What are these doctrines? I do not for a moment attribute them to the learned class in Germany, for whom I have profound respect, recognizing their immense services to science and learning; nor to the bulk of the civil administration, a body whose capacity and uprightness are known to all the world, and least of all to the German people generally. That the latter hold no such views appears from Bernhardi's own words, for he repeatedly complains of and deplores the pacific tendencies of his fellow countrymen.

[Note—See Pp. 10-14 of the English translation and note the phrase: "Aspirations for peace seem to poison the soul of the German people."]

Nevertheless, the fact that the action referred to, which these doctrines seem to have prompted, and which cannot be defended except by them, has been actually taken and has thus brought into this war Great Britain, whose interests and feelings made her desire peace, renders it proper to call attention to them and to all that they involve.

I have certainly no prejudice in the matter, for I have been one of those who for many years labored to promote good relations between the German and English peoples, that ought to be friendly, and that never before had been enemies; and I had hoped and believed till the beginning of August last that between them at least there would be no war, because Belgian neutrality would be respected.

Nor was it only for the sake of Great Britain and Germany that English friends of peace sought to maintain good feeling. We had hoped, as some leading German statesmen had hoped, that a friendliness with Germany might enable Great Britain, with the co-operation of the United States, our closest friends, to mitigate the long antagonism of Germany and of the French, with whom we were already on good terms, and to so improve their relations as to secure the general peace of Europe.

Into the causes which frustrated these efforts and so suddenly brought on this war I will not enter. Many others have dealt with them; moreover, the facts, at least as we in England see and believe them, and as the documents seem to prove them to be, appear not to be known to the German people, and the motives of the chief actors are not yet fully ascertained.

One thing, however, I can confidently declare: It was neither commercial rivalry nor jealousy of German power that brought Great Britain into the field, nor was there any hatred in the British people for the German people, nor any wish to break their power. The leading political thinkers and historians of England had given hearty sympathy to the efforts made by the German people, from 1815 to 1866 and 1870, to attain political unity, and they had sympathized with the parallel efforts of the Italians. The two nations, German and British, were of kindred race and linked by many ties. To the German people even now we feel no sort of enmity. In both countries there were doubtless some persons who desired war and whose writings, apparently designed to provoke it, did much to misrepresent general national sentiment; but these persons were, as I believe, a small minority in both countries.

So far as Great Britain was concerned, it was the invasion of Belgium that arrested all efforts to avert war and made the friends of peace themselves join in holding that the duty of fulfilling their treaty obligations to a weak State was paramount to every other consideration.

Bernhardi's Praise of War.

I return to the doctrines set forth by von Bernhardi and apparently accepted by the military caste to which he belongs. Briefly summed up, they are as follows—his own words are used except when it becomes necessary to abridge a lengthened argument:

* War is in itself a good thing. It is a biological necessity of the first importance. (P. 18.)

* The inevitableness, the idealism, the blessing of war as an indispensable and stimulating law of development must be repeatedly emphasized. (P. 37.)

* War is the greatest factor in the furtherance of culture and power. Efforts to secure peace are extraordinarily detrimental as soon as they influence politics. (P. 28.)

* Fortunately these efforts can never attain their ultimate objects in a world bristling with arms, where healthy egotism still directs the policy of most countries. God will see to it, says Treitschke, that war always recurs as a drastic medicine for the human race. (P. 36.)

* Efforts directed toward the abolition of war are not only foolish, but absolutely immoral, and must be stigmatized as unworthy of the human race. (P. 34.)

* Courts of arbitration are pernicious delusions. The whole idea represents a presumptuous encroachment on natural laws of development, which can only lead to the most disastrous consequences for humanity generally. (P. 34.)

* The maintenance of peace never can be or may be the goal of a policy.

* Efforts for peace would, if they attained their goal, lead to general degeneration, as happens everywhere in nature where the struggle for existence is eliminated. (P. 35.)

* Huge armaments are in themselves desirable. They are the most necessary precondition of our national health. (P. 11.)

* The end all and be all of a State is power, and he who is not man enough to look this truth in the face should not meddle with politics, (quoted from Treitschke's "Politik").

* The State's highest moral duty is to increase its power. (P. 45-6.)

* The State is justified in making conquests whenever its own advantage seems to require additional territory. (P. 46.)

* Self-preservation is the State's highest ideal and justifies whatever action it may take if that action be conducive to that end. The State is the sole judge of the morality of its own action. It is, in fact, above morality, or, in other words, whatever is necessary is moral. Recognized rights (i.e., treaty rights) are never absolute rights; they are of human origin, and, therefore, imperfect and variable. There are conditions in which they do not correspond to the actual truth of things. In this case infringement of the right appears morally justified. (P. 49.)

* In fact, the State is a law unto itself. Weak nations have not the same right to live as powerful and vigorous nations. (P. 34.)

* Any action in favor of collective humanity outside the limits of the State and nationality is impossible. (P. 25.)

* * * * *

A Doctrine 2,200 Years Old.

These are startling propositions, though propounded as practically axiomatic. They are not new, for twenty-two centuries ago the sophist Thrasymachus in Plato's "Republic" argued—Socrates refuting him—that justice is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger; might is right.

[Note.—Plato laid down that the end for which the State exists is justice.]

The most startling among them are (1) denial that there are any duties owed by the State to humanity, except that of imposing its own superior civilization upon as large a part of humanity as possible, and (2) denial of the duty of observing treaties which are only so much paper to modern German writers.

The State is a much more tremendous entity than it is to Englishmen or Americans; it is the supreme power, with a sort of mystic sanctity—a power conceived of, as it were, self-created; a force altogether distinct from and superior to the persons who compose it. But a State is, after all, only so many individuals organized under a Government. It is no wiser, no more righteous than the human beings of whom at consists, and whom it sets up to govern it. If it is right for persons united as citizens into a State to rob and murder for their collective advantage by their collective power, why should it be wicked for citizens, as individuals, to do so? Does their moral responsibility cease when and because they act together? Most legal systems hold that there are acts which one man may lawfully do which become unlawful if done by a number of men conspiring together; but now it would seem that what would be a crime in persons as individuals, is high policy for those persons united in a State. Has the State, then, no morality, no responsibility? Is there no such thing as a common humanity? Are there no duties owed to it? Is there none of that "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," which the framers of the Declaration of Independence recognized? No sense that even the greatest States are amenable to the sentiment of the civilized world?

How Weaker States Are Affected.

Let us see how these doctrines affect smaller and weaker States which have hitherto lived in comparative security beside great powers. They will be absolutely at the mercy of the stronger, even if protected by treaties guaranteeing their neutrality and independence. They will not be safe, for treaty obligations are worthless "when they do not correspond to facts," i.e., when the strong power finds that they stand in its way its interests are paramount.

If a State hold valuable minerals, as Sweden has iron, and Belgium coal, and Rumania oil, or if it has abundance of water power, like Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland; or if it holds the mouth of a navigable river, the upper course of which belongs to another nation, a great State may conquer and annex that small State as soon as it finds that it needs minerals or water power or river mouth. It has the power, and power gives right. The interests, sentiments of patriotism, and love of independence of the small people go for nothing. Civilization has turned back upon itself; culture is to expand itself by barbaric force; Governments derive their authority, not from the consent of the governed, but from the weapons of the conqueror; law and morality between nations have vanished. Herodotus tells us that the Scythians worshipped as their god a naked sword; that is the deity to be installed in the place once held by the God of Christianity, the God of righteousness and mercy.

States—mostly despotic States—have sometimes applied parts of this system of doctrine; but none have proclaimed it. The Roman conquerors of the world were not a scrupulous people, but even they stopped short of these principles; certainly they never set them up as an ideal; neither did those magnificent Teutonic Emperors of the Middle Ages, whose fame Gen. von Bernhardi is fond of recalling. They did not enter Italy as conquerors, claiming her by right of the strongest; they came on the faith of a legal title which, however fantastic it may seem to us today, the Italians themselves, and, indeed, the whole of Latin Christendom, admitted. Dante, the greatest and most patriotic of Italians, welcomed the Emperor Henry VII. into Italy, and wrote a famous book to prove his claims, vindicating them on the ground that he, as heir of Rome, stood for law and right and peace. The noblest title which these Emperors chose to bear was that of Imperator Pacificus.

In the Middle Ages, when men were always fighting, they appreciated the blessings of war much less than does Gen. von Bernhardi, and they valued peace, not war, as a means to civilization and culture. They had not learned in the school of Treitschke that peace means decadence and war is the true civilizing influence.

Great Achievements of Small States.

The doctrines above stated are, as I have tried to point out, well calculated to alarm small States which prize their liberty and their individuality, and have been thriving under the safeguard of treaties; but there are other considerations affecting those States which ought to appeal to men in all countries, to strong nations as well as to weak nations.

The small States whose absorption is now threatened have been a potent and useful—perhaps the most potent and useful—factor in the advance of civilization. It is in them and by them that most of what is most precious in religion, in philosophy, in literature, in science, and in art has been produced.

