THE WAR

HAGUE CONVENTION OF OCTOBER 18, 1907, RELATIVE TO SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES 1

PART II.-Good Offices and Mediation

ARTICLE III. Independently of this recourse, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.

Powers strangers to the dispute have the right to offer good offices or mediation even during the course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties in dispute as an unfriendly act.

HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1907 RELATIVE TO THE

OPENING OF HOSTILITIES 2

CONSIDERING that it is important, in order to ensure the maintenance of pacific relations, that hostilities should not commence without previous warning.

That it is equally important that the existence of a state of war should be notified without delay to neutral Powers;

Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries:

(For names of Plenipotentiaries, see Final Act.)

Who, after depositing their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions:

ARTICLE I. The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

ARTICLE II. The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.

ARTICLE III. Article I of the present Convention shall take effect in case of war between two or more of the Contracting Powers.

Article II is binding as between a belligerent Power which is a party to the Convention and neutral Powers which are also parties to the Convention.

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, part п, p. 1182. Washington, 1910. Ibid., pp. 1202-03.

THE LARGER MEANINGS OF THE WAR1

In an address on "The Larger Meanings of the War," delivered before the Institute of Arts and Sciences of Columbia University, Professor Franklin H. Giddings discussed the race characteristics of the Germans and concluded with this striking analysis of the conflict of ideas paralleling the struggle between the Germans and the Allies:

But if Germany's achievement in the fields of art and science, though great and admirable, are not yet surpassing, her achievement in the domain of social policy and organization challenges and will continue to challenge the attention of the world. She has repudiated the philosophy of laissez faire and flatly denied the maxim that the government is best which governs least. She has developed government as an instrumentality of social welfare on a scale and with a measure of success never before or elsewhere seen. While England and America have been awakening to the humane conviction that ignorance, inefficiency, unemployment, vagabondage and misery ought if possible to be prevented, Germany has said that they can and shall be prevented, and by preventing them she has created a collective efficiency which the rest of Europe will henceforth respect. Whether it has been attained at too great a sacrifice of individual liberty, initiative, and selfreliance, time and the fortunes of war may determine. Perhaps the fate of the contending nations will turn precisely upon this point. Whatever befalls, it is a safe prediction that mankind will presently inquire whether a way can be found to conserve liberty and yet profit by the German invention of competent social government.

"There remain those supposedly important factors of civilization, idealism and morality. What of them? Germany proclaims to the world that her paramount discovery lies in the realm of moral philosophy, and that her true greatness is now to be seen in the fearlessness with which she applies it to life. She has discovered, it seems, as a truth of reason, that 'might' really does make 'right' -and itself is the only right. It had been suspected that Machiavelli taught something like this, but he was an Italian and lived before the publication of the Origin of Species through Natural Selection. Darwin wrote the Origin of Species, but he was an Englishman, and clung to an old-fashioned morality. Nietzsche, the German, was the first to see that if there really is a struggle for existence in which the strong alone survive and the weak miserably perish, weakness must be essential evil; might, essential righteousness; compassion, the only sin. Not the Christ but the superman must come, and the German is the superman. Treitschke was Nietzsche's disciple and the mantle has fallen upon Bernhardi. Promulgate this philosophy, they have said, embody it in diplomacy, teach it to the army, preach it to the people, and then you shall see Deutschland über Alles.

"What can the rest of mankind say? Only this. The tiger and the savage proceed with simple directness to the end of view. Civilized man has assumed that the quality of means no less than the desirability of ends should receive consideration, and this attention to means as well as to ends he has called morality. He has made these assumptions and adjusted his conduct 1 Extract from an address by Franklin H. Giddings. This address was printed in the Survey of November 7, 1914.

to them because, long ago, he stumbled upon two important discoveries. One was, that mutual aid is a more important factor in the struggle for existence than claw or fist. The other was, that mutual aid is possible only among men that can trust one another, who tell the truth and keep their word, abiding by their covenants though they have sworn to their own hurt. And all this seems at least plausible. Outside of Germany it is held to be not only a rather decent folkway, but also, good Darwinism.

"And now we turn to our second question: Do the characteristics of these contrasted civilizations · one the historic Latin-Celtic-Saxon blend; the other, a young and lusty Teutonic and the terrific conflict in which they are engaged afford us intimations of the future? Must war, increasingly terrible, recur forever, generation after generation, or may we reasonably hope and work for lasting peace?

"One thing stands forth clearly from the foregoing analysis. Peoples and civilizations grow. They are supreme manifestations of 'the will to live.' They must then have place to live and room to grow. Hemmed in and denied, they burst their barriers, exploding in the wrath of war. Now two ways and only two have been found in human experience so far to provide for expansion by a virile people developing its own characteristic civilization. One is the acquisition of territory by conquest or purchase; the other is the removal of commercial barriers. Or, to put it more bluntly and unequivocally, the choice is between war and free trade. There are some millions of men and women in the United States and elsewhere who do not believe this or will not admit it. They will be forced by the facts of life and history to admit it. Until they are ready for world-wide free trade they will waste their breath in praying for world peace.

"Commercial freedom would make peace possible but not certain. The passions of primitive man survive in us all and easily break through the inhibitions that civilization has with infinite difficulty provided. Of all known inhibitions the thinking habit is most to be relied on. It halts us, to look and listen. And the thinking habit is bound up with the time-wasting practice of discussion. This is the priceless contribution of democracy to human progress. Democracy has its own limitations and imperfections but on the whole it is fairly described and defined as the thinking and impulse-inhibiting habit developed in an entire people. Exceptional instances occur to mind, but as a general truth of history popular sovereignty does not hastily make war. Monarchical sovereignty does. If we are to have universal peace the kings, the good ones with the bad ones, must go.

