bearance, in which lies her clearest vindication. Anyhow it is important to bear in mind that Servia's pretensions and designs brought matters to a crisis six years ago, and that she escaped punishment only through a solemn promise of correct behavior.

How was that promise kept? By doing worse from year to year, by developing with more energy still the propaganda of high treason among Austria's and Hungary's South Slavonic citizens; and, since the results of such merely political work ripened too slowly, the pace was mended by setting up an additional organization of political assassination, headed by military and non-military officials of the Servian kingdom. The thing would seem almost incredible but for the fact that the present Servian King's rule is based on murder and that murderers are or were among his chief advisers. A Government boasting of an origin like this must be expected to take a lenient view of political assassination.

The matter was brought to light by Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination. This dreadful crime, as has been established by the judicial inquiry, was not the work of a single fanatic's craze; it was the carefully prepared result of a widespread conspiracy, centered in a great Servian national organization, the Narodna Obrana, whose chairman is a general in active service, and whose rules, besides an almost open confession of criminal propagandism among the neighboring power's citizens, contains a paragraph of dark meaning, bidding young men to prepare for some "big deed on behalf of the national cause." Well, Archduke Franz Ferdinand's murderers, all of them affiliated with the aforesaid organization, were prepared for the "big deed," and they also achieved it successfully. All the implements of their murderous deed came from Servian army stores; bombs of the same origin were found hidden in many places; not a single accomplice of the crime could be laid hands upon on Servian ground; they found protection there instead of prosecution.

If circumstantial evidence has any meaning, the case against official Servia seems to be made out by these facts. But what is more, the lamented Archduke's assassination was not the first, but, within two years, the fourth attempt organized by the same gang of murderers against the lives of faithful public servants in the southern parts of Austria and Hungary. Now, in the name of all that is human and just and fair, for how many years more should we have submitted to this? How many more assassinations should we have left unprevented, unpunished? What nation, big or small, can tolerate the setting up in her neighborhood of a whole machinery of treason and destruction, the organization of a permanent conspiracy against her moral cohesion, with murder lurking at every street's corner, threatening the individual safety of her most valued citizens? Austria-Hungary has tolerated it long enough to feel her strength shaken, to see her power disbelieved, her destruction discounted, and her future ruler murdered.

A little more of this and our fellow-citizens of South Slavonic race would have learned to doubt the Monarchy's capacity for defending the loyal and punishing the traitors, for making herself respected, even by small neighbors. In the face of such weakness on one side and such unscrupulous daring on the other, they might have wavered in their allegiance to a state unable to protect them. It was high time to drag our treacherous assailants from the dark recesses of conspiracy into the broad daylight of plain

speaking and open doing. We had to exact from official Servia, whose moral complicity was established beyond doubt, efficient pledges, not words which in the case of confirmed liars are valueless - but measures, guaranteeing our tranquillity as a nation and the individual safety of our faithful public servants.

Such pledges Servia would not give; she evaded the summons in her habitual manner of double-dealing, granting a profusion of words, professions, and promises, the mendacity of which is warranted by experience, but recoiling from every measure really efficient. She was clearly resolved to go on with her work of sneaking aggression and to cultivate further on her welltried methods of conspiracy. Austria-Hungary would have been the laughing-stock not of her enemies only, but of her own citizens, should she have feigned to believe where bad faith was manifest. There was no help for it; we had to set aside our extreme unwillingness to adopt violent measures. We had to strike or to resign our right to live.

The case was not arbitrable, nor fit to be submitted to an international inquiry. Before giving my support in any warlike step I examined with the utmost care this side of the question, and, devoted though I am to the international peace institutions and to a constant expansion of their activity, I had to own that they were no use in the present case. Their applicability supposes good faith and a wish to do the right thing on both sides; failing this honesty plays the part of a dupe.

What could have been the result of international proceedings against Servia? A verdict establishing her malpractices and bidding her to desist from them. Servia, of course, would have professed to submit, just as she professed to be a good neighbor after the crisis of 1908. In fact, she would have persisted in her dark work, somewhat cautiously, perhaps, at the beginning, more daringly afterward. And in a couple of years, maybe after another series of attempted and successful assassinations, matters would again have ripened to a crisis. Should we then again have begun that parody of an international procedure, which settles nothing, because the adverse party hypocritically accepts and bare-facedly evades every decision running against it? Should we have gone on rotting all the while and hastening toward dissolution? Really, we could not do that; international institutions must not be converted into traps where honesty is caught and dishonesty enjoys good fun; they are meant to insure justice, not to further the designs of cheats. In the face of God and man do I proclaim: if ever there was a case of lawful self-defense here you have it.

