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 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. |