The Washington herald., 1922-01-08

Continued from Page One.
committed by certain belIigerents
during the late war. 1t is with
this hofty humane motive that the
FreneS delegation subscribes with
all its heart to the Root resolu-
ton"
Mr.. Balfour. for the British
delegation. said that as he under
stood the matter the proposal be-
fore the meeting was the reaffirma-
tion of the admitted principles Of
International law. In that sense
there was nothing new in the
proposals made by Mr.. Root In
deed. 6n the very face of the docu-
ment nself II was pointed out that
the greater number of nations. in
the various treaties which they
had made subsequent to the armis-
tice, had explicitly or implicitly
declared that in their view the
present proposal was already part
of the accepted law Of nations.
He believed that the United States
Of America. who had not ratified
thosd treaties. had made separate
treaties: but in those treaties also
they had by implication affirmed
the present proposal as part of the
general law. Moreover. he remem-
bered that in March. 1918. a
declaration had been made by all
the alied and associated powers,
In response to an appeal made to
them by the Red Cross Society. in
which in explicit terms they laid
down the same doctrine. Behind
all those formal acts there had
been the findings of the two Hague
conferences which. although so
far as he was aware were not
ratified by the United States of
America. were accepted by all the
other powers engaged in those
conferences. undoubtedly with the
sympathy although not with the
explicit ratification of America.
Therefore he supposed he was
right in saying that the docu-
ment before them neither made
nor professed to make any change
in international law.
Comparison of Procedure.
1t would be interesting to COM
pare the procedure on this point
with that which had been adopted
with ,,rfgard to submarines. There
also ,Sthey had declared in very
clear terms what they conceived
to be the law, and what undoubt-
edly was the law OF nations as
regards attacks on merchant ships
by ships of war. In that case
they went further than it was
now proposed to do. and further
than it was possible to go now,
for they had made an alteration
and had proposed an extension of
N L q
agreed among themselves to be
bound by regulations which were
in advance of the actual law of
nations. and they had also altered
the sanctions which lay behind the
law Of nations. in that they in
troduced the fourth of Mr.. Roots
clauses which would convict the
indiv1duals who broke the law as
guilty of piracy. So that in deal
ing with submarines the law had
gone a good deal further than
was practicable in the present
case,
They could now do no more than
reafffrm the law. 1t might be
asked in the first case what was
the use of merely coming forward
and reaffirming what nobody de-
MED? Personally he thought such
a course was important and valu-
able II all the lamcntable occur
rences OF the late war and all the
developments which that war
caused in the use OF noxious gases
were taken into account. OF course
they must all admit. as NJ. Sarraut
had well pointed out, that a mere
affirmation of the law without add
ing any sanctions to II would not
relieve: the nations of the world
from taking precautions against
those who were prepared to break
the law and who. il they were al
lowed to do so with impunity
might dominate the world by the
mere Indifference they showed to
the laws which the world had en-
deavored to lay down. That was
what had actually occurred In
1915. as in 1922, the present pro-
posal vas the law of nations, and
because it was the law of nations
no nation but one had taken any
steps towards using noxious case
or had contemplated. as part OF
their possible military operations
that such gases should be used
either by themselves or by their
enemies The result had been very
near 10 a complete disaster for the
allied armies. The shock of that
new weapon OF warfare had been
wholly local. for the invention Of
science came to the rescue and
finally the allies and their un-
scrupulous enemy fought out the
war on equal terms. That example
unhappily, was now before them
and could not be Ignored.
Geneva Result Similar
Their specialists had pointed out
In Washington, and an examination
by q committee of the league of na-
tions had brought out a similar re-
suit at Geneva. that 1t was per-
fectly impossible so TO arrange
matters that a nation bent upon
doing SO should not in time OF
peace-whatever the rules of war
might .be-make such preparations
as would enable IL to use that
nonstrous and inhuman method OF
warfafe at its will IL war broke out.
They knew that 1t least one Erea,
civilized nation had not thought IL
s-1proper. or at all events had