The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1915-01-27
BELLE DIRECTORS NAME
A COMMITTEE ON MERGER
GREY REPLIES
Cconanusd from Tir,, P.s.l

about a treaty being a mere scrap Of
paper
The phrase has made a deep i'm.
precision because the progress Of the
world largely depends upon the sane
uty % agreements between individ
uals n between nations. and the
policy disclosed In Herr Won Beth
mann-HollWeg's phrase tends 10 de-
base b legal and moral currency OF
civilization.
What the German chancellor said
was that Great Britain. in requiring
Germany TO respect the neutrality OF
belgium, was going TO make war Just
Tor a word, just for a scrap Of paper
that is. that Great Britain was making
a mountain out Of a molehuL He now
asks the American public 20 believe
that he meant the exact opposite OF
what he said that IL was Great Brit.
ain who really regarded the neutrality
OF Belgium as a mere triae. and that
Il was Germany who took her respon-
sibilities toward the neutral States so
seriously
Fla Contradiction.
The arguments by which Herr Won
bethmann-Hollweg seeks 10 establish
the two sides OF this case are In fiat
contradistinction of the plain facts.
FIRST, the German chancellor al
leges that England. in 1911. was deter
mined TO throw troops into Belgium
without the assent Of the Belgium gov
eminent This allegation is absolutely
false. IL II based upon certain docu-
ments found IN Brussels which record
conversations between British and
Belgian officers In 1906 and again In
1911.
The fact that there Is no note OF
tlese conversation at the British war
Office or the foreign Office shows that
they were OF q purely informal charac-
ter. and that no military agreement
OF any sort was at either time made
between the " governments. Before
any conNersatiOns took place between
the British and Belgian officers 10 was
expressly laid down on the British
side discussion Of the military posi-
biiities was 10 be addressed 10 the
manner IN which. in case of need. Brit
iSh assistance could be most cnectu-
ally afforded TO Belgium for the de-
Tense Of her neutrality. and on the
Belgian side a marginal nOte upon the
record explains that the entry OF the
English into Belgium would only take
place after the violation Of our lBel-
gianD neutrality by Germany
As regards the conversation OF
1911 the Belgian officer said TO the
British officer. You could only land
in u country with our consent: and
in 1913 Sir Edward Grey gave the Bel
gian government a categorical assur-
ance hat no British government would
violate the neutrality of Belgium and
that so long as n was not violated
by any other power we should GER
tainly not send troops ourselves into
the territory
Method illustrated.
The ~chancenor's method of misus-
ing documents may be illustrated in
this connection. He represents Sir
Edward Grey as saying. He did not
believe England would lake such a
step because he did not thing the Eng
lish people would Justify this action
What Sir Edward Grey actually
wrote was: 7 said that I was sure
that this government would not be
the first To violate the neutrality OF
Belgium and ! did not believe that
any British government would be the
hrst 10 do so. nor would public opin-
ion here ever approve Of it,
II the German chancellor wishes
10 know why there were conversations
on military subjects between British
and Belgian officials D., may find one
reason In q fact we'll known TO him.
namely, that Germany was construct
ing an elaborate network Of STRATEGY
cal railways leading from the Rhine
10 the Belgian frontier through q bar
rem. thiniy populated tract. The rail.
ways were deliberately constructed 10
permit Of a sudden attack upon Bel.
GUM such as was carried ont I'm
August last.
This fact alone vas enough 10 ils-
thy any communications between Rel.
GUM and the other lowers on the
FOOTING that there would De no viola
ton Of Belgian neutrality. unless n
was previously violated by another
power. on no other footing ala Rel
GUM ever have any such Communica.
tons.
Abandoned Neutrality.
'In spite Of these facts the German
chancellor speaks OF Belgium as hay-
ing thereby abandoned and forfeited
her neutrality and he implies that ne
would not have spoken OF the German
invasion 3s a wrong had be then
known of the conversations Of 1905
and 1911.
90 would seem to- follow that. ac.
cordiuE tO Herr won BethmanuIIoU.
weE's cOde wrong becomes right %
The party which b. CO. be the subject
of the wrong f0roseoe the possibility
and makes preparations 10 assist 10.
Those Who are content with older
and more generally accepted stand
ards arc likely f0 agree rather with
what Cardinal NorCior said in DTS rag.
tCraI letter.
Belgium was bound Boo honor TO
defend her own Independence she
Rep hrr oath The other u0Wera
were bound tU respect aud fo protect
her neutrality Germany violated her
oath EnH'rnH Kept hers These arc
fhn Iyrf.
Tho h.IsHf .rH r..-1.r.. enc.
#.. .... Dean. .H".. .... ...
... ..... .... .... .# A ... ...