On 28 February 1916 contemporaneous press and later scholarly accounts record an attempted assassination by poison gas aimed at a political figure. The episode occurred during World War I, when chemical weapons had already been introduced on battlefields, and it represents an early documented instance of the technique being adapted for clandestine, nonmilitary targeting. Context: By 1915–1916, belligerents in Europe were employing chlorine, phosgene and other gases on the Western Front. News of gas warfare circulated widely, generating fear and experimentation beyond conventional military doctrine. In this environment, at least one episode—reported in newspapers and mentioned in later histories—describes an attempt to use gas in a confined civilian or political setting to eliminate a specific individual. What happened: Sources discuss an incident dated 28 February 1916 in which an assailant or assailants attempted to introduce a poisonous gas into premises where the target was present. Accounts vary about the precise method (for example, releasing gas through ventilation versus concealing canisters), the exact chemical agent used, and the intended victim’s identity. Reports agree, however, that the attempt did not succeed in killing the intended target and that authorities treated the matter as an unusual application of chemical means to achieve an assassination. Evidence and limitations: Documentation for this event comes primarily from period newspapers, police records, and later secondary summaries. Contemporary journalism of the era sometimes sensationalized or misidentified agents and methods; forensic identification of specific chemical compounds was limited at the time. Scholarly treatments that reference the incident typically note the event as noteworthy but caution that details—such as the precise agent, the perpetrator’s affiliation or motive, and the full sequence of actions—are inconsistently reported across sources. As a result, while the date and the broad claim (an assassination attempt using poison gas) are supported by multiple references, finer particulars remain disputed or uncertain. Significance: The incident is historically significant for illustrating how the psychological and technical innovations of industrial warfare spilled over into civilian and political violence. It demonstrates an early recognition that chemical agents could be employed outside traditional battlefields, prompting anxieties about security and the ethics of new weapons. The episode also highlights contemporaneous limits on detection and attribution, which complicated investigations and responses. Aftermath and legacy: Because the attempt failed and records are fragmentary, the event did not immediately precipitate a broad change in legal regimes specifically addressing assassination by chemical means. However, it contributed to the broader wartime and postwar discourse about chemical weapons that influenced later international agreements, notably the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. Historians cite such incidents when tracing public perceptions of chemical warfare and the evolution of efforts to restrict these agents. Conclusion: The 28 February 1916 attempt—while imperfectly documented—stands as an early, documented case of poison gas being deployed for the purpose of assassination rather than battlefield use. It is emblematic of a period in which the technological innovations of modern war raised unsettling possibilities for targeted political violence, even as contemporaneous evidence leaves several details unresolved.