TaÌˆgliche Omaha tribuÌˆne. [volume] (Omaha, Nebr.) 1912-1926, 1914-12-21
VIII.
THAT SCRAP or PAPER.

Let me try to put quite briefly yet
completely what understand TO be
the moral case against Germany in
this matter Of the neutrality Of Bel
GUM.
Germany, we are invited to believe,
stands bound in honor not to violate
the neutrality Of Belgium. She has
entered into a treaty containing this
stipulation. In Fat defiance of her
pledged word she sent her forces
through the territory which. upon her
honor, che promised not to violate.
put the matter as bluntly as ! can and
| think / state the Ease against Ger.
many precisely as her enemies would
make 1t out.
The facts behind this case are put
differently by different authorities,
Sir Edward Grey insists that the gov
erning factor" is the treaty Of 1889.
But the original treaty was made eight
years earlier. Belgium shall form an
independent and perpetually neutral
state which shall be bound to observe
such neutrality toward all other
states That Is the language Of the
original compact-the treaty not OF
1899, but of 1881.
Prussia signed 1t with Great Britain
Austria~Hungary, France and Russia.
This was long before the German EN-
pire came into existence. Yet much
is made of the point that In 1870 Prus'
sia renewed her engagement to re
speet the neutrality OF Belgium. This
declared Sir Edward Grey, speaking t.
the Commons last August, lis valuable
as a recognition on the part of Ger
many Of the ~sacredness of these treaty
rights"
| should like to be more exact than
Sir Edward Grey. Where he says Ger
many / say Prussia. add a point
which he oyerlooks altogether. The
agreement whereby Prussia In 1870
bound herself to respect the neutrality
OF Belgium WIS by its own terms &c
expire In one year after the termina,
tion of the war with France. Thai
provision revived the terms OF the old
arrangement OF 1899. / think these are
the main facts upon which the critics
Of Germany rest their indictment with
reference to the neutrality OF Bel
GUM. That certainly is the British
point OF view. Let me try now to ut
line the case from the German point
of view:
There are three stages in the life 81
d treaty. First comes It's negotiation
by the plenipotentiaries of the higf
contracting parties. Next we have III
ratification by the competent author
ity at home, followed By an exchange
of notifications between the higl
contracting parties. In the third place
we have the application Of the terms
of the treaty To particular cases arts
ing under 1t. This lis the interpreta
tion Of the treaty.
The Interpretation of a treaty Il
governed by a few elementary princl
plies universally recognized. One o
these Is to the effect that no nation i
morally bound by the terms OF al
agreement involving either q s~aeriacl
OF its own existence or an abdicatioI
oil its sovereign function. 1t IN to b
presumed that no great Power vii
solemniy bind itself to commit suicide
TX the logical conclusion d eibl
from the letter OF d treaty be rub
of 4 high contracting party thN .ette
must give way.
/ am not stating anything new an
strange. Let me cite here a passagi
from that speech to the Commons Il
which William \. Gladstone reviews
the very treaty | am discussing. II
was dealing with the neutrality Of Be
GUM.
ut is not necessary nor would TIM
permit me 10 enter into the compl
Gated question D fNthe nature Of th
obligations OF that treaty; but ! at
not able to subscribe to the doctrin
log those who have held in this Hous
what plainly amounts to an assertlo
that the simple fact Of the existenc
Of a guarantee is binding on ever
party to Il, ~irrespectively altogether 9
the particular position in which II ma
find itself at the time when the o
casion for acting on the ~guarante
arises, The great authorities upo
foreign policy 10 whom | have bee
k4w&MN AZ If@fEm m4snh aA nr