Dr. Dernburg asks: 1" What would American readers say if they knew that as early as July 30 French guns were in Liège where they have been captured alongside of French officers and soldiers? Such is stated in a letter written to Mr. Lehman, house superintendent of the Beecher Memorial Building, from his brother in Germany, who has been on the ground. What would they think if it was proved, as it is recited in the semi-official Government journal, that two wounded Frenchmen had been found in Namur, who said that their regiment, the Forty-fifth, was brought to Namur as early as July 30? In the Evening Post of to-day a lady from Boston relates on good authority the landing of British marines in Ostend on the 30th of July." Professor Harnack and other well-known Germans have stated that Great Britain stored great quantities of ammunition at the French fortress of Maubeuge before the outbreak of the war. This they consider as evidence that England intended to violate the neutrality of Belgium. The official Press Bureau at London denies that there is any authority for these statements. Even if the Harnack statement had been true, it might well be considered evidence of justifiable preparations in the event of Germany's disregard of Belgian neutrality. In the preceding chapter we discussed the charge made by the German Government that Belgium had departed from a neutral attitude by holding up shipments of grain for Germany.3 We must leave this discussion for the present, I think, 1 The New York Sun of October 11, 1914. The New York Times of October 7, 1914, gives an extract from this statement: "No decision to send British forces abroad was taken till after Germany had violated Belgian neutrality and Belgium had appealed for assistance. No British ammunition or stores had been placed at Maubeuge before these events. Any British ammunition or stores found at Maubeuge was sent there after, and not before, the outbreak of the war and the viola tion of Belgian neutrality by Germany." See ante, chap. vIII, § 11. until Germany has brought forward some evidence substantiating some of these various alleged violations of Belgian neutrality previous to Germany's attack. We must bear in mind, however, that from the moment Germany invaded Luxemburg and disregarded her solemn treaty obligations to respect the latter's neutrality, France would have been perfectly justified, as far as her obligation toward Germany went, in disregarding Belgian neutrality. Nevertheless, as between France and Belgium and as between France and the other guaranteeing powers, a retaliatory violation of Belgian neutrality would not have been justified; nor is there any indication that France proposed to violate Belgian territory in return for Germany's violation of Luxemburg's neutralization on August 2. In any event, the German Government has as yet produced no evidence of this. 8. The violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Luxemburg had been given to the King of the Netherlands,1 and it continued to form a part of the German Confederation until the dissolution of the Confederation in 1866. At that date it was apparent that, upon the death of the King of Holland, the effect of the Luxemburg law governing the succession to the Grand Duchy would bring to an end the personal union of Holland and Luxemburg under one ruler. The London Conference which met in 1867 was successful in reaching an agreement in regard to the settlement of the Luxemburg question. By the terms of the Treaty of Lon 1 "... This [Luxemburg] had been granted in 1815 to the King of the Netherlands in compensation for his hereditary territories of OrangeNassau ceded to Prussia. It formed part of the German Confederation, and, as its duke, King William had a vote in the Diet of Frankfort. The city of Luxemburg itself was, moreover, a strong fortress, and commanded the approaches to Lower Germany. The Belgians, however, while consenting to reserve the rights of the German Confederation, claimed Luxemburg as an integral part of their country, and deputies from it took their seats in the Congress at Brussels." (Phillips, Modern Europe, p. 192. London, 1902.) don of May 11, 1867, Luxemburg was constituted into an independent neutral state placed under the "collective guaranty" of the powers.1 Since Luxemburg was too weak to provide for her own defense, and since neither France nor Prussia would allow the other to garrison her fortresses, it only remained to demolish them. Had they been left standing, in times of tension either France or Prussia, mistrusting the other's intentions, might have been tempted to seize them.2 The question of the guaranty of the perpetual neutrality of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg is one of the most interesting that has arisen in international law. According to the terms of the Treaty of May 11, 1867, Luxemburg, as I have said, was placed under the "collective guaranty" of the powers. This treaty was signed by the five great powers signatory to the treaties guaranteeing the neutralization of Belgium, with the addition of Italy, who thereupon took her place as the sixth great power in the European Concert. Belgium also signed this treaty, with an express reservation in regard to the neutralization guaranty, the