Chapter III Speech of The amendment more restrictive. at all, and we may be sure that if found necessary it will be done in one way or another, what more humane method can be imagined than to have it simply increase its size in a regular manner? But this is forbidden, and consequently there is great danger of some more cruel method coming into use, when there will not be a Conference ready to forbid it. There is always danger in attempting to cover a principle by the specification of details, for the latter can generally be avoided and the principle be thus violated. "It has been stated in the Committee that the language of my proposition is too vague, and that little would be left of the article voted if it were to be amended in accordance therewith; but in reality it is much the more restrictive of the two, for the Committee's proposition, instead of covering the principle, touches it at one point only, and, in the effort to catch a single detail of construction, has left the door open to everything else which ingenuity may be able to suggest. It has been squarely stated that the Dum Dum bullet is the one at which the prohibition is aimed. I have no commission for the defence of the Dum Dum bullet, about which I know nothing except what I have heard upon this floor, but we are asked to sit in judgment upon it, and for this purpose it would seem that some evidence is desirable; none, however, has been presented. Colonel Gilinsky, who, to his honor and that of his Government, has done here so much hard work in the cause of humanity, believes that in two wars this bullet has shown Chapter III itself to be such as to inflict wounds of great cruelty; but no facts have been presented which might lead us to share his opinions. The only alleged evidence of which we have heard at all is that of the Tübingen experiments and the asserted similarity of the bullet used therein with the Dum Dum, and this the British delegate has himself been obliged to bring in, in order that he might deny it. Let me call attention, however, to the fact that under my proposed amendment the Dum Dum bullet receives no license, and, if guilty, does not escape, but falls under the prohibition, provided a case can be made out against it. "We are all animated with the common desire to prevent rather than to rail against the employment of weapons of useless cruelty, and for the efficiency of such prevention I ask whether it would not be better to secure the support of domestic public opinion in a country by the presentation to its Government of a case, supported by evidence, against any military practice, than to risk arousing a national sentiment in support of the practice by a condemnation of it without proof that the condemnation is deserved ? "The Conference is now approaching an end, and this subject is the only one of actual practice upon which there is division. The division is decided; it is even acute, and it operates to destroy all value of the action taken. I therefore ask even those gentlemen who may not have been convinced of the improvement in humane restrictiveness, which the article Chapter III Ineffective replies. Objections of would acquire from the proposed amendment, to vote for it, in order that something may be secured, instead of the nothing which would result from the status quo." The replies to Captain Crozier's remarks in the full Conference, on the part of Colonel Gilinsky and General Den Beer Poortugael, were singularly ineffective, being confined to protestations that no mention was made or intended to be made of the Dum Dum bullet, and the curious contention that the amendment ought not to be voted on before the principal proposition. Captain Crozier, in reply, read from the report of General Den Beer Poortugael the statement that his Government had charged him with urging the formal prohibition of the use of Dum Dum bullets and similar projectiles. He went on to say that, contrary to the intention of its authors, the Committee's proposition was rather a prohibition of the use of the smaller calibre rifle than that of a uselessly cruel bullet, and he asked of Colonel Gilinsky whether he as a military man wished to be understood as declaring positively that it was impossible to manufacture a bullet which would expand, without being irregular, and in such a manner as to produce a wound of useless cruelty. Captain Crozier stated that to the article as it stood he had three objections: first, it prohibited the use of all expanding bullets, without reference to the fact that it might be desirable in the future to adopt. a musket of still smaller calibre in conjunction with a bullet which would expand regularly to a some what larger size. Second, that by this interdiction Chapter III it might force people to the employment of a missile of a more cruel character not forbidden by the article; and thirdly, that it condemned the Dum Dum bullet without evidence against it. taking the vote. In regard to the manner of taking the vote, Captain The manner of Crozier recalled that in the Committee priority had been refused to his amendment for the reason, as he supposed, that the customary practice in the Conference seemed to be to put the most radical proposition first, with the idea that its adoption would wipe out the subsidiary propositions, and thus save the time necessary for voting upon the latter. He admitted that this method had its merits, so far as quick despatch of business was concerned, but stated that there were cases in which another element was more important than haste in the despatch of business, and this was that all members should have an opportunity of recording in the most efficient manner, namely, by their votes, their opinion in regard to the propositions under consideration. This opportunity was absolutely prevented by the refusal to give priority to his amendment, it being apparently not understood that whatever the result of the vote upon the amendment, a second vote would be taken upon the proposition, amended or not amended, as the case might be, and that the two votes thus taken together would record positively the opinion of every member upon the subject. It is a significant and characteristic fact that a proposition of parliamentary law, which is as familiar 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 incident. Motion to the Com mittee. future assemblies of this character, of at least a minimum in the way of ordinary rules of procedure. 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 |