How far any systematic alleviation of such sufferings may be compatible with the exigencies of warfare must be left to the decision of military experts.
In the meantime it may be as well to assure Mr.Pike that the Geneva Convention of 1864 has nothing to do with the question, relating, as it does, exclusively to the relief of human suffering.

This is equally the case with the second Geneva Convention, which Mr.Pike is right in supposing never to have been ratified.

He is also right in supposing that "the terms of the convention are capable of amendment from time to time," but wrong in supposing that they can be amended "by the setting up of precedents." The convention can be amended only by a new convention.
It is not the case that Art.

7 of the convention, which merely confides to commanders-in-chief, under the instructions of their respective Governments, "les details d'execution de la presente convention," gives them any authority to extend its scope beyond what is expressly stated to be its object--viz.

"l'amelioration du sort des militaires blesses dans les armees en campagne." While, however, the Geneva Convention, does not contemplate the relief of animal suffering, it certainly cannot be "set up as a bar" to the provision of such relief.