Chapter III Ineffective replies. Objections of would acquire from the proposed amendment, to vote for it, in order that something may be secured, instead of the nothing which would result from the status quo." The replies to Captain Crozier's remarks in the full Conference, on the part of Colonel Gilinsky and General Den Beer Poortugael, were singularly ineffective, being confined to protestations that no mention was made or intended to be made of the Dum Dum bullet, and the curious contention that the amendment ought not to be voted on before the principal proposition. Captain Crozier, in reply, read from the report of General Den Beer Poortugael the statement that his Government had charged him with urging the formal prohibition of the use of Dum Dum bullets and similar projectiles. He went on to say that, contrary to the intention of its authors, the Committee's proposition was rather a prohibition of the use of the smaller calibre rifle than that of a uselessly cruel bullet, and he asked of Colonel Gilinsky whether he as a military man wished to be understood as declaring positively that it was impossible to manufacture a bullet which would expand, without being irregular, and in such a manner as to produce a wound of useless cruelty. Captain Crozier stated that to the article as it stood he had three objections: first, it prohibited the use of all expanding bullets, without reference to the fact that it might be desirable in the future to adopt a musket of still smaller calibre in conjunction with a bullet which would expand regularly to a some what larger size. Second, that by this interdiction Chapter III it might force people to the employment of a missile of a more cruel character not forbidden by the article; and thirdly, that it condemned the Dum Dum bullet without evidence against it. taking the vote. In regard to the manner of taking the vote, Captain The manner of Crozier recalled that in the Committee priority had been refused to his amendment for the reason, as he supposed, that the customary practice in the Conference seemed to be to put the most radical proposition first, with the idea that its adoption would wipe out the subsidiary propositions, and thus save the time necessary for voting upon the latter. He admitted that this method had its merits, so far as quick despatch of business was concerned, but stated that there were cases in which another element was more important than haste in the despatch of business, and this was that all members should have an opportunity of recording in the most efficient manner, namely, by their votes, their opinion in regard to the propositions under consideration. This opportunity was absolutely prevented by the refusal to give priority to his amendment, it being apparently not understood that whatever the result of the vote upon the amendment, a second vote would be taken upon the proposition, amended or not amended, as the case might be, and that the two votes thus taken together would record positively the opinion of every member upon the subject. It is a significant and characteristic fact that a proposition of parliamentary law, which is as familiar Chapter III Absence of parliamentary law or practice. The American amendment never voted on. as the alphabet to every member of the various school-boy societies in America, and the justice of which is self-evident, namely: that an amendment. or a substitute must be voted on before the original proposition is put to a vote, was not only unfamiliar to most of the European members of the Peace Conference, but was seriously disputed, and the contrary rule adopted by an overwhelming majority. The result was that the American amendment was never put to a vote, and although in this particular instance there is every reason to believe that the amendment would have been rejected, even if the fundamental principles of parliamentary law and justice had been observed, the incident is highly inLessons of the structive, in that it proves the absolute necessity, in future assemblies of this character, of at least a minimum in the way of ordinary rules of procedure. incident. Motion to the Com mittee. During the discussion it was stated by Captain Crozier that the United States had no intention of using any bullet of the prohibited class, being entirely satisfied with the one now employed, which is in the same class as those in common use. A similar declaration was made on behalf of Germany by General von Schwarzhoff. Ambassador White, after supporting Captain refer back to Crozier's contentions, proposed in the interests of harmony that the entire subject should be referred back to the First Committee, to see if a formula could not be found upon which all parties would agree. This proposition was rejected by twenty votes against five-the latter being the United States of America, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Chapter III and Portugal. Luxemburg did not vote. On the question whether the American amendment should be voted on before the original proposition, seventeen states voted, "No" and eight, namely: the United States of America, Belgium, China, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Portugal, and Servia, voted in the affirmative-Luxemburg again not voting. ration. Lord Pauncefote, at the same meeting, gave notice British Declathat he would submit a declaration on the same subject on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which he would request to have spread upon the minutes in extenso. In view of the action taken, however, he subsequently withdrew this request. The declaration. itself, however, which in printed in the British Blue Book (Miscellaneous No. 1, 1899, p. 118) is given below.1 1 When Her Majesty's Government, following the example set by other Powers, introduced the small-bore rifle, they adopted at the same time a bullet entirely covered by a hard envelope. "Previous to the introduction of the small-bore rifle, there was no covering or envelope of any sort to the leaden bullets used with all rifles by every nation. The hard envelope was not introduced for humanitarian purposes, but because it was found to be necessary with the rapid twist of rifling of the small-bore rifle, in order to prevent the grooves becoming choked with lead. Experience with this bullet in the Chitral Campaign of 1895 proved that it had not sufficient stopping power, that the bullet drilled through a bone and did not fracture it, that at close quarters the injury was insufficient to cause immediate shock, and that when soft tissues only were struck, the amount of damage was comparatively trivial. It was proved that the enemy expressed contempt for the weapon, as compared with that previously in use; and numerous cases were 66 Chapter III There can be little doubt that history will vindicate the position taken by the United States of America and Great Britain on this subject. No brought to light in which men struck by these bullets were not prevented from remaining in action. "Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government ordered experiments to be undertaken with the object of obtaining a bullet which should possess equal stopping power effect with that of the rifle of larger calibre. The Committee which investigated the question recommended two bullets, one of which was proved to make more severe wounds than the other: Her Majesty's Government, however, rejected the one making the more severe wounds, and decided to adopt the less destructive bullet, now known as Mark IV. pattern, as giving the minimum of stopping effect necessary. This bullet has a small cylindrical cavity in the head, over which the hard metal envelope is turned down. "There is nothing new in this cavity in the head of the bullet. It existed in the Snider bullet, with which Her Majesty's troops were armed for many years- a bullet which was perfectly well known to all the Powers of Europe, which was actually in use in Her Majesty's army at the date of the St. Petersburg Convention of 1868, and to which, nevertheless, no objection was ever raised on humanitarian grounds. The Indian Government for the same reasons adopted the socalled Dum Dum bullet, in which a very small portion of the head of the leaden bullet is not covered by the hard metal envelope. "Her Majesty's Government are unable to admit that a bullet which has been deliberately adopted by them as possessing the minimum of destructive effect necessary, can be considered as inflicting unnecessary suffering; and in view of the fact that until recently all rifles of all Powers fired bullets consisting entirely of lead without a covering, and that the bullet with a cavity in the head was the bullet in use in Her Majesty's army at the date of the St. Petersburg Convention, and for many years subsequently, they are equally unable to admit that there is anything in either the exposure of a small portion of lead or the existence of a cavity, to justify the condemnation of either of these methods of construction. "The experiments conducted in this country lead to the conclusion that the wounds inflicted by these bullets are not more severe than — if so severe as the wounds inflicted by the larger bullets fired from |