"And one more thing must go. The religion of barbarism must go. The world is weary of it. It has withstood the religion of peace on earth already too long. The trinity of king, cannon and God has outlived its usefulness. If civilization is indeed better than savagery, the God we worship must be a power other and worthier than a mere Head Devil of the Universe."

APPEAL TO THE UNIVERSITIES OF AMERICA 1

IN a time when half of the world falls upon Germany full of hatred and envy, we Germans derive great benefit from the idea of our being sure of the friendly feeling of the American universities. If from any quarter in 1 From the New York Evening Post, September 24, 1914.

the world it must be from them that we expect the right comprehension of the present situation and present attitude of Germany. Numerous American scholars who received their scientific training at our universities have convinced themselves of the quality and the peaceful tendency of German work, the exchange of scientists has proved of deepening influence on the mutual understanding, the lasting intercourse of scholarly research gives us the feeling of being members of one great community. This is why we entertain the hope that the scientific circles of America will not give credit to the libels our enemies propagate against us.

Those libels above all accuse Germany of having brought about the present war, she being responsible for the monstrous struggle which is extending more and more over the whole world. The truth points to the contrary. Our foes have disturbed us in our peaceful work forcing the war upon us very much against our desire. We are at a righteous war for the preservation of our existence and at the same time of sacred goods of humanity. The murder of Serajevo was not our work; it was the outcome of a widely extended conspiracy pointing back to Servia where for many years already a passionate agitation against Austria had been carried on, supported by Russia. It was Russia, therefore, that took the assassins under her wings, and some weeks already before the war broke out she promised her assistance to the blood-stained state. Nobody but Russia has given the dangerous turn to the conflict, nobody but Russia is to blame for the outbreak of the war. The German Emperor, who has proved his love of peace by a peaceful reign of more than twenty-five years in face of the imminent danger, tried to intermediate between Austria and Russia with the greatest zeal, but while he was negotiating with the Tsar Russia was busy with the mobilization of a large army towards the German frontier. This necessitated an open and decisive inquiry that led to the war. This only happened because Russia wanted it so, because she wanted to raise the Moscovites against the Germans and the Western Slavs and to lead Asia into the field against Europe.

France, too, might have kept the peace, the decision resting solely with her. The security of Germany demanded that she should inquire what France would do in the impending war; the answer of France unmistakably betrayed her intention to join in the war. As a matter of fact it was not Germany but France who commenced the war.

England already before the war stood in close relations to France. From the very beginning she has clearly shown that she by no means wanted to keep absolutely neutral. From the very beginning she made endeavors to protect France against Germany. Undoubtedly the German invasion in Belgium served England as a welcome pretext to openly declare her hostility. In reality, before the German invasion already the neutrality of Belgium had been given up in favor of the French. It has been officially stated, e.g., that not only before but also after the outbreak of the war French officers have been at Liège in order to instruct the Belgian soldiers as to the fortification service. England's complaints of the violation of international law, however, are the most atrocious hypocrisy and the vilest Pharisaism. At all times English politics have unscrupulously disregarded all forms of law as soon as their own interest was touched. During the last few weeks the same method has been quite sufficiently manifested in the unlawful cap

ture of the Turkish warships and still more so in the instigation of the Japanese to undertake the detestable raid upon the German territory in China which needs must end in strengthening the power of that Mongolian nation at the cost of Europeans and Americans.

How is it possible for a nation that in such a way has betrayed precious interests of Western culture as soon as it seems to benefit them, how is it possible for these accomplices of the Japanese robbery to put on the air of being the guardians of morality?

We Germans did not want this war, but as it has been forced upon us we shall carry it on bravely and vigorously. In the face of all envy and hatred, all brutality and hypocrisy Germany feels unshakably conscious of serving a righteous cause and of standing up for the preservation of her national self as well as for sacred goods of humanity, indeed for the very progress of true culture. It is from this conviction that she draws her unrelenting force and the absolute certainty that she will beat back the assault of all her enemies. This conviction does not stand in need of any encouragement from abroad, our country absolutely relies upon itself and confides in the strength of its right.

Nevertheless, the idea of our American friends' thoughts and sympathies being with us gives us a strong feeling of comfort in this gigantic struggle. We both of us feel especially justified in pronouncing this as being the conviction of all German scientists, as so many scientific and personal relations connect us both with the universities of America. These universities know what German culture means to the world, so we trust they will stand by Germany.

JENA, August 31.

RUDOLF EUCKEN.
ERNST HAECKEL.

AMERICA AND THE ISSUES OF EUROPEAN WAR1

BY CHARLES W. ELIOT, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF HARVARD

To the Editor of the New York Times:

The numerous pamphlets which German writers are now distributing in the United States, and the many letters about the European war which Americans are now receiving from German and German-American friends, are convincing thoughtful people in this country that American public opinion has some weight with the German Government and people, or, at least, some interest for them; but that the reasons which determine American sympathy with the Allies, rather than with Germany and AustriaHungary, are not understood in Germany and are not always appreciated by persons of German birth who have lived long in the United States. It would be a serious mistake to suppose that Americans feel any hostility or jealousy toward Germany, or fail to recognize the immense obligations under which she has placed all the rest of the world, although they now feel that the German nation has been going wrong in theoretical and practical politics for more than a hundred years, and is to-day reaping the consequences of her own wrong-thinking and wrong-doing.

There are many important matters concerning which American sympathy is strongly with Germany: (1) The unification of Germany, which Bis1 Published in the New York Times of October 2, 1914.