Armament > Conference for the control of the international trade in arms, munitions and implements of war

— 59 —
United States would be required to prevent all shipment of military supplies to sue i
countries in Latin America as had not signed or adhered to the Convention, however
desirable it might be to permit such shipments. In connection with matters of admini¬
stration, the fact that the United States is not a member of the League of Nations or
of the Permanent Court of International Justice will, I hope, be given consideration by
the Sub-Commission. „ ,
“My Government has already shown its cordial sympathy with any ettorts suitable
to restrict the traffic in arms and munitions of war. As evidence of its interest m t e
matter, it may be recalled that, by a joint resolution by the Congress of the United
States, approved April 22nd, 1898, and amended March 12th, 1912, the following pro¬
vision was made with respect to the regulation of the shipment of arms from t e m ec
States:
“‘That, whenever the President shall find that in any American country
conditions of domestic violence exist which are promoted by the use ot arms or
munitions of war procured from the United States and shall make proclamation
thereof, it shall be unlawful to export, except under such limitations and exceptions
as the President shall prescribe, any arms or munitions of war from any place m e
United States to such country until otherwise ordered by the President or Congress.
“By a further resolution approved January 31st, 1922, this provision of law was
extended so as to include any country in which the United States exercises ex ra
torial jurisdiction. It is also the policy of the United States Government o res nc
the sale of Government supplies of arms and ammunition. r ,, .
“As a matter of fact, the Government of the United States is doing very litt
supplying arms to other countries. In the Western Hemisphere, the matter is un er
strict control through the power vested in the President. So far as universal pu jxciy
is concerned, I personally believe that we should warmly welcome it. If steps are a
which in a substantial way will restrict the traffic in arms, with the purpose ol ettec ua y
reducing the implements of war, I am aware that my Government will take under m
careful consideration any such arrangement and that it will be ascertained as spee y
as possible whether legislation which would be necessary to carry it into e ec can
obtained from the Congress. , . ,
“It only remains for me, Mr. Chairman, to express to you and to the other honourable
members of this Commission my full appreciation of the courtesies extended to me here.
Viscount Cecil thought that the declarations of Mr. Grew were of great interest and fiojxM
that the Sub-Commission would recognise their importance. The United States exporte rea -
small quantities of arms and munitions. This, however, was not the essential pomt. ei.upre
vention would remain inoperative, and the rivalry in armaments would continue as long as
were countries not adhering to the Convention. In any case, the words of Mr. Grew were enc
aging, and he would express the wish that the United States might, if possible, be represen >
Mr. Grew himself in the Sub-Commission. If the scheme framed by the Sub-Commission was
to be acceptable to the United States, it was necessary that this country should be represe
by a responsible delegate who would be in a position to inform the Sub-Commission w e
their recommendations were in the right direction.
The Chairman also thanked Mr. Grew for his important communication and associated
himself with the wish expressed by Viscount Cecil.
38. Examination of the Draft Resolution presented by M. Lebrun.
The Chairman reminded the Commission of the proposal presented by M. Lebrun at the
previous meeting:
“Considering that, for any organisation for the control of the traffic in arms, it is
essential, in order to avoid giving rise in practice either to deliberate mismterpre a
or to doubt, that a list of the articles to be controlled should be prepared,
“The Temporary Mixed Commission is of the opinion that the Permanent viso y
Commission should be requested to draw up, for the express purpose of organising a con ro
of the traffic in arms in time of peace, a list corresponding to the present state ot military
knowledge: (1) of arms and munitions of war; (2) of arms and munitions for purposes
sport.”
M. Cobian asked whether M. Lebrun had any objection to substituting for the last sentence
the following amendment: “of other kinds of arms and their ammunition .
This amendment would avoid any discussion on the definition of arms for purposes o p
Viscount Cecil suggested that the first paragraph of the proposals made by M. Lebrun
should be omitted. . . + v, +Vipr
He further pointed out that some doubt had been expressed in the Commission as to w e
a list enumerating the articles to be controlled or a description of these articles by categories was
preferable.