The first great thoughts that brought man into true relation with God came from a tiny people inhabiting a country smaller than Denmark. The religions of mighty Babylon and populous Egypt have vanished; the religion of Israel remains in its earlier as well as in that later form which has overspread the world.

The Greeks were a small people, not united in one great State, but scattered over coasts and among hills in petty city communities, each with its own life. Slender in numbers, but eager, versatile, and intense, they gave us the richest, most varied, and most stimulating of all literatures.

When poetry and art reappeared after the long night of the Dark Ages, their most splendid blossoms flowered in the small republics of Italy.

In modern Europe what do we not owe to little Switzerland, lighting the torch of freedom 600 years ago and keeping it alight through all the centuries when despotic monarchies held the rest of the European Continent? And what to free Holland, with her great men of learning and her painters surpassing those of all other countries save Italy?

So the small Scandinavian nations have given to the world famous men of science, from Linnaeus downward; poets like Tegnor and Bjoernson; scholars like Madvig; dauntless explorers like Fridtjof Nansen.

England had in the age of Shakespeare, Bacon, and Milton a population little larger than that of Bulgaria today. The United States in the days of Washington and Franklin and Jefferson and Hamilton and Marshall counted fewer inhabitants than Denmark or Greece. In the most brilliant generations of German literature and thought, the age of Kant and Lessing and Goethe, of Hegel and Schiller and Fichte, there was no real German State at all, but a congeries of principalities and free cities—independent centres of intellectual life in which letters and science produced a richer crop than the two succeeding generations have raised, just as Great Britain also, with eight times the population of the year 1600, has had no more Shakespeares or Miltons.

Culture Decayed in Imperial Rome.

No fiction is more palpably contradicted by history than that relied on by the school to which von Bernhardi belongs—that culture, literary, scientific, and artistic, flourishes best in great military States. The decay of art and literature in the Roman world began just when Rome's military power had made that world one great and ordered State. The opposite view would be much nearer the truth, though one must admit that no general theory regarding the relations of art and letters to Governments and political conditions has ever yet been proved to be sound.

[Note—Gen. von Bernhardi's knowledge of current history may be estimated by the fact that he assumes (1) that trade rivalry makes war probable between Great Britain and the United States; (2) that he believes that the Indian princes and peoples are likely to revolt against Great Britain should she be involved in war, and (3) that he expects her self-governing colonies to take such an opportunity of severing their connection with her.]

The world is already too uniform and is becoming more uniform every day. A few leading languages, a few forms of civilization, a few types of character, are spreading out from the seven or eight greatest States and extinguishing weaker languages, forms, and types. Although great States are stronger and more populous, their peoples are not necessarily more gifted, and the extinction of the minor languages and types would be a misfortune for the world's future development.

We may not be able to arrest the forces which seem to be making for that extinction, but we certainly ought not strengthen them. Rather we ought to maintain and defend the smaller States and to favor the rise and growth of new peoples. Not merely because they were delivered from the tyranny of Sultans like Abdul Hamid did the intellect of Europe welcome the successively won liberations of Greece, Servia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro; it was also in the hope that those countries would in time develop out of their present crude conditions new types of culture, new centres of productive intellectual life.

Gen. von Bernhardi invokes history as the ultimate court of appeal. He appeals to Caesar; to Caesar let him go. "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht", ("World history is world tribunal.") History declares that no nation, however great, is entitled to try to impose its type of civilization on others. No race, not even the Teutonic or Anglo-Saxon, is entitled to claim the leadership of humanity. Each people has in its time contributed something that was distinctively its own, and the world is far richer thereby than if any one race, however gifted, had established its permanent ascendency.

We of the Anglo-Saxon race do not claim for ourselves, any more than we admit in others, any right to dominate by force or to impose our own type of civilization on less powerful races. Perhaps we have not that assured conviction of its superiority which the school of von Bernhardi expressed for the Teutons of North Germany. We know how much we owe, even within our own islands, to the Celtic race; and, though we must admit that peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock have, like others, made some mistakes and sometimes abused their strength, let it be remembered what have been the latest acts they have done abroad.

Praises American Altruism.

The United States have twice withdrawn their troops from Cuba, which they could easily have retained; they have resisted all temptations to annex any part of the territories of Mexico, in which the lives and property of their citizens were for three years in constant danger. So Great Britain also six years ago restored the amplest self-government to two South African republics, having already agreed to the maintenance on equal terms of the Dutch language; and the citizens of those republics, which were in arms against her thirteen years ago, have now spontaneously come forward to support her by arms under the gallant leader who then commanded the Boers; and I may add that one reason why the Princes of India have rallied so promptly and heartily to Great Britain in this war is because for many years past we have avoided annexing the territories of those Princes, allowing them to adopt heirs when the successors of their own families failed, and leaving to them as much as possible of the ordinary functions of government.

Service the Test of Greatness.

It is only vulgar minds that mistake bigness for greatness; for greatness is of the soul, not of the body. In the judgment which history will hereafter pass upon the forty centuries of recorded progress toward civilization that now lie behind us, what are the tests it will apply to determine the true greatness of a people? Not population, not territory, not wealth, not military power; rather will history ask what examples of lofty character and unselfish devotion to honor and duty has a people given? What has it done to increase the volume of knowledge? What thoughts and what ideals of permanent value and unexhausted fertility has it bequeathed to mankind? What works has it produced in poetry, music, and other arts to be an unfailing source of enjoyment to posterity? The small peoples need not fear the application of such tests.

The world advances, not, as the Bernhardi school supposes, only or even mainly by fighting; it advances mainly by thinking and by the process of reciprocal teaching and learning; by the continuous and unconscious co-operation of all its strongest and finest minds. Each race—Hellenic, Italic, Celtic, Teutonic, Iberian, Slavonic—has something to give, each something to learn; and when their blood is blended the mixed stock may combine gifts of both. Most progressive races have been those who combined willingness to learn with strength, which enabled them to receive without loss to their own quality, retaining their primal vigor, but entering into the labors of others, as the Teutons who settled within the dominions of Rome profited by the lessons of the old civilization.

Let me disclaim once more before I close, any intention to attribute to the German people the principles set forth by the school of Treitschke and Bernhardi—the school which teaches hatred of peace and arbitration, disregard of treaty obligations, scorn for weaker peoples. We in England would feel even deeper sadness than weighs upon us now if we could suppose that such principles had been embraced by the nation whose thinkers have done so much for human progress and who have produced so many shining examples of Christian saintliness; but when those principles have been ostentatiously proclaimed, when a peaceful neutral country which the other belligerent had solemnly and repeatedly undertaken to respect has been invaded and treated as Belgium has been treated, and when attempts are made to justify these deeds as incidental to a campaign for civilization and culture, it becomes necessary to point out how untrue and how pernicious such principles are.

Most Wars Needless and Unjust.

What are the teachings of history to which Gen. Bernhardi is fond of appealing? That war has been the constant handmaid of tyranny and the source of more than half the miseries of man; that, although some wars have been necessary and have given occasion for a display of splendid heroism—wars of defense against aggression or to succor the oppressed—most wars have been needless or unjust; that the mark of an advancing civilization has been the substitution of friendship for hatred and of peaceful for warlike ideals; that small peoples have done and can do as much for the common good of humanity as large peoples; that treaties must be observed, (for what are they but records of national faith, solemnly pledged, and what could bring mankind more surely and swiftly back to that reign of violence and terror from which it has been slowly rising for the last ten centuries than the destruction of trust in the plighted faith of nations?)

No event has brought out that essential unity which now exists in the world so forcibly as this war has done, for no event has ever so affected every part of the world. Four continents are involved, the whole of the Old World, and the New World suffers grievously in its trade, industry, and finances. Thus the whole world is interested in preventing the recurrence of such a calamity and there is a general feeling throughout the world that the causes which have brought it upon us must be removed.

We are told that armaments must be reduced; that the baleful spirit of militarism must be quenched; that peoples must everywhere be admitted to a fuller share in the control of foreign policy; that efforts must be made to establish a sort of league of concord—some system of international relations and reciprocal peace alliances by which weaker nations may be protected and under which differences between nations may be adjusted by courts of arbitration and conciliation of wider scope than those that now exist.

All these things are desirable, but no scheme for preventing future wars will have any chance of success unless it rests upon the assurance that the States which enter into it will loyally and steadfastly abide by it, and that each and all of them will join in coercing by their overwhelming united strength any State which may disregard obligations it has undertaken. The faith of treaties is the only solid foundation on which the temple of peace can be built up.

JAMES BRYCE.

* * * * *



Entrance of France Into War



* * * * *



By President Poincare and Premier Viviani.

Proclamation Issued to the People of France by President Poincare, Paris, Aug. 1.

For some days the condition of Europe has become considerably more serious in spite of the efforts of diplomacy. The horizon has become darkened.

