M. Bourgeois thereupon took the floor, and spoke Chapter III as follows: It Bourgeois of "I have been happy to listen to the eloquent Speech of M. remarks which Baron de Bildt has just delivered. France. They express not only my personal sentiments and those of my colleagues of the French delegation, but I am sure that they also express the feelings of the entire Conference. I wish to join in the appeal which the delegate of Sweden and Norway has just made. I believe that to express completely the thought by which it was animated, the committee must do something more. I have read carefully the text of the conclusions adopted by the sub-committee. This report shows with great precision and force the difficulties now in the way of the adoption of an international treaty for the limitation of effectives. was for the purpose of examining these practical difficulties that the subject was referred to this subcommittee, and no one can think of criticising the manner in which it has accomplished its task. But this first committee of the Conference should consider the problem presented by the first paragraph of the circular of Count Mouravieff from a point of view more general and more elevated. We certainly do not wish to remain indifferent to a question of principle presented to the civilized world by the generous initiative of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia. It seems to me necessary that an additional resolution should be adopted by us, to express more clearly the sentiment which animated the last speaker, and which makes us all hope and wish that Bourgeois of I Chapter III the work here begun may not be abandoned. The Speech of M. question of principle may be stated very simply. Is it desirable to limit the military charges which now weigh upon the world? the world? I listened with great care in the last session to the remarkable speech of General von Schwarzhoff. He presented with the greatest possible force the technical objections which, according to his view, prevented the committee from adopting the propositions of Colonel Gilinsky. It did not, however, seem to me that he at the same time sufficiently recognized the general ideas in pursuance of which we are here united. He showed us that Germany is easily supporting the expense of its military organization, and he reminded us that notwithstanding this, his country was enjoying a very great measure of commercial prosperity. belong to a country which also supports readily all personal and financial obligations imposed by national defence upon its citizens, and we have the hope to show to the world next year that we have not gone back in our productive activity, and have not been hindered in the increase of our financial prosperity. But General von Schwarzhoff will surely recognize with me that if in his country, as well as in mine, the great resources, which are now devoted to military organization, would, at least in part, be put to the service of peaceful and productive activity, the grand total of the prosperity of each country would not cease to increase at an even more rapid rate. It is this idea which we ought not only to express here among ourselves, but which, if possible, we should declare before the public opinion of the world. Chapter III It is for this reason that if I were obliged to vote on the question put in the first paragraph of the proposition of Colonel Gilinsky, I would not hesitate to vote in the affirmative. Besides, we have hardly the right here to consider only whether our particular country supports the expense of armed peace. Our duty is higher. It is the general situation of all nations which we have been summoned to consider. In other words, we are not only to vote on questions appertaining to our special situation. If there is a general idea which might serve to attain universal good, it is our duty to emancipate ourselves. Our object is not to form a majority and a minority. We should refrain from dwelling upon that which separates us, but emphasize those things upon which we are united. If we deliberate in this spirit, I hope we shall find a formula which, without ignoring the difficulties which we all understand, shall at least express the thought that a limitation of armaments. would be a benefit for humanity, and this will give to the Governments that moral support which is necessary for them, if they are to still further pursue this noble object. Gentlemen, the object of civilization seems to us to be to abolish more and more the struggle for life between men, and to put in its stead an accord between them for the struggle against the unrelenting forces of matter. This is the same thought which, upon the initiative of the Emperor of Russia, it is proposed that we should promote by international agreement. If sad necessity obliges us Chapter III Resolution on the limitation to renounce for the moment an immediate and positive engagement to carry out this idea, we should at least attempt to show public opinion that we have sincerely examined the problem presented to us. We shall not have labored in vain if in a formula of general terms we at least indicate the goal to be approached, as we all hope and wish, by all civilized nations." M. Bourgeois then moved the adoption of the following resolution: "The Committee considers that a limitation of the of armaments. military charges which now weigh upon the world is greatly to be desired in the interests of the material. and moral welfare of humanity." This resolution was adopted unanimously. The Report. M. Delyannis of Greece next read a statement explaining the non-committal attitude of his Government toward the Russian proposals. The second sub-committee, to which the naval propositions were referred, made a report similar to that of the first sub-committee, so far as the limitations of naval budgets was concerned, and the full Committee resolved that the resolution presented by M. Bourgeois applied equally to both Russian proposals. After requesting Jonkheer van Karnebeek to draw up the report of the Committee to the Conference, the Committee adjourned, and the further discussion upon the question of the limitation of armaments took place in the full Conference. At the last meeting of the First Committee, on July 17, when the report to be presented to the Conference was under consideration, the following Chapter III statement, drawn up by the Commission of the United States of America, was read: behalf of the of America. "The delegation of the United States of America Statement on have concurred in the conclusions upon the first United States clause of the Russian letter of December 30, 1898, presented to the Conference by the First Committee, namely that the proposals of the Russian representatives for fixing the amounts of effective forces and of budgets, military and naval, for periods of five and three years, cannot now be accepted, and that a more profound study on the part of each State concerned is to be desired. But while thus supporting what seemed to be the only practicable solution of a question submitted to the Conference by the Russian letter, the delegation wishes to place upon the record that the United States in so doing does not express any opinion as to the course to be taken by the States of Europe. This declaration is not meant to indicate mere indifference to a difficult problem, because it does not affect the United States immediately, but expresses a determination to refrain from enunciating opinions upon matters, into which, as they concern Europe alone, the United States has no claim to enter. The resolution offered by M. Bourgeois and adopted by the First Committee has also received the hearty concurrence of this delegation, because in so doing it expresses the cordial interest and sympathy with which the United States, while carefully abstaining from anything that might resemble interference, regards all movements that |