The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-06

III tne nlutlpr OF tue NloldIlon vi pti-
gian neutrality. His mistake Is all the
more extraordinary because he is not
only person we'll informed in dlplo-
matte history hut also the person
who was President Of the United
States ut the time Of the second con-
ference at The Hague and presumably
familiar with the character and status
OF the conventions about which he
writes so positively.
Yet Colonel ROOSEVELT displays as
tonshing ignorance Of the subject.
lie apparently believes that there Is
something in some one OF the con-
,entlons framed at either the first or
the second conference at The Hague
which specifically constituted the
United States a guarantor and guar
dian OF Belgium's neutrality and re-
quircd us. as a matter OF treaty obli-
CATION, TO join in the enforcement Of
the convention. What other construc-
ton can be put upon his own words.
quoted above? We have pledged our
support" to an international agree
ment which explicitly guaranteed
Belgium against the very type Of dis
aster which first befcll It. and against
the hideous wrongdoing which fol-
lowed" The Wilson Administration
has "timidly shirked" Its duty. II
has brought dishonor" on the nation
by failing to "take action in behalf Of
Belgiums rights" We have by our
inaction broken the treaty to which
We are party. The Administration
has shown either ''cowardice or obi
Gus hypocrisy" in approving the
peace treaties while not daring to
demand the enforcement Of the
Hague conventions"
That there has been this specific
default Of treaty obligation Colonel
ROOSEVELT believes with his usual in.
tensity Of conviction; and yet he has
not taken the trouble to look at the
conventions to which he points as
evidence Of our dishonor.
, II he had looked at the documents
Colonel ROOSEVELT would have found
to his surprise that in the first series
Of conventions. signed at The Hague
In 1899 and in some parts technically
still alive owing to the failures in
the ratification Of the second series
Of 1907, there Is absolutely not one
word explicitly or theoretically guar
anteeing the neutrality Of Belgium:
not one word. In fact. prohibiting the
violation Of any neutral territory by
any bellieerent.
, II Colonel ROOSEVELT had then stud
/ led the text of the series Of conven.
tons framed at the second peace con-
ference at The Hague in 1907. and
signed on the part Of the United States
by the delegates appointed by himself
when he was President. he would
have discovered no explicit guaran-
tee" Of Belgium's neutrality and In
dependence. He would have found
in Convention V. these general pro-
visions applicable to the disaster
which first befell Belgium in the vlo-
lation Of her territory and also to the
hideous wrongdoins which has fol-
lowed the initial disaster:
! "ARr1crs
The territory OF neutral Power. il
lnviolabe
I ARTICLE VI.
"Bel1igerents are forbidden to move
troops or conveys OF either munitions of
war or supplies across the territory OF a
neutral Power.
ARTICLE Y.
THE fact OF a neutral Power resist
ing. even by force. attempts 10 violate its
neutrality cannot be regarded as a hos
tile act"
These are the treaty provisions
under which the case OF Belgium
would come. if at ali. in relation to
the duty of the United States. as a
signatOry Power to protest, TO inter-
vene. or, as Colonel ROOSEVELT says,
to demand the enforcement OF the
convention"
/ The American delegates appointed
by President ROOSEVELT. namely. Mr.
CHoATE. General HORACE PORTER. Mr.
DAVID JAYNE HILL, Admiral SPEKRY
and Messrs. ROSE and BUCHANAN.
signed Convention V. on October IS.
1907. Its ratification was advised
by our Senate in March. 1908. Presi.
dent ROOSEVELT ratified IL on Fcbru-
airy %. 1909. few days before he left
the White House. The ratification by
the United States was deposited at
The Hague in November.
But Colonel ROOSEVELT can scarcely
have forgotten that this convention,
like all the others of the series. was
ratified with the subjoined reserva-
ton. recorded ut The Hague by Presi.
dent RoosEvELT's delegates when they
signed the agreement and repeated
in the form OF resolution by which the
senate consented to ratification:
Nothing contained in this convention
shall he so construed as TO require the
United States OF America to depart from
It's traditional policy of not intrudins
upon, interfering with, OF entangling IT.
self in the political questions OF policy