The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-30

Belgium's neutrality, the United States
In its turn was not bound by tho terms
OF that treaty to make Germany re-
spect Belgium's neutrality"
This Ia q fair statement, thus far.
of a fact first pointed out by THE SUN
nearly a year ago. namely, that the
provision Of a treaty %nlspending its
obligations under specified conditions
Is as valid and as binding upon the
parties to the. contract as any provi-
sion which It suspends We should
he slow to believe that Colonel RoosE-
Eli is basng his violent assertions
IN 90 sleazy a texture Of contractual
obligation as that which Mr.. LION
generously produces in his behalf. 1t
must he some other part of this Fifth
convention, or some part of some
other convention. that the Colonel has
vaguely in mind.
But Mr.. LIONS chivalry does not
fail him even on uncertain ground.
He goes on to say
The reasoning may be claimed to be
logical as far as 1t goes. though all will
admit somewhat narrow. But It over
looks a fundamental proposition which
holds as true as between nations as
II does between individuals In their
contractual obligations, namely. that
none may set up his W wrong as a
defence. Germany says In effect: Ser
bia, a n~on-slgnatory, is a belligerent.
hence / am not bound by that treaty
in the present war In other words Il
would he in any case, and was in this
case, only necessary for Germany TO
signatory to be attacked. thereby TO
relieve herself of the obligations OF that
contract. Is II conceivable that such
procedure Is within the scope and intent
of the treaty?"
Perhaps 50 and perhaps not; but.
with all the respect that Is due TO
Mr.. Icons candor and penetration.
let us ask what that question has TO
do with the ''bounden duty of the
United States to enter a European
struggle to prevent Or punish the in.
vasion Of territory neutralized not
by a convention OF The Hague but
by special treaties to which we are
not a party? The important distinc-
ton between neutral territory, in the
sense Of the convention Of The Hague,
suspended as to Belgium by the bel
ligerency Of Serbia, and territory neu-
tralized, and in the case Of Belgium
guaranteed by the Prusslan treaty.
which Germany violated, has not been
more clearly pointed out than by the
editor OF the North American Rerieu
in the May number:
The neutrality OF neutrdNsed States
IL q matter OF conventional agreement
between Powers who are more or less
interested in preventing the state from
being absorbed politically by any Power,
or from becoming a base of military
operations. or from otherwise assisting
neighboring rival States. The agree
ment imposes a condition OF permanent
neutrality. 1t Is. In fact. a guarantee,
not only by the neutralizc6 State hat
II will not engage in aggressive warfare,
but also by the other parties to the
treaty that II shall not be attacked by
any OF them"
The United States. OF course. neither
by any special treaty nor by any
convention of The Hague is n party TO
the naturalization Of Belgium or a
guarantor Of her neutrality. The
writer in the Worth American RerieU
continues:
ut would manitestly he improper and
complain OF the violations OF such a
treaty OF naturalization to which It was
not a party in any sense. II
Is not necessary TO examine into the
question as to whether these treaties
[of The Haguel were In force by virtue
of all tho belliserents being parties.
for the reason that. quite contrary TO
Mr.. ROOSEVELT definite assertion, no
Hague conventions toere violated BY the
German INVASION Of Belgium.
1T Is admitted thai IL Germany be-
fore invading the territory of Belgium
had declared war upon that country. the
latter would have become impressed
with the character Of a belligerent. 10
whom the provisions OF Article ! of
Convention V. and Article ! OF Conven-
tion XIII, relative 20 the IN availability
of neutral territory, would not be appli-
cable; and that. having exercised this
sovereign right Germany could not be
charged with violating neutral territory
in c~ontravention OF the terms OF the
Hague convention; but the fact that
this is what happened is commonly ig-
nored. Nevertheless, the published dip
correspondence shows that Ger
did declare war by ultimatum
and that a state of war actually ex-
listed between Germany and Belgium be-
fore German forces penetrated into the
territory OF the latter country"
This state OF war was brough,
about between Germany and Belgium
in precisely the II prescribed by
Article /. of Hague Convention No.
III. of 1907. The German Govern
ment presented to Belgium a note
proposing that German troops have
f.an n.s. rA., IpA1 Ia, ap,,