D 6/9 L.47 GIFT OF ■ / GIFT M 30 1916 America and the War LETTERS AND COMMENTS WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS. tf\ OF THE 'of Reprinted by MAURICE LEON 60 Wall Street, New York. l^^wi^w* £. INDEX. Pages Beginning of the German Movement in Con- gress 1-15 Belgium 16-23 A weapon against German political plots . . . 24-28 The record at Washington after eighteen months of war , 29-41 ' Reprisals ' ' as bearing on the Lusitania Set- tlement 42-45 Merchant vessels armed for defense 46-55 Armed Traders and Privateers 55-59 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/americawarletterOOIeonrich BEGINNING OF THE GERMAN MOVEMENT IN CONGRESS. REPRINTED FROM TEE NEW YORK SUN OF DECEMBER 15, 1914. SEES GERMAN HAND IN PLAN TO PUT EMBARGO ON ARMS. Maurice Leon charges that Von Bernstorff inspired the Congressman who introduced the Bills in Washington. Could only injure the Allied Nations. Intimations that Congressmen fathering bills to stop all contraband exports are in reality agents of Germany acting under advice of German diplomats in this country were made yesterday by Maurice Leon, of 60 Wall Street. Mr. Leon in discussing The Sun's report of Representative Bartholdt's advocacy of legislation forbidding all shipments to belligerents, declared that "such an unequivocal espousal of Germany's interests calls for immediate exposure, inasmuch as dupli- city in such important matters affects the vital interests and even the permanent safety of the American people.' y Mr. Leon gave his views of the activities of Congressmen of German descent, as follows : "Representatives Bartholdt, Lobeck and Voll- mer, when they speak of forcing an end to the war by cutting off all supplies from belligerents, know well that no supplies in any case can reach Ger- many. Therefore, by ' belligerents i they mean 1 allies \ 349121 2 ' ' This is a characteristic German manoeuver. I have no doubt but that these three Congressmen are carrying out the expressed wishes of Count von Bernstoff, the German ambassador to this country, and Dr. Bernard Dernburg, the German publicist. "In view of the activities of Representatives Bartholdt, Lobeck and Vollmer, it is important to consider whether the allegiance of these gentle- men is primarily to the United States or to Ger- many. Their silence is transparent. They are acting as agents of the German Government in Congress. What they do dovetails with the ac- tivities of the German ambassador. "A true explanation of the whole matter is found in the principle laid down in the German imperial and state citizenship law, article 25, paragraph 2. "This law sanctions the following practices: A German desiring to exercise the franchise of this country goes to the German consul, and from him obtains the written consent of the German authorities to retain his German citizenship, not- withstanding his naturalization. "Having done that, he goes before a court in this country and takes an oath of allegiance which, according to our laws, requires him expressly to foreswear allegiance to the German Empire. But that oath is not taken by him in good faith. He is not engaged in reality in becoming an American citizen, but in acquiring the right to use the American franchise although remaining a German subject. "In this way the German Government connives at wholesale deception on the American Govern- ment, and does so with the sanction of a law duly adopted by the Reichstag and bearing the signa- ture of the German Emperor. "The attitude of mind which this situation has engendered is admirably illustrated by two recent articles of Dr. Dernburg. In the current issue of The North American Review he shows Germany in an attitude of injured innocence protesting that she has nothing to gain and wishes to gain nothing by the war, while in the Independent for Decem- ber 7th Dr. Dernburg discusses the terms upon which Germany would make peace, mentioning that Germany merely wants the Baltic Provinces, Antwerp (which Dr. Dernburg, although formerly a Colonial Secretary, locates on the Ehine), cus- toms control of Belgium, Morocco, a sphere of influence in Asia Minor from the Persian Gulf to the Dardanelles and, as presents to Germany's friends, Egypt for Turkey and Finland for Sweden. If it is the same Dr. Dernburg who writes both of these articles, he must have a dual personality comparable to the dual nationality of the German-Americans represented by Herr Bartholdt, Herr Lobeck and Herr Vollmer. REPRINTED FROM NEW YORK SUN OF DE- CEMBER 17, 1914. NOT KAISER'S AGENTS, SAYS HOUSE MEMBERS. Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck on Floor Deny Bernstorff Prompted Bills. Think U. S. Could End War Washington, Dec. 16. — An interview with Maurice Leon that appeared in The Sun on De- cember 15 charging that Eepresentatives Bar- tholdt of Missouri, Vollmer of Iowa and Lobeck of Nebraska, all men of German extraction, are " acting as agents of the German Government in Congress' ' prompted each of the three members named to rise in the House to-day to a question of personal privilege. Mr. Leon pointed out that Messrs. Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck had introduced bills prohibit- ing the shipment of contraband. He declared this to be a characteristic "German manoeuvre," ex- pressed his opinion that the three members were carrying out the wishes of the German Ambas- sador and asserted that it was important to con- sider "whether the allegiance of these gentlemen is primarily to the United States or to Germany. ' ' In their speeches to-day the three accused men denied emphatically that they had consulted Am- bassador Bernstorff relative to their bills pro- hibiting the shipment of contraband. They ex- pressed great resentment over the suggestion that there was doubt as to their loyalty to the United States. They particularly took exception to the state- ment of Mr. Leon that under a law of Germany a German naturalized in this country may "re- tain his German citizenship notwithstanding his naturalization. ' ' American Flag His Only Flag. Mr. Bartholdt had read to the House The Sun interview and he entered a general denial of the charges made by Mr. Leon, asserting that they emanated "from the New York spokesman of a foreign belligerent Power which according to re- ports would be at its rope's end but for the con- traband it receives from the United States." He proclaimed his loyalty, declaring that he was l ' for America against England, for America against Germany, for America against the world," adding : "If the Star Spangled Banner is not my flag, then I have no flag." Mr. Bartholdt denied that he ever had com- mitted an unneutral act or uttered an unneutral word. He explained that he introduced the bill that provoked Mr. Leon to criticism as a means of effecting peace, arguing that if the belligerents were denied the opportunity to get supplies in this country the war would soon come to an end. He said he had met the German Ambassador only once in the last year, and that was a chance meeting. " There is a more serious side to this matter, a graver accusation, involving an insult not only to the millions of Germans who have acquired citizenship in this country but also to the German Government, ' ' said Mr. Bartholdt. "I refer to the assertion that there is a law on the statute books of Germany which makes it possible for a man to become naturalized here and yet retain his German citizenship, an assertion coupled with the insinuation, almost incredible in its mendacity, that the Germans are taking advantage of this situation and when taking the oath of allegiance do not do it in good faith. "The facts are simply these: Germany, like every other country, has a law which makes it possible for those who are away from the father- land to retain their citizenship by reporting within ten years to a German Consul, but when so re- porting they must make oath that they have not acquired or taken steps to acquire citizenship in any other country." Believes U. S. Can Stop War. Touching on the merits of his resolution, Mr. Bartholdt said: "It is my deliberate judgment that the United States now has the power to stop the war by with- holding from the belligerent nations the sinews of war. Surely the advantages of hastening the time when the whole world will be again thrown open 6 to our cotton and all other American products will outweigh a hundred times the temporary profits which a few manufacturers are now reaping, and besides we would thus give proof to the world of the sincerity of our desire for peace, a sincerity which can be justly questioned while we are merely praying for peace and at the same time sending dumdum bullets to kill Germans and Austrians. ,, Mr. Bartholdt said that there would be a " here- after' ' if the United States persisted in selling goods to the warring nations of Europe. He said there would come a time when the " Anglo- Japanese alliance' ' would be " ready for busi- ness," and he suggested that then " maybe the friendship of Germany will come in handy." Mr. Lobeck repudiated the suggestion that in offering his bill he was influenced by consider- ations of friendship for Germany or enmity to- ward the Allies. He said he offered the bill as a peace measure and insisted that a stoppage in the shipment of contraband would effect that end. "It is more than probable," said Mr. Lobeck, "that the man who ascribes to me the condition of being a traitor to this country is not himself an American citizen. The chances are that if Uncle Sam called us to follow the flag he would be the first to duck out into the Atlantic Ocean to get away. "Scoundrel," Says Vollmer. Representative Vollmer was more personal. He said he arose "to throw back into the teeth of the scoundrel who concocted this miserable falsehood aimed at my two distinguished col- leagues and myself in particular and the American citizens of German birth or descent in general. "I deem it my duty publicly to reply to these infamous charges which have been given such widespread notoriety by the great newspaper in which they appeared, ' ' he continued. ' ' I was born in this country in the good old State of Iowa. I am not given to boasting about my American patriotism, but I will back it against that of any dirty, purchasable penny a liner who ever tore to tatters the reputation of honest men. ' ' REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK SUN OF DECEMBER 18, 1914. LEON REPLIES TO HIS HOUSE CRITICS Hints Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck Try to Deceive Congress. Quotes From German Law. The following is the reply of Maurice Leon to the attacks made upon him yesterday in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck: "All the vituperation of Messrs. Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck will avail them nothing. Such epithets as 'liar' and i scoundrel,' which they find it convenient to utter in the shelter of the House of Representatives, have become a sort of Iron Cross which Pan-Germans bestow upon their op- ponents and are gratefully accepted as such. It is amazing to find that these Pan-Germans in Con- gress have been driven to such desperate devices as actually to try to deceive the House of Repre- sentatives concerning the tenor and effect of the German citizenship law, the text of that law, which was adopted by the Reichstag and Bundes- rath and signed on July 22, 1913, by the Ger- man Emperor at Balholm on board the yacht Hohenzollern, is found in the supplement of the 8 American Journal of International Law of July, 1914. Paragraph 2 in Article 25 of that law reads as follows: " 'Citizenship is not lost by one who, before acquiring foreign citizenship, has secured on ap- plication the written consent of the competent au- thorities of his home State to retain his citizen- ship. Before this consent is given the German Counsel is to be heard. ' Secret German Allegiance. ' ' That same law has provisions whereby one who, like Mr. Vollmer, was born in Iowa of a German father, may secretly contract German allegiance without establishing a German resi- dence. These provisions are contained in Ar- ticle 13, sanctioning the re-Germanization of 'a former German who has not taken up his resi- dence in Germany, ' with the proviso: 'The same applies to one who is descended from a former German or has been adopted as a child of such. ' "There is reason to believe that the law merely sanctioned an existing practice. Now these Con- gressmen even deny the existence of such a law. "According to the newspapers Mr. Bartholdt made yesterday the following statement concern- ing the effect of that law : " 'The facts are simply these: Germany, like every other country, has a law which makes it pos- sible for those who are away from the Fatherland to retain their citizenship by reporting within ten years to a German Consul, but when so reporting they must make oath that they have not acquired or taken steps to acquire citizenship in any other country. ' "Let unhyphenated Americans compare Mr. Bartholdt 's words with the words of the law and judge for themselves whether Mr. Bartholdt was or was not endeavoring to deceive his colleagues in the House of Representatives concerning a mat- 9 ter of vital consequence to the American Govern- ment. 1 ' Mr. Bartholdt makes a denial that he has been conferring with the German Ambassador, a charge that has not been made, but he cannot and does not deny the fact that his activities as a Con- gressman dovetail with those of the German Am- bassador. Alleges Work for Germany in House. "The newspapers have published during the last week items to the effect first, that the German Ambassador has charged American manufactur- ers with delivering dumdum bullets to the British Government by the million; second, that the Amer- ican manufacturers named by the German Am- bassador have absolutely denied that there is any truth in his assertion and have invited him to retract it or furnish proof; third, that the German Ambassador replied that he had the proof, but has not furnished it. While this was going on Representatives Bartholdt, Vollmer and Lobeck were actually engaged in their endeavor to line up the German Americans behind the attempt to force through Congress legislation the effect of which would be practically to enlist the services of the United States as the ally of Germany, Aus- tria and Turkey. It is a fact of public notoriety that in that endeavor they are enjoying the active support of Mr. Viereck, editor of an organ which may be regarded as the mouthpiece of an invisible government established by Germany in these United States to rule over the German American population, the head of which is Mr. Bernhard Dernburg, former German Cabinet Minister, now acting as a sort of local viceroy over numerous organizations in this country embraced in the Deutsche Americanische Verbund. "Let us take this opportunity to assure these German American representatives that the view 10 which I have expressed and am expressing I hold very positively in my personal capacity as an un- hyphenated American citizen, and that in any event I do not draw pay from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of doing in this country the labor of love which consists in oppos- ing agents of Pan-Germanism in Congress who draw pay from that Treasury. My sentiments in that respect do not differ in any wise from those of practically all Americans who do not come under the effect of the German citizenship law to which reference has already been made, and I shall continue as long as necessary to do my share toward defeating every endeavor to use this coun- try and the influence of its Government for dis- tinctly German ends, all vituperation from this German trio of Congressmen notwithstanding. ' ' REPRINTED FROM THE N. Y. SUN OF DECEMBER 21, 1914. GERMAN REPLY TO LEON. Embassy at Washington Explains the Citizenship Problem. Washington, Dec. 20. — The German Embassy to-day came to the defence of Representatives Bartholdt, Lobeck and Vollmer, who were severely criticised by Maurice Leon of New York in a statement published in The Sun on December 15, because of the bills introduced by them to prohibit the exportation of war materials. Mr. Leon was quoted as saying that under Ger- man law a German subject in the United States might become a naturalized American citizen and retain his German citizenship provided he obtains consent to do so from a German Consul in this country. 