nse which,
according to The Hague Convention, deprives a so-called neutral State of
the privileges granted in Articles I. and II.

It is impossible to say here exactly what these proofs are which Germany
possesses, and which for military reasons she has not yet been able to
divulge. She has published some of them, namely, the proof of the
continued presence of French officers on Belgian soil, and has given the
names and numbers of the several army corps which France had planned to
push through Belgium.

The case then stands as follows:

1. Was the inviolability of Belgium guaranteed by Articles I. and II. of
The Hague Convention? Yes.

2. Had Germany ratified these articles? Yes.

3. Had Great Britain ratified these articles? No.

4. Would Belgium have forfeited the right of having her country held
inviolable if she had committed "acts in favor of France," even if these
acts were not actually hostile acts? Yes, according to Article XVII. of
The Hague Convention.

5. Did Belgium commit "acts in favor of France," and was Germany,
therefore, justified in disregarding the inviolability of her territory?

The Main Question.

This is the important question, and the answer must be left to the
Supreme Court of Civilization. The weight of the evidence would seem to
point to a justification of Germany. Yet no friend of Germany can find
fault with those who would wish to defer a verdict until such a time
when Germany can present her complete proof to the world, and this may
be when the war is over.

Throughout this argument the famous passage of the Chancellor's speech
in the Reichstag has been disregarded. It reads:

Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and perhaps are already on
Belgian soil. Gentlemen, that is contrary to the dictates of
international law. It is true that the French Government has
declared at Brussels that France is willing to respect the
neutrality of Belgium so long as her opponents respect it. We
knew, however, that France stood ready for invasion. The
wrong--I speak openly--that we are committing we will endeavor
to make good.

This has been understood to mean that the Chancellor acknowledged that
Germany was breaking the Treaty of 1839 without warrant, and that
Germany, therefore, deserved the contempt of the world. May it not bear
another interpretation? Thus:

The Chancellor, like Gladstone in 1870, did not consider the 1839 Treaty
enforceable, bu