posed to have guaranteed the
integrity of Belgium. When Germany found her efforts to maintain peace
frustrated, Russian troops having crossed the German frontier on the
afternoon of Aug. 1, while France opened hostilities on Aug. 2, she
announced to Belgium on Aug. 2, 1914, that she found herself under
obligation, to prevent a French attack through Belgium, to pass through
Belgian territory; she expressed her readiness to guarantee the
integrity of the kingdom and its possessions and to pay any damage
caused if Belgium would, in a friendly way, permit such a passage of
troops through it.

The English "White Book" contains, Paper 151, dated Aug. 3, 1914, which
paper we repeat in full:

(British Minister to Belgium to Sir Edward Grey.)

French Government have offered through their Military Attache
the support of five French Army corps to the Belgian
Government. Following reply has been received today: We are
sincerely grateful to the French Government for offering
eventual support. In the actual circumstances, however, _we do
not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers_. Belgian
Government will decide later on the action which they may
think it necessary to take.

In short, Belgium says in the foregoing notice to France, that she does
not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers.

Was Germany justified in disregarding any previous treaty which related
to Belgium if her interests required her so to do?

_United States Supreme Court:_ In its unanimous opinion in the Chinese
exclusion cases, reported on Pages 581 to 611 of Vol. 130 of United
States Reports, the Supreme Court of the United States had this very
question before it. A treaty had been entered into by the United States
and China, allowing Chinese subjects the right to visit and reside in
the United States and to there enjoy the same privileges that are
enjoyed by citizens of the United States. After that treaty an act of
Congress was passed in violation of the treaty, providing it to be
unlawful thereafter for Chinese laborers to enter the United States. The
question was, whether we had the right to violate a treaty solemnly
entered into with another country? On this subject the court said (Page
600):

The effect of legislation upon conflicting treaty stipulations
was elaborately considered in THE HEAD MONEY CASES, and it was
there adjudged: "that so far as a treaty made by the United