The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-29
Dissenting Views From philadelphia.


To THE EDITOR or THE SUN-Sir: I
| regret that / had not read the editorial
| article in THE Sun OF November 20 before
sending you my letter of that date as
could have combined my answer to the
| two articles In the one letter.
1t is a pity that so much space should
have been wasted In your effort to JUSTIFY
| the United States in her neglect to ,ake
| action on the violation of the Hague
! treaty by Germany. While there is much
| truth in what you have written under the
heading OF "Chaos In the Rules of War
| IL does not apply to the matter under
controversy. that is, the position taken by
| Judge Holt in the Independent as to the
| duty Of the United States In the matter
| OF Germanys violation OF neutrality.
! ON August Germany declared war
| against Russia. ON August Germany al
dressed an uitmatun TO Belgium saying
! she would be treated an enemy uu oss
| she consented TO the violation of her terri
/ tory ON August the British Government
/ addressed an ultimatum to Germany saying
| that unless by midnight she gave a salts
! factory reply to the question asked ON July
/ 81 his Majesty's Government would feel
/ bound to take all steps In their power to
/ uphold the neutrality OF Belgium and She
| observance Of treaty to which Germany
! ~ as mucn "A party az ouTHeNes'
on August 3, about 30 T. NJ. the
| Department OF STATE at Washington was
| Informed through the American Minister
! a, Brussels and the Consul-General at
/ Antwerp that the German forces had In
! vaded Belgium. Note that ! 30 T. VI. In
| Washing on would be- approximately
| A NJ IN Belgium from where the dcs-
patches were sent There can be no doubt
but what Germany actually invaded
Luxembourg not later than August and
! probably Belgium on the evening OF the
same day,
Therefore dealing with the question in
chronological order as stated above, you
will note that neither England nor France
had declared war nor mad war been de-
clarcd against either of them at the time
OF Germanys violation OF the neutrality
of Belgium, and therefore. as the only
/ beligerents at the time OF the violation
~ neutrality were Germany and Russia,
Article Xxx OF the Fffth Convention can
not be brought into the discussion OF the
question:
The provisions OF the present convention
do not apply except between the Contract
ing Powers. and then only II al the bel
lgcrents are parties to the convention.
The fact that ~; a subsequent period
England and France became hcllgereuts
does not dislualify nor bar r. N their
legal status the articles contained IN the
Ill oHN'lls4oI, IttulllE as l'ia'NN'
The territory OF neutral Powers is i'm
yio' able. Bc...gerents are forbidden 20 move
troops or conveys % either munitions u var
or supplies across the territory % ncutrl.
Power
Tn. fat u neutral Power resisting,
even by force, attempts 20 violate is ucJ.
traliiy cannot be regarded as hostile act.
In violation Of the neutrality OF LuXem-
burg and Belgium as above stated Ger
many did violate her treaty with the
United States ~ made under the Hague
convention Of 1907.
To use the words in your editorial
article uf November "a:
la other words Z Judge Holt were right.
Il would become our duty to make war ou
Germany Cor precisely IN" same reason
which Great Britain has declared as her
cause Of war There can be NJ doubt %:
this, Contract responsibility for Be'g.uW'S
neutrality once being admitted on our pat.
there t. M middle course between 'ho COW
trd,y rrpUd,ttiou 90: treaty obligation. ani
the fun performance, 40 matter AZ what COS,
~ that duty wh!ch Judge Holt say wc
have undertaken as one OF the responsible
underwriters " Be'F!um's neutrality
have just read the various comments
IN the first two editorial columns Of THE
SvS OF to-day on the foregoing questions.
and | trust in view Of rhe widespread
publicity given TO the erroneous state
mems in your articles OF November "a
and 20 YOU Will have the Kindness to pub
lish my letter of November IS and this
letter Jointly in the same columns that
you hav. the other CORES pondonce rrilt-
ing to this matter, rs you are well aware
how difficult II is 20 give the same pub
LEFTY to the correction uf a stttemeu; as
Is obtained in au original publication in
error
Relying upon the spirit Of fairminded-
ness and iutesr!ty of THE SIS in She past,
| am, f. G. DvRAHT.
rHILApFrrHlA, November %.
We regret tdat this second lct;or II
Mr.. Durants did not reach us in time
to be published along with rs first
communication. The point OF his first
lcttCr seems To he that although the
Monroe Doctrine reservation was Spcciii-
caily aft rmcd. in our RAJ tCatinn of Con-
Vcntion |. Of the series of fifteen a. a
fixed factor in American policy, u was
not formally mentioned H. the rlt.fira-
tion # the other conventions oC the
series cur reply Is that the single an
nounCemcnt Of the principle of non-in-
reference in matters of European poll.
tics was largely sufficient. The doctrine
and intention declared AT the plrnary
session Of the conference at The Hague,
on October l6. 1907, could not apply to
any one convention of ihe SERIES with
out APPLYING To all In this CORE
spOndent's second letter printed ahuvr. |
he cndeavors by means of "A Chrorulup,-
cad tcchnicality to raise the eN mptiun
10y maintaining that when Germany in
Vaded neutral territory Of Luxembourg
and Belgium France and ENGLAND had
nos yet entered the war and that the
prohibition against the violation of
neutral territory was therefore stu
binding. 1t Is unnecessary to scruti- |
ni2e the face of the clock to tcst the
force of this technical plea Clearly at
the time of the German Invasion Ser
via was already a belliEcrcnt; and Ser
via was not a party TO Convention V.
The Earlier Guarantee OF belgian Mem.