Semi-weekly herald., 1915-02-15

science.
In turning to the law dictionaries
one finds interesting definitions of
neutrality" For example, Bluntschli
defines neutral states as those who
take no part in military operations in
favor of or to the detriment of either
OF the belligerents, and neutrality, he
adds, consists in maintaining peace
in ones own territory, and taking no
part in the war between third parties.
To this he adds that neutrals may
well have sympathies for one or the
othel of the belligerents, and that
neutrality is not the synonym of in
difference. A state, he says, may
have lively sympathy for one of the
lbeDgerents, and give frank express
sion of its dissatisfaction with the
actions of the other, and yet remain
neutral"
We should hope so, and yet the pol
| icy of this government, SO far as Of
fetal expression has been made, is
that we ought to refrain even by word
of mouth from saying anything which
will SAVIOR of favoritism with the
cause of any of the half dozen ma
tions involved in the present conflict.
In this connection, it is interesting
to note Mr.. Fuller's own definition of
neutrality. He says: Neutrality is
not in itself virtue; it is not con-
dition to be proud of; rather does it
require explanation, not to say apol-
ogy. 1t is at best a counsel of pru-
dence, never counsel of perfection"
When President Grant issued a
pl oclamation of neutrality on the oc-
| casion of the Franco-Prussian war in
1870 it included clause to the effect
that the "free and full expression of
sympathies is not forbidden by any
law of the United States"
During the Franco -Prussian war the
government of the north German fed
Grafton complained bitterly to Great
britain that the shipping of arms to
France indicated that its neutrality
was not benevolent" We quote from
Count Bernstorff's memorandum of
September, 1870, to Lord Granville,
IN which he admits that Great Brit
aims neutrality is strict in form but
appeals for favorable public opin-
| ion. He SAYS:
| In the first instance there is no
| question that France has wanton-
ly made war upon Germany. The
| verdict of the world an despecial-
ly the verdict of the statesmen
| as well as of the public of Eng
land has unanimously pronounced
the emperor of the French guilty
of a most flagitious breach of
the peace. Germany, on the 9TH
er hand, entered into the contest
with the consciousness of good
cause. She was therefore led to
expect that the neutrality of
Great Britain-her former ally
against Napoleonic aggression,
however strict in form, would at
least be benevolent in spirit to
| Germany, for it is impossible for
the human mind not to side with
one or the other party in con-
flict like the present one. What
is the use of being right or wrong
in the eyes of the world, if the
public remains insensible to the
merits of the cause Those who
deny the necessity of such dis
tinction force the appeal to pub
lie opinion which we are daily
taught to consider as the fore
most of the great powers.
Mr. Fuller is much impressed with
Germany's extreme sensitiveness up
on the question Of outside neutrality
in 1870 and what he regards as her
wgnton disregard of that principle in
1914 in her treatment of Belgium. At
er an extended review of the sue
cessjve acts which led up to Germany's
devastating raid across Belgium and
while recognizing the fact that we
can take no direct part in a war be-
tween third parties in which we are
not directly involved, Mr.. Fuller asks
this question:
Can the American people under
these circumstances translate neu-
trality into indifference. while
strictly conforming to the inter-
national code which does not per-
nit them to assist in the prosecu-
tion of the war, can they divest
themselves of all moral sense and
give even the tacit approval of
silence to the massacre of Bel
GUM?
Mr.. Fuller then proceeds to answer