The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-25
Chaos In the Rules OF War.

Chaos In the Rules or War.
There is current just now much
loose talk about the responsibility OF
the United States. as a signatory or the
various conventions adopted at The
Hague in 1907. for the application AMI
enforcement Of the rules as to war on
land. the rules as to war on sea and the
rules as to the rights and duties OF
neutrals which were enacted at that
memorable conference of forty.four
Powers.
or the general sleaziness OF thought
and impcrfection of knowledge con-
corning the status Of these codes of war
and neutrality we are having every day
amazing Illustrations by the dozen.
Yesterday THr Sun commented on the
proposition of Judge IIoLT in the indie
pcndent that the neutrality of Belgium.
in addition To special treaties, was
guaranteed by one Of the conventions
adopted at The Hague and that the
United States Government was party
10 that guarantee. with consequent re-
sponsihilty and duty in the present
situation. Now comes the Rev. GEORGE
W. DovGLAS. the senior canon of 81.
John the Divine. with remarks which
exemplify with sufficient inaccuracy the
widespread misunderstanding on the
subject For that reason they afford a
convenient text. and we accordingly use
them a. such Canon DOUGLAS Is thus
reported by the Tribune:
Tho United states was party TO the
Hague convention at which e-rtan arti-
Giles were signed by all the great Powers.
As party ~ such a contract II Is the
duty Of the United States to live up 10 the
terms ~ the agreement and 10 insist that
other nations do the same II was ex-
pressly stated that no armies should be
moved across neutral territory and that
floating or unanchored mines should not
be sown in the open sea.
For the United States to proclaim
neutrality is right and proper But neu-
trallty does not mean that We shall see
the terms Of such articles violated without
protest. Therefore 1t is our duty when
the terms Of the Hague convention are
disregarded to demonstrate and hold up to
censure the offending party or parties
Any other course will brand us as cow
ards"
II is about time that the exact truth
should be stated about these rules Of
war and neutrality, supposed by almost
everybody TO be in force in the existing
contest, and likewise supposed by some
people to devolve upon this nation re-
sponslbility for their assertion: at lea st
to the extent OF vigorous protest
The rules now generally believed to
he binding upon the belligerents in Eu-
rope were embodied in the series OF
fifteen treaties or conventions signed
by the representatives Of the forty-four
Powers at the second international
peace conference at The Hague seven
years ago; these instruments being re-
visions and extensions OF the original
treaties signed at the first peace con
ference in 1899. Some OF the more fla
GRAVITY dlsrega rded of these provisions
we extracted from the several conven-
lions and printed on this page yester-
day under the heading Scraps OF
Paper:" II may have been observed
by those interested that to this exhibit
hnt M N u
OF the propositions were not ratified
by "all" the Powers now belligerent
and that there was a question as to
their force in the present war.
1t is somewhat Of a coincidence that
there also came Yesterday from Wash
ington the news that our State Depa ri
mcnt has reached the conclusion that
the so-calcd Declaration of London Is
no longer 10 he regarded as valid for
the regulation OF the proceedings OF
bcligcrCutS i'm naval warfare.
The broad fact is that none Of thu
codes formulated nj The Hague in 1907
for the mitigation of the horrors OF
war, for the preservation of the rights
of private properly, for the safeguard
eng ~ non-comhatnnts, for the protec
ton of neutral individuals and com
muniJcs, can hc regarded as legally
valid or N force under the presen
circumstances. This means that tn,
= charge ~ perhly or violation Of n de
'iborai"ly undertaken agreement drop
y out of sight in al such cases as wher'