subscription to which was very properly considered as incompatible with her own situation as a neutralized state. The interest which the British public took in the work of the London Conference was evidenced by the questions which the members of Parliament addressed to the Government, as to the nature of the obligations incurred by Great Britain's agreeing to the collective guaranty of the neutralization of Luxemburg. In Chapter XIII we have given full extracts of the most important portions of this most interesting debate, from which it appears that the responsible ministers of the British Government took the ground that Great Britain was not obligated to make good her guaranty unless all the other signatories should also 1 See for terms of the treaty, Documents, post, chap. XIII. join in collective action for this purpose. As it would be hard to conceive of a violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg on the part of any power other than the signatories of the treaty of guaranty, this interpretation of the British Government of the obligation would make the treaty the most veritable scrap of paper and the greatest trumpery of diplomacy. This peculiar quirk in British policy, this twisting of the clear intention of the treaty stipulation as generally interpreted by impartial observers,1 is only comprehensible in the light of the diplomatic situation which led to the conclusion of the Treaty of May 11, 1867. Napoleon III, making Prussia's increase in territory after the defeat of Austria an excuse, sought compensation in order to maintain the relative position of France. The dissolution of the Germanic Confederation caused uncertainty in regard to the situation of Luxemburg, which was further increased by the fact that in the death of the King of Holland the personal union with that country would disappear, because the Luxemburg law of inheritance did not recognize the succession of females except in default of male heirs. Napoleon III found the King of Holland ready to acquiesce 1 See Milovanovitch, Les Traités de Garantie au XIX Siècle, pp. 287-88. (Translation.) “We have seen how, taking their stand on this difference in terms, consisting only in the qualification 'collective' given to the guaranty applying to Luxemburg, the English Ministers, Lord Stanley and Lord Derby, built up a theory on the distinction between a collective guaranty and a number of individual guaranties. We shall not repeat here our reasons for finding this distinction without foundation. We will only point out that the terms establishing the guaranty of the neutrality of Luxemburg were retained exactly as the Prussian plenipotentiary had proposed them. Now, this plenipotentiary formally declared, while making his amendment, that he desired to have the neutrality of Luxemburg placed under the same guaranty as that given to Belgian neutrality. It would be strange, therefore, to give to the terms in which he formulated his proposal a real difference as regards the efficacy of the two kinds of guaranties. Assuredly, neither the Prussian plenipotentiary in making his proposal, nor any of the plenipotentiaries who adopted it, suspected that it was possible to attribute to the term 'Collective Guaranty' the meaning given to it in the English Parliament." in his project to secure Luxemburg, but unwilling to keep the negotiations secret from Prussia. Bismarck, however, showed a complaisant disposition and seemed willing to allow France to secure Luxemburg in return for her neutrality during Prussia's war with Austria. At an opportune moment Bismarck proceeded to make public the negotiations in regard to the cession of Luxemburg and to take advantage of the popular outburst of indignation against France to form defensive alliances with the several German states against the eventuality of a French attack. Supported by a strong public sentiment, Bismarck refused to withdraw the Prussian garrison from Luxemburg,1 and a Franco-Prussian war seemed on the point of breaking out. The other powers did what they could to prevent the conflict, and at Russia's suggestion a conference was called at London to settle the Luxemburg question on the basis of the neutralization of the territory and the destruction of its fortresses. Prussia made her participation in this conference conditional upon the adoption of a provision establishing the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg under a collective guaranty of the powers. The British Government were not at all disposed to shoulder the responsibility of this guaranty. The fate of Luxemburg did not present a vital question like that of Belgium, and it was reasonable for England to strive to keep her treaty obligations and her vital interests coextensive. For the purpose of avoiding the war which threatened, Great Britain accepted Bismarck's terms. As soon as the conference began its work, however, Lord Stanley introduced a draft of a treaty which omitted the provision of the collective guaranty. The British Government perhaps hoped that in the interval the acute feeling in regard to Luxemburg might have sufficiently cooled to make it possible to find some adjustment without accept 1 Prussia had been authorized by the Treaty of February 17, 1856, to garrison the forts of Luxemburg. |