Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1914-10-21
More German-AmeHcan Sophis-
tries About BeIgium's Neutrality

in the attack, is another and a diff
ferent question. And that public
opinion lacks all sense Of proportion
which holds that however morally
right the attack on France may have
been. and whatever the necessity of
going across Belgium. there is a
moral wrong in trespassing on Bel
GUMS abstract right Of territorial
inviolability. compensation being
guaranteed.
When the great powers of Europe
of which Prussia was one-estab-
lished Belgium as an independent
state and guaranteed her neutrality
they necessarily put Belgium under
obligation to all of them to do her
utmost to maintain that neutrality
That was an essential part Of the
bargain. and Eelgium's honor was
pledged to repel, as far as possible,
any attempt to violate her territory
Moreover, as a signatory Of the
Hague treaty Of October Is, 1908, re-
garding the rights and duties Of
neutrals, Belgium was bound to re-
iect Germany's demand for the free
passage of German troops across her
soil That treaty contained these
provisions:
Article II-Belligerents are for
hidden to move troops CT conveys OF
either munitions of war or supplies
across the territory Of a neutral
power.
Article VA neutral Power must
not allow any of the acts referred
to in Article ii and " to occur on
its territory"
Belgium could not have fulfilled her
international obligations OF preserved
her national honor if she had not re-
/ iected Germany's ultimatum and re-
sisted the German invasion. She put
duty above safety and risked the ter
rible sacrifices since eXacted from
her. Her heroic example will live
as long as the world lasts. To say
that there was no treaty violation by
Germany and mo moral wrong in
trespassing on Belgium's abstract
I right of territorial inviOlability
compensation being guaranteed" IS
about the most shameless piece of
sophistry which the war has pro-
duced.
We prefer to this degraded apology
from a German-American source the
frank, honest declaration Of Chan
cellor Won Bethmann-lIcllweg in the
Reichstag: I'VE are breaking the law
of nations" We prefe. the brutal
argument of Bernhard that treaties
cannot bind a nation against its mill
tary or other interests. We prefer
Dr. Dernburg's statement Of the Ger
man position in a letter which We
/ publish in another column Of this
I issue:
I'VE consider it wrong to break a
treaty of neutrality ana We regretted
! It, and thereby IL does for Germany
ethics not make a bit OF difference
/ whether France broke that treaty
/ first or not In fact, the Chancellor
said we had 10 break It. since he had
positive information thai France was
! ready for the invasion. Il does moi
| excuse the deed except as showing
/ the absolute necessity fer it,"
These are at least apologies which
do not dodge the question Of Ger
many's aggression and consequent
moral guilt They pu- the necessi
ties of strategy above the obligation
of international good faith. They d,
not try to gloss over Germany
high-handedness by miserable hypoc
risy.
We are glad for the sake of German
intellectual straightforwardness Il
set Bethmann-Hollweg. Bernhard
and DIR. Dernburg alongside our pet
tifogging Chicago jurist So far a.
excavations of Germany's crim
against Belgium go, those made il
Germany" have SO FAR an honorable
superiority over those rade in tn
United States.