New-York tribune., 1899-06-08
NO NAVAL DISARMA MENT.

Little surprise or regret will be felt at the
unanimous rejection by a committee of the
Peace Congress of the Russian proposals con-
cerning naval disarmament. The proposals were
not only 70 the effect that building of warships
should cease or be materially limited, but that
the bulk Of those now in use should be retired
and some of the most promising improvements
In naval warfare should be abandoned. The use
Of rams was to be prohibited. Strictly speaking,
that might not retire all modern ships provided
with such appendages, but 1t would compel
them to go about burdened with rams which
they could not use Practically all fighting ships
are now built with rams. that such decree
would have affected nearly all effective vessels
In the navies of the world. 1t was not 10 be
supposed the nations would agree 10 such reg
ulation Nor Is there any moral reason why
they should The ram is not cruel or bar
barous engine Of warfare On the contrary, II
Is one peculiarly designed to do the most work
at the least cost of life. To ram ship Is far
more likely to put her out of use than TO fire
shells at her. and at the same time it is far less
likely TO destroy the lives Of her crew. The ram
is really an engine of mercy. so far as that can
be said OF any warlike engine.
The use Of submerged or submarine vessels
was also 10 be forbidden. There was no hope
that France would agree to that, seeing that the
submarine boat is now the centre and stay OF
her naval faith. Nor is she the only Power that
Is experimenting with such craft with hope and
prospect of success. Theoretically, no doubt,
there is something exceptionally appalling in the
idea of submerged boats striking unseen blows
which mean sure destruction. There are pict-
ures of irredeemabe horror in Jules Verne's
story of the Nautilus. But as a matter of fact
the submarine boat, while 1t might be very eff
fective would not be one whit more cruel or
barbarous than the torpedo now universally
sanctioned. The explosion Of shell on a ships
bottom might insure her sinking in a few min
utes more certainly than much more firing at
her upper works. But it would not necessarily
destroy many lives, and 1t would not probably
destroy as many as the explosion OF single
shell somewhere above the water line.
II Is one thing and a right and commendable
thing 70 divest war Of It's deliberate inhumani-
ties such as the sacking of defenceless cities
and the slaughter OF non-combatants. 1t is an
other and we believe a worse than futile thing
TO strive to divest 1t OF US effectiveness for the
purpose for which It is waged. War Is injury.
One nation fights another for the deliberate pur-
pose of infiicting as much injury upon It as pos
sible and 80 Of bringing 1t to terms. Modern In
ternatonal law has decreed that such injury
shall be confined TO the militant forces of the ma
ton. War shall be waged, that is. against ar"
mics and navies. and against them alone. That
is well But 1t is useless, and worse than use
less. to try to circumscribe such waging Of war.
The success of such an attempt would not be to
the interest of humanity, but to the contrary.
No good purpose could be served by giving up
firearms for bows and arrows. Dewey's feet at
Manila was no more cruel than Nelson's at
Aboukr. 1t was indeed more merciful and hu-
name So long as war exists 1t will be well to
make II as short and decisive as possible. And
to that end every new invention enhancing the
effectiveness of fleets and armies is 10 he vel
coined rather than discouraged
The proposition to cripple nayies is, moreover,