Evening capital and Maryland gazette. (Annapolis, Md.) 1910-1922, 1921-12-13
TUESDAY. DECEMBER 10, 1921.
ELIMINATING GAS IN WARFARE

ELIMINATING Gas IN hAhf ahE
In connection with the move
ment 70 abolish poison gas as a
weapon of warfare and to forbid
gas research work by mutlal
agreement, which just now IS De
ing strongly urged upon the rep
resentatives OF the various nations
at the Arms Conference in Wash
i.leton; Geneia ais Amos a. Fries,
Chief of the Chemical Warfare
Service, L. $. Army. raises point
which should he given deep con
sideration. The General, speak
ing To the members Of the Amer
lean Institute OF Chemistry The
other day, made it plain that while
he most emphatically disapproved
of the use OF poison gas upon
cities and non-combatants. and
only supported its use in war to
successfully meet enemy gas, yet
he was absolutely opposed to any
action which would forbid further
research work. lie held that it
was a necessary part OF the Ma
tional Defense for the United
States to keep abreast OF inven-
ton in poisonous gases i'll order
that this country would be pre-
pared for any breach of faith that
might come in the future.
From the main angle-National
Defense - the Generals point
would seem to be very well taken.
Granting that an agreement Tor
bidding the use of poison gas
should be drawn up by the pow
ers, we as a nation, have no guar
antee that it will be strictly adj
hered to. If under it we stopped
all gas research work and then
found ourselves at some future
time involved in war with one of
the contracting nations, who had
secretly continued its gas re-
search and preparation, we would
be at a tremendous disadvantage.
Gas is such terribly potent wea-
pom of destruction that If it is used
upon an unsuspecting, unprepared
foe. and the gas attack is vigor-
ously followed up in battle, the
issue of an entire campaign can
readily be decided by it. Then
too, preparation for gas warfare
could be carried on by n hostile
power with the greatest of Sc
crecy, and many of their peace
time plants could be converted
into poison gas factories upon a
few hours notice. Due to this
ease of manufacture and conceal
ment thereof such a preparation
could be accomplished. and ii 1t
be cleverly done, the intelligence
systems of the other nations
would be none the wiser. In the
event of war the advantage of the
prepared country is easily appar-
cnt.
OF course. 4 nation which
would adopt such course would
violate its pledged word but. this
is not improbable, for in the light
of experience this is not such
remote improbability after all, no
matter how optimistic one may
feel about the future. There was
a Declaration of the Hague dated
July %. 1899, forbidding the en-
ployment OF projectiles having for
their only object the diffusion OF
asphyXiating or deleterious gases,
signed by all of the nations in
Volved in the late war, yet it was
ignored and gas shells were used.
What has occurred in the past
can certainly happen again in the
future. and therefore the question
of forbidding gas research work
should be thoroughly considered
before any decisive action is
taken. The absolute safety of the
nation should not in the slightest
degree be placed in jeopardy by
any agreement or treaty. 1t is
hardly less logical to keep abreast
of the times in gas research work
than in maintaining ammunition
plants and certainly no less dan
gerous tc have a complete cessa-
ton CT 9ne than the other.