The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-07

The Hague contributed by F. de Mar
tens, Of the Russian delegation and
Seth Low of the delegation from the
United States. These two papers are
in the nature OF seml-offlcial reports,
the Russian one outlining the general
scope and results of the conference and
the American one explaining more par
delegation toward it's work. We desire
in this article to consider Mr.. Lows
paper more especially.
AS may be known by many OF our
readers, the disarmament portion Of
the conferences programme soon went
by the board and attention was
focused upon certain more practicable
problems, such as the placing of new
restrictions around warfare and tha
facilitation of international arbitration.
The real work of the conference crys-
talli2ed in three conventions and three
declarations. The latter were
O) a declaration prohibiting for five
years the throwing of projcctiles and
explosives from balloons or by other
analogous means. To this the Ameri-
can delegation assented, partly because
of the brief time limit and partly on
account Of the belief that use of bal
looms in warfare, on account of their
instability, would unfairly endanger
non -combatants.
(2) A declaration prohibiting the use
of projectiles having as their sole OBJ
ject the diffusion of asphyxiating or
deleterious gases.
(3) A declaration prohibiting the use
of bullets which expand or fatten
easily in the human body such as
jacketed bullets of which the Jacket
does not entirely cover the core or has
incisons in it,"
To the second and third of these dec
larations the American delegation OBJ
jected, for apparently good reasons. In
asmuch as there are no such projectiles
as are mentioned in the second declar-
alton the American representatives at
| The Hague deemed 1t a piece of fool
ishness to prohibit the hypothetical.
Neither was it clear to them, Mr.. Low
explains, why shells which asphyX-
late only should be forbidden while
| shells which both explode and asphyx-
late should be permitted. With regard
| to the third declaration Mr. Low ex-
plains at some length that it was aimed
! at a particular bullet in use by a par
| ticular power (Great Britain); and
| when the conference refused to accent
an amendment offered by the American
delegation forbiddirg all bullets of an
unnecessarily cruel character, an
amendment which affirmed a principls
rather than a detail, there was left no
alternative but to dissent. AS to the
| general proposition that it is wise TO
curb the inventive spirit in its relation
to warfare. NJ. Low very properly re-.
marks; The fearful destructiveness OF
modern war is one very great restraint
upon resort to il. This Is probably
one of the reasons why, In America,
it has never been thought wise to try
TO prevent the free application of in
vention to the Improvement of the
weapons and engines OF war;
The three conventions formulated AZ
The Hague and signed by many of the
powers subject to ratification in the or.
dinary way were:
% A convention for the pacific set -.
tlement OF international disputes.
90 A convention concerning the laws
and customs of war on land.
(3) A convention for the adaptation
to maritime warfare of the principles
of the Geneva conference.
The second of these, which is caIcu-
lated to lessen the suffering of indi-
viduals at the hands of armies in time
OF war, and to place limitations upon
the action of invading armies, was not
signed by the United States, because II
required careful examination by the
proper authorities as to it's details: the
principle underlying it is, however.
heartily recommended, The third con-
vention was not signed nor recon-
mended, because the mixture of bad
with good details raised a serious cues
tion as to its utility.
We come now to the first and chief
convention, the one aimed to do away
as far as possible with war. It divides
into four parts: % A general pledge
by the signatory powers TO "employ all
their efforts to assure the peaceful set
tlement Of international differences:
| (2) an agreement as to mediation
whereby powers drifting toward war
may themselves ask for such good Of
fees from a friendly power or neutral
| powers may, at their discretion, tender
such good offices and in no case is such
mediation to be considered an unfrlend-
ly act "a special form OF mediation pro-
posed by Mr., Hollis of the American
delegation and unanimously adopted
permits each power in dispute to pick
a friendly power as its second, these
seconds to try to arrange matters like
seconds in a dueD (3) a provision for
disinterested international commissions
OF inquiry to ascertain the exact facts
In cases OF international dispute; and
| (4) the comprehensive scheme of a per-
manent international tribunal for the
arbitration of differences which has
already received ample explanation in
| the American press: and to which rs-