Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-11-27
mo AUTONOMY IN ALSACE-LORRAINE

France would not accept. and Germany
would see In the suggestion q question OF
national honor" q question which con.
stftutes exception to the competence OF
The Hague court.
There remains Alsace-Lorraine herself.
She has, in a manner, Independence in
her blood. Autonomy is for her a his
toric and psychological necessity.
HA
Herr Muller recalls that Alsace-Lor-
raine for centuries was a part OF the
Germano Roman empire.
Liberty whose unity was lax and
Taught. 9en.ralisa ZION feeble , Alsa ICE
son in liberty which has survived in her
during the time of French Capitalization.
When the end Of the regime OF annexa-
ton came there was nothing more nat
ural than that Alsace-Lorraine should re-
turn to her ancient and intimate condi-
ton. and Herr Muller esteems it the duty
of the German empire TO favor this re-
turn.
The aspirations OF the autonomists
tend today toward the establishment OF
sovereignty in AlsaceL Lorraine which
should not be represented either by the
empire or by Prussia.
Herr Muller declares that the sovereign
ty should be in the people. Alsace-Lor-
raine never had native dynasty. Her
attachment to Napoieon | was democratic
and military. In Alsace-Lorraine there
being no dynasty there Is no native no
bility. This people then profoundly DEM
ocratic would be rendered unhappy by the
imposition of institutions foreign alike to
her people and her aspirations.
Would Germany sanction the intro
duction of the republican principle In
Alsace-Lorraine? asks Herr Muller. and
he rejoins that 1t is so doubtful that the
democrats of Alsace-Lorraine have re-
nounced the hope and have directed all
the energy of their constitutional COM
bat against the idea of a dynasty That
which they ask in principle is the re-
public, but they appear to be ready to
admit an approximation. namely, a stalt-
halter named for life by the sovereign or
by the bundesrath.
But Herr Muller sees in that alterna-
tive a peril. In the bundesrath the dele
gates Of each state are bound by the in
structfons of their sovereign. II the King
or Prussia remains sovereign of Alsace-
Lorraine and disposes by instructions OF
the three votes of AlSace-Lorraine in the
bundesrath the 'Prussian influence over
Alsace-Lorraine Is reinforced. Already
the prospective OF Prussian influence has
indisposed certain of the confederated
states against the proposals of const-
tutional reform in Alsace-Lorraine. 1t
might prove a two-edged sword TO be
turned against them
Herr Muller, who must be accepted
as high authority on the German SIDE
in matters rea ing TO
Republicanism AIsace-Lorraine. is an
r...;,44 advocate of autonomy
and Of the republic. He
does not think republicanism incompatible.
with the unity of the empire. The unity
of Germany is a new creation and ls
not organic and cannot be, SO long as
SO important part of the empire
Alsace-Lorraine may remain deprived Of
her natural rights and constrained to
nurse her bitter memories.
In conclusion Herr Muller turns 70
France, for whom the first consideration
should be. What is the best thing for
Alsace-Lorraine? He hopes that the idea
OF autonomy under the republican form
as he has suggested will take root
Her grief will become thus the resigned
griefsof mother who fees that, though
separated from her child, the child is
happy in its own home"
The kreuz-Zeitung of Berlin contains
an article concerning Alsace-Lorraine
under the pseudonym. of "Alsaticus."
which conceals German autocrat. He
writes:
IF We take the counsel Of our enemies
we shall find the French most happy
that Alsace-Lorraine should be autono-
nous. Autonomy, besides. would be
decided disadvantage to Germany 1t Is
sufficient to recall the words of M. Paul
Menier, who declared that autonomy Of
Aisace-Lorraine was the first step to-
ward the revision of the treaty OF
Frankfort"
treaty, remarks that it is curious that
no German has had the idea to make a
didactic study of the famous treaty. Only
two French writer's. in fact. have until
the History of the Treaty of Frank
fort and the Liberation Of the Territory;
NJ. Sorel, who is the author of the .Diplo-
matte History Of the Franco-German
War
The reticence on the part of Germany
is explained by the disposition to con-
slider the annexation as the recovery of a
sovereignty temporarily lost. A territory
lost by force and recovered by force. The
rights of Germany being only temporarily
suspended, there was little need of dis
cusSion.
The reticence on the part OF France Is
explained by a sort of patriotic Iruiery.
dolorous chapter OF
French national history of a ma
ton whose wounds bleed
AAAJ' at the recollection. NJ.
CASTOR May, a savant juris consult. has
had the courage to write. in view Of the
recent discussion of the autonomy OF
Alsace-Lorraine a .didactic treatise on the
treaty of Frankfort Every point is
infinitely studied from the armistice. the
conference at Brussels, the annexation.
the indemnity of five milliards. the option
to be the accessory stipulations. II Is 4,
Il valuable
the student and the diplomat.
That the hour for the real autonomy OF
Alsace- Lorraine has not yet struck 1t Is
only necessary to remember that the en-
perOr is for the autonomy of Alsace.Lor-
raine under the sovereignty Of the King
of Prussia He will assent to nothing less.
Alsace- Lorraine will not assent, nor Will
the states of south Germany assent. be-