of the Luxemburg and Belgian Governments. The wrong—­I speak openly—­that we are committing we will endeavor to make good as soon as our military goal has been reached.  Anybody who is threatened as we are threatened, and is fighting for his highest possessions, can only have one thought—­how he is to hack his way through.”

This defense is not even a plea of confession and avoidance.  It is a plea of “Guilty” at the bar of the world.  It has one merit, that it does not add to the crime the aggravation of hypocrisy.  It virtually rests the case of Germany upon the gospel of Treitschke and Bernhardi, that each nation is justified in exerting its physical power to the utmost in defense of its selfish interests and without any regard to considerations of conventional morality.  Might as between nations is the sole criterion of right.  There is no novelty in this gospel.  Its only surprising feature is its revival in the twentieth century.  It was taught far more effectively by Machiavelli in his treatise, “The Prince,” wherein he glorified the policy of Cesare Borgia in trampling the weaker States of Italy under foot by ruthless terrorism, unbridled ferocity, and the basest deception.  Indeed, the wanton destruction of Belgium is simply Borgiaism amplified ten-thousandfold by the mechanical resources of modern war.

This Answer Cannot Satisfy.

Unless our boasted civilization is the thinnest veneering of barbarism; unless the law of the world is in fact only the ethics of the rifle and the conscience of the cannon; unless mankind after uncounted centuries has made no real advance in political morality beyond that of the cave dweller, then this answer of Germany cannot satisfy the “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”  Germany’s contention that a treaty of peace is “a scrap of paper,” to be disregarded at will when required by the selfish interests of one contracting party, is the negation of all that civilization stands for.

Belgium has been crucified in the face of the world.  Its innocence of any offense, until it was attacked, is too clear for argument.  Its voluntary immolation to preserve its solemn guarantee of neutrality will “plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against the deep damnation of its taking off.”  On that issue the Supreme Court could have no ground for doubt or hesitation.  Its judgment would be speedy and inexorable.

The remaining two issues, above referred to, are not so simple.  Primarily and perhaps exclusively, the ethical question turns upon the issues raised by the communications which passed between the various Chancelleries of Europe in the last week of July, for it is the amazing feature of this greatest of all wars that it was precipitated by diplomats and rulers, and, assuming that all these statesmen sincerely desired a peaceful solution of the questions raised by the Austrian ultimatum, (which is by no means clear,) it was the result of ineffective diplomacy and clumsy diplomacy at that.