At this hour most of the nations have mobilized their forces.

Some countries, even though protected by neutrality, have thought it right to take this step as a precaution.

Some powers, whose constitutional and military laws do not resemble our own, have without issuing a decree of mobilization begun and continued preparations which are in reality equivalent to mobilization and which are nothing more or less than an anticipation of it (qui n'en sont que l'execution anticipee).

France, who has always declared her pacific intentions, and who has at the darkest hours (dans des heures tragiques) given to Europe counsels of moderation and a living example of prudence (sagesse), who has multiplied her efforts for the maintenance of the world's peace, has herself prepared for all eventualties and has taken from this moment the first indispensable measures for the safety of her territory.

But our legislation does not allow us to complete these preparations without a decree of mobilization.

Careful of its responsibility and realizing that it would be failing in a sacred task to leave things as they were, the Government has issued the decree which the situation demands.

Mobilization is not war. In the present circumstances it appears, on the contrary, to be the best means of assuring peace with honor.

Strong in its ardent desire to arrive at a peaceful solution of the crisis the Government, protected by such precautions as are necessary, will continue its diplomatic efforts, and it still hopes to succeed.

It relies upon the calm of this noble nation not to give rein to emotions which are not justified. It relies upon the patriotism of all Frenchmen, and it knows that there is not one who is not ready to do his duty.

At this moment parties no longer exist; there remains only France, the eternal, the pacific, the resolute. There remains only the fatherland of right and of justice, entirely united in calm vigilance and dignity.

* * * * *



NEUTRALIZED STATE RESPECTED.

Telegram from M. Viviani, French Premier and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Ministry in Luxembourg, Published Aug. 3.

Please declare to the President of the Council that, in accordance with the Treaty of London of 1867, the Government of the Republic intended to respect the neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, as it has shown by its attitude. The violation of this neutrality by Germany is, however, of a nature which compels France to take henceforth the measures in this respect required by her defense and interests.

The Prime Minister of Luxembourg has protested to the German Government, and has brought this protest to the notice of the German Embassy in Paris, stating the following facts:

On Sunday, Aug. 2, early in the morning, the Germans entered Luxembourg territory by the bridges of Wasserbourg(?) and Remleh, proceeding toward the south of the country and Luxembourg, its capital. They have also brought toward this point armored trains, with troops and munitions of war. Further, the special French Commissioner at Petitcroix has announced to the Surete Generale that the Germans have just opened fire on the frontier station of Delle-Petitcroix. Two German cavalry officers have just been killed at Roncray and Boxson, ten kilometers on our side of the frontier.

* * * * *



THE NATION IN ARMS.

Address to the French Parliament by President Poincare, Aug. 4.

Our nation is in arms and trembling with eagerness to defend the land of our fathers.

France is faithfully supported by her ally, Russia. She is upheld by the loyal friendship of England, and, already, from all points of the civilized world, go out to her expressions of sympathy and good-will, for she represents today, once again before the universe, liberty, justice, and reason.

Lift up your hearts! Long live France!

* * * * *



POSITION OF THE REPUBLIC.

Address of Premier Viviani to the French Senate and House of Deputies, Aug. 4.

This speech has been called by M. Jusserand, French Ambassador to the United States, "the chief document printed up to now [Nov. 1] in which the French situation, with reference to the present war, has been expounded."

Gentlemen, the German Ambassador left Paris yesterday, after having notified us of the existence of a state of war.

The Government is in duty bound to give Parliament a truthful recital of the events which, within less than ten days, have brought about war in Europe and obliged France, peaceful and strong, to defend her frontier against an attack the premeditated suddenness of which emphasizes its odious injustice.

This attack, entirely inexcusable and begun before any declaration of war notified us of it, is the last act in a plan whose origin and aim I intend to lay bare before our republic and before civilized public opinion.

After the abominable crime which cost the lives of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne and of the Duchess of Hohenberg, trouble arose between the Governments of Vienna and Belgrade.

Most of the great powers were not informed of this except semi-officially up to Friday, the 24th day of July, on which day the Ambassadors of Austria-Hungary sent them a circular note, which has been published in the newspapers.

The object of this note was to explain and justify an ultimatum sent the evening before to Servia, through the Austrian Minister at Belgrade.

This ultimatum asserted that a number of Servian subjects and associations were implicated in the crime of Serajevo, and implied that members of the Servian Government themselves were not without complicity in it. It demanded a reply from Servia, giving Saturday, July 25, at 6 in the evening, as the time limit.

Austria Amazes Allies.

The reparations demanded, or, at least, some among them, unquestionably were derogatory to the rights of a sovereign nation. But in spite of their extreme character Servia, on July 25, declared that she submitted to them almost without a reservation of any sort.

The advice transmitted by France, Russia, and Great Britain from the very first to Belgrade was not without its effect in bringing about this submission, which was a success for Austria-Hungary and likewise a guarantee toward the maintenance of European peace.

This advice was all the more valuable in view of the fact that Austria-Hungary's demands had been inadequately foreshadowed to the Governments of the Triple Entente, to whom, during the three preceding weeks, the Austro-Hungarian Government had repeatedly given assurances that its demands would be extremely moderate.

It was, therefore, with justified astonishment that the Cabinets of Paris, St. Petersburg, and London heard, on July 26, that the Austrian Minister at Belgrade, after an examination lasting only a few minutes, had declared the Servian reply unacceptable and broken off diplomatic relations.

Germany the Stumbling Block.

This astonishment was rendered greater by the fact that, on Friday, the 21st, the German Ambassador had visited the French Minister of Foreign Affairs for the purpose of reading to him a note to the effect that the Austro-Servian dispute should be localized and not made the subject of intervention by the great powers, and that, unless such were the case, "incalculable consequences" were to be feared. Like action was taken on Saturday, the 25th, at London and St. Petersburg.

Is it necessary, gentlemen, to point out to you the difference between the menacing methods employed by the German Ambassador at Paris and the conciliatory sentiments of which the powers of the Triple Entente had just given proof by their advice to Servia to submit?

Nevertheless, passing over the abnormal character of the German action, we, in conjunction with our allies and friends, immediately instituted measures of conciliation and invited Germany to take part in them.

From the very first we were chagrined to find that our acts and efforts found no echo at Berlin.

Not only did Germany seem unwilling to give Austria-Hungary the amicable advice which her situation authorized her to give, but, from that very time and even more in the ensuing days, she seemed to place herself between the Vienna Cabinet and the propositions of a compromise emanating from the other powers.

On Tuesday, July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on Servia. This declaration of war, complicating forty-eight hours after the situation brought about by the rupture of diplomatic relations, lent color to the assumption that there had been a premeditated plan to make war, a systematic programme for the subjugation of Servia.

Thus not only the independence of a brave nation became involved, but also the balance of power in the Balkans, set forth in the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913, and sanctioned by the moral adhesion of all the great powers.

Notwithstanding, at the suggestion of the British Government, always interested in the most steadfast manner in the maintenance of European peace, the negotiations continued, or, to be more exact, the powers constituting the Triple Entente tried to continue them.

To their common desire was due the proposition for quadruple action, viz., by England, France, Germany, and Italy, with the object of assuring to Austria all legitimate reparation and bringing about an equitable arrangement of the difficulty. On Wednesday, the 29th, the Russian Government, noting the persistent blocking of these attempts, Austria's mobilization and her declaration of war, and fearing that Servia would be crushed by military force, decided, as a preventive measure, to mobilize her troops in four military zones, namely, only those stationed along the Austro-Hungarian frontier.

In doing this it took care to notify the German Government that this step, limited in character and not constituting an offensive move against Austria, was not in any way directed against Germany.

In a conversation with the Russian Ambassador at Berlin the German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs showed no objection to recognizing this.

Germany Becomes Warlike.

On the other hand, all the attempts of Great Britain, backed by Russia and with the support of France, for establishing contact between Austria and Servia under the moral auspices of Europe, was met in Berlin by a premeditated negative attitude, the existence of which is absolutely proved by the diplomatic communications.

This made a troublous state of affairs which pointed to the existence at Berlin of certain mental reservations. A few hours later these suppositions and fears were destined to be changed into certainties.

For the negative attitude of Germany was transformed thirty-six hours later into truly alarming initiative. On July 31, Germany, by declaring a state of war, cut off the communication between herself and the rest of Europe, and gave herself perfect freedom to make military preparations against France, in complete secrecy, which nothing, as you have seen, could justify.

During several days and under conditions difficult to explain Germany had been preparing to change her army from a peace to a war footing.

From July 25 in the morning, that is even before the expiration of the time limit set Servia by Austria, she had brought to their full strength the garrisons in Alsace-Lorraine. On the same day she had placed the works close to the frontier in a state of effective armament. On the 26th she had prescribed for the railroads the preparatory measures for concentration. On the 27th she had made requisitions and placed her covering troops in position. On the 28th the summoning of individual reservists began, including those distant from the frontier.

