In conclusion, I beg to ask Mr. Beck:  Why expect so much of Germany and nothing of Russia, when Germany had not merely professed her peaceful intentions, but actually maintained peace for over forty years, during which period not a foot of territory had been acquired by her through conquest?  This is a fact.

Coming into a court of law supported by such a reputation, does Mr. Beck really believe that the decision of the court would have been in favor of Russia?  Does Mr. Beck really believe that the decision would have been against Germany, whose war lord was begging the Czar almost on his knees to avoid the awful calamity by the discontinuance of mobilization?

Picture the United States about to invade Mexico to redress an insult to the American flag.  Picture England as the ally of the United States, and Japan supporting Mexico, without any alliance existing between the two latter countries.  To make this example conform to the actual facts under discussion, we must, of course, assume that both Japan and England are situated in the North American Continent, and across the border from the United States and England.  Japan, with an army of 18,000,000 soldiers, (assumed for the purpose of argument,) mobilizes her army, professedly for defense against the United States.  Could any fair-minded American possibly expect England to intercede with her ally, the United States, without first demanding the demobilization of Japan?  Whose duty was it to yield?

The actual fact is that Germany even then did not declare war against Russia until Russian soldiers had actually crossed not the Austrian but the German border.

I may add that in writing the above I am prompted only by the very natural desire, viz., to impress upon the jury composed of the American people the one fact which should be given the most careful consideration in order to enable it to arrive at a just verdict in the case submitted, and this fact is “the mobilization of Russia.”

FRANK SEGGEBRUCH.

New York, Oct. 29, 1914.

In Defense of Austria

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.