The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-12-27
VIII


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 treaty containing this
stipulation. In fiat defiance OF her
pledged word she sent her forces
through the territory which, upon her
honor, she promised not to violate. l
put the matter as bluntly as | can
and / think / state the case against
Germany 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
wears earlier Belgium shall form
an independent and perpetually neu-
trail State. which shall be bound to
other States" That Is the language
of the original compact--the treaty
not OF 1889, hut of 1881.
Prussia signed IL with Great
Britain Austria Hungary. France and
Russia. This was long before the
German Empire came into existence.
Yet much is made Of the point that
in 1870 Prussia renewed her engage
ment to respect the neutrality Of Bel
GUM. This, declared Sir Edward
Grey, speaking to the Commons last
August lis valuable as recognition
on the part of Germany of the sacred
ness Of these treaty rights
| Ishould like to be more exact than
Sir Edward Grey. Where he says
Germany | say Prussia. ] add point
which he overlooks altogether The
I ~rgn in,
bound herself to respect the neu-
trality OF Belgium was by It's own
term. to expire in one year after the
Termination Of the war with France.
/ That provision revived the terms OIL
the old arrangement OF 1889 tnlnk
these are the main facts upon which
the critics of Germany rest their In
dictment with reference to the neu-
trality of Belgium. That certainly Il
1.-THE British point Of view. Let me try
now to outline the case from the Ger
man point OF view:
| There are three stages in the lie
of treaty. First comes its negotla-
ton by the plenipotentiaries or the
high contracting parties. Next we
have its ratification by the competent
authority at home followed by ar
exchange OF notifications between the
high contracting parties. In the thiro
Iplace we have the application OF the
terms of the treaty to particular casef
arising under It, This is the intcrpre'
ltation of the treaty.
The Interpretation of treaty II
governed by a few elementary prin,
ciples universally recognized. one o.
these Is to the effect that no natio1
lis MORALLY bound by the terms OF ar
fagreemnet involving either sacrifice
Of it's own existence or an abdicauor
Of it's sovereign function. 1t Is to o.
presumed that no great power WI
jsolemnly bind itself to commit suicide
LII the logical conclusion deducioi'
from the letter of treaty be the ruiz
4 OF a high contracting party, the lettel
must give way
lstrange Let mo cite here pasHaf 4
from that speech to the Commons II
which William e. Gladstone reviewes
the very treaty l am discussing. IA
was dealing with the neutrality
Belgium:
at is not necessary. nor would tim
permit me to enter into the compli
Gated question OF the nAtute OF IN
obligations OF that treaty: but ! an
not able to subscribe to the doctrin
of those who have held in this Hous
what plainly amounts to m assertion
that the simple fact Of the exfctene
Of a guarantee 10 binding on ever
party to II, irrespectivciy aNo8osno
Of the particular position IN wnicn
may find itself at the time when tn
occa sion for acting on the guarante
rises. The great authorities upo
foreign policy to whom I have pee
accustomed 70 listen. such - Lof
Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston, never
Ito my knowledge, took that rigid ane
III I may venture to say-'so. that I'm
practicable view Of the guarantee
Thus did William E. Gladstone !
1970 dispose Of the case made out Q
the basis OF the guarantee OF Bels!a
Neutrality in 1888. I grant the term
a 81 the treaty Il accept the -EnEls
rtatement Of its meaning. deny tha
the German Empire, confronted .
the crisis in it's destiny OF the firs
days OF last August. was bound I
respect Belgian neutrality IN the le'
ter of the guarantee by the King 9
prussia in 1889. For my justifica
ltion refer first to the words OF WI
liam e. Gladstone. which l have quo,
| ed already, and to the words OF IN
United States Supreme Court whic
Ii will quote next.
Soyne years have elapsed since tn
aritation in this country over whs
were known at the time as the Chimes
exclusion cases. A treaty had bee
ratified between the Govern ment
M