The circle banner. [volume] (Circle, Mont.) 1914-1939, 1915-02-05
SIR EDWARD GREY DENOUNCES
STATEMENT RELATIVE TO VIO-
LATiON OF BELGlUM'S
NEUTRALITY.
REFERENCE is MADE TO
MERE SCRAP OF PAPER"
British Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Declares It Is Not Surprising That
German Chancellor Should
Show Anxiety to Ex-
plain Phrase.

London, Jan. 2S.-Sir Edward Grey,
the British secretary of state for for
eign affairs, has authorized the fol-
lowing statement in reply to an inter-
view with DR.. Won Hollweg,
the German imperial chancellor. OBJ
tanned and published in London and
in the United States Jan. rs.
1T is not surprising that the Ger
man chancellor should show anxiety
to explain away his historic phrase
about a treaty being a mere scrap
of paper The jhrase has made
deep impression because the progress
Of the world largely depends upon the
sanctity of agreements between indi-
viduals and nations and the policy
disclosed in Herr Won Bethmann-
Hollweg's phrase tends to debate the
legal and moral tendency of civiliza-
ton.
Makes Mountain Out of Hill.
What the chancellor said was that
Great Pritain in requiring Germany to
respect the neutrality of Belgium,
was going to make war just for
word, just for as crap of paper'-that
is that Great Britain was making a
mountain out of mole hill. He now
asks the American public to believe
that he meant the exact opposite of
what he said, that is, Great Britain,
who really regarded the neutrality of
Belgium as mere trifle and that it
was Germany who took her RESPONSE.
bilities toward the neutral states so
seriously
1.-THE arguments by which Herr Won
Bethmann-Hollweg seeks to establish
the two sides of the case, are in fiat
contradiction of the plain facts. First,
the German chancellor alleges that
Britain in 1911 was determined to
throw troops into Belgium without the
assent of the Belgian government.
This allegation is absolutely false. 1t
is based on certain documents found
in Brussels which record conversations
between British and Belgian officers
in 1906 and again in 1911.
No Military Agreements.
1.-THE fact that there is no note of
these conversations at the British war
office or the British foreign office,
shows that they were purely of an in
formal nature, and that military agree
ment of any sort was at neither time !
made between the two governments.
1.-THE chancellor's method of misus- |
ng documents may be illustrated in |
his connection. He represents Sir Ed
ward Grey as saying: He did not be- !
ieve England would take such a step |
because he did not think English pub |
ic opinion would justify such action
What Sir Edward Grey actually
wrote was: 4 said / was sure that this
government would not be the first to
rotate the neutrality of Belgium and |
did not believe that any British gov
,rnment would be the first to do so,
Tor would public opinion here ever ap-
,rove it,
IF the German chancellor wishes to
NOW why there were conversations on
subjects between British and
Belgian officers he may find one rea-
ON in a fact we'll known to him,
lamely, that Germany was establish
ng an elaborate network of strateg-
cal railways leading from the Rhine
O the Belgian frontier through bar
en-, thinly populated tract. The rail-
ways were deliberately constructed to
ermit of a sudden attack upon Bel
.ium, such as was carried out in Au-
ust last.
Not An Accepted Idea.
"In the second part of the German
hancellor's thesis, namely, that Ger
many took her responsibilities toward
he neutral states seriously he al
eyes nothing except that he spoke
rankly of the wrong committed in
Iermany invading Belgium. That a
ian knows the right while doing the
vrong is not usually accepted as proof
{ his serious conscientiousness.