11 At the embassy it was declared that Mr. Leon had misstated the effect of the new German law regarding naturalization and that under no cir- cumstances could the law affect the citizenship of the members of Congress named, because it did not go into effect until January 1, 1914. The law referred to by Mr. Leon is declared by the embassy to be as follows : ' * A German who has neither his domicile nor his permanent abode within the empire loses his (German) nationality upon the acquisition of a foreign nationality provided such acquisition takes place upon his application or (in case of married women or minors) upon the application of the husband or legal representative. "However, a person who before acquiring a foreign nationality has received upon his applica- tion the written permission of the (competent) home authority (of his native State) that he may retain his (German) nationality shall not lose it. Before such permission is granted the (competent) German Consul has to be heard (on this case). "The Chancellor with the consent of the Bun- desrat may decree that the above mentioned per- mission be generally withheld with regard to per- sons who desire to acquire the nationality of cer- tain foreign states.' ' The wording of the law, it is declared at the embassy, leaves no doubt about the general rule that a German subject who voluntarily acquires a foreign nationality loses thereby his German na- tionality. As for the exception from the general rule it deserves to be mentioned that not the German consular officers abroad, as Mr. Leon al- leges, but the competent home authorities, after hearing the competent Consul's opinion on the particular case, have the power to permit a Ger- man contemplating naturalization in another country to retain his German nationality. Such permission, it is stated, can be granted 12 only since January 1, 1914, to Germans before they have taken out their naturalization papers in another country, not after they have already become citizens of another State. "With this," the embassy states "Mr. Leon's allegations with regard to certain American citi- zens of German descent who for decades have lived in this country fall absolutely to the ground. ' p REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK SUN OF DECEMBER 22, 1914 UNSAFE TO NATURALIZE GERMANS, SAYS MR. LEON. Replies to Embassy's Explanation of German Law of Allegiance. Maurice Leon of 60 Wall Street, replying last night to the statement issued by the German Embassy in Washington on Sunday in defence of Representatives Bartholdt, Lobeck and Vollmer, said: "The German Embassy does not deny, but on the contrary expressly admits, the existence of the German law whereby a German subject about to apply for naturalization in a foreign country may make an arrangement with the German authorities whereby his oath of allegiance to the country for whose nationality he is about to apply is treated as a scrap of paper. ' ' The only contention made is that the law went into effect on January 1, 1914; that it has no retroactive application; hence, that Representa- tives Bartholdt, Lobeck and Vollmer could not under that particular provision of Article 25 have retained their German allegiance. 13 "But what the embassy's statement overlooks is that in the same law there is another provision, namely Article 13, whereby a former German or the descendants of a former German (without limitation as to the number of generations be- tween the descendants and the German father) may without the establishment of a residence in Germany acquire German nationality. "Another consideration applicable to Article XXV. is that the question whether or not it is retroactive does not in any wise meet the objection that it provides for a surreptitious retention of German nationality by a covenant to which the German Government is a party, in the making of which German Consuls, enjoying our hospitality, are expressly provided to intervene, which cove- nant is entered into in express contemplation of the taking of an oath which is absolutely incon- sistent with any retention of the prior nationality. The oath of allegiance provided for by our laws is to the effect that the applicant forever for- swears all allegiance to his country of origin. "Upon the very showing of the German Em- bassy we would not be safe in extending natural- ization to any German while the German law which went into effect on January 1, 1914, remains in force." REPRINTED FROM TEE NEW YORK SUN OF DECEMBER 23, 1914. THE UNITED STATES AND THE GERMAN DUAL CITIZENSHIP LAW. (Editorial) Much as Maurice Leon may differ from the German sympathizers with whom he has recently been in controversy, they are in agreement on one point of vital interest to Americans. It is that under certain circumstances a German may obtain 14 citizenship in a foreign country without forfeiting his citizenship in Germany. Mr. Leon quotes the law of July, 1913, as it appeared in the American Journal of International Law for July of this year : "Citizenship is not lost by one who, before ac- quiring foreign citizenship, has secured on appli- cation the written consent of the competent au- thorities of his home State to retain his citizen- ship. Before this consent is given the German Consul is to be heard. ' ' There is no question of Germany's entire com- petence and right to make this arrangement for her sons domiciled in foreign lands. The conserv- ation of her political interests is a matter for her own wisdom and prevision. But the effect of such a law on the citizenship of this country is