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.

66

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

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

attempt was made to meet their arguments on the Chapter III merits, and the best that can be hoped for is, that the decision of the Conference may not eventually defeat its own object.

METHODS OF NAVAL WARFARE

The propositions included in the fourth paragraph of the circular of Count Mouravieff were as follows:

"1. The prohibition of the use, in naval battles, of submarine and diving torpedo boats, or all other agencies of destruction of the same nature. 2. An agreement not to construct in the future warships armed with rams.'

These subjects were referred to a special naval sub-committee, presided over by Jonkheer A. P. C. van Karnebeek of the Netherlands, the Vice-President of the Conference.

calibre.

Captain Scheine, on behalf of the Russian Govern- Limitation of ment, submitted a proposal respecting naval guns and armor, to the effect that the Powers should for the period of five years agree to limit the calibre of their guns to seventeen inches, the initial velocity to thirteen thousand feet a second, and the length of

previous rifles; therefore, Her Majesty's Government, while entirely sympathizing with the desire to avoid the use of missiles which inflict wounds of unnecessary severity, are unable to admit that this is involved by either of the above methods of construction. It is, however, their intention to pursue their investigations, and to spare no pains in order to combine with the necessary amount of stopping power the minimum aggravation of suffering on the part of the wounded, but they consider it absolutely essential that such stopping power should exist in the bullet employed by Her Majesty's troops."

Chapter III

Rams.

New types

and calibres

guns to forty-five calibres; further, that armor should be limited to fourteen inches of the latest Krupp pattern.

This proposition was received by all the naval representatives ad referendum, with the result that it was almost unanimously negatived. The United States and British Governments both rejected it by cable very promptly.

Upon the proposal not to construct warships armed with rams, a majority of the Governments represented declared their readiness to enter such an agreement provided it were unanimous. Unanimity was, however, frustrated by the declarations of the delegates from Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, to the effect that their Governments did not approve of the idea.

Upon the subject of rifles and naval guns, and the of naval guns. possibility of an agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres, a brief discussion. showed that the utmost result attainable upon the subject was the expression of a wish, which was adopted, that the question should be relegated to the further study of the Governments.

Projectiles for

The proposition that the Contracting Powers agree of asphyxiat- to abstain from the use of projectiles, the object of

the diffusion

ing gases.

which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases, was adopted, with only one dissenting votethat of the United States of America, and one vote conditioned upon unanimity - that of Great Britain.

The distinguished representative of the United States of America on the naval sub-committee,