But what about the universal war which grew out of a local conflict? Who is responsible for its horrors, for its calamities? The answer to this question is perfectly clear. Since Austria-Hungary was in a state of lawful self-defense against Servian aggression, those are responsible for the greater evil who espoused the cause of that aggression. And this is what Russia did. She is the great culprit. Her policy is the main fountain whence torrents of blood and of tears will flow. Her allies have been drawn by her into the concern.

Not that I wish to attenuate the guilt and the disgrace of highly cultured nations like France and England, who became in some way the patrons and the associates of a gang of murderers. But on Russia rests the chief responsibility; on her head falls the great sin against humanity implied in this

war. From her face the mask has fallen, unveiling the lust of power and expansion which inspires her policy and which is the real source of every unrest in Europe.

In her war manifesto Russia tries to personate the chivalrous defender of a weak country against a strong one. That may appeal to the ignorant; in truth it is bare-faced humbugging. When Austria-Hungary had to coerce Servia, she solemnly declared that her only aim was to win those guaranties of her own tranquillity which Servia would not grant, but that neither Servia's territory, nor Servia's independence would suffer any permanent mutilation. After that solemn declaration, made in the most binding form by a power whose word is as good as any deed, there remained not the smallest pretext for honest interference.

Still Russia did interfere. On whose behalf? On Servia's? After the pledges freely given by Austria-Hungary Servia as a nation needed no protection; Austria-Hungary's coercive action was not directed against Servia, but only against the system of treacherous conspiracies and murderous attempts fostered by her present rulers. It is these dark forces alone that were threatened by our action in Servia.

It is therefore on behalf of these, not of the weaker nation, which was perfectly safe, that Russia interfered. Russia does not wish Servia to become a decent country and a loyal neighbor; Russia draws her sword to make it possible that the conspiracies against Austria-Hungary's safety and the plots of murder implied in them should go on undisturbed; Russia stands behind that dark work with all her might and power; it is part of her policy. Through it should Austria-Hungary be kept in a state of constant unrest, economic difficulties and moral decomposition, till she became ripe for receiving the final blow? Because Austria-Hungary must disappear, to make room for the programme now openly proclaimed by the Tsar: the union of all Slavs under Russian rule.

So the mask has fallen, Servia is a simple outpost; behind her stands the policy of Russia, supporting those treacherous and abominable acts which compelled unwilling Austria-Hungary to make a stand for her dignity and safety. Before the tribunal of human conscience stands Muscovitism unveiled as responsible for the horrors of universal war and for the permanent unrest that consumes Europe's forces. The power of Muscovitism must be broken before peace can be enjoyed with any amount of safety, before peace institutions can work with any degree of efficiency.

Well, since Providence puts its burden on our shoulders, that work will be done with God's help thoroughly. The greatness of the task is felt by every soul throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary, and absolute confidence reigns everywhere that our joined forces are able to fulfill it. Even in Germany there is no peculiar animosity against France. There is more of it against England, whose intervention is considered as a piece of revolting cynicism; but the object of popular resentment is Russia, which only shows the unerring instinct of the masses. And what I hear at home from simple-minded but honest and straightforward people like the day laborers on my own estate, is a passionate desire to have it out once for all with Russia.

It is clear not from facts only, but from the Tsar's explicit confession, that the policy of Russia pursues aims which can be obtained only through uni

versal war. The union of all Slavs under Russian dominion can be effected only after the disintegration of existing political bodies, Austria-Hungary to begin with, and by subjecting the non-Slav races encompassed between Slavs, such as the Hungarians and the Rumanians. Does n't that mean war, horrible war, universal war, since neither the political bodies concerned will submit to destruction, without making a desperate stand, nor the threatened races to subjection, without fighting to the last? And does n't it imply another confession of complicity with Servia's conspiracies and crimes, which now appear quite distinctly for what they are pioneer work on behalf of Russia?

