The New York herald., 1922-01-07
employment against armed enemy forces

employment against armed enemy forces
being practicable. ea1,.
That the committee was dfvi6ed as to
whether gas warfare was similar to any
Other weapon OF war. the British. Ameri-
can and French representatives. who
know gas" holding enphatically TO the
view that chemical warfare gases form
method OF waglng war similar to the
blder forms" 'hv
The subcommittee brought in no con-
clusions or recommendation. and Mr..
Hughes then turned to the report Of the
Pershing subcommittee on chemical war
rare OF the American advisory commit
tee, unanimously approved by the ad-
visory committee itself, urging abolish
ment of gas warfare in the following
resolution: e.,s.ta
That chemical warfare. including
the use of gases. whether toxic or
non-toxic, should be prohibited by in
ternational agreement. and should be
classed with such unfair methods of
warfare as ,isoning wells. introduce
Ing germs of disease and other meth
DDS that are adhorrent In modern
warfare.
Mr.. Hughes read also a report from
the land armament committee of the ad-
visory committee, declaring:
Chemical warfare should be abol-
civilization. 1t is a cruel. unfair and
improper use OF science. 1t is fraught
with the gravest danger to non-com-
batants and demoralizeS the better
instincts of humanity
This report, Mr.. Hughes said. was
signed by Gen. Pershing as head of the
land armament committee Of the advisory
committee. and also adopted by the ad-
visory' committee.
Another Condemnatory Report.
Still another American report con-
demning gas warfare was presented by
Mr.. Hughes. This time 1t was the Cen
eral Board of the Navy that spoke
Rear Admiral Rodgers signed the docu-
ment. 1t opened with the question to be
considered:
SHOULD gas warfare be prohibited?"
Answer" the report continued with
naval brevity, Yes"
Rules of modern warfare. the General
Board held prohibited weapons which
produced unnecessary suffering, in
stancing the "dum-dum bullet and the
explosive bullet" 1t followed. the re-
port said, that gases which caused un-
necessary suffering should be prohibited.
Further. the naval officers asserted.
gas was weapon that passed beyond con-
troll Of the belligerents and may involve
a sacrifice of innocent lives over a wide
area" again indicating that gas should
be prohibited.
Certain gases. as tear gas and possible
new. non-poisonous gases. might be used
within the principles Of modern war. the
report said, cntailing temporary disa-
bility of enemy forces. but experts diff
fered as to what gases might be so
classed properly and an attempted dis
tinction would lead to misunderstand-
ings.
The General Board" the report
concluded believes 1t sound policy to
prohibit gas warfare in every form and
against every objective. and so recon-
mends."
Presentation of Resolution.
In view of these reports. Mr.. Hughes
said. the American delegation felt 1t
should recommend absolute prohibition
Of the use in war of asphyxiating or
poison gases. He asked Mr.. Root to
present such a resolution.
Mr. Root called attention to "the most
extraordinary consensus of opinion that
one could well find upon any interna-
tional subject" as shown in these Amer
lean reports favoring prohibition of gas
warfare. The dc legation. he said. could
not disregard It end he called attention
to tho fact thai he had drafted his reso-
luton in e q language OF the treaty OF
versailler on the subject. to which four
OF the five Powers represented IN Wash
fngton had subscribed and which had
been incorporated by the fifth. the United
States. In the treaty recently concluded
with Germany. He read Article III OF
the Versailles treaty on the point and
then read his resolution.
Senator scfa for Italy. pointed
out that the italian members of tho
subcommittee had been first to sugg~t
abolition Of poison gas warfare He
could. therefore. he said. heartily in
dorse the American proposal"