2. France tempted her to commit "acts friendly" to herself, by which
Belgium forfeited her rights to the protection of The Hague articles
governing the rights and duties of neutrals.
3. England urged her to take up arms, when she had only asked to have
her integrity guaranteed by diplomatic intervention. (Nos. 153, 155.)
4. Germany promised her independence and integrity and peace, while
England, quietly dropping her guarantee of neutrality "in future years,"
promised her independence and integrity and war.
5. And Sir Edward Grey was able to sway Parliament, according to one of
the leaders of Parliament himself, only because he misrepresented
Germany's guarantee, and, having dropped, in his note to Belgium, the
word "neutrality," dropped yet another of the two remaining words,
integrity and independence.
This is the case as it appears on the evidence contained in the various
"White Papers." Austria was attending properly to her own affairs;
Servia was willing to yield; Russia, however, was determined to
humiliate Austria or to go to war. Germany proved a loyal friend to her
ally, Austria; she trusted in the British professions of friendship to
the last, and sacrificed seven valuable days in the interest of peace.
France was willing to do "what might be required by her interests,"
while Great Britain yielded to Russia and France, promising them their
support without which France, and therefore Russia, would not have
decided on war.
As to Belgium, Germany told Sir Edward Grey that she had unimpeachable
evidence that France was planning to go through Belgium, and she
published her evidence concerning the French officers who remained in
Belgium. Although Belgium had thus lost any rights attaching to her
state of neutrality, Germany promised to respect her integrity and
independence, and to pay for any damage done. She preferred, however, to
listen to Great Britain, who promised exactly the same except pay for
any damage done.
Unlike Mr. Beck, who in the same article pleads his case as the counsel
for the Allies and casts his verdict as the Supreme Court of
Civilization, the present writer prefers to leave the judgment to his
readers as a whole, and further still, to the whole American
people--yea, to all the peoples of the world. Nor is he in a hurry, for
he is willing to wait and have the Judges weigh the evidence and call
for more, if they consider insufficient what has already been submitted.
Snap judgments are ever unsatisfactory. They have often to be reversed.
The present case, however, is too important to warrant a hasty decision.
The final judgment, if it is based on truth, will very strongly
influence the nature of the peace, which will either establish good-will
and stable conditions in the world, or lead to another and even more
complete breakdown of civilization.