Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1922-01-10
CONFERENCE DISCUSSION
ON AIRCRAFT LIMIT

that were needed in the progress of
civilization. They could not put
even II they prohibited all aircraft
for military purposes and allowed the
development of the art to meet the
requirements of civil life. that IN
velopment would be Immediately
available and within a short time
provisions would be made amply for
any possible military uses.
Would Limit Progress.
The question, therefore, reduced
itself not to one Of limitation of
armament. but to a Limitation of civil
progress, and. faced with that diff
Guilty there seemed to be no alterna-
tive but to adopt the first resolution,
so far as it applied, as II did apply,
exclusively to heavier-than-ai craft
This appeared to be the sense OF
the committee.
The chairman then said that the
next question was whether II would
he deemed practicable to impose
Limitation in the case of lighter
than-air craft. He asked to call
their attention to what the subc"ih-
mittee said with regard to this sub
and it brought before them the point
quite clearly, and. with their per-
mission, he would read it. The sub
committee said:
MANY of the remarks already
made apply to lighter-than-a craft.
but as in the case of commercial air.
craft of this nature. limitation is
both possible and practicable. 1t is
unnecessary to recaptiluate the argu-
ment that the military value of a
dirigible is dependent on its size
and the size of d'rigibles and the
number maintained can be limited oy
agreement of few simple rules. IN
fraction of such rules can be rapidly
ascertained without detailed inspec-
ton But such a limitation of lighter
than air aviation forces would not
effect limitation Of this Kind or
air power of nation unless uni
tation were also imposed on its
ilighter-than-air commercial activi-
ties. The line of demarcation be-
| tween the large commercial airship
and the military airship Is very
| slight and a commercial dirigible
would require little, if any. altera-
| ton in order to adapt 1t to military
purposes. The objections to the limi-
/ tation of the number or character
| of commercial lighter-than-a air craft
have already been remarked on
Previously Emphasized.
The allusiou was. apparently. to
| the fact previously emphasized in
the report. as follows:
! LAS regards the desirability of
Limitations the committee has touched
| on those factors which must be un-
derstood before arriving at de-
cision. 1t feels 1t to be duty to
/! lay great stress upon the following
/ fact which will have a decided bear
ing upon any determination of the
proper policy to be adopted: any limi-
| tation as to the number and character
nf i&i1 nd M [,
| heavier than-air or lighter-than air,
which is efficacious to hinder their
utility for war purposes, must IN
terfere disastrously with the natural
development of aesonautics for le-
Ultimate civil and commercial en-
terprises. To limit the science of
aeronautics in its present state Is to
j shut the door on progress. 1t Is. for
the conference to decide whether the
limitations which can with diff
Guilty be devised and imposed are to
be adopted at such cost
1t was, therefore, practicable to i'm
pose a Limitation. by agreement. upon
the size of dirfgibles. Questions as
to limitation of number could be con-
sidered separately. but certainly It
was practicable to impose limita-
ton upon size. The question was
whether it was desirable to do so. in
view of the fact that commercial
dirigibles could be converted into
military dirigibles. and therefore the
the question was whether the advan-
tage in the limitation of armament.
that is. in having an agreed limit OF
size Of dirigibles. was so great that
it offset the disadvantage of limiting
the size Of dirigibles for commercial
purposes The chairman presented
that question for discussion.
No one desired to discuss the
matter.
IN
The chairman then asked If it was
the desire Of the committee to state,
as their conclusion, in view of the
arguments presented by the subcom-
mittee, that 1t was not practicable
to impose limitations upon lighter
than-a air craft. or if it was their de-
sire to present a resolution contain
ing such a limitation. -,
Senator Schanzer said that he only
desired to ask the chairman II the
first proposal. which made an excep-
ton for lighter. than-air craft. were
approved. might it not seem that the the
exception were approved also: He
suggested the elimination OF the
words excepting in the single case
Of lighter than-air craft.
The chairman said the suggestion
CT Mr.. Schanzer was that 1t would
accomplish the purpose, II 1t was not
proposed to put limitation upon the
ifehter-than-a ir craft, to adopt the
conclusion of the subcommittee,
leaving out the last clause. so tnat
the sense Of this committee would be
stated to be as follows:
THE committee is OF the o ;nnsa
any effective limitations upon the
numbers or characteristics OF air.
craft, either commercial or military.
Text Of Resolution.
Tho chairman said that 1t was sug-
gested by Mr.. Balfour that the words
"at present. should be Inserted be-
fore practicable" That seemed to
be a very good suggestion, because
that was what they were doing-not
Indicating that in the future 1t would
not become practicable. linen the res
olution would read:
"The committee is of the opinion
that it is not at present practlcaDle
to impose any effective limitations
upon the numbers or characteristics
of aircraft, either commercial or mill
tary."
He then asked for an assent to this
and it was unanimously adopted.
The chairman then said that they
came to the next recommendation or
conclusion of the subcommittee, as
follows:
"The committee is Of the opinion
that the use Of aircraft in war should
be covered by the rules of warfare as
adapted to aircraft by a further con-
ference. which should be held at a
later date"
The subcommittee had taken occa-
sion to review the difficulties. at the
present conference, in adopting de-
tailed rules Of war.
Cites International Law.
Senator Schanzer said: I'VE ap-
prove the proposal which aims at the
convocation Of a conference for the
study Of the rules of aerial warfare.
But we believe, gentlemen. that GER
tain principles Of international law
roIof3nn fo tho ,,So oF anri