New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-10-17
More German-American SophiS
tries About Belgium's Neutrality.

surprised to find many Of our NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
(Bernhsrdi with his brutal candor always cans
them American Germans) going to greater lengths
IN Recommendation than do the real Germans back
in the Fatherland.
We quoted recently Mr. Herman Raiders re-
MARKS on the foolishness of living up to treaties
ss evidence that some of our OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
sre eager 10 out Bernhard Bernhard when 1t
comes TO making waste paper out Of international
contacts. Herr Ridder almost praised Italy Tor
constituting the treaty underlying the Triple Al
lance so as to escape any obligation to fight In
this war on the side Of Germany and Austrla-Hun-
rev He even showed a disposition to excuse
ITALY in case the latter should decide that 1t was
70 her advantage TO forget all about the Triple
Alliance stipulations and to declare war on her
former associates
Bernhard in his famous book expressed the rear
that Italy would avoid the obligation Of giving
military aid to Germany in the next European war.
But neither he nor any other German back in
Germany has ever admitted that Italy would be
justified in fighting for selfish reasons on the side
Of Germany's enemies. However scornful they
NAV have been Of the inconvenience Of treaty ar
rangements where Belgium was concerned they
have never risen to that height of consistency and
philosophy from which they could applaud Italy
for treating the Triple Alliance compact as
"scrap of paper" Morally emancipated sister,
90 in peace" said Mr.. Rldder. But according to
reports from Europe, the Kaiser, voicing the nat
uraI though Illogical feeling of his subjects tee-
rraphed to the King Of Italy: swim or lose, Ger
many will never forgive your perfdy.'
Now we have in Mr. Riders newspaper a sec
ond example of the extremes of reasoning to which
our German American friends are capable of going
The Hon Peter s Grosscup Of Chicago, has con-
rributed to the "Staatszeitung' article in
tended to prove not that Germany broke the Treaty
of London and the law of nations in violating Bel
GUMS neutrality, yet did it solely because Of al
legged military necessities, but that no treaty was
broken and that no moral wrong was committed
at all Here are two extracts from Judge Gross
CUPS article which must fill even the most daring
home apologsts for the invasion of Belgium with
envy and amazement:
Now with all these facts in mind what was, not
the technical but the moral obligation of Germany
TO Belgium? BY going across Belgium she was not
forcing Belgium for although Belgium was
under duty 10 Germany TO grant her transit, she
under duty to England or France to resist
be @oested even by troops in transit was not that
OF guaranteed neutrality" at all, resting treaty
but Of territorial inviolabity resting on the fact
that she an independent naton-the same right
that ] have to exclude you from my house. not be-
cause you have agreed with else TO let
alone, but because the law gives me the right
on my own account 10 be let alone.
Some abstract rights have to yield, on occasion
20 greater concrete needs. Whether Germany was
morally right in attacking France IS one question;
her military necessities, IN case she was morally
right in the attack. is another and different ques
ton. 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 trespasslng on Belgiums abstract
right Of territorial inviolabilty, compensation
being guaranteed.
When the great powers OF Europe-of which
Prussia was one-established Belgium as an indie
pendent state and guaranteed her neutrality they
necessarily put Belgium under obligation to all Of
them 10 do her utmost TO maintain that neutrality.
That was an essential part or the bargain ana Bel
GUMS honor was pledged 10 repel, as far as pos
sble any attempt to violate her territory More
over, as a signatory Of the Hague treaty of Octo-
her IS 1908, regarding the rights and duties of
neutrals, Belgium was bound to reject Germanys
demand for the free passage OF German troops
across her soil. That treaty contained these pro-
VISIONS
Article II-Belligerents forbidden TO move
troops or conveys of either munitions of war or
supplies across the territory Of neutral power
Article VA neutral power must not allow any
OF the acts referred TO in Articles ii and ~ to
occur on its territory.
Belgium could not have fulfilled her interna
tionaI obligations or preserved her national honor
il she had not rejected Gemany's utimatum and
resisted the German invasion. She put duty above
safety and rsked the terrible sacrifices since
acted from her. Her heroic example will live as
long as the world lasts To say that there was
treaty violation by Germany and mo moral wrong
IN trsspsssing on Belguus abstract right Of terri.