The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915

Not Available
New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915, The

The Project Gutenberg eBook, The New York Times Current History of the
European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915, by Various
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at

Title: The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 What Americans Say to Europe
Author: Various

Release Date: September 16, 2005 [eBook #16702]
Language: en
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the original illustrations. See 16702-h.htm or ( or (

The New York Times
JANUARY 9, 1915.
What Americans Say to Europe

[Illustration: CHARLES W. ELIOT
_(Photo (c) by Paul Thompson.)_
_See Page 473_]
[Illustration: JAMES M. BECK
_See Page 413_]

In the Supreme Court of Civilization
Argued by James M. Beck.
THE NEW YORK TIMES _submitted the evidence contained in the official "White Paper" of Great Britain, the "Orange Paper" of Russia, and the "Gray Paper" of Belgium to James M. Beck, late Assistant Attorney General of the United States and a leader of the New York bar, who has argued many of the most important cases before the Supreme Court. On this evidence Mr. Beck has argued in the following article the case of Dual Alliance vs. Triple Entente. It has been widely circulated in France and Great Britain._
Let us suppose that in this year of dis-Grace, Nineteen Hundred and Fourteen, there had existed, as let us pray will one day exist, a Supreme Court of Civilization, before which the sovereign nations could litigate their differences without resort to the iniquitous and less effective appeal to the arbitrament of arms.
Let us further suppose that each of the contending nations had a sufficient leaven of Christianity to have its grievances adjudged not by the ethics of the cannon or the rifle, but by the eternal criterion of justice.
What would be the judgment of that august tribunal?
Any discussion of the ethical merits of this great controversy must start with the assumption that there is an international morality.
This fundamental axiom, upon which the entire basis of civilization necessarily rests, is challenged by a small class of intellectual perverts.
Some hold that moral considerations must be subordinated either to military necessity or so-called manifest destiny. This is the Bernhardi doctrine.
Others teach that war is a beneficent fatality and that all nations engaged in it are therefore equally justified. On this theory all of the now contending nations are but victims of an irresistible current of events, and the highest duty of the State is to prepare itself for the systematic extermination, when necessary or expedient, of its neighbors.
Notwithstanding the clever platitudes under which both these doctrines are veiled, all morally sane minds are agreed that this war is a great crime against civilization, and the only open question is, which of the two contending groups of powers is morally responsible for that crime?
Was Austria justified in declaring war against Servia?
Was Germany justified in declaring war against Russia and France?
Was England justified in declaring war against Germany?
As the last of these questions is the most easily disposed of, it may be considered first.
England's Justification.
England's justification rests upon the solemn Treaty of 1839, whereby Prussia, France, England, Austria, and Russia "became the guarantors" of the "perpetual neutrality" of Belgium, as reaffirmed by Count Bismarck, then Chancellor of the North German Confederation, on July 22, 1870, and as even more recently reaffirmed in the striking fact disclosed in the Belgian "Gray Book."
In the Spring of 1913 a debate was in progress in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag with reference to the Military Budget. In the course of the debate the German Secretary of State said:
"The neutrality of Belgium is determined by international conventions, and Germany is resolved to respect these conventions."
To confirm this solemn assurance, the Minister of War added in the same debate:
"Belgium does not play any part in the justification of the German scheme of military reorganization. The scheme is justified by the position of matters in the East. _Germany will not lose sight of the fact that Belgian neutrality is guaranteed by international treaties._"
A year later, on July 31, 1914, Herr von Below, the German Minister at Brussels, assured the Belgian Department of State that he knew of a declaration which the German Chancellor had made in 1911, to the effect "that Germany had no intention of violating our neutrality," and "that he was
Continue reading on your phone by scaning this QR Code

 / 164
Tip: The current page has been bookmarked automatically. If you wish to continue reading later, just open the Dertz Homepage, and click on the 'continue reading' link at the bottom of the page.