The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-05-01
Great Britain's Adhesion to the Poi
sOnOus Gas Compact.

SOnOuS OaS compact.
II was reported yesterday from
Washington that the State Depart
ment would snake no Representations"
to any Of the bclligerents concerning
the alleged use of p~ojectiles diffus-
ing poisonous gases. This is credible.
We showed the other day that at the
instance of the late Admiral MAHAN
the United States commissioners to
the First Conference at The Hague
I in 1880 refused even 10 sign the
declaration prohibiting such weapons
of war. This Government has never
been one of the Contracting Powers
with regard 10 the use Of asphyxiat-
ing gases. How could 1t protest?
1t gives THE Sun pleasure to reply
to a valued correspondent in Rochcs-
ter who asks us these questions about
Great Britain's tardy adhesion 10
/ the declaration:
ITO THE Epiron OF THE SUN--Sir. In
your editorial article you say that all
OF the bellgcrent Powers in the present
war have ratified the declaration con-
corning such gasas signed at the First
Conference at The Hague with the ex-
ception OF Great Britain. which adhered
August 80. 1907.
"Wll you be kind enough to explain
what act or words In behalf Of Great
Britain on August 80. 1907. were con-
s,rued by YOU TO constitute an adher-
ence to the declaration as to gases which
is equivalent TO tho ratification of this
convention by the other Powers? The
term adhered il in ordinary legal usage
quite different from the word ratified
and under the last sentence of the en-
emption clause quoted By you the decla-
ration did not become effective in case
one Of the belligerents be Joined in war
by a concentrating Power,
81 write you this letter at the sug-
gestion and request OF A number o..
Rochester lawyers who have Joined with
me In discussing the points raised by
your article.
Il hope that you will be kind enough
10 enlghten us as 10 the matter.
"BCRLEw HILL
ROCHESTER,, y. Y. April rs"
Argument practically identical with
that which Is advanced tentatively
10y the Rochester lawyer is urged
positively by several pro-German cor
espondcnts in support Of the idea that
the asphyxiating gas declaration is
invalidated by the failure of Great
Britain TO ratify.
First. as to the difference. IL any,
between ratification and adhesion.
Mr.. HILL says correctly that We have
spoken of them as equivalent in con
shutting Contracting Power. They
: are equivalent in that relation.
Great Britain and the United States
did not sign the declaration concern
ing asphyXiatinc gases at the time OF
the conference. Consequently neither
Great Britain nor the United States
could have become subsequently II
Contracting Power, Il party to the
declaration. by the process of ratif.
cation. Ratification technically fol-
lows signature. Adhesion Is the proc
: ess where there has been no sigma,
) turc. II was distinctly provided fol-
l In the seventh paragraph of the text
: of this declaration To meet the case
D of n Government which desired tC
l enter the compact and which could
| not "ratify" because ii had not signed
= "The signatory Powers can ad
= here 20 the present Declaration, Fol
this purpose they must mako their adhe
sion known 10 the Contracting Power,
by means OF written notification ad
y dressed to the Netherland Government
and by it communicated to all the othe
Contracting Powers"
Thus Nicaragua. which was unrcp
n resented at the conference, and ha6
q not signed and could not ratify, al
: hered on October II, 1907. Grea
l. Britain, which had declined to agi
J. except on the condition OF unanimous
q acceptance, n condition which wa
Y prevented by the action OF the Unite,
4 States, could not rTtify because sh
=. had not signed. In order to becom
- n party to the contract Great Britain
- Therefore adhered on August 30, 1907
Is This act constituted Great Britain
It one Of the Contracting Powers.
II Secondly, the esteemed juri sconsult