope, whose envelope does not entirely 'This request was withdrawn by the following letter addressed by Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE to the president of the Conference:

66

Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE presents his compliments to his Excellency the president of the Peace Conference, and has the honor to state that he has received instructions from his Government to the effect that, in view of the attitude of the plenary Conference at its sitting of the 21st instant, and of the vote taken on that occasion on the subject of projectiles, Her Majesty's Government will not avail themselves of the facilities accorded to them to insert a Declaration in the procès-verbal of that sitting."

The Hague, July 27, 1899.

cover the core or is pierced with incisions. Even this wording has been very difficult to light upon, and, in his opinion, it is indispensable to take up its details. On the other hand, he admits that in giving details there is risk of running counter to the general principle.

The formula of the Commission has done away with one means; that is already much, we can not do away with all those which perhaps will be invented in the future.

If we do not accept this formula we shall have done nothing.

Colonel Gilinsky, answering Mr. CROZIER, States first that the original Russian proposal does not mention dumdum bullets, although they have been spoken of in the course of the discussion. He reads the text of the proposal.

Other technical delegates have brought thereto some amendments, and the outcome has been the adoption of the formula which we find in the report. Nor does this formula mention the dumdum bullet. It will be, therefore, for each government to examine and decide whether any given projectile that is used or proposed, enters into the category covered by the formula.

Bullets of this kind inflict needlessly cruel wounds because the incision permits the lead to come out of the hard envelope and to expand; and not only do these projectiles wound, but they carry away bits of flesh. Such an effect goes beyond the aim of war which is merely to place hors de combat. The bullets of small calibre such as those of 71⁄2 mm. whose effects he declares known, suffice to produce this result.

The contrary has indeed been contended, but the cases where these projectiles have been insufficient only constitute exceptions. They happen if the bullet touches only the muscles or soft parts of the body, and not the bone, which is comparatively rare. In that case, it may indeed happen that a man mortally wounded can still advance for a certain time and then fall dead, without knowing that he has been hit.

At St. Petersburg in 1868, something already in existence was under contemplation. It was desired to prohibit bullets which really existed.

We desire to do the same here: To prohibit the use of a certain category of bullets which have already been manufactured. We do not know what is going to be invented. The inventions of the future will perhaps render a new prohibition necessary.

It is not proper to make distinction between civilized and savage tribes. There is no objection to the term "needlessly cruel" being introduced in the formula, but with that exception it should remain untouched. This is the formula which has been adopted after mature deliberations in which all the technical experts have taken part, and it would be impossible for the Conference to reverse itself.

Captain Crozier states that in his opinion the formula presents three objections:

1. It does not prohibit bullets which exceed the allowed limits except in

one case;

2. It prohibits bullets which expand. Now, it is quite possible that a bullet may be invented that expands uniformly and that consequently would not produce needlessly cruel wounds. It would not be necessary, then, to forbid its use.

3. The minutes state that the formula is intended to forbid the use of

the bullet called "dumdum," although that word is not mentioned in the text. Now, it is condemned without proof, for there has been no effort made to show that it is needlessly cruel. He reads in support of his words a passage from the report of General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL (page 3, paragraph 2), who himself speaks of dumdum bullets, and it has been stated on several occasions that those are the projectiles that it is sought to prohibit. He observes that so far as the United States is concerned, they employ a gun of 71⁄2 mm. calibre.

They are satisfied with it and do not desire to change.

He says that, without the intention of its authors, the proposal of the Commission is rather a prohibition of a gun of small calibre than a prohibition of the use of an arm that is not humane, and he reads on this point a passage from the report of General DEN BEER POORTUGAEL (page 3, last paragraph), in which is found the remark of Colonel GILINSKY that the bullet of small calibre does not stop the attack of a civilized army, for such is the effect of the small calibre; that there is therefore an argument in favor of larger calibres; and that in diminishing continually the calibre, one arrives at a calibre too small and the necessity of using dumdum bullets. He remarks that from these words it may be seen that the prohibition of the class of bullets mentioned in the article and that of the gun of small calibre are so intimately united that one can scarcely be supported without at the same time and in spite of one's self, making arguments in favor of the other. Now the majority of Powers have declared themselves against limitation of calibre.

Answering Mr. VAN KARNEBEEK, Captain CROZIER recalls that when he presented his amendment to the subcommission that amendment was not put to

Action was limited to voting on the original proposal.

[59] This procedure has certainly had the advantage in hastening the dispatch of business, but in his opinion there is something more important to be done, to record the opinion of members on every question presented. Now the subcommission has not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on his amendment, and it is for this reason that he recurs to it and asks that it now be put to vote before the main question.

Colonel Gilinsky repeats that the bullets covered by the formula of the Commission are known; their effects in two recent wars can be perfectly well stated, although there does not exist any official communications on the subject. As to bullets which may be invented in the future, let them be taken up when the time comes.

Captain CROZIER has spoken of the eventual invention of bullets which expand uniformly. That supposition is admissible; but even bullets of that category may inflict wounds that are needlessly cruel.

The Russian formula has in view only bullets already known. As he has already stated, bullets of small calibre check in general an attack. If the present calibre is diminished further, perhaps the projectile will no longer have the same effect.

A new problem will then arise.