Could we be left in doubt as to Germany's intentions after her taking all these measures with relentless thoroughness?

France Forced to Act.

This, then, was the situation when, on July 31, in the evening, the German Government, which had not taken any positive part since the 24th in the conciliatory efforts of the Triple Entente, sent to the Russian Government an ultimatum alleging that Russia had ordered the general mobilization of her armies, and demanding the cessation of this mobilization within twelve hours.

This demand, all the more offensive as to form when it is borne in mind that a few hours earlier Emperor Nicholas, actuated by a spontaneous feeling of confidence, had asked the German Emperor to mediate, was made at the moment when, at the request of England and with the knowledge of Germany, the Russian Government was accepting a proposition of a kind calculated to bring about an amicable arrangement of the Austro-Servian conflict and of the Austro-Russian difficulties by means of the simultaneous cessation of military operations and preparations.

On the same day there were added to this unfriendly step toward Russia acts of distinct hostility toward France; rupture of communications by roads, railways, telegraph, and telephone, seizure of French locomotives upon arrival at the frontier, placing of rapid-fire guns in the middle of railway lines which had been torn up, and concentration of troops on our frontier.

From that moment it was impossible for us to believe any longer in the sincerity of the pacific protestations which the representative of Germany continued to lavish upon us.

We were aware that, under the shelter of the declaration of a state of war which Germany had made, she was mobilizing.

We learned that six classes of reservists had been summoned and that concentration of army corps was under way, even of those corps stationed a long distance from the frontier.

In proportion as these events developed, the Government, alert and vigilant, took day by day, even hour by hour, the precautionary measures made necessary by the situation; general mobilization of our land and sea forces was ordered.

The same evening, at 7:30, Germany, ignoring the acceptance by the St. Petersburg Cabinet of the English proposition to which I have already referred, declared war upon Russia.

Denies Hostile Acts by French.

The next day, Sunday, Aug. 2, despite the extreme moderation of France and the pacific statements of the German Ambassador in Paris, and scorning the rules of international law, German troops crossed our frontier at three different points.

At the same time, in violation of the Treaty of 1867 guaranteeing the neutrality of Luxemburg, of which Prussia was a signatory, they invaded the territory of the Grand Duchy, thus evoking a protest from the Luxemburg Government.

Finally, even the neutrality of Belgium was menaced. On the evening of Aug. 2 the German Minister handed to the Belgian Government an ultimatum demanding that military operations against France be facilitated by Belgium under the lying pretext that Belgian neutrality was threatened by us.

The Belgian Government refused, announcing that it had resolved to defend energetically its neutrality respected by France and guaranteed by treaties, especially by the King of Prussia.

Since then, gentlemen, acts of aggression have been repeated, multiplied, and accentuated. Our frontier has been crossed at more than fifteen places. Rifle shots have been fired at our soldiers and customs officials. There have been killed and wounded. Yesterday a German military aviator dropped three bombs on Luneville.

The German Ambassador, to whom, as well as to the other great powers, we communicated these acts did not deny them, nor even express regret. On the contrary, he came to me yesterday evening to ask for his passport and notify us of the existence of a state of war, alleging without justification hostile acts committed by French aviators on German territory in the Eiffel region, and even on the railway from Karlsruhe to Nuremberg. Here is the letter on this subject which he handed to me:

Mr. President: German civil and military authorities have taken note of a certain number of acts of a hostile character committed on German territory by French military aviators. Several of the latter have clearly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that nation. One tried to destroy buildings near Wesel, others were seen over the Eiffel region, another threw bombs on the railway line between Karlsruhe and Nuremberg.

I have been charged with informing your Excellency, and now have the honor of doing so, that in view of these acts of aggression the German Empire now considers itself in a state of war with France as a result of the acts of the latter power.

I have at the same time the honor of bringing to your Excellency's knowledge that the German authorities will detain French merchant vessels in German ports, but will release them if within forty-eight hours complete reciprocity is assured.

My diplomatic mission having terminated, all that remains for me to do is to request your Excellency to provide me with my passports and take whatever measures your Excellency may deem necessary to effect my return to Germany with the personnel of the embassy and of the Bavarian Legation and the Consulate General of Germany at Paris.

With sentiments of my highest consideration.

SCHOEN.

* * * * *

Is it necessary, gentlemen, that I should call attention to the absurdity of the pretexts brought forward as grievances? Never at any time has any French aviator gone into Belgium; no French aviator has committed an act of hostility either in Bavaria or any other part of Germany. European public opinion has already done justice to these miserable inventions.

We immediately took all needed steps against this attack, which violates all laws of equity and rules of public law. The carrying out of these is progressing with thorough system and absolute calm.

The mobilization of the Russian Army is also being continued with remarkable energy and boundless enthusiasm.

The Belgian Army, mobilized up to 250,000 men, is preparing with magnificent spirit to defend the neutrality and independence of its country.

The English fleet is entirely mobilized, and the order has been given for the mobilization of the land forces.

Since 1912 there have been consultations between the English and French General Staffs. These had resulted in an exchange of letters between Sir Edward Grey and M. Paul Cambon. The Secretary of State made these known yesterday in the House of Commons, and, in accordance with the wishes of the British Government, I shall have the honor of reading these two documents to this Parliament:

London, Foreign Office, Nov. 22, 1912.

My Dear Ambassador:

From time to time in recent years the French and British naval and military experts have consulted together. It has always been understood that such consultation does not restrict the freedom of either Government to decide at any future time whether or not to assist the other by armed force. We have agreed that consultation between experts is not and ought not to be regarded as an engagement that commits either Government to action in a contingency that has not arisen and may never arise. The disposition, for instance, of the French and British fleets respectively at the present moment is not based upon an engagement to co-operate in war.

You have, however, pointed out that, if either Government had grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third power, it might become essential to know whether it could in that event depend upon the armed assistance of the other.

I agree that, if either Government had grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third power, or something that threatened the general peace, it should immediately discuss with the other whether both Governments should act together to prevent aggression and to preserve peace, and, if so, what measures they would be prepared to take in common. If these measures involved action, the plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken into consideration, and the Governments would then decide what effect should be given to them. Yours, &c.,

E. GREY.

* * * * *

M. PAUL CAMBON TO SIR EDWARD GREY.

London, Nov. 23, 1912.

Dear Sir Edward: You reminded me in your letter of yesterday, 22d November, that during the last few years the military and naval authorities of France and Great Britain had consulted with each other from time to time; that it had always been understood that these consultations should not restrict the liberty of either Government to decide in the future whether they should lend each other the support of their armed forces; that, on either side, these consultations between experts were not and should not be considered as engagements binding our Governments to take action in certain eventualities; that, however, I had remarked to you that, if one or other of the two Governments had grave reasons to fear an unprovoked attack on the part of a third power, it would become essential to know whether it could count on the armed support of the other.

Your letter answers that point, and I am authorized to state that, in the event of one of our two Governments having grave reasons to fear either an attack from a third power, or some event threatening the general peace, that Government would immediately examine with the other the question whether both Governments should act together in order to prevent aggression or preserve peace. If so, the two Governments would deliberate as to the measures which they would be prepared to take in common. If those measures involved action the two Governments would take into immediate consideration the plans of their General Staffs and would then decide as to the effect to be given to those plans.

Yours, &c.,

PAUL CAMBON.

Government's Acts Beyond Reproach.

In the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke of France, amid the applause of the members, in lofty and impassioned words, which have already elicited genuine response from all French hearts.

In the name of the Government of the Republic I wish, from this rostrum, to thank the British Government for the cordiality of its words, and the French Parliament will join me in this.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made this declaration particularly:

That in case the German fleet entered the Channel or steamed northward in the North Sea to go around the British Isles with the purpose of attacking the French Coast or the French Navy, and to harass the French merchant marine, the English fleet would interfere by giving the French fleet its entire protection, in such manner that from that moment England and Germany would be in a state of war.

Thus, from the present moment, the English fleet is guarding our northern and western coast against German aggression.

Gentlemen, those are the facts. I think that, taken as a close-knit whole, they are sufficient to justify the acts of the Government of the Republic. Nevertheless, I wish to conclude by giving the true meaning of this unprecedented aggression of which France is the victim.

The victors of 1870, as you know, have felt at various times the desire of renewing the blows which they had dealt us. In 1875 the war for finishing vanquished France was prevented only by the intervention of the two powers destined to be united to us later by the ties of alliance and friendship—by the intervention of Russia and Great Britain.

Since then the French Republic, by the restoration of its strength and the making of diplomatic agreements, invariably lived up to, has succeeded in freeing itself from the yoke which Bismarck had been able to impose upon Europe even in days of peace.

It re-established the European balance of power, that guarantee of the liberty and dignity of each nation.

Gentlemen, I do not know whether I am deceiving myself, but it seems to me that it is this work of pacific reparation, liberation, and dignity, definitely sealed in 1904 and 1907 with the support of King Edward VII. of England and of the royal Government, which the German Empire desires to destroy today by an audacious piece of violence.

