New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-01-17
Asks Why England Didn't
Accept German Promises
and Stay Neutral
ARBITRATION OFFER
is CALLED UNFAIR
Made Same Day as Rus
sian Mobilization, and
Was Too Late

Berlin. Jan. 16 (by wireless to Say
ville).-A statement sscribed to a
competent and well informed author
lty," replying TO the British authori-
tatlve view of the most recent German
and Austrian notes to the neutral gov
ernments, was issued to-day by the
Overseas News Agency.
In the British statement the asser-
ton again was made that Germany was
responsible for beginning the war, in
asmuch as the proposal for a confer
ence was rejected before the Russian
government gave orders for a general
mobilization. The rejoinder to this is
in the form of series of counter
queries, including the following:
Did not Sir Edward Grey lthe Brit
ish Foreign Secretary declare that he
renounced the idea of a conference if
Germany succeeded in making Austria
Hungary negotiate directly with Rus
STA?
Arbitration Offer Unfair
"Was not the offer of reference to a
court of arbitration made on the same
day that Russia modified against Aus
tria- Hungary. the ally Of Germany, TO
whose assistance Germany was COM
PEELED to 20 by treaty. ana was this not
an unfair offer, which could be an
swered by Germany only in such a
manner as it was?
did not the British Ambassador at
Petrograd. on July %. 1914, warn Sa-
zonof Russian Foreign Minister
against ordering mobilization, since
Germany could not be satisfied with
counter mobilization, but must immedi-
ately declare war?
Did not Count Won Pourtales Ger
man Ambassador to RUSSIA continu-
ously inform Sazonoff to the same eff
feet?
WAS il not in England's power TO
stay out of the war. but would she not
rather use the opportunity to assault
Germany. after Sir Edward Grey haG
refused to remain neutral. even with
Belgian neutrality and the integrity
Of France and the French colonies
guaranteed by Germany?
Britain Wanted War
Isn't it to be seen from this fact
and from the refusal to give conditions
at all, under which Great Britain would
remain neutral, that it was the abso-
Lutte British will TO attack?
Did not Russia, after she had car
RED on mobilization, express gratitude
to England for the firm attitude which
was observed by England toward Ger
many"
The statement goes into another Sc
ries o. queries on various matters, in
Guiding these:
Can England furnish any proof for
her affirmation that Germany acted be-
fore the British in laying mines in the
German Sea and placed mines otherwise
than on the German and English coasts
and al the approaches TO British waters
after a corresponding warning to neu-
trails?
"Is not the German submarine war
exclusively a reprisal against the Brit
ish policy of starvation?
German Prisoners Perish
care the British ignorant of the fact
that Paris was a fortress and was regu-
lsrly and according to the laws of war
besieged by the Germans?
"Do the English know that there are
Russian prisoner camps where thou
sands Of Germans have miserably per-
ished, such as Totskoi, where no less
than 1900 died?
"Why does not the British press
discuss the British proposals of 1887
regarding Belgium?
"Do the English avoid the confession
that the British government knows two
interpretation Of international law. ac-
cording as it may be Of advantage to
her interests?
"Why did the British government
prohibit the publication OF reports OF
Belgian ministers about the encircling
policy of England? Is it ashamed Of
its own actions?'
.