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.

?! 1

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.

Captain Crozier, on behalf of the United States of 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.

A separate vote was taken on the question whether Chapter III the Powers should agree not to make use of auto-Automatic matic muskets. In the words of Captain Crozier, muskets. "As this may be taken as a fair example of the class of improvements which, although they may have reached such a stage as to be fairly before the world, have not yet been adopted by any nation, an analysis of the vote taken upon it may be interesting as showing the attitude of the different Powers in regard to such questions." The States voting in favor of the prohibition were, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Persia, Russia, Siam, Switzerland, and Bulgaria, (9). Those voting against it were, Germany, United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden and Norway, (6). Those abstaining were, France, Japan, Portugal, Roumania, Servia, and Turkey, (6). From this statement it may be seen that none of the Great Powers, except Russia, was willing to accept restrictions in regard to military improvements, when the question of increase of efficiency was involved, and that only one great Power, France, abstained from expressing an opinion upon the subject.

In the full Committee, after the failure of another effort to secure the adoption of the proposition, it was agreed that the subject should be relegated to the future consideration of the different Governments.

of destruction.

The question was also raised as to whether there New methods should be any agreement in regard to the use of new means of destruction, which might possibly have a tendency to come into vogue-such as those depend

Н

Chapter III ing upon electricity and chemistry.

Great Britain as to Dum

The Russian representative declared that his Government was in favor of prohibiting the use of all such instrumentalities, because of the fact that the means of destruction at present employed were quite sufficient; but after a short discussion this question was also put aside for future consideration on the part of the different Powers.

EXPANDING BULLETS

The subject of unnecessarily cruel bullets gave rise to more active debate, and developed more radical differences of opinion than any other considered by the First Committee. The proposition which was finally adopted is as follows:

"The use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as jacketed bullets of which the jacket does not entirely cover the core, or has incisions in it, should be forbidden."

When this proposition was first presented to the full Committee by the military sub-committee, on June 22, Sir John Ardagh of Great Britain read the following declaration :

Declaration of "I ask permission to offer to the High Assembly some observations and explanations on the subject Dum bullets. which has already been voted upon- - the question of bullets. In the session of May 31, an article was accepted by a large majority, against the use of bullets with a hard jacket, of which the jacket does not cover the entire core, but has incisions in it. It seems to me that the use of words describing

technical details of construction will have the effect Chapter III of rendering the prohibition somewhat too general, and result in its being disregarded, and that it will not seem to admit an exception for which I wish to provide, namely: the construction, in the present or in the future, of a projectile with a sufficient force to stop an individual who has been hit and to put him out of the struggle immediately, and which thus fulfils the indispensable requirements of war, without at all occasioning useless suffering. The completely jacketed bullet of our Lee-Metford rifle is deficient in this regard. It has been proven that in one of our small wars in India a man per- . forated five times by these bullets was still capable of walking to the English hospital at a considerable distance for the purpose of having his wounds dressed. After the battle of Omdurman, quite recently, it was shown that the greater number of the Dervishes who were wounded, but who had still saved themselves by flight, had been hit by small English bullets, at the same time when the Remington and Martini bullets of the Egyptian army were sufficient to put the soldier hors de combat. It was necessary to find a more efficacious means of warfare, and, with this object in view, the projectile known under the name of the Dum Dum The Dum bullet was manufactured in India, at the arsenal of that name near Calcutta. In the Dum Dum bullet, the jacket ends by leaving a small piece of the core uncovered. The effect of this modification is to produce a certain extension or convexity of the

Dum bullet.

204376