Germany can reproach us with nothing.

We have made an unprecedented sacrifice to peace by bearing in silence for half a century the wound inflicted by Germany.

We have acquiesced in other sacrifices in all the disputes which, since 1904, imperial diplomacy has systematically provoked either in Morocco or elsewhere, in 1905 as well as in 1906, in 1908 as well as in 1911.

Italy's Attitude.

Russia also has given proof of great moderation, both in the events of 1908 and the present crisis. She acted with the same moderation—and the Triple Entente with her—when, in the Eastern crisis of 1912, Austria and Germany formulated against Servia and Greece demands amenable to discussion, as the result proved.

Useless sacrifices, sterile compromises, futile efforts—today, while actually engaged in efforts at conciliation, we and our allies are suddenly attacked.

Nobody can believe in good faith that we are the aggressors; in vain the sacred principles of law and liberty, which rule nations as well as individuals, are assailed. Italy, with the clear conscience of Latin genius, has informed us that she will remain neutral.

This decision has aroused the sincerest joy throughout France. I made myself the spokesman of this to the Italian Charge d'Affaires, telling him how delighted I was that the two Latin sisters, who have the same origin and ideals, and a glorious past in common, are not opposed to each other.

What is being attacked, I repeat, gentlemen, is that independence, dignity, and security which the Triple Entente has restored to the balance of power in the service of peace.

What is being attacked are the liberties of Europe, whose defenders France, her allies, and her friends are proud to be.

We shall defend these liberties, for it is they which are in jeopardy; all else is merely a pretext.

France, unjustly provoked, did not desire war. She has done everything to prevent it. But since it is forced upon her, she will defend herself against Germany, and against every power which has not as yet announced its position but which should later on take sides with Germany in the war between the two.

A free and strong nation, strengthened by venerable ideals, firmly united in defense of its existence, a democracy which has known how to discipline its military acts, and which did not fear last year to impose upon itself additional military burdens to offset those of neighboring countries, an armed nation fighting for its own life and for the independence of Europe—that is the spectacle which we are proud to show the witnesses of this formidable struggle, which has been in preparation for some days amid methodical quiet.

We are without reproach. We shall be without fear.

France has often proved, under less favorable conditions, that she is the most formidable adversary when she fights, as she now does, for liberty and right.

In placing our acts before you, gentlemen, who are our judges, we have the comfort of a clear conscience and the certainty of having done our duty to help us bear the weight of our heavy responsibility.

* * * * *



BEFORE THE MARNE BATTLE.

Proclamation by the Government Announcing Transfer of Capital to Bordeaux, Sept. 3.

People of France: For several weeks relentless battles have engaged our heroic troops and the army of the enemy. The valor of our soldiers has won for them, at several points, marked advantages; but in the north the pressure of the German forces has compelled us to fall back.

This situation has compelled the President of the Republic and the Government to take a painful decision.

In order to watch over the national welfare it is the duty of the public powers to remove themselves temporarily from the City of Paris.

Under the command of an eminent chief, a French Army, full of courage and zeal, will defend the capital and its patriotic population against the invader.

But the war must be carried on at the same time on the rest of its territory.

Without peace or truce, without cessation or faltering, the struggle for the honor of the nation and the reparation of violated right must continue.

None of our armies is impaired. If some of them have sustained very considerable losses, the gaps have immediately been filled up from the reserves, and the appeal for recruits assures us of new reserves in men and energy tomorrow.

Endure and fight! Such must be the motto of the allied British, Russian, Belgian, and French Armies.

Endure and fight, while at sea the British aid us, cutting the communication of our enemy with the world.

Endure and fight, while the Russians continue to advance to strike the decisive blow at the heart of the German Empire.

It is the duty of the Government of the republic to direct this stubborn resistance.

Everywhere Frenchmen will rise for their independence; but to insure the utmost spirit and efficacy in the formidable fight it is indispensable that the Government shall remain free to act. At the request of the military authorities, the Government is therefore temporarily transferring its headquarters to a place where it can remain in constant touch with the whole of the country.

It requests members of Parliament not to remain away from it, in order that they may form, with their colleagues, a bond of national unity.

The Government only leaves Paris after having assured the defense of the city and of the intrenched camp by every means in its power.

It knows that it does not need to recommend to the admirable population of Paris that calm, resolution and coolness which it is showing every day, and which is on a level with its highest traditions.

People of France, let us all be worthy of these tragic circumstances. We shall gain the final victory; we shall gain it by unflagging will, endurance, and tenacity.

A nation which refuses to perish, and which, in order to live, does not flinch either from suffering or sacrifice, is sure of victory.

The manifesto is signed by President Poincare and all the Ministers.

* * * * *



Russia to Her Enemy

Slav Emperor Announces New Policies.



* * * * *



Pledge of Czar Nicholas II. to Russia's Statesmen and Soldiers, in Winter Palace, St. Petersburg, Aug. 2.

War has been forced upon us. I hereby take a solemn pledge not to conclude peace so long as a single enemy remains on Russian soil.

I wish godspeed to my soldiers represented here by the St. Petersburg military district, and I am sure that they will fully justify my confidence in them.

* * * * *



A MANIFESTO.

Czar Outlines Events Leading to War, St. Petersburg, Aug. 3.

By the grace of God, we, Nicholas II., Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, King of Poland, and Grand Duke of Finland, &c., to all our faithful subjects make known that Russia, related by faith and blood to the Slav peoples and faithful to her historical traditions, has never regarded their fates with indifference.

But the fraternal sentiments of the Russian people for the Slavs have been awakened with perfect unanimity and extraordinary force in these last few days, when Austria-Hungary knowingly addressed to Servia claims inacceptable for an independent State.

Having paid no attention to the pacific and conciliatory reply of the Servian Government and having rejected the benevolent intervention of Russia, Austria-Hungary made haste to proceed to an armed attack, and began to bombard Belgrade, an open place.

Forced by the situation thus created to take necessary measures of precaution, we ordered the army and the navy put on a war footing, at the same time using every endeavor to obtain a peaceful solution. Pourparlers were begun amid friendly relations with Germany and her ally, Austria, for the blood and the property of our subjects were dear to us.

Contrary to our hopes in our good neighborly relations of long date, and disregarding our assurances that the mobilization measures taken were in pursuance of no object hostile to her, Germany demanded their immediate cessation. Being rebuffed in this demand, Germany suddenly declared war on Russia.

Today it is not only the protection of a country related to us and unjustly attacked that must be accorded, but we must safeguard the honor, the dignity, and the integrity of Russia and her position among the great powers.

We believe unshakably that all our faithful subjects will rise with unanimity and devotion for the defense of Russian soil; that internal discord will be forgotten in this threatening hour; that the unity of the Emperor with his people will become still more close, and that Russia, rising like one man, will repulse the insolent attack of the enemy.

With a profound faith in the justice of our work, and with a humble hope in omnipotent Providence in prayer, we call God's blessing on holy Russia and her valiant troops.

NICHOLAS.

* * * * *



CZAR AT THE KREMLIN.

Response to Deputies of Moscow, Aug. 18.

At this stormy, warlike hour, which, suddenly and against my wishes, has fallen upon my peaceful people, I seek, according to the custom of my ancestors, to strengthen the forces of my soul in the sanctuaries of Moscow.

Within the walls of the old Kremlin I greet in you, inhabitants of Moscow, my beloved ancient capital, all my people, who everywhere, in the villages of their birth, in the Duma, and in the Council of the Empire, unanimously replied to my appeal and rose with vigor throughout the country, forgetting all private differences, to defend the land of their birth and the Slav race.

In a powerful common impulse all nationalities, all tribes of our vast empire, have united. Russia, like myself, will never forget these historic days.

This union of thought and sentiment in all my people affords me deep consolation and a calm assurance for the future. From here, from the heart of the Russian land, I send a warm greeting to my gallant troops and to our brave Allies who are making common cause with us to safeguard the down-trodden principles of peace and truth. May God be with us.

* * * * *



APPEAL TO THE POLES.

By Grand Duke Nicholas, Generalissimo of the Russian Forces, St. Petersburg, Aug. 15.

Poles: The hour has sounded when the sacred dream of your fathers and your grandfathers may be realized. A century and a half has passed since the living body of Poland was torn in pieces, but the soul of the country is not dead. It continues to live, inspired by the hope that there will come for the Polish people an hour of resurrection, and of fraternal reconciliation with Great Russia. The Russian Army brings you the solemn news of this reconciliation which obliterates the frontiers dividing the Polish peoples, which it unites conjointly under the sceptre of the Russian Czar. Under this sceptre Poland will be born again, free in her religion and her language. Russian autonomy only expects from you the same respect for the rights of those nationalities to which history has bound you. With open heart and brotherly hand Great Russia advances to meet you. She believes that the sword, with which she struck down her enemies at Gruenwald, is not yet rusted. From the shores of the Pacific to the North Sea the Russian armies are marching. The dawn of a new life is beginning for you, and in this glorious dawn is seen the sign of the cross, the symbol of suffering and of the resurrection of peoples.

