POISON GAS IN WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17984, 9 January 1922, Page 5

POISON GAS IN WAR.

CONDEMNATION BY POWERS.

WASHINGTON RESOLUTION. UNANIMOUS ACCEPTANCE. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Reooived 4.20 P.m.) A. ana N.Z. WASHINGTON. Jan. 7. An official resume of the proceedings of the Armaments Committee yesterday states that the chairman introduced the subject of the use of gas in war, and read a report prepared by a sub-corcmirtoe of the. conference The sub-committee pointed out i'.st it was possible, though more difficult, to confine the sction of chemical gases aa in the casa of ?tph sires. The sub-committee felt that, the use of gas should be wholly prohibited against cities, but not against combatants. The United States, French and British representatives on the sub-com-mittee were emphatic that in chemical warfare gasfes formed a method of waging war similar to older methods. Other reports dwelt on experiences in the war, the possibilities of increased manufacture of poison gases during peace, the frightful consequences of dropping gas bombs from aeroplanes, and the impossibility of confining gases to a particular target, as in the ense of artillery fire. Mr. Elihu Root then explained that he had drafted a resolution in the language of the Treaty of Versailles, which had been subscribed to bj four out of the five Powers at the present. The resolution read: "The use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous and analagous liquids, materials and devices having been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world and the prohibition of such uses having beon declared in treaties to which the majority of civilised Powers are parlies, now to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as part of international law binding alike on the conscience and practice of nations, the signatory Powers declare their assent to such prohibition and agree to be bound thereby between themselves and invite all other civilised nations to adhere thereto."

When the Armaments Committee met to-day M. Sarraut expressed the full and frank adherence of the French delegation to the resolution. Though the impossibility of exercising effective supervision over the production of gases was recognised, the resolution, he said, was a useful accomplishment as being a bond ol union among the Powers represented, and tho example of their agreement might biing the adherence of all Powcrr,. Mr. Bali- a- pointed out that the resolution was a reaffirmation of admitted principles of international law. One nation only had taken steps to M 8 gases, and the result had been very nearly complete disaster to tho Allied arms. The lesolution would not remove anxieties and preoccupations that the possible use of ,gas involved, but it would be of importance in bringing home to the consciences of mankind that the use of gas was intolerable.

Admiral Kato approved tie resolution, which was unanimously adopted.

The special representative of the Australian and New Zealand Press Association states that the delegates had three reports before them. The United States Advisory Committee opposed the use of gas, the United States expert approved it, and the sub-committee of the conference, which comprised representatives of five Powers, was divided. The British, United States and French representatives favoured the use of gas, the Italians objected, and the Japanese, without an extended war experience of this weapon, preserved a non-committal attitude, but were inclined to be favourable. It is notable that General Pershing,' who was a member of the United States Advisory Committee, opposed the use of gas. It is understood that the 6ub-committee presented a Bomewhat indefinite report, implying these differences of opinion. It pointed out that the abolition of gas warfare could not be partial, but must be complete. The present conference could not bind other nations, nor should the Powers bind themselves while an unscrupulous enemy might use gas indiscriminately. Moreover, it was impossible to restrict chemical research and manufacture. Tho report made no recommendation as to the means of dealing with gas. The United States Advisory Committee declared that the use of gas should bo,prohibited in modem warfare the same as the poisoning of wells. The Cenerjil Board of the United States Navy also condemned the use of gas, and expressed its belief that abolition would be a sound policy.