The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-01-27
Continued from Page one)

to violate the neutrality of Belgium, and did not believe that any British gov ernment would be the first to do so, nor would public opinion here ever approve of it
 of the German chancellor wishes to know why there were conversations on military subjects between British and Belgian officers, he may find one rea- son in a fact well known to him; name ly, that Germany was establishing an elaborate network of strateglcal rail ways leading from the Rhine to the Belgian frontier through a barren. thinly populated tract. The railways were deliberately constructed to permit of a sudden attack upon Belgium, such as was carried out in August last.
 This fact alone was enough to justify any communication between Belgium and other powers on the footing that there would be no violation of Belgian lated by another power On no other footing did Belgium ever have any such communications.
 Tn spite of these facts the German chancellor speaks of Belgium as hav- ing thereby abandoned and forfeited her neutrality. and he implies that he would not have spoken of the German invasion as a wrong had he then known of the conversation of 1906. and 1911.
 Tt would seem to follow that acs cording to Herr von Bethmann- Holl- weg's code, wrong becomes right if the party which is to be the subject of the wrong foresees the possibility and makes preparations to resist it.
 Those who are content with older and more generally accepted standards are likely to agree rather with what Cardinal Mercier said in his pastoral letter: Belgium was bound in honor to defend her own independence. She kept her oath. Other powers were bound to respect and to protect her neutrality. Germany violated her oath. England kept hers. These are the facts
 Spoke Frankly of Wrong
 In the second part of the German chancellors thesis; namely, that Ger many took her responsibilities toward the neutral states seriously he alleged nothing except that he spoke frankly of the wrong committed by Germany In invading Belgium.
 That a man knows the right while doing the wrong is not usually accepted as proof of his serious conscientiousness. The real nature of Germany's view of her responsibilities toward the neutral
 
 thority which cannot be disputed by refer ence to the English white paper.
 If those responsibilities were in truth taken seriously, why, when Germany was asked to respect the neutrality of Belgium If it were respected by France, did Ger many refuse? France, when asked the corresponding question at the same time agreed. This would have guaranteed Ger many from all danger of attack through Belgium.
 The reason of Germany's refusal was given by Herr Won Bethmann-Hollweg s colleague, the German foreign secretary, Herr Von Jagow. 1t may be paraphrased in the well-known gloss upon Shakespeare: Thrice Is he armed that hath his quarrel just, but four times he that gets his blow in fust.'
 " They had to advance into France, said Herr Von Jagow, by the quickest and easiest way so as to be able to get well ahead with their operations and endeavor to strike some decisive blow as early as possible.'
 "Germanys real attitude toward Bel gium was thus frankly given by the Ger man foreign secretary to the British am bassador, and the German chancellor in