| 
: 
. 
, 
} 
et i le te ee 
q 
It has been stated that ‘amongst the 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 93 
How it originated among the Germans—whether by the direct un- 
prompted action of the Higher Command, or, as is more probable, at 
the instance of persons connected with the great manufacturing concerns 
in Rhineland—has, so far as | know, not transpired. It was not se 
used in the earlier stages of the War, even when it had become a war 
of position. It is notorious that the great chemical manufacturing 
establishments of Germany had been, for years previously, sedulously 
linked up in the service of the war which Germany was deliberately 
planning—probably, in the first instance, mainly for the supply of 
munitions and medicaments. We may suppose that it was the tenacity 
of our troops, and the failure of repeated attempts to dislodge them by 
direct attack, that led to the employment of such foul methods. Be this 
as it may, these methods became part of the settled practice of our 
enemies, and during the three succeeding years, that is from April 1915 
to September 1918, no fewer than eighteen different forms of poison— 
gases, liquids, and solids—were employed by the Germans. On the 
principle of Vespasian’s law, reprisals became inevitable, and for the 
greater part of three years we had the sorry spectacle of the leading 
nations of the world flinging the most deadly products at one another 
that chemical knowledge could suggest and technical skill contrive. 
Warfare, it would seem, has now definitely entered upon a new phase. 
The horrors which the Hague Convention saw were imminent, and from 
which they strove to protect humanity, are now, apparently, by the 
example and initiative of Germany, to become part of the established 
procedure of war. Civilisation protests against a step so retrograde. 
Surely comity among nations should be adequate to arrest it. If the 
League of Nations is vested with any real power, it should be possible 
for it to devise the means, and to ensure their successful application. 
The failure of the Hague Convention is no sufficient reason for despair. 
The moral sense of the civilised world is not so dulled but that, if 
roused, it can make its influence prevail. And steps should be taken 
without delay to make that influence supreme, and all the more so 
that there are agencies at work which would seek to perpetuate such 
methods as a recognised procedure of war. The case for what is called 
chemical warfare has not wanted for advocates. It is argued that poison 
gas is far less fatal and far less cruel than any other instrument of war. 
‘‘mustard gas’’ casualties the 
deaths were less than 2 per cent., and when death did not ensue complete 
recovery generally ultimately resulted. . .. Other materials of 
chemical warfare in use at the Armistice do not kill at all; they produce 
casualties which, after six weeks in hospital, are discharged practically 
without permanent hurt.’ It has been argued that, as a method 
of conducting war, poison-gas is more humane than preventive medi- 
cine. Preventive medicine has increased the unit dimension of an 