But what would Russia's dominion over the whole mass of Slavs, the so-called Pan-Slavist ideals, mean from the standpoint of the great principles and ideals of progressive humanity? What would it mean to the Slavs themselves? It would mean, if a bad pun is to be allowed here, their transformation into slaves; it would mean to those among them who are now enjoying the bliss of civilized western government and liberty a rolling down into the abyss of darkest tyranny, religious oppression to all those who do not conform to the Orthodox creed; a wiping-out of racial differences as wide as the difference between German and Dutch, Italian and Spaniard; loss of every guaranty of individual and political liberty; arbitrary police rule, which makes every man and woman liable to be arrested and transported without a trial, without a judicial verdict.

These and other similar blessings does Muscovitism offer to those who are so happy as to fall into its loving embrace. And to all mankind the grouping of the forces of Slavism under Russia's despotic power would mean the most horrible menace to enlightenment, progress, liberty, and democracy; a peril of retrogression of several centuries, a moral and social catastrophe.

It is to be expected that Germany's and Austria-Hungary's joint forces will save our kind from the peril of falling so low, notwithstanding the damnable support which Muscovitism gets from two blindfolded western powers, one of whom does not even scruple to draw the yellow race into a conflict of Europeans. We have not the smallest doubt concerning the superior value of our armies, even when outnumbered. And we feel able to lay our cause before God, the just, the omniscient. We are conscious of having stood for peace as long as there was the smallest chance of preserving it with honor. We are fighting now the battle of righteous self-defense on the strongest compulsion ever undergone by any nation. We fight the battle of mankind's highest ideals and we fight the battle of peace, which our victory will make secure for generations to come.

So we look forward to whatever is in store for us, with the serene fortitude of men who feel strong in the purity of their conscience.

BELGIAN NEUTRALITY

RICHELIEU REJECTS A PROPOSAL FOR THE PARTITION OF BELGIUM AND SUGGESTS ANOTHER PLAN 1

CARDINAL RICHELIEU was not at all inclined to the acquisition of the Netherlands; he was deterred from it by political considerations of a practical nature, which have since prevented France from taking or keeping them. It was upon this double difficulty of taking and holding the provinces that in June, 1634, the Cardinal based his objection to a partition proposed by the United Provinces. "Even if," said he, "we should with much time, trouble, and expense succeed, in it, the preservation of what we had aoquired could not be effected except with very large garrisons such as would render us intensely odious to the inhabitants and expose us for this reason to serious uprisings and perpetual wars. And, even if France should be so fortunate as to keep the provinces which had fallen to her share in voluntary dependence upon her control, it might soon happen that, having no longer a barrier between us and the Dutch, we should be involved in the same quarrel in which they and the Spaniards are now engaged, instead of being as at present in good relations; [which is due] as much to the separation existing between our states as to the fact that we have a common enemy who keeps us occupied, - seeing that we are equally interested in his abasement."

He gave still other reasons drawn from the difficulties and uncertainties of war, the fickleness of the French character, and the interests of Catholicism. He added: "Thus it is that all these reasons lead Cardinal Richelieu to say to the King that the proposal conveyed by the Sieur de Charnacé could not in his opinion be entertained in any form, and that a war for the purpose of conquering Flanders must absolutely not be undertaken." The plan that he proposed was to form an independent Catholic Republic which would offer to the French and to the Dutch the great advantage of getting rid of the Spaniards, without exposing them [the French and Dutch] to the risk of becoming enemies as a consequence of finding themselves outand-out neighbors. He said, therefore: "That if it should be necessary to attack Flanders, it must be done under the most plausible conditions and those best adapted to facilitate the design which would be entertained, in that case, of expelling the Spaniards. That France and Holland should resolve not to lay claim to anything in all the provinces which are under the sovereignty of the King of Spain except two or three places each (the Dutch, Bréda, Gueldre, and other neighboring places which could be agreed upon) as pledges, and as a bond of the union and of the peace which was going to exist hereafter between the three states. That they would gain enough if they should deliver the provinces from subjection to Spain, and give to them the means of forming a free corporate body, powerful, and capable of establishing a good alliance with them. That a public declaration must be made in the form of a manifesto, which should assure the Cath1 Translated from F. A. Mignet, Négociations relatives à la Succession d'Espagne, pp. 174-76. Paris, 1835.