But if these bullets do not cause a shock and permit soldiers of exceptional bravery to advance, is it necessary to invent bullets that are more cruel, in order to combat these brave men?

Mr. CROZIER has said that there was not enough attention given the question in the subcommission, that action was taken too hastily. Two months were

taken up with it in the subcommission and the question was conscientiously studied in the Commission and the formula worked out in detail. It is necessary, then, not to act hastily now and change in one meeting the result of the work of two months.

Captain CROZIER asks precedence for his formula; but Mr. GILINSKY insists that it be given that of the Commission.

Jonkheer van Karnebeek, speaking from his experience in parliamentary law, says that Mr. CROZIER complains that his formula was not voted on first. Certainly, according to the rules, an amendment has priority over original motion.

However, here we are dealing not with an amendment, but with a new proposal. He recalls that Mr. BEERNAERT, whose high authority in parliamentary law cannot be questioned, has shown that he was of the same opinion as himself, in giving precedence to the original motion.

When two proposals are pending, parliamentary usage requires that preference be given to the formula that has the greatest scope.

If this assembly desires to depart from this principle, he sees in that no inconvenience, but, according to him, it would be incorrect to proceed in that

way.

He

Captain Crozier insists that his formula constitutes an amendment. explains that while putting it to vote first it is necessary to bear in mind that a second vote will be held on the proposition, amended or not amended as may be, and that the two votes together will place the opinion of every delegate definitely on record.

Mr. Raffalovich moves to put to vote the question of precedence.

Mr. Bille states that on the vote in the Commission for the original text, he did not intend to condemn dumdum bullets, which are not familiar to him and whose cruel effects do not appear to him to be demonstrated.

His Excellency Mr. White regrets exceedingly that the delegation of the United States cannot agree with the Commission on this subject.

He begins by saying that he addresses the Conference without the least pretension of being considered an expert on the subject. He has not the slightest technical knowledge of projectiles or of arms of any kind; but he deems it proper to intervene in the debate to declare first that the Government of the United States has not made use up to the present time, does not make use now, and has not the intention of making use, of any other bullet than that used by other civilized nations. He then declares that the United States has not the intention to use in the future bullets which are not deemed permissible by the common agreement of the Powers.

After this preliminary statement, his Excellency Mr. WHITE points out the weak point, as it seems to him, of the proposition of Colonel GILINSKY. This proposition in fixing in a special manner the details of construction of a projectile that produces needlessly cruel wounds, will supply to belligerents in the first prolonged war the opportunity of getting rid of this restriction or of twisting its stipulations.

Belligerents will be more anxious to conform to the letter of the prohibition than to avoid evils that it has been desired to combat by the proposition in question.

[60] In the United States, in a recent civil war which he regrets personally and which, thanks to God, is terminated, there was some experience with the

inefficacy of the modern bullet of small calibre. A case is recorded of a soldier who, although pierced by four bullets, continued to fight and to-day is in the best of health.

The proposal of the report would not prevent nations from changing the bullets at present in use or from making them still more cruel; this is a case in which the letter kills and the spirit gives life; the Conference will see whether it can condemn a special type of bullet without at the same time adopting the more extended principle of the CROZIER proposition. Mr. WHITE suggests, therefore, reference.to the Commission, in order that the latter may find a formula to which the represented countries can adhere.

General den Beer Poortugael contends that the gun of small calibre is sufficient to stop the attack of the enemy. He cites a recent example taken from the Achin War.

Colonel Gilinsky deems it his duty to declare that he regrets that the United States cannot agree with the majority. He, too, has seen the last war and knows that bullets of 71⁄2 mm. calibre had an effect sufficient to stop the attack very well.

He maintains that it is best to deal here with existing projectiles and not with future inventions that are at present unknown.

The examples cited by the American delegate do not appear to him conclusive; they are only exceptional cases which prove nothing. He could likewise recall that a general, General DE GALLIFFET, survived a serious wound in the stomach produced by the explosion of a shell. He had the courage and strength after he was wounded to reach the ambulance alone. Shall we conclude, then, that shells are innocuous?

He hopes that the Conference will have full confidence in the work of the Commission and will in this meeting definitely decide the question by adopting the formula accepted by the Commission.

Captain Mahan says that, if Colonel GILINSKY has contended that we ought to deal here only with existing projectiles, he must object that that argument has not been taken into account as respects points 1 and 2.

According to him, the question can be summed up as follows: In order to reach an end that we all approve, is it better to adopt a general principle or to vote on a few details that tend only toward a certain point?

Colonel Gilinsky answers that launching projectiles from balloons is an existing fact, since it is under study in England and in several other countries. As to bullets, the accepted formula has in view the general principle; prohibition of bullets which expand and flatten. But it is necessary to define the details that are well known, otherwise it would not be a formula but a phrase.

with.

Jonkheer van Karnebeek repeats that a new proposition is here being dealt

He insists on this point and maintains categorically that it is in order to vote first on the original proposition.

Count de Macedo declares himself in favor of Mr. WHITE's proposal; he abstained from voting in the Commission because he did not have sufficient light on the question. Now, the declaration announced by Sir JULIAN PAUNCEfote might furnish some; in his opinion it is better then to wait.

The motion of His Excellency Mr. WHITE is put to vote.