New-York tribune., 1922-01-07

tho conference gave the report OF The
sub committee appointed to deal with
I the agencies Of war. 1t was presented
by Chairman Hughes and she cd Il dis
agreement among tho experts who con-
Sidcrcd tho subject on the question as
TO whether gas warfare ought to be
wholly abolished. There was. however,
the report said. agreement in the sub
committee on certain points, reached
more or less unanimously
The points of agreement with ncces-
sary notifications included the state
mcntS:
That no nation dared risk an agree
mcnt which might prevent its prepar-
cdness 10 deal with can unscrupulou
enemy" who might rescr rt to gas war
fare.
That attempted prohibition of such
warfare might cause IN isuuGcrstand-
ing since many high explosives used
in shells produce gas fatalities, al
though not intended as gas shells,
which might lead to the charge that
gas was being used and retaliation
That restriction of research for new
war gases is not practicable.
That restriction of manufacture Of
bic for economic reasons.
"Similar to Older Forms"
That while it was possible to "con-
fine the action of chemical warfare
gases the same as high explosives and
other means Of carrying on war;" there
was disagreement among tho experts
as to The difficulties of carrying this
out, there bein. less doubt as TO the
ability to continc these gases among
the Japanese and Italians, who know
less about them" than among the
American. British and French experts,
"thorouehly acquainted with chemical
warfare gases
That limitation of kinds of gases
through their effects o. human beings
was not possible, only limitation as to
the use OF gas against cities or other
civil communities and freedom IN their
iorccs beng practicable.
mat the committee was divided as
to whether gas warfare was similar to
amy other weapon of war, again the
British, American and French rcprc-
sentalives, "who know gas" holding
erlFhatically to the view that chemical
war are gases from a method of wac
irt: war similar to the older forms"
ne subcommittee brought in no con-
cluslons or recommendation and Mr..
Hughes then turned to the report of
the pcrshing subcommittee on chem;.
Cal warfare Of the American advisory
conmlttec. unanimously approved by
the advisory committee itself, urging
abo!lshment Of gas warfare
Mr.: hughes read also a report from
the land armament committee Of the
advisory committee, declaring:
"Chemlcal warfare should be abo-
ishcd among nations as abhorrent to
civllzaton. 1t is 81 cruel. unfair and
improper use OF science. 1t is fraught
with The "ravcst danger to non -comba-
tants and dcmoralizes the better in
stnc.s of humanity"
Signed by Pershing
This report Mr. Hughes said, was
signed by General Pcrshing as head of
the land armament committee of the
advisory committee, and also adontcd
by the advisory committee.
still another American report con-
dcmnIng gas warfare was presented hv
Mrs Hughes. This time it was the
Genera Board of tho navy that spoke.
Near Admiral Rodgers signed tho docu-
mcnt. 1t opened with the question to
be considered
"%houl. gas warfare be prohibited 2"
naval brcvity, "Ycs.'
Rules OF modern warfare. the general
board held, prohibited weapons which
productcd unnecessary suffering, in
aiancing the dun dunn bullet and the
explosive bullet" It followed. the
report said, that gases which caused
uMnccessary suffering ought TO be pro
hibited
Further, the naval officers asserted.
gas was a weapon that passed beyond
control Of the belligerents and may
involve sacrifice Of innocent lives over
d wide area" again indicating that gas
ought TO be prohibited.
Certain cases, rs tear gas and pos
slble new, non-poiSonous gases. might
be used within the principles OF mod
ern war, the report sa id, cntailing tenn
porary disability Of enemy forces. but
experts differed as to what gases might
be so classcd properly and an at
tempted distinction would lead to mis-
understandings.
"ENtraordnary Consensus"
"Thc general board,' the report con-
cludcd, "beloves it sound policy TO
prohibit gas warfare in every form and
against every objective and SO recon-
mcnds"
In view of these reports, Mr. Hughes
said, the American delegation felt It
should recommend absolute prohibition
Of the use in war of asphyxiating or
poison gases He asked Nh Root to
present such a resolution.
Mr.. Root called attention to "the most
extraordinary consensus of opinion that
one could we'll find upon any interna-
tional subjec as shown in these Amer
lean reports favoring abolishment Of
gas warfare. The deleyatiOn no sai,,
could not disregard it and he called
attention to the fact that he had draft
cd his resolution in the language of
the Treaty of Versailles on the sub
jcct, to which four of the five powers
represented in Washington had sub
scrihed and which had been incorporat-
ed by the fifth. the United States. in
the treaty recently concluded with
GERMANY He read Article of the
Versailles treaty on the point and then
read his resolution.
Senator Schanzer, for Italy, pointed
out that the Italian members Of the
subcommittee had been first to sug-
gest abolition of poison gases. lie
could, therefore, he said, "hearti'y in
dorsc the American proposal"
4. 5. Delegates Get Secret