Chapter III Further study of the question. Its probable effect. are thought to tend to the welfare of Europe. The military and naval armaments of the United States. are at present so small, relatively, to the extent of territory and the number of the population, as well as in comparison with those of other nations, that their size can entail no additional burden or expense upon the latter, nor can even form a subject for profitable mutual discussion." The Conference subsequently unanimously adopted the resolution proposed by the First Committee on the motion of M. Bourgeois, and the entire subject was thus relegated to the further study of the various. Governments. It should not be forgotten that an agreement to limit armaments is in effect a promise to be more or less unready in what may be a supreme crisis of national life or national honor. So long as the fear of such crises may reasonably enter into the daily thoughts and the serious plans of even the most peaceable and highly civilized of nations, there can be little hope even for a further study of the question. The effective federation of the civilized world for purposes of international justice, and the conviction, possible perhaps only after years of experience, that in the twentieth century international differences can be settled by peaceable means more frequently than ever before, will alone suffice to reassure the nations of the world sufficiently to permit the relaxing of efforts which even the warmest friends of peace cannot, in the meanwhile, wholly condemn. THE HUMANIZING OF WAR The second, third, and fourth clauses of the circular of Count Mouravieff of December 30, 1898, treating of the humanizing of war, were also referred to the First Committee of the Conference, which in turn referred the second and third paragraphs to its military sub-committee, and the fourth paragraph to its naval sub-committee. The military sub-committee in consequence had charge of the subjects of powders and explosives, field guns, balloons, and muskets, as well as bullets, although, as Captain Crozier remarks in his report to the American Commission, it would have appeared more logical to consider them under the seventh numbered article of the circular, referring to the declaration concerning the laws and customs of war, made by the Brussels Conference in 1874. Chapter III Military Sub The report of the military sub-committee was sub- Report of the mitted by General Den Beer Poortugael of the Committee. Netherlands, and it was most ably and lucidly summarized for the Commission of the United States of America by Captain Crozier, the American representative on the Committee. The Russian representative was Colonel Gilinsky, and the propositions for discussion were for the most part presented by him. in the name of his Government, so that upon him generally devolved the duty of explaining and supporting the propositions in the first instance. Upon the subject of powders, by which term the Powders. propelling charge of projectiles as distinguished from Chapter III Mining shells for field artillery. the bursting charge, was meant, the proposition was an agreement not to make use of any more powerful powders than those employed at present, both for field guns and muskets. Upon this subject Captain Crozier declared that the prohibition of the adoption of more powerful powders than those actually in use might easily work against one of the objects of the Russian proposition, namely: economy. A powder being powerful in proportion to the production of gas furnished by the charge and the atmosphere of combustion, it might be easy to produce powder which, while furnishing a greater volume of gas at a lower temperature of combustion, might be more powerful than any powder now actually in use, and yet, at the same time, on account of the lower temperature, it might injure the musket much less, and thus increase the latter's durability. The point made by the American representative was so well taken that the proposition was unanimously rejected. As to explosives or the bursting charge of projectiles, two propositions were made. The first was an agreement not to make use of mining shells for field artillery. After a brief discussion the proposal was rejected by a vote of eleven to ten, the minority being made up of the States of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Servia, Russia, Siam, High explo- Switzerland, and Bulgaria. The second proposition was not to make use of any new explosives of the class known as high explosives. This proposition was, after a short discussion, rejected by a vote of sives. twelve to nine—the majority being made up of Ger- Chapter III many, United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Roumania, Sweden and Norway, and Turkey. On the subject of field guns, the proposition was Field guns. for the Powers to agree that no field material should be adopted of a model superior to the best material now in use in any country- those countries having material inferior to the best now in use retaining the privilege of adopting such best material. This proposition was rejected by a unanimous vote, with the exception of two abstentions, namely: Russia and Bulgaria. projectiles or explosives from balloons. On the subject of balloons, the sub-committee first Throwing voted a perpetual prohibition of their use, or that of similar new machines, for throwing projectiles or explosives. In the full Committee, on motion of Captain Crozier, the prohibition was unanimously limited to cover a period of five years only. The action taken was for humanitarian reasons alone, and was founded upon the opinion that balloons, as they now exist, form so uncertain a means of injury, that they cannot be used with accuracy. The persons or objects injured by throwing explosives may be entirely disconnected from the conflict, and such that their injury or destruction would be of no practical advantage to the party making use of the machines. The limitation of the prohibition to five years' duration preserves liberty of action under such changed circumstances as may be produced by the progress of invention. Chapter III Small arms. Regarding muskets, the Russian proposition was Muskets and that no Powers should change their existing type of small arms. This proposition differed essentially from the one regarding field guns, which permitted all Powers to adopt the most perfect material now in existence; the reason for the difference was explained by the Russian representative, to be, that, whereas there was a great difference in the excellence of field artillery material now in use in the different countries, that they all adopted substantially the same musket, and being on an equal footing, the present would be a good time to cease making changes. The object of the proposition was stated to be purely economical. It was explained that the prohibition to adopt a new type of musket was not intended to prevent the improvement of existing types; but this immediately called forth a discussion as to what constituted a type, and what improvements might be made without falling under the prohibition of not changing it. Efforts were made to cover this point. by specifying details, such as initial velocity, weight of the projectiles, etc., also by a proposition to limit the time for which the prohibition should hold, but no agreement could be secured. The attitude States toward such questions. Captain Crozier, on behalf of the United States of of the United America, stated early in the discussion the attitude of America, namely: that it did not consider limitations in regard to the use of military inventions to be conducive to the peace of the world, and for that reason propositions for such a limitation would not generally be supported by the American representatives. |