_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
Referring to your editorial, "The Evidence Examined," in your Sunday
edition, I wish to protest emphatically against your assertion that a
"Court of Civilization" must inevitably come to the conclusion that
Germany precipitated the war. There are still millions of civilized
people who see these things quite differently.
Mr. Beck makes out a case from the viewpoint of the accusing party--of
course, nobody will doubt the legal abilities of Mr. Beck--but before
the Supreme Court of Civilization there is also a law: audiatur et
altera pars. Mr. Beck, as he presents the case to the court, has not
mentioned very important points which, for the decision of the Supreme
Court, would be most vital ones.
At first the breach of Belgian neutrality, admitted and regretted by the
German Government, has nothing to do with the question--who precipitated
the war? It constituted only an action of the war itself. On the other
hand, you call in your editorial the Austrian ultimatum a savage one
and take it for granted that this ultimatum started the stone rolling
and brought finally the general clash in Europe about. This presumption,
when presented to the court, will have to be thoroughly proved, because
there are many people, fair and just, as you consider yourself, who are
convinced of the ample justification of this ultimatum.
It is hardly describable how many criminal acts have been committed by
Servians against the very existence of the Dual Monarchy for the last
six years, under the eyes of the Servian Government and approved by it,
by intriguing against Austria's right to cultivate her own territory,
Bosnia, spreading secret societies all over the empire, &c.
The awful crime, the assassination of the heir to the throne, was only
the finish of a long chain of like acts. These facts, which immediately
lead up to the ultimatum, ought to be considered in the first place by
judging Austria's justification for sending this ultimatum to Servia. A
just Judge in the Court of Civilization will, I am convinced, carefully
study the ante-history and in all probability arrive at the conclusion
that the ultimatum was amply justified and Servia fully deserved the
severest punishment possible.
Mr. Beck presents to the court the Russian interference with this
intended punishment and forgets to tell the Judge that Russia had not
the least right to this interference. No foreign power had.
Therefore, Austria was entirely within her right to decline any
negotiations with Russia about this punishment before its completion.
Nevertheless, the German Government brought these negotiations about,
and, while these negotiations proceeded satisfactorily, Russia
mobilized, mobilized all along her western frontier against Austria and
Germany, notwithstanding the fact that she had promised not to do so and
officials in Petrograd had pledged their words to the contrary.
Russia knew there could be no such thing as a war with Austria alone, as
well as Germany knew that a war with Russia meant a war with France. If
the laws of morality rule in the Court of Civilization, they should
above all be applied to the conduct of Servia and Russia. Austria was in
a state of self-defense, when she decided not to bear any longer
Servia's treacherous and murderous attacks against her existence; this
is entirely within the boundaries of the laws of morality. Russia,
however, without the slightest right, moral or legal, attacked Austria
from the back by interfering with Austria's own affairs.
Therefore I wish to point out that a careful student of the papers, by
considering the ante-history of the war, which, as you will admit, is
very essential, may come to a quite different conclusion and Mr. Beck as
State's attorney will have a hard stand against the counsel of the
defendant.