Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-01-27
ENGLAND UPHOLDS
TREATY SANCT|TY
Not Regarded as Mere Scrap of
Paper" to Be Violated
at Will
GREY'S VIGOROUS REPLY
He Accuses German Chancellor
of Falsehoods and Misuse
of Documents.

LONDON. January 2G-Str Edward
Grey. the British Foreign Secretary. to-
day authorized the following statement,
Won Bethmann- iiollwcg, German I'M
pcrial Chancellor. TO "a representative
of the Associated Press. published yes
tcrday in the United States and o-day
in London:
1T is not surprising that the Ger
man Chancellor should show anxiety
TO explain away his now historic phrase
about treaty being Il mere scrap Of
paper.
The phrase has made deep impres-
sion. because the progress of the world
largely depends upon the sanctity of
agreements between individuals and
between nations. and the policy dis
closed in Herr Won Hathnan -HolIweg's
phrase tends to debasc the legal and
moral currency Of civilization
What the German Chancellor said
was that Great Britain in requiring
Germany to respect the neutrality of
itelgium. was going to make war Just
lor Il word. just for n scrap of paper
lie now asks the American public to
believe that he meant the exact oppo-
site OF what he said. that It was Great
Britain who really regarded the neu-
trality of Belgium as Il mere trine. and
that II was Germany who took her
responsibilities toward the neutral
states so seriously
''FLAT CONTRADICTION
OF THE PLAIN FACTS"
The argument by which Herr Won
Bethmann Hollweg seems to establish
the two sides of this case are in fiat
contradiction OF the plain facts.
First. the German Chancellor al
reyes that England in 1911 was deter
mined TO throw troops into Belgium
without the assent of the Belgian gov
ernment This allegation Is absolute
iy false. 1t Is based upon certain
documents 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
these conversations at the British War
Once or the Foreign Office shows that
they were OF purely informal char
acter. and that no military agreement
OF any sort was at either time made
between the two governments. Befora
any conversations took place between
the British and the Belgian offices n
was expressly laid down on tho Rrit-
ish side that discussion OF the military
possibilities was to be addressed 70 tho
manner. TN which, in case of need Brit
'sn hssistance could be most effcctuallv
ahor3ed TO Belgium for the defense OF
her neutrality. and on the Belgian side.
ma maj note upon the record ex-
pi"'hs that the entry of the English
t"'o Heistuh would only take place af-
trality by Germany
AS regards the conversation ne ,o,,
the Belgian officer said to the Rriti.,
officer You could only Iand ,n
country with our consent: and in 1s12
Sir Edward Grey gave tho R.lri,n
erhment categorical assurance thar
no British government would ,,,o,a,s
the neutrality OF Belgium, and thar go
long as 1t was not violated nv ,nr
other power. we should certainly nor
send troops ourselves into their terri-
tory.
METHOD
OF MISUSING DOCUMENTS
The Chancellors method Of misus-
Ing documents may be illustrated in this
connection. He represents Sir Edward
Grey as saying he did not believe Eng
land would tnke such n step. because
he did not think English public opinion
would justify such action
What Sir Edward Grey actually
wrote was said that l was sure
that this government would not be
me hrst TO violate the neutrality OF
Helgiutn, and did not believe that any
british government would be the first
TO do so. nor would public opinion here
ever approve it
IF the German Chancellor wishes
to know why there were conversa-
tiO1s on military subjects between
British and belgian officials. he NAV
find reason in the fact well known ,o
HIM; namely that Germany was estab-
fishing an elaborate network of str;
tegical railways leading from the Rhine
TO the Belgian frontier through a bar
rem, thinly populated tract The rail
ways were deliberately constructed to
permit of n sudden attack upon Bel
GUM. such as was carried out i'm
August last
This fact alone was enough 10 iusti-
fy any communications between ReI-
gium and the other powers on the foot
ing that there would be no violation
of Belgian neutrality, unless II was
previously violated by another power.
On no other footing did Belgium ever
have any such communications.
'ln spite of these facts. tho German
Chancellor speaks of Belgium as hay-
ing thereby abandoned and forfeited'
her neutrality, and he implies that he
would not. have spoken OF the Ger
man invasion as wrong had he then
known of the conversations Of 1906
and 1911.
1T would seem to follow that, ac-
cording TO Herr Won Bethmann- Hol-
weg's code. wrong becomes a right IL
the party which is TO be the subject
of the wrong foresees the possibility
and makes preparations to resist II.
MORE LIKELY TO AGREE
WITH CARDINAL MERCIEI,
Those who are content with older
and moro generally accepted standards
are likely to agree rather with what
Cardinal Mercier said In his pastoral
letter: Belgium was bound in honor