The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-05-09

violation. To the agreement Of that sort
in reference to Belgium the United States
is not and has not been a party. 1t was
a matter of European politics, pure and
simple, with which we had no concern
an arrangement between the signatory
powers to safeguard a condition result
ing from conflicting interests. 1t would
manifestly be improper and presumptu-
GUS for this government to Complain Of
the violation of such treaty of neu-
tralization to which it was not a party
in any sense
So far. therefore, as the invasion of
Belgium may be considered a breach by
Germany of guarantee to preserve the
character of Belgium a neutralized
state, this government has neither the
legal right nor duty to protest.
In respect to the violation of the neu-
trality of Belgium as neutral state dur
ing an international war. The Hague
conventions contain certain stipulations
in Article of Convention of 1907. en-
titled Convention respecting the rights
and duties of neutral powers and per-
sons in case OF war on land and in
Article l of Convention XIII of 1907. en-
and duties of neutral powers In naval
warfare"
These articles read as follows:
The territory OF neutral powers is in
violable.
Convention v. Article IL
Belligerents are bound to respect the
sovereign rights of neutral powers and
to abstain. in neutral territory or neu-
trail waters. from any act which would,
if knowingly permitted by any power,
constitute violation of neutrality.
Convention XIII, Article IL
Article 20 of Convention further pro-
vides:
The provisions of the present conven-
ton do not apply except between con-
tracing powers. and then only if all the
hellirerents are parties to the conven-
ton"
1t is not necessary to examine into the
question as to whether these treaties
We're in force by virtue of all the bellig-
erents being parties as required by
Article of Convention V and Article oS
Of Convention XIII. for the reason that
quite contrary to Mr.. Roosevelt's def
mite assertion. no Hague conventions
were violated by the German invasion
OF Belgium.
1t is admitted that If Germany before
invading the territory OF Belgium, had
declared war against that country, the
latter would have been impressed with
the character of belligerent. to whom
the provisions of Article Of Convention
relative TO the inviolability Of neutral
territory would not be applica bic and
that. having exercised this sovereign
right. Germany could not he charged
with violating neutral territory in CON
travention Of the terms Of The Hague |
conventions. but the F,ct that this is |
what happened is corr:"nly ignored |
Nevertheless. the publisre,: diplomatic |
shows that Germany did |
lnTf 80 ,,tt .
state Of war actually existed between |
Germany and Belgium before German |
forces penetrated into the territory Of |
the latter country.
Belgium Knew the Consequence.
Following the provisions Of Article l
of Hague Convention III Of 1907 that
hostilities must not commence with
out previous and explicit warning in the
form either of a reasoned declarations OF
war or of an ultimatum with CONDITIONAL
declaration Of war the German govern
ment presented to the Belgian govern
ment a note proposing, among other
things. that German troops he given |
free passage through Belgian territory
and threatening. in case of refusal. to
treat Belgium as an enemy. Belgium
declined to accede to the proposal, with
full knowledge that the consequence
would be war with Germany. Upon her
refusal Belgium lost her neutral charac-
ter, and by operation OF the ultimatum
became a belligerent. After this status
in the relations Of the two countries was
reached a state of war existed and Ger
man forces began the invasion of Bel
GUM. This may have been a violation
of an agreement neutralizing Belgium,
but that is a question for the parties to
that agreement not for the United
States to determine
That il was a declaration Of war
a Gainst state previously neutral is evil
dent. but a beligerent is not restrained
by The Hague conventions from declar-
ing war against a neutral state for any
cause which seems to it sufficient The
do not restrict such action
to any stated casuS belli. A helligerent
under the present internationa system
is at liberty to see his own casus belli
and to maintain It before the world For
another neutral to protest and denounce
1t as unjustifiahle would be to exceed
the bounds of international duty and Gus
tom
A procedure for a third party in a case
Of this sort is. however laid down in
The Hague conventions. Convention I
Of 1907 provides in Article 3 that it is ex-
pedient and desirable that rstrangers"
10 the dispute should on their own ini-
fiative and as far as circumstances may
allow offer their good offices or media
ion to the states at variance" and that
the exercise OF this right can never be
an unfriendly act
Although Great Britain and Serbia had
not ratified this Convention I. yet in
with its provisions our De-
oartment of State on August 4 sent to
Paris Berlin. Vienna. and st. Peters
'urc. and on August to London. the
Presidents offer to act in the interest
If European peace. either then or at any
,ther suitable time.
II is difficult to see what further action
he United States was called upon to
axe or could have properly taken In the
situation presented at the outbreak of
he war. The President might have done
ess. To have done more would have I
'een uncalled for and presumptuous in
he extreme.
Dropping of Bombs. ,
>. Dropping Bombs.
The dropping OF bombs from aircraft
vas prohibited by a declaration adopted I
" the second Hague conference in 1907
tut. as it was neither signed nor ratified
" France. Germany. Russia, and Ser I
ia. and was signed but not ratified by 6
stria-Hungary. II Is not in force In I
he present war. since the declaration 1
provides that:
THE present declaration is only bind !
ng on the contracting powers in case of {
var between two or more of them q
1T shall cease to be binding from the
a MA hAkrr l.