The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-10

vention ". whether our ratification
Of that convention makes us gnaran.
tor Of Belgum's neutrality. bound to
go to arms II necessary to enforce the
provisions Of that convention against
an alleged violation. To talk. as
Colonel ROOSEVELT does about 'de.
manding the enforcement" Of the
convention seems nonsense unless It
contemplates the possibility Of en-
forcement by physical means.
Now. whatever you may think OF
nations actions you cannot convict
It Of breaking a treaty and you can
not proceed to punish It for breaking
a treaty unless the case against the
accused Is legally sound, which
means that It is technically sound
THE Sun has shown that this is not
so with regard to Germany's violation
Of Belgium's neutrality. Article 20
OF Convention v. provides that the
other articles shall not be operative
under certain conditions. Through
tho circumstance Of the failure Of
Servia to ratify II. the other provi.
sions became technically imperative
at the time Belgium was invaded
md through the circumstance Of the
failure OF Great Britain to ratify Il.
he other provisions became technically
imperative during the whole subse-
quent period Of Germany's occupat ton
Of Belgian territory.
It makes no difference how Article
20 got into this convention. or how
similar articles got into other conven-
tions Of the series. Once there. once
signed and ratified. these exempting
articles are as much a part OF the in
terna tional compact or contract as any
other provision. People who think that
Article 20 should be ignored in order
that the rest OF the treaty may be
enforced for the sake Of general
moral and equitable principles are apt
to forget that this very proceeding
would be treaty violation. the multi.
fication Of recorded contract.
The foregoing remarks on the dis
tinctlon between contractual obliga-
tons under definite treaty provisions
and general duty to humanity. good
morals and civilization apply in a
measure to Mr.. WILLIAM r. HERE
FoaD's complaint that THE Sun has
clouded the real point at issue by re.
sorting too much to technical argu.
ment. This correspondent also alleges
that we ourselves have Overlooked
m important technicality"
You maintain that Convention ".
respecting the rights and duties OF
neutral Powers and persons in case OF
war on land was not binding upon Ger.
many because at the time OF Germany's
invasion OF Belgian soil servia was ono
OF the belliserents,' and servia had failed
to ratify the convention. This 10 where
you arc In error technically because
Germany invaded Belgium August -.
declaring war on the latter date and at
lacking Liege, whereas war with Servia
was declared on August 8, so that tech
rically. as far 'as Germany was con-
cerned. Servia was not a belligeren,
when Belgium's neutrality was violated
and there was at that time no bellig-
erent. in so far a. Germany's case en-
/ tiers into the discussion, which had no,
signed and ratified this much discussed
Convention V. OF the Hague 1907 con.
ference"
The new technicality here pre- sentpd
does not appear To overrule the other
technicality, for Servia at the time
Of Germany's entrance into Belgium
on August "a was as much "bel
ligerent" with regard to Germany
Austria Hungary's ally. "a she was
after the formal declaration Of war
1t Il the military situation. not the
fact Of formal declaration OF war
that makes the belligerent: and Arti
Gle 20 Of Convention V. requires tina,
the provisions Of the convention shall
not apply unless "all the belligerents'
hot merely all the nations that have
formally declared warfare parties
General mobilization in Servia wa,
ordered on July %. and on July %
Belgrade was notified by Vienna tina,
war existed.
One other esteemed correspondent
Mr.. JASPER YEATEs BRINToN of thi.
town. writes as follows on the ques
ton Of the force of the Monroe Doc
trine reservation:
"On turning to the original document
for a confirmation Of your criticism,
am tempted to wonder whether thu
mistake has not been on your part in
stead of Colonel RoosEvELTs You say
Colonel ROOSEVELT can scarcely hav,
forgotten that this convention, IKE al
the others OF the series, was ratified
with the subjoned reservation, recorded
at The Hague by President ROOSEVELT.
delegates when they signed the agree
ment and repeated In the form OF reso
luton by which the Senate consented e
ratification Sc. Have you no
confused the ratification OF tho conven
ton relating to International Arbitra
ton with the convention relating to tn,
rights of neutral Powers in case OF wa
on land? If you will turn to the officla
proclamation of the Convention for tn,
Settlement OF International Disputes