The reference to the Commission is rejected by 20 votes to 5. Voting for the reference: United States, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Portugal. Luxemburg was not present. The President suggests voting on the formula of the Commission. Captain Crozier insists on priority being given his amendment in order to furnish the Commission an opportunity of placing itself on record on the subject. The President declares that, in a conciliatory spirit, he is ready to have a vote first on the American formula. His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote remarks that in all European parliaments it is the rule to vote first on amendments. Now, the American and English delegations are agreed that the CROZIER formula is an amendment. According to Mr. Seth Low, the American proposition is a subsequent proposition ("substitute "); it would be the rule in the American Congress to vote on it before the original motion, otherwise, the true sentiments of the majority would never be obtained. [61] Count de Macedo declares that he will vote for the American proposal; but this vote will not signify that he disapproves the original proposal. Mr. Rolin considers it impossible for the delegates who have voted on the regulation of the laws of war to place themselves on record as against the adoption of the CROZIER proposition which scarcely does more than repeat one of the provisions of those regulations; under these conditions he fears that the vote will give rise to misunderstanding and he asks that it be permitted him, in case the CROZIER proposition is adopted, to take up the proposition of the Commission as an additional amendment. Mr. Raffalovich supports this proposal. Colonel Coanda is of opinion that it would be better to vote first on the draft which views the humanitarian aim in a general way, and then on that of the formula which contains the details. General Mounier remarks that many difficulties would be encountered by accepting the formula of Captain CROZIER. The formula of the Commission has in view bullets which are already known, whereas he does not positively know what kind of projectiles the American delegate wishes to prohibit. Mr. Bille finds the expression "limit necessary to put a man hors de combat" sufficiently clear. Jonkheer van Karnebeek is of opinion that it is for the Conference to settle the question by voting on priority. Mr. Beldiman makes the same proposal. The question of priority is put to vote. The following eight states vote for the priority of the American formula: United States, Belgium, China, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Portugal and Serbia. The other seventeen states vote against it. Luxemburg did not take part in the vote. Consequently, the formula of the report is put to vote and adopted unanimously with the exception of two votes (United States and Great Britain) and one abstention (Portugal). Luxemburg was not present. Divisions II, III, and IV of the report are adopted unanimously. A letter is read, addressed by the president of the drafting committee of the Red Cross subcommission, by which Admiral Sir JOHN FISHER brings to the knowledge of Mr. MARTENS that the American delegation has withdrawn the three additional articles that it had proposed to add to the ten articles voted by the Conference in the meeting of June 20. Captain Mahan makes the following statement on this subject: The delegation of the United States has directed me to say that the three additional articles proposed by it have been withdrawn, not because of a change of opinion on this subject of the propriety of providing for the cases to which they relate and which will doubtless arise, but in furtherance of their desire to facilitate the conclusion of the work of the Conference. The delegation wishes it understood that it accepts only tentatively the ten articles, although it deems them materially defective in so far as they do not provide for the cases mentioned, and under reservation of the subsequent approval of its Government, to which it reserves full liberty of action. Moreover, it is understood that it will have to communicate to its Government without any restriction the doubts which it feels, while adding such comments as it may deem necessary. The meeting adjourns. Annex to the Minutes of the Sixth Meeting, July 21 REPORT TO THE CONFERENCE It has been the work of the First Commission to examine the first four topics of the circular of his Excellency Count MOURAVIEFF. For the purpose of studying the second, third, and fourth questions, which relate to engines [62] of warfare, two subcommissions were formed, one for military matters, the other for naval; while the first topic of Count MOURAVIEFF, limitation of armaments, was reserved for the full Commission. I. The labors of these two subcommissions have resulted in bringing out only three points which could secure an affirmative vote by the Commission in favor of international engagements: 1. A prohibition against launching projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of similar nature. This agreement, which is only for a term of five years, was adopted by a unanimous vote. 2. A prohibition of the use of projectiles, the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. This lacked one vote of unanimity; but six of the affirmative votes were thus cast only on condition of unanimity. 3. A prohibition of the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. The Commission, consequently, proposes to the Conference a Declaration or an agreement carrying an engagement on each of the three points mentioned. It is unanimous in favoring the first. As to the second, the vote taken in the Commission stood seventeen votes in favor (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Japan [upon condition of unanimity], Montenegro, Netherlands, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland, Turkey, Bulgaria), against two (United States of America and Great Britain). It supports the third by a vote of sixteen (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Netherlands, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Switzerland, Turkey, Bulgaria), against two (United States of America and Great Britain). Portugal did not vote. II. In view of the important bearing of these three topics on budgets, the two subcommissions spent a long time trying to reach some agreement to prevent, if only for a limited time, the introduction of new types and calibres of rifles and cannon; but the more or less detailed propositions discussed all encountered objections, partly based on the impossibility of obtaining before this Conference adjourns instructions sufficiently precise for decisions which would have practical value. Examination of the various proposals advanced has without exception shown that a determination of these questions cannot be had without a previous technical study