The German employment of poisonous gases for military purposes, which the Allies were obliged, reluctantly, though necessarily, to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by international Acts to which Germany is a party.

Not only does the Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful "the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," but the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in general terms, the employment of "(_a_) poison or poisoned arms," "(_c_) arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous suffering." The United States, like the rest of the world, are a party to the two Conventions, and would doubtless, after the experiences of recent years, no longer hesitate, as hitherto, to adhere to the Declaration of 1899; in accordance with Admiral Mahan's view at that date, to the effect that "the effect of gas shells has yet to be ascertained," and, in particular, "whether they would be more, or less, merciful than missiles now available." The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if possible, strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents suggest, work for the Peace Congress.

The rules for naval warfare set out in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that year.
I venture to make a similar remark with reference to any discussion by the Peace Congress of "the freedom of the seas," a topic unfortunately included by President Wilson among his "14 points." The peace delegates will be concerned with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties, and reparation.

The rehabilitation and revision of international law is a different business, and should be reserved for a subsequent conference.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 29 (1918).
* * * * * SECTION 10 _The Geneva Convention_ As far back as the year 1870, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals exerted itself to induce both sides in the great war then commencing to make some special provision for relieving, or terminating, the sufferings of horses wounded in battle.
In 1899 it made the same suggestion to the British War Office, but the reply of the Secretary of State was to the effect that "he is informed that soldiers always shoot badly wounded horses after, or during, a battle, whenever they are given time to do so, _i.e._ whenever the operation does not involve risk to human life.

He fears that no more than this can be done unless and until some international convention extends to those who care for wounded animals the same protection for which the Geneva Convention provides in the case of men; and he would suggest that you should turn your efforts in that direction." Thereupon, Mr.Lawrence Pike, on November 23, addressed to _The Times_ the letter which called forth the letter which follows.
WOUNDED HORSES IN WAR Sir,--Everyone must sympathise with the anxiety felt by Mr.L.W.Pike to diminish the sufferings of horses upon the field of battle.