The Dum Chapter III point, and to give a force more pronounced than that of the bullet which is completely jacketed, at the same time, however, less effective than that of the Enfield, Snider, or Martini bullets, all of which have greater calibre. The wounds made by this Dum Dum bullet suffice ordinarily to give a stopping shock and to place a soldier hors de combat, but their effect is by no means calculated to cause useless suffering. "I wish to explain how the Dum Dum bullet gained a bad reputation in Europe. It is on account of certain experiments which were made with bullets having a shortened jacket, which did not resemble, in construction or in effect, the Dum Dum bullets. I speak of the experiments made at Tübingen, by Professor Bruns, of which a report was published in the Beiträge zur Klinischen Chirurgie, at Tübingen, in 1898. The bullet which was used in these experiments had a leaden point about one diameter longer than the hard jacket, and, by consequence, the flattening and extension when discharged was considerable, and the wounds were excessively severein fact, frightful. These experiments proved that a bullet of which the flattened, leaden point is entirely unprovided with a hard jacket works, in a certain sense, like an explosive bullet, and produces a terrible effect; but that cannot be accepted. as evidence against the Dum Dum bullet, which has an entirely different construction and effect. At the same time, it is a fact that the erroneous conception formed in Europe about the character of the latter conception Dum Dum is entirely due to an idea which is entirely false, Chapter III namely, that the two projectiles are almost identical Erroneous in construction. Several interpellations were made about the in the English Parliament on the subject of the bullet. Dum Dum bullet, and lately, on the 5th of June, the Secretary of State for India, in response to a question about the Dum Dum bullet, declared that the Government of Her Majesty could see no reason to inquire of the Government of India regarding the Dum Dum bullet, and he added that he would present the House of Commons the reports of the experiments with that projectile. "It is hardly necessary to affirm that public opinion in England would never sanction the employment of a projectile calculated to cause useless sufferings, and that every projectile of this character is condemned in advance; but we claim the right and we recognize the duty to furnish our soldiers with a projectile upon the effect of which they may rely a bullet which will suffice to stop a charge of the enemy and to put him hors de combat immediately. Heretofore this result was accomplished by spherical bullets of the old muskets, which had a diameter of twenty millimetres, by the bullets of the Enfield, with fourteen millimetres, and those of the Martini, with twelve millimetres. No objection upon humanitarian grounds were ever made against the bullets of these muskets. Our present musket-the Lee-Metford - has a calibre. of only eight millimetres. The transverse section of this bullet, which is entirely covered by a jacket, Chapter III Erroneous conception about the Dum Dum bullet. is only about one-half of that of the Martini bullet, and one-sixth of the spherical bullet. It is, therefore, not surprising that they produce so much lighter a shock. In fact, it has been clearly proven that our bullet, which is completely jacketed and which is now actually in use in the English army, does not give sufficient protection to our soldiers against the charge of a determined enemy; and we desire to reserve our entire liberty on the subject of modifications, to be introduced in the construction of either the jacket or the core, for the purpose of producing a shock necessary to place a soldier hors de combat without occasioning an aggravation of useless suffering. This is our point of view, and for this reason we cannot accept the wording of the prohibition voted by the majority of the committee on the first reading, and which imposes a technical limit of details of construction. At the same time, I wish to repeat that we are completely in accord with the humanitarian principles announced in the Convention of St. Petersburg, and that we undertake to observe them, not only according to the letter, but according to the spirit, in seeking the model we shall adopt. 66 "I can assure this High Assembly that it is very disagreeable to me to find myself compelled by the reasons which I have just given to vote against a formula inspired by principles with which I am in hearty accord, but I still have the hope that it will be possible to adopt by unanimous vote a wording which shall leave aside technical details and those of construction, but which shall confirm the principles Chapter III upon which we are all agreed-the principles set forth in the Convention of St. Petersburg, namely: the prohibition of the use of bullets with the effect of aggravating uselessly the sufferings of soldiers hors de combat or of rendering their death inevitable." Crozier's Amendment. Captain Crozier supported the position of Sir John Captain Ardagh, and deprecated the attempt to cover the principle of prohibition of bullets producing unnecessarily cruel wounds by specification of details of construction of the bullets, and he proposed the following formula as an amendment: — "The use of bullets inflicting wounds of useless cruelty, such as explosive bullets, and in general every kind of bullets which exceeds the limit necessary for placing a man hors de combat, should be forbidden." The committee however adhered to the original proposition, without even voting upon the amendment proposed by Captain Crozier, the vote standing twenty to two- the latter being Great Britain and the United States of America, and oné abstention (Portugal). China, Mexico, and Luxemburg were not represented on the committee. between and the With a view to securing unanimity, if possible, Discussion on this subject, an informal meeting took place on Jonkheer van July 8, at the Hotel des Indes between Jonkheer Karnebeek van Karnebeek, the reporter of the committee which British dealt with arms and explosives, and Lord Pauncefote, Sir Henry Howard, Sir John Ardagh, and Delegates. Chapter III Colonel á Court, the immediate object being to Discussion discuss the form of the report and the manner in Jonkheer van which it was to be dealt with by the Conference.' between Karnebeek and the British Delegates. Jonkheer van Karnebeek thought that the prohibition of expanding bullets might be put in the form of additional Articles to the St. Petersburg Convention. He pointed out that as that Convention was only binding upon the signatory and acceding States, it was not applicable to the savage warfare in which Great Britain and other States were frequently engaged, and it would not debar the use of projectiles of a most effective stopping character in those wars. He also stated that he understood that the experts were of opinion that what was gained in stopping power was lost in penetrating power, and that the Dutch troops, in savage warfare, attached importance to the penetrating power, as it enabled the fully mantled bullets to reach their foes beyond the shelter of jungles and stockades, which, with the earlier form of bullet, proved to be a protection which was not penetrated; and he said that the Dutch troops were quite satisfied with their new fully mantled bullet. He also urged that if the British Delegates acceded to the prohibition voted by the majority, they would only place themselves in exactly the same position as the acceding Powers, if they should be at war with any of them, and he laid great stress upon the provisions contained in the last two paragraphs but 1 A full account of this meeting, by Sir John Ardagh, will be found in the British Blue Book (Miscellaneous, No. 1, 1899), p. 169. |