* * * * *



THE POLISH RESPONSE.

Statement Issued by Four Political Parties, Aug. 16.

The representatives of the undersigned political parties, assembled in Warsaw on the 16th August, 1914, welcome the Proclamation issued to the Poles by his Imperial Highness the Commander in Chief of the Russian forces as an act of the foremost historical importance, and implicitly believe that upon the termination of the war the promises uttered in that proclamation will be formally fulfilled, that the dreams of their fathers and forefathers will be realized, that Poland's body, torn asunder a century and a half ago, will once again be made whole, that the frontiers severing the Polish nation will vanish.

The blood of Poland's sons, shed in united combat against the Germans, will serve equally as a sacrifice, offered upon the altar of her resurrection.

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY.

THE POLISH PROGRESSIVE PARTY.

THE REALIST PARTY.

THE POLISH PROGRESSIVE UNION.

* * * * *



NO ALLIANCE WITH GERMANY

Editorial Appeal in the Gazeta Warszawska, Aug. 15.

Fellow-countrymen! A danger threatens us, greatest, perhaps, among the many calamities which war brings to a country; the misdirection of the nation's mind and understanding.

Various instigations are pressing the Poles to go against their own instinct and the dictates of political reason in their attitude toward the armies now invading our Polish lands, armies ringing with German words of command, which even resound through Galician detachments lured into belief that Poland may be saved through alliance with the Germans. Various agitators on both the German and Austrian sides, having their own interests at stake, are seeking to make our people take active part in the terrific conflicts now to be fought out upon our soil.

To attain this end by throwing dust into our eyes, various manifestos signed by the leaders of the armies beyond the frontier have promised the Poles extensive liberties and privileges at the close of the war. Certain Polish organizations, having lost, in the general excitement, their healthy sense of judgment, are doing likewise. Do not let yourselves be hoodwinked by these promises. They are lies. Neither of the invading armies has any intention of fighting for Poland's sake. Each is fighting in the interests of its own empire, and to those empires we are of no account. They only want, in a moment of necessity, to make the Poles passive instruments serving their own ends. Whoever tells you that Austria in alliance with Prussia intends to build up Poland once again is a blinded dreamer. The result of a victory for the Germans and Austrians would mean a new partitioning of Poland, a yet greater wreckage of our nation. Grasp this, listen to no seducers. Remain passive, watchful, insensible to temptation.

During the coming struggle the Kingdom of Poland will be the marching ground of various armies, we shall see temporary victors assuming lordship for a while; but change of authority will follow, and inevitable retaliation; this several times, perhaps, in the course of the campaign. Therefore every improvident step will meet with terrible revenge. By holding firm through the present conflict you best can serve the Polish cause. In the name of the love you bear your country, of your solicitude for the nation's future, we entreat you, fellow-countrymen, to remain deaf to evil inspirations, unshakable in your determination not to expose our land to yet greater calamities, and Poland's whole future to incalculable perils.

* * * * *



POLISH AMERICAN OPINION.

Kazinirz Jaworowski, Manager Polish National Alliance, New York, Aug. 16.

The Poles are treated better in Russia now than they are in Germany. Although Russia has done its best to Russianize Poland by crushing the Polish national feeling, imprisoning Polish patriots, and attempting even to suppress the Polish language, Germany has gone still further in its efforts to Germanize its Polish territory.

Bismarck's idea was to force German civilization upon the world and the most extreme measures have been taken to enforce this policy in German Poland. Taking advantage of every possible pretext, the Germans have dispossessed the Poles of their land and handed it over to Germans. The Russians have not gone so far as this. They, as a general rule, have allowed the Poles to keep their land.

For my own part, I would do anything to defeat Germany, and I think the Poles of Germany and Austria for the most part wish to see France and Russia successful The Poles are Slavs. The fight is between the Germans and the Slavs.

I hope that if the Czar is successful, he carries out his promises to reunite Poland and grant it autonomy. That would not mean Poland would be free, but it would enjoy more freedom than now. The Czar would be the King of Poland and the Government of Poland undoubtedly would be carried on largely by men appointed by the Czar. However, if Poland got the right to have a share in its Government, even if the Czar remained supreme, the country would be greatly benefited.

Autonomy would mean that efforts to suppress the Polish language, the Polish national spirit, and the Polish traditions would be at an end. Under a despotic government in Russia and under more despotic governments still in Germany and Austria, the Polish race has existed under the most crushing of burdens. Reunited and granted partial liberty and the right to live under fair conditions, it would flourish and again take its place as a great race.

* * * * *



RUSSIA AGAINST GERMANY.

By Prince Eugene Troubetskoi, Ex-Member of the Imperial Cabinet, St. Petersburg, Aug. 15.

Russia against Germany is an instance of real patriotism against the curse of nationalism. Our people are athrill now, not from hate but from an ardent desire to serve and protect. Our war cry does not result from the ancient pagan conception of the self-sufficiency of the State, but from the desire for the well-being of all men.

Our people are not filled by that fierce and implacable lust for power which leads a nation into the gulf whose depths reach down to hell. With us God is not conceived as merely a tribal deity, but the father of all. Upon these things, upon this supernational impulse which has now set our people on fire, we rely for victory, and in our victory we expect to see a great step taken in the coming freedom of the world.

* * * * *



DUMA'S MESSAGE TO BRITAIN.

President Rodzianko of the Imperial Duma's Telegram to the House of Commons, Aug. 26.

The Duma of the empire, assembled in extraordinary session in view of the exceptional events passing in the civilized world, begs the House of Commons of Great Britain to accept their warm and sincere greeting and sentiments of profound friendship which unite our two great nations. The whole of Russia has welcomed with enthusiasm the resolution of the British people to give their support to the friendly nations in the historic struggle which is developing at this moment. May God bless the armies of the friendly nations of the Triple Entente! Long live his Majesty King George and his valiant people! Long live the British Parliament, and long live Great Britain!

* * * * *



NEW POLICY AND THE JEWS.

Special Cable to The New York Times, London, Aug. 18.

Ever since the Czar's promise of autonomy to Poland reports have been current that the next step likely to be taken by the Russian Government along the same lines of initiative will be a proclamation assuring the Jews of equal civil and political rights. A Paris dispatch today goes the length of stating that such a proclamation is shortly to be issued.

From inquiries made in authoritative quarters THE NEW YORK TIMES is able to state that, while there is no official authority for such a prediction, there is good reason to believe that some measure of reform along the lines indicated is likely. Both in France and England, Russia's reactionary policy is the only element which has aroused any misgivings regarding what it is hoped in the two first-named countries will be the results of the war.

The enthusiasm aroused in France by the decree affecting Poland gives the measure of relief caused by the removal of these misgivings, so far as one section of the non-orthodox subjects of the Czar are concerned. Equal relief would be felt among a large and representative body of the British public were definite action taken by the Russian Government to remove the disabilities under which the Jews in Russia labor. I have authority for stating that steps have been taken to bring this point of view to the attention of the Russian Government.

Officially, the British Government can take no action which could be regarded as an interference with the domestic affairs of a friendly power, and certain overzealous representations which have been made to Sir Edward Grey overshoot the mark. Sir Edward Grey's liberal principles are sufficiently well recognized to make it certain that what he is able to do he is doing to remove all causes for the misgivings with which a good number of his fellow-citizens regard the Russian alliance in its moral aspect and its possible ultimate developments.

Great hopes are felt that these very delicate representations will meet with success. Predictions are made that the final outcome of the combined grant of autonomy to Poland and the removal of at least some of the civil and religious disqualifications now weighing upon the Jews in Russia will be the growth of a new State, in which the Jew and the Pole will find an equal place in the sun and flourish exceedingly.

* * * * *



WAR ON GERMAN TRADE.

M. Sazonof, Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, to Correspondent of The London Times, Petrograd, Sept. 15.

The eyes of the world just now are fixed on the fortunes of the armies in the field. It is, perhaps, not spectacular from the point of view of the average newspaper reader to speak at this time of mere business and trade relations. I quite well realize that it is accounts of victories and routs, acts of heroism and magnificent assaults by troops that sell the newspapers, but beyond and above all this there now exists a situation and an opportunity in trade and commerce with Russia which to England and America may mean more in decades to come than it is easy to realize.

For years past Germany has been steadily and vigorously pushing her trade into all quarters of the Russian Empire, and now sells us above L60,000,000 worth of products yearly. The ground has been broken by Germany, and these enormous markets for machinery, chemicals, and all sorts of manufactured products are now suddenly cut off from the avenues through which they have been supplied. Herein lies the greatest commercial opportunity for England and America that has ever been offered.

It has been said in the Maxims of Pascal that to govern is to foresee. This is not only true of politics and affairs of government, but applies as well to trade relations. It is that country which foresees the situation commercially in Russia that will reap the enormous benefits that these markets now offer.

