The Washington times., 1914-10-02

The distinctions between private
ana public obligations in this re-
garo We need not discuss: but this
proposition does not admit of dis
pute that public treaties, like pri-
Vate contracts. become voidable.
when either of these two things
happen: When the state Of facts
which alone gave occasion for the
making Of the treaty has ceased to
exist; and when the other party to
the agreement has committed acts
constituting a breach Of the treaty.
!We might suggest. in passing, that
In the countries Of the common law.
like England and the United States
the application of the first named
principle Is considerably narrowed.
as lawyers will readily see; but in
international law, which draws its
principles mainly from the Roman
law, the rule is well established
that all treaties are made with the
implication that they will continue
"rebus sic stantibus.'' which
means while conditions are un-
Now let US see whether GERMANY
could properly disregard this treaty
on both or either Of the above
grounds.
Until ten or twelve years ago Great
Britain continued to consider as the
principal enemy against which she
might have to defend the neutrality
Of Belgium her traditional opponent,
France. With Germany she had then
no quarrel. and no sane person has
ever believed until the present war
broke out that Germany desired to
annex Belgium.
In 1857 Napoleon III proposed to
Bismarck that he should be allowed
to take possession OF Belgium, while
Prussia might annex Luxembourg,
which in a sense is also a neutral
country, but at that time was con-
nected with Holland.
proposition, but discomfited the willy
French emperor by publishing 1t,
while Great Britain promptly threat
ened France with war. There IL no
reason to doubt that even at this
day France would be glad to have
Belgium, and even less doubt that
at least among the Walloons a ma
jority would be delighted II such an
arrangement could be made s.-.
sse British Nervousness.
In the meantime Great Britain, for
reasons We need not discuss at
present. had conceived the idea that
Germany was more dangerous
enemy than France. for the present
at least. and SO she made a radical
departure from the tradition Of CEN
turtles and entered into an entente"
with her. directed against the Teu-
tonic empire.
ness about the least advance of the
French toward Antwerp seems to
have ceased. About the year 1896.
rumors began to appear in the press
about a secret understanding between
France, Great Britain, and Belgium,
according to which that neutral
country was to raise no objection
IL the two others should see fit to
make 1t their base Of operation in
rumors were PROMPTLY denied, and
there is no reason to doubt that IN
a purely literal sense. any denial of
the existence of a scret treaty Is
true.
Diplomacy has many ways Of
coming to an agreement without
the dangerous device Of An actual
treaty. or even an exchange Of
notes. A spoken word may serve
the purpose just as we'll. where
all parties have a common interest.
interest could Belgium have in such
an agreement? 1t would be difficult
to find an answer. II Belgium had
ever shown the true spirit Of an in
dependent nation. in the same man
ner that Switzerland has always
done.
The contrary. however, is true.
From the very beginning. she has
leaned upon France. and at least
one-half of her population-and that.
on, the whole. the dominant half
has never denied lurking hope that
some day they would be Frenchmen.
Under such circumstances it Is not
surprising that French diplomacy
was able to win the Belgian govern
ment to support of its own plans:
What arguments were used, or what
particular form the understanding
took. will probably not be known for
many years. At any rate, the Ger
man government processes that II
has knowledge of such secret under
standing. and II that is so it would
clearly be its duty to act upon that
knowledge. as it has done.
Evidence of Breach.
1t was to be expected. of course,
that the British and French govern
ments should deny the existence Of
this agreement to break the treaty
of neutrality. Such denial is an in
terral part of the plan. Fortunately
for the German contention, there Is q
mass of evidence accumulating which
shows conclusively, by open acts,
that Belgium did intend to range IT.
self upon the side OF France and
Great Britain as soon as a war will,
Germany should break out. OF these
overt acts no single one might be
convincing. but in their cumulative
no impartial jury in a lawsuit
could possibly fail to be convinced
thereby
We shall mention but a few OF
these matters Anybody who
searches the newspapers carefully
will be able to add to the list. Even
while England and France were sun
suspiciously watching each other
Belgium showed its decidedly un-
neutral" leaning toward the French
bv leaving It's southern frontier un-
fortified while II built strong. mod
ern fortresses-Liege and Samur-on
tho German side. Similarly. on the
coast looking toward England
there are no fortifications TO prevent
on English landing. while there are
Stnrr strong fortiticationS around
,rtwern near the frontier OF Hol,
land the ancient enemy OF lS", ano
:, conceivable ally OF the German
empire.
By French Engineers.
.rr. fortresses were built 10y
Erc,ch military engineers. at frs
IN or the nominal SUPERVISION of th'