discussion on Amendment. full Conference, at its session on July 21, the above- Chapter III mentioned formula as an amendment to the propo-Further sition submitted by the First Committee, for the Captain reason that the record had been left in a most un- Crozier's satisfactory state by the action of the CommitteeGreat Britain and the United States appearing most unjustly to oppose a proposition of humanitarian intent, without indicating that the American Government not only stood ready to support, but had even proposed by its representative, a formula which was believed to meet the requirements of humanity much better than the one adopted by the Committee. In supporting his amendment Captain Crozier made the following address: Captain "The general principle touching the subject was Speech of well stated at St. Petersburg in 1868, viz.. that justi-Crozier. fiable limits would be passed by the use of arms. which would aggravate uselessly the sufferings of men. already placed hors de combat, or would render their death inevitable.' The Convention of St. Petersburg then proceded to declare the proscription of the only violation of the principle then in view, i.e. the use of explosive projectiles of weight below 400 grammes. "It is now desired to extend the prohibition to other than explosive bullets, having in view efforts to increase the shock produced by the bullets of small calibres now in use, or of the still smaller calibres which may come. In formulating the prohibition, what is the object to be kept in view? Evidently to forbid everything, which, in the direction of cruelty, goes beyond necessity. And what Chapter III Speech of Criticism of the article as proposed. is necessity? The declaration of St. Petersburg says: It is sufficient to place hors de combat the greatest number of men possible.' My honorable colleague, the delegate from Russia, has stated here, that, the object of war is to put men hors de combat.' For military men there can be but one answer to the question, that the man hit by a bullet shall be placed hors de combat; and with this object, and the prohibition of everything beyond it in view, I propose the amendment, which states directly what is admissible and all that is admissible. "It has also been stated that ordinary bullets suffice to place hors de combat'; there are differences of opinion as to this, as covering all cases. I can speak of them freely because the United States are satisfied with their bullet, and see no reason for changing it; but whatever may be the case with the bullets actually in use, no one can say what it will be if the decrease of calibre. which the Conference has not limited, shall continue. And here we see the weak point of the article, which confines the prohibition to a single class, viz.: bullets which expand or flatten, and gives as illustration certain details for construction: "The use of bullets which expand or flatten casily in the human body, such as jacketed bullets, of which the jacket does not entirely cover the core, or contains incisions, should be forbidden.' "The advantages of the small calibre are well known.-flatter trajectory, greater danger space, less recoil, and, particularly, less weight of ammunition; and if any nation shall consider them sufficiently Chapter III great to wish to pass to a smaller calibre, which is to be regarded as quite possible, her military experts will at once occupy themselves with a method of avoiding the principal disadvantage-the absence of shock produced by the bullet. In devising means to increase the shock they will naturally examine the prohibitions which have been imposed, and they will find that with the exception of the two classes, viz. explosive bullets and bullets which expand or flatten, the field is entirely clear; they will see that they can avoid the forbidden detail of construction by making a bullet with a large part of the covering so thin as to be ineffective, and that they can avoid altogether the proscribed classes by making a bullet such that the point would turn easily to one side. upon entering the body, so as to cause it to turn end over end, revolving about its shorter axis;-it is well known how easily a rifle projectile can be made to act in this way. Or by making one of such original form as, without changing it, would inflict a torn wound. It is useless to give further examples. A technical officer could spend an indefinite time in suggesting designs of bullets, desperately cruel in their effects, which, forbidden by the amendment which I now propose, would be permitted under the article as it comes from the Committee. In fact they would be even more than permitted, for one might be driven, in the effort to avoid the specified class, to the adoption of another less humane. If the shocking power of the bullet is to be increased Chapter III Speech of The amendment more restrictive. at all, and we may be sure that if found necessary it will be done in one way or another, what more humane method can be imagined than to have it simply increase its size in a regular manner? But this is forbidden, and consequently there is great danger of some more cruel method coming into use, when there will not be a Conference ready to forbid it. There is always danger in attempting to cover a principle by the specification of details, for the latter can generally be avoided and the principle be thus violated. "It has been stated in the Committee that the language of my proposition is too vague, and that little would be left of the article voted if it were to be amended in accordance therewith; but in reality it is much the more restrictive of the two, for the Committee's proposition, instead of covering the principle, touches it at one point only, and, in the effort to catch a single detail of construction, has left the door open to everything else which ingenuity may be able to suggest. It has been squarely stated that the Dum Dum bullet is the one at which the prohibition is aimed. I have no commission for the defence of the Dum Dum bullet, about which I know nothing except what I have heard upon this floor, but we are asked to sit in judgment upon it, and for this purpose it would seem that some evidence is desirable; none, however, has been presented. Colonel Gilinsky, who, to his honor and that of his Government, has done here so much hard work in the cause of humanity, believes that in two wars this bullet has shown Chapter III itself to be such as to inflict wounds of great cruelty; but no facts have been presented which might lead us to share his opinions. The only alleged evidence of which we have heard at all is that of the Tübingen experiments and the asserted similarity of the bullet used therein with the Dum Dum, and this the British delegate has himself been obliged to bring in, in order that he might deny it. Let me call attention, however, to the fact that under my proposed amendment the Dum Dum bullet receives no license, and, if guilty, does not escape, but falls under the prohibition, provided a case can be made out against it. "We are all animated with the common desire to prevent rather than to rail against the employment of weapons of useless cruelty, and for the efficiency of such prevention I ask whether it would not be better to secure the support of domestic public opinion in a country by the presentation to its Government of a case, supported by evidence, against any military practice, than to risk arousing a national sentiment in support of the practice by a condemnation of it without proof that the condemnation is deserved? "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 even those gentlemen who may not have been convinced of the improvement in humane restrictiveness, which the article |