It is not merely sufficient that merchants and manufacturers should offer their goods here. They that would profit permanently by the new trade conditions of this empire must take up the task seriously. Experts should be sent here now, even while the war is still in progress, to study and examine the wants of our country. Our duties, our manner of doing business, our present and future wants and growing demands, should be studied scientifically and fundamentally, so that when peace comes those channels which have for decades flowed deeply with German products may continue to flow with products from America and England.

For America especially does Russia open an opportunity for an industrial outlet such as can hardly be overestimated. We have an empire of 170,000,000 souls, and the L60,000,000 yearly that we have been paying Germany is but the beginning of a demand that will soon make Russia among the most desirable and valuable markets in the world. Railroad building and new developments everywhere are a prelude to an era of prosperity in this country such as has never been seen here before.

I cannot too emphatically express the hope that merchants abroad will realize this wonderful opportunity and act promptly, for when the war is over will come realization of this situation everywhere, and he who would profit should take the first steps with the least possible delay.

* * * * *



FOE TO GERMAN MILITARISM.

Statement to Americans by Prince Imeretinsky, Sept. 10.

We are a peace-loving people as you in America are, but, of course, the people of Russia are not so well educated as you are.

Russia did not want this war, but she has known for years that it was coming and consequently was preparing for it. It is her determination, now that it has been brought on by Germany, to see it through, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

Russia is waging war against militarism. If continued, this militarism would economically cripple all Europe. The burden is too heavy for people to bear, and Russia means to put an end to militarism as expounded by Germany.

* * * * *



NOT A QUESTION OF SLAV PREDOMINANCE.

Statement by Baron Korff, Imperial Russian Vice Consul, New York, Sept. 6.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria at Serajevo, in the light of present conditions, appears to be the pretext which led to the present great European war, involving the Empires of Germany and Russia, the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Belgium, and the Republic of France. It is rather difficult for the average American to find the real causes that have led to this struggle of nations, as they lie solely in the conditions and latest developments of the political life of Middle Europe generally, and Germany and Austria particularly.

In order to ascertain the real cause it will be necessary for me to explain the policy of the above-named two Governments on one side and the evolution of the character of the German Nation on the other side. In glancing at the map of Germany, and particularly her frontiers and geographical position, she being wedged in between two powerful neighbors, Russia in the east and France backed up by England in the west, it is apparent that her situation is very delicate, owing to the lack of marked natural boundaries.

Tremendous military power and highly developed diplomatic ability are the two necessary elements to create friendly relations with her neighbors. After the creation of the great German Empire in 1870, Prince Bismarck succeeded in establishing and maintaining for Germany friendly relations with the other great powers. It was his policy to acquire colonies for Germany outside of Europe, and to carefully avoid any territorial encroachments on the neighboring States. He sounded his warning to his countrymen not to try to increase German territory at the expense of Russian territory.

Germany's colonial acquisitions created a new era in her policy, and, if I may be permitted to so express myself, changed completely the face of the German Empire. The protection and development of her colonial possessions and her commerce required a strong navy. England's competition of the commerce controlled by Germany started the tremendous growth of England's naval power, and gave Germany second place. Her rivalry with England compelled Germany to increase her army, too, and we observed how from a quiet, inoffensive, modest State Germany gradually became very strong and endeavored to play the first violin in the concert not only of all Europe, but also of the whole world. Such seems to be the fate of all nations that acquire sudden power—they get conceited and aggressive.

The political events of the last ten years prove sufficiently the aggressiveness of the German policy—the events at Agadir, the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria, the ultimatum sent by the latter to Servia are only passing instances in the growing conceit of the German policy. It should be remembered that in March, 1909, Chancellor von Buelow announced to the German Reichstag that Germany would support Austria in her annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by force, even if the whole of Europe were to oppose it.

Europe at that time did not oppose the Germans, but it seems to me that just then Europe began to realize how dangerous and unsafe it was to have in the heart of that Continent a power with such bellicose and driving intentions. Her political acts were too uncanny and alarmed the whole of Europe, which began to seek ways and means to get rid of this German hegemony, coupled with its rough militarism and unscrupulous ways of acting.

The military and economical developments of Germany induced her to go further in her tendency to enlarge her territory. Emperor William feels that his empire is not big enough to suit his ambition and for the part which he intends to play in Europe. He therefore endeavors to enter into an agreement with the heir of the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand, a man of great energy and wide political views, to the effect to mold out of Austria an exclusive Slavish power and to surrender to Germany the Archduchy of Austria with Vienna and Tyrol, and annex Servia to Austria.

Franz Ferdinand could afford to agree to this plan most readily, because he knew that Austria in her present state could not continue her existence, as she was on the brink of an insurrection of 25,000,000 Austrian Slavs against the continuance of a Government over them of 9,000,000 Austrian Germans. There is no doubt that this question was fully discussed at the conference at Konopish, where the German Emperor, accompanied by Admiral von Tirpitz, went to pay a visit to Franz Ferdinand one month before the latter was assassinated.

The tragedy of Serajevo found Germany after a course of action already had been agreed upon, and the sending of the ultimatum by Austria to Servia can be explained only by the desire of the two nations to fully complete their preparations.

Now, why do we find at this important moment of the world's history such opposition not only against Germany but also an upheaval of other nations?

The German press of the United States endeavors to prove that the underlying reason for the struggle is the eventual triumph in Europe either of Teutonic or Slavish civilization, and denounces Russian barbarism and extols German culture.

I will not discuss the respective merits of Teutonic and Slavic culture and civilization, as in my opinion these are questions absolutely foreign to the events leading up to the war. The Russian, French, English, and Servian nations are not fighting against German culture, as represented by intellectual giants, such as Goethe, Wagner, and many others, but against German militarism, accompanied by systematic oppression of the individual residing in German territory.

This internal German policy created a national spirit against which the Allies now are fighting—the national spirit of Germany, which the whole world knows, and which is rough, conceited, arrogant, and intolerant toward foreigners beyond all measures, and admits nothing good unless it is German or made in Germany. This kind of German national spirit is in the majority in the empire of Germany and particularly in Prussia; the real cultured, good-hearted, sentimental German is about to die out completely, and the few remaining representatives of this type have no voice in Germany.

The pronounced antipathy to the above-described present majority type of Germans united all European nations against Germany, and supports their respective Governments in their efforts to put a stop to the furor teutonicus of the twentieth century.

For this reason the task of the allied Governments will find unlimited support of the nations and this war against Germany in Europe will prove to be most popular.

* * * * *



RUSSIA'S "LITTLE BROTHER."

Statement by George Bakhmeteff, Russian Ambassador to the United States, New York, Oct. 11.

It will be a long time, I suppose, before the American will be able fully to understand Russia's reasons for entering the present war and the great racial thought that lies back of it. The whole situation in a nutshell is that Germany entered the war from racial hate and motives of commercial greed, while Russia drew her sword out of motives of humane and kindly sympathy for a small and oppressed nation of her own kindred. Germany had been grabbing and wished to grab more; Russia rose in arms to stand by and protect her "little brother."

Indeed you are quite right when you say that there are spiritual forces back of Russia's deeds in battle far more than there can be in the case of any other of the warring nations. The reasons lie deep within our national life, and I doubt if any American will be able fully to comprehend them without coming to see us in our own country and seeing us as we are. The great and really wonderful achievements of the German are visible and material, while ours are things of the spirit—invisible, modest, resigned. The representative spirit of Germany's materialism and heartless aggressiveness is that of the megalomaniac Nietzsche and his followers, Treitschke and von Bernhardi. The spokesmen of what is more truly Russian today are Tolstoy and Dostoievski, who have recorded forever the spirit of self-sacrifice, humility and piety in the Russian soul.

Yes, it is true that those who have learned to know us in Russia are aware that the epithets of "Hun" and "barbarian" used against us are stark lies promulgated by bitter enemies who take ignoble advantage of the tradition in America fostered by the melodramatic exploitation of the Jewish problem and the occasional brutalities by our drunken soldier to make you believe that a Russian is a sort of treacherous bandit with a knife in his teeth ready to betray and slay. We regret exceedingly that that tradition has taken root in the United States. We admire and emulate Americans because they have mellowed and complemented their industrial and political achievements with national charity and religious ideals.

In Russia the Jewish question, as such, has not arisen since the opening of the war. Political promises have been made to Poland and these promises will be kept. It is a mistaken idea here that any overtures have been made to the Jews as a class. You think we are as anxious as all that to have them enlist as soldiers? No. We do not wish to make them any special inducements to enlist. You are well aware that nobody hates the Jews more cordially than the Pole himself. Our offer was to the Poles, who have a national entity and a country and home of their own. The Jews have none of these things.

* * * * *



"The Facts About Belgium"



* * * * *



Statement Issued by the Belgian Legation at Washington.