in most of the countries, made with minuteness and based on tests. Confronted by this difficulty, the Commission has had to confine itself to proposing to the Conference that it recommend to the Governments represented that they undertake, each in its own way, a study of this problem, especially with reference to rifles and naval guns, in order to find, if possible, a solution that would receive unanimous acceptance, and might be the subject of an engagement in a future Conference. Perhaps the debates recorded in the minutes of the two subcommissions may be of use in these studies. This proposal received the unanimous vote of the Commission. III. An examination no less conscientious has been given to the possibility of fixing the effective military and naval forces and also the military budgets pertaining to them. Propositions to that end were submitted by Russia. The first proposed to fix for a term of five years the present number of troops maintained in each mother country, that is to say, colonial troops not being included, and to limit for the same period the military budgets to their totals at the present time. This proposition was referred to the first subcommission, where it was first examined and discussed in a special technical committee composed of Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF, Captain CROZIER, Lieutenant Colonel VON KHUEPACH, General MOUNIER, General Sir JOHN ARDAGH, General ZUCCARI, Colonel COANDA, Colonel GILINSKY, and Colonel BRÄNDSTRÖM. This committee after a thorough discussion reported that, with the exception of Colonel GILINSKY, they were unanimously of the opinion: First, that it would be very difficult to fix, even for a term of five years, the number of effectives without regulating at the same time other factors of national defense; Secondly, that it would be quite as difficult to regulate by an international agreement the factors of this defense, as it is organized in every country upon a different principle. [63] Hence, the committee expressed its regret that it could not advise acceptance of the proposition; but the majority of its members thought that a more thorough study of the question by the Governments themselves would be desirable. In view of this report, the Commission, to its great regret, is able only to give explanation of the impossibility of arriving, in this Conference, at a positive and immediate agreement upon the subject of effective forces and military budgets, but it adds that it hopes that the Governments themselves will resume the study of the questions raised in the first topic of the circular of Count MOURAVIEFF. The belief that from a general point of view it is nevertheless important to place a check upon military armaments and to urge that the solution of this question be given the most serious attention, was manifest in the Commission. Consequently, after it unanimously adopted the proposals of the technical committee, the Commission further adopted, also unanimously, to express this belief, a resolution proposed by the first delegate of France in the following terms: The Commission is of opinion that the restriction of military charges, which are at present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind. The Commission accordingly proposes that the Conference, too, adopt this resolution. IV. The other Russian proposition had reference to naval armaments and suggested acceptance of the principle of fixing the total expenditures for a term of three years, leaving to each Government the liberty of fixing its budget at the point which seems to it desirable, but with an engagement that when this budget is fixed and communicated, it cannot be increased during the three-year period. This proposition, too, met with difficulties in the subcommission charged with its examination. Besides such as would eventually present themselves in connection with the manner of putting such a project in execution, a serious obstacle was said to exist in countries with parliaments where the legislative assemblies have the right of voting the budgets. However desirous the Commission may have been to proceed in the way pointed out by the Russian proposition, it was constrained to recognize the fact that it found itself unable to arrive at a solution of this problem, which is one that would require a thorough inquiry on the part of the various Governments if called upon to declare their positions through instructions; and for this the necessary time would be lacking during this Conference. The Commission has therefore agreed to relegate this question, together with that concerning land forces, to the Governments, in order that the latter, if they deem it advisable, may in their study of these questions take into consideration the proposals which have here been made. The Commission submits this idea for the approval of the Conference. SEVENTH MEETING JULY 25, 1899 His Excellency Mr. Staal presiding. The meeting opens at 2:30 o'clock. The President states that the minutes of the last meeting must remain open at the request of his Excellency Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE who has announced that he would doubtless have an important declaration to be inserted therein. The minutes therefore have not been printed and the PRESIDENT proposes, in order to gain time, to leave the care of approving them to the Bureau.1 He adds: I seize this opportunity once more to thank the secretariat for the zeal it shows in the considerable work with which it is now charged, and I beg Mr. VAN KARNEBEEK also to transmit the thanks of the Assembly to the National [64] Printing Office, whose director and force have a special claim to our gratitude. The rapid printing of the report of Chevalier DESCAMPS permitting us to meet to-day, has well shown the value of this collaboration. (Applause.) We are arrived, gentlemen, almost at the end of our labors. I have first to request you to give your approval to the text of the articles adopted by the Third Commission for the pacific settlement of international disputes which Chevalier DESCAMPS is about to give you in its last reading. The following articles, read by Chevalier DESCAMPS, are successively put to vote and adopted without discussion: PART I.-THE MAINTENANCE OF GENERAL PEACE ARTICLE 1 With a view to obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between States, the signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to ensure the pacific settlement of international differences. PART II.-GOOD OFFICES AND MEDIATION In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the signatory Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers. ARTICLE 3 Independently of this recourse, the signatory Powers deem it expedient that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative, and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance. 1 See note, ante, p. 82, sixth meeting. |