orrent
in their political immorality, it is yet gravely suggested by Dr.
Dernberg and others that Bernhardi's philosophy does not reflect the
true thought of the Prussian ruling classes. Here are representative
theologians, economists, historians, statesmen, diplomatists,
financiers, inventors, and educators, who, in invoking the support of
the educated classes in the United States, deliberately subscribe to
a proposition at which even Machiavelli might have gagged.

We are further told that "the German troops, with their iron
discipline will respect the personal property and liberty of the
individual in Belgium just as they did in France in 1870," and these
scientists, philosophers, and doctors of divinity add that "Belgium
would have been wise, if it had permitted the passage of the German
troops," for the Belgian people "_would have fared well from the
business point of view, for the army would have proved a good customer
and paid well._"

To this defense we are led in the last analysis, that Belgium should
have preferred cash to her honor, just as the German General Staff
preferred dishonor to the sacrifice of an immediate military
advantage.

The possibilities of moral casuistry have been severely tested in the
attempt of these apologists for Germany to defend the forcible
invasion of Belgium.

The ethical question has been made quite unnecessarily to pivot upon
the express contractual obligations of England, Germany, and France
with respect to the neutrality of Belgium. The indictment of Germany
has been placed upon the sound but too narrow ground that by the
Treaty of 1839, and The Hague Convention of 1907, Germany had
obligated itself by a solemn pledge to respect the neutrality both
of Luxemburg and Belgium.

If, however, there had been no Hague Convention and no Treaty of 1839,
and if Germany, England, and France had never entered into reciprocal
obligations in the event of war to respect Belgium's neutrality,
nevertheless upon the broadest considerations of international law the
invasion without its consent would be without any justification
whatever.

It is a fundamental axiom of international law that each nation is the
sole and exclusive judge of the conditions under which it will permit
an alien to cross its frontiers. Its territory is _sacrosanct_. No
nation may invade the territory of another without its consent. To do
so by compulsion is an act of war. Each nation's land is its castle of
asyl