a subject that must engage our earnest study, and if neces- sary cause the revision of our naturalization sys- tem to prevent the erection within our citizenship of a class of fraudulently hyphenated Americans unlike any heretofore existing. Under our liberal practice an invitation is given to all men of good disposition to acquire citizen- ship. The alien, on filing his declaration, must take oath that it is bona fide his intention to be- come a citizen of the United States and to re- nounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign State or ruler, and particularly to that one of which he may be a citizen or subject. Similarly, on the application for admission the alien must make oath that : 1 ' He will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely re- nounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State or sove- reignty ; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, State or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject.' ' It will be seen that this oath is as searching and 15 inclusive as it well could be. The renunciation is forever, absolute and entire. No provision is made for a temporary or limited renunciation ; the possibility of a dual citizenship, or subject-citi- zenship, is not contemplated by the law. Such a division of loyalty, such a commingling of allegi- ances, as the retention of foreign citizenship in company with American citizenship, as might be accomplished by a German under the terms of the law quoted by Mr. Leon, would be repugnant to American institutions, subversive of American in- terests and against our public policy. That an honorable man could subscribe to the oaths required while reserving his original citizenship through formal arrangement with his native Government is incredible. For the detection of dishonorable men who might at- tempt such an abuse the examination as to fitness to which each applicant is subjected offers ample opportunity. Should citizenship be acquired by fraud, such as false swearing, it may be revoked. Yet there appears to be no provision in our law to meet the exact conditions rendered possible by the German statute. Apparently the French have found themselves without a suitable remedy for the same situation, and their Government has taken steps to provide means for the cancellation of " naturalization papers granted to any person who shall have kept his original nationality." 16 BELGIUM. REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK SUN OF AUGUST 30, 1915. Mr. Leon Comes to Colonel Roosevelt's Assistance. (Editorial) Perhaps the most positive and persistently un- qualified statement that Colonel Theodoke Roose- velt ever made and reiterated over and over again is that the United States has by treaty guaran- teed the inviolability of Belgian territory and is therefore now in the shameful position of a re- pudiator of contract engagements through the failure of the Wilson Administration to intervene to prevent the German invasion, or, if too late for that, to join in the attempt to drive the in- vaders out. This assertion is the peg upon which hangs at present the Colonel's entire political stock in trade. His denunciation of the President for failing to do "our bounden duty" to Belgium is supported only by a vague reference to some- thing which he believes is specified in one of the conventions adopted at The Hague. When asked to point out the particular section or article or even convention warranting his invective the Colonel's energy gyrates in another direction. Perhaps even more surprising that Colonel Roosevelt's own default in the matter of exact citation is the failure of any of his multitudinous admirers to hasten to his assistance with chapter and verse. The nearest approach to first aid for Colonel Roosevelt, singularly enough, comes from Mr. Maurice Leon, a jurisconsult whose avowed partisanship and natural bias in matters concern- ing the European combat is in good measure bal- anced by his individual qualities of perception and candor. Mr. Leon writes to us as follows : 17 "May there not, on consideration, be a good deal to be said in support of the position taken by Mr. Roosevelt? The treaty in question is the fifth con- vention of The Hague, adopted in 1907, the first two articles of which are these : M *1, The territory of neutral Powers is inviol- able. ' " '2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.' ' ' Germany and the United States are parties to this treaty, but, according to The Sun, it is not binding on any of them as to Belgium because Serbia, a belligerent in the present war, is not a signatory of the convention, which fact is sup- posed to bring into operation the following article of the treaty : " ' 18. The provisions of the present convention do not apply except between contracting Powers and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.' "Hence, in The Sun's view, Germany was not bound by that treaty to respect Belgium's neutral- ity, however true it may be — as in The Sun's opin- ion it undoubtedly is — that she is so bound by treaty stipulations to which the United States is not a party, as also by every rule of international decency. And hence further the argument is that if Germany was not bound by the terms of that treaty to respect Belgium's neutrality, the United States in its turn was not bound by the terms of that treaty to make Germany respect Belgium's neutrality. ' ' This is a fair statement, thus far, of a fact first pointed out by The Sun nearly a