The Belgian Legation at Washington has compiled the following statement of the Belgian case, in the present European War, in answer to the many inquiries that have been received on the subject.

By the treaty of April 19th, 1839, Prussia, France, England, Austria, and Russia declared themselves guarantors of the treaty concluded on the same day between the King of the Belgians and the King of the Netherlands. This treaty provides:

Belgium forms an independent State of perpetual neutrality.

That is to say, Belgium was forbidden, in case of war, to take the part of any of the belligerents.

Since then Belgium has fulfilled all her neutrality obligations; she has acted in a spirit of absolute impartiality. She has left nothing undone to maintain and make respected her neutrality. Germany's obligation to respect Belgian neutrality was even more emphatically affirmed by one of Germany's greatest men, by the creator of the empire. Prince, then Count, Bismarck, wrote to Baron Nothomb, Belgian Minister in Berlin, on the 22nd of July, 1870, as follows:

In confirmation of my verbal assurances, I have the honor to give in writing a declaration which, in view of the treaties in force, is quite superfluous, that the Confederation of the North and its allies will respect the neutrality of Belgium on the understanding, of course, that it is respected by the other belligerents.

On July 31 of the present year the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Secretary General of the Foreign Office had a long conversation with the German Minister in Brussels. It was pointed out to him that in the course of the controversy raised in 1911 by the introduction of the Dutch project for the fortification of the Scheldt, that his predecessor, Herr von Flotow, had assured the Belgian Government that in the event of a Franco-German war Germany would not violate Belgian neutrality; that Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg, the Imperial Chancellor, had given similar assurance; that in 1913 Herr von Jagow, the German Foreign Secretary, had made similar statements of a reassuring character in the budget committee of the Reichstag concerning the neutrality of Belgium; to which the German Minister replied that he was aware of the conversation with his predecessor, and that "he was certain that the sentiments expressed at that epoch had not changed."

On August 2nd, in the course of the day, the German Minister in Brussels, M. De Below Saleske, gave an interview to the newspaper Le Soir, and declared that Belgium had nothing to fear from Germany. He went so far as to employ this expression:

You will see, perhaps, your neighbor's house on fire, but your house will remain intact.

The same day, at 7 o'clock in the evening, he communicated the following note to the Belgian Government:

The German Note.

The German Government has received unimpeachable news to the effect that the French forces have the intention of marching on the Meuse by Givet and Namur. This news leaves no doubt as to the intention of France to march upon Germany from Belgian territory. The Imperial Government of Germany cannot help fearing that Belgium, in spite of the best intentions, will not be in a position to repulse without help an incursion by the French of such great magnitude. In this case it is sufficiently certain that Germany is seriously threatened. It is the urgent business of Germany to forestall this attack on the part of the enemy. The German Government would be filled with lively regret if Belgium were to regard as an act of hostility against her the fact that her precautionary measures oblige her to violate on her side Belgian territory.

In order to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding, the German Government makes the following comment:

1st. Germany contemplates no act of hostility against Belgium. If Belgium consents to assume in the war which is about to commence the attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German Government on its side engages, when peace is restored, to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions.

2nd. Germany engages herself, on the aforesaid conditions, to evacuate Belgian territory as soon as peace is concluded.

3rd. If Belgium observes a friendly attitude, Germany is ready, in co-operation with the authorities of the Government of Belgium, to buy for cash everything that is necessary for her troops, and to pay indemnities for damage done in Belgium; but if Belgium behaves in a hostile manner against the troops, and in particular places difficulties in the way of their advance by opposition by the fortifications of the Meuse, or by the destruction of roads, railways, tunnels, or other works, Germany will be obliged to consider Belgium as an enemy.

In that case Germany will enter into no agreement with the kingdom, but will allow the further relationship of the two States to be left to the decision of arms. The German Government feels that it is justified in hoping that this eventuality will not materialize and that the Belgian Government will know how to take appropriate measures to prevent its materialization. In that case the friendly relations which unite the two neighboring States will become closer and more lasting.

Such is the German note. It will be noticed that there is no question of the alleged entry of French aviators and officers into Belgium, as has been stated in several papers here. The document, in fact, knocks that fable on the head. The only reason given for the violation of Belgian territory is the alleged intention of the French Army to march upon Givet and Namur. This assertion is supported by no proof, and is denied by the French Government, which officially declared to Belgium and England its intention of not violating Belgian territory. On the contrary, the premeditated intention of Germany to violate Belgian neutrality is proved in the most irrefutable way, namely, by the affirmation of the German Secretary of State himself, and by that of the German Chancellor.

To the request of Sir William Goschen, the English Ambassador in Berlin, to be allowed to know if Germany would pledge herself to respect the neutrality of Belgium, the German Secretary of State replied that "this neutrality had already been violated by Germany." Herr von Jagow went again into the

reasons why the Imperial Government had been obliged to take this step, namely, that they had to advance into France by the quickest and easiest way so as to be able to get well ahead with their operations and endeavor to strike some decisive blow as early as possible. It was a matter of life and death to them, for, if they had gone by the more southern route, they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of the roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got through without formidable opposition entailing great loss of time. This loss of time would mean time gained by the Russians for the bringing up of their troops to the German frontier. Rapidity of action was the great German asset, while that of Russia was the inexhaustible supply of troops. [Official Report of the British Ambassador in Berlin to the British Government.]

"A Scrap of Paper."

This conversation preceded by a few minutes that in which the German Chancellor, giddy at the sight of the abyss into which Germany was falling, uttered these celebrated words:

Just for a word, NEUTRALITY, a word which in war times has been so often disregarded; just for A SCRAP OF PAPER, Great Britain is going to make war on a kindred nation. At what price would that compact [neutrality] have been kept? Has the British Government thought of that?

Sir William Goschen replied, that fear of consequences would hardly be regarded as an excuse for breaking a solemn engagement. [Official report of the British Ambassador in Berlin to his Government.]

It is very clear from these documents that Germany had for a long time premeditated the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and that she has even reconciled herself to the terrible danger of war with Great Britain, rather than renounce the advantages she thought she would gain by not respecting the treaty. In the face of these confessions the allegations that France wished to violate the neutrality of Belgium, an allegation supported by no proof, falls to the ground.

To continue the analysis of the German note:

If Belgium consents to assume in the war which is about to commence the attitude of friendly neutrality toward Germany, the German Government, on its side, engages, when peace is restored, to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions.

Could Belgium, without being false to her duties of neutrality, take up the position which the German Government calls "friendly neutrality"? That is to say, could she allow the German armies to pass without opposition through her territory? Can the German Government itself answer that question?

It is enough to reread the conversation given above between the British Ambassador and the German Secretary of State to come to a clear conclusion in that respect. If the violation of Belgian territory was to procure so signal an advantage to Germany that she had no fear of bringing on war with England to attain it, then for Belgium to lend herself to the passage of German troops must have meant the certainty of fatal consequences for France. Thus for Belgium to have yielded to the German ultimatum would ipso facto have conferred a considerable advantage to Germany, to the detriment of the other belligerent, and would have constituted a breach of neutrality.

Germany concludes her note by threats. She engages, on the condition already defined, to evacuate Belgian territory at the conclusion of peace. If Belgium behaves in a hostile manner [that is to say, if she does her duty] Germany will be obliged to consider Belgium as an enemy. She would then leave the ultimate arrangements of the relations of the two States to the decision of arms. In other words, if Belgium does not agree to violate the treaty, Germany will treat her as an enemy, and she adds a veiled threat of annexing a part or the whole of her territory.

The moral fibre of nations is not always measured by their size or power. Belgium is small and weak, but her answer bears witness to her love of justice and to her respect of the right. She would rather die with honor than live dishonored.

That was made clear by the answer of her Government. The answer was as follows:

Reply to German Note.

The German note has been a painful surprise to the Belgian Government. The intentions which the note attributes to France are in contradiction to the formal declarations which were made to us on the 1st of August in the name of the republic. Besides, if contrary to our expectations, France is about to violate the neutrality of Belgium, Belgium would be prepared to fulfil its neutrality obligations, and her army would offer to the invader the most vigorous resistance. The treaties of 1839, confirmed by the treaties of 1870, commit to the guarantee of the powers and notably to the Government of his Majesty the King of Prussia the independence and neutrality of the Kingdom of Belgium.

The Chancellor of the German Empire said in a sitting of the Reichstag on the 4th of August:

We are in a state of legitimate defense Necessity knows no law. Our troops have occupied Luxemburg and have perhaps already penetrated into Belgium. This is against the law of nations. France, it is true, has declared to Brussels that she is determined to respect the neutrality of Belgium as long as her adversary respects it, but we know that France was ready to invade Belgium. France can afford to wait; we cannot. A French attack on our flank in the region of the lower Rhine might have been fatal. It is for that reason we have been compelled to ignore the just protests of the Governments of Luxemburg and Belgium. The injustice which we thus commit we will repair as soon as our military object has been attained.