Prev | Current Page 311 | Next

Various

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

But
we shall emerge from that nebulous condition. We are beginning to see
more clearly now, and it would not surprise me greatly if the means used
for producing our confusion would some day come back, if not to plague
the consciences, at least to foil the purposes of their inventors.


Reply to Prof. Burgess

_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
Prof. Burgess's amazing communication on Belgian neutrality omits an
essential piece of evidence. Granting, for the sake of argument, that
the German Empire might repudiate all treaty obligations of the earlier
German confederations, (very odd law, this;) granting also the still
more novel plea that Belgium had outgrown the need, and the privilege of
neutralization, Germany had agreed to treat all neutral powers under the
following provisions of The Hague Conventions of 1907 concerning the
rights and duties of neutral powers:
1. The territory of neutral powers is inviolable.
2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or either
munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral
power.
* * * * *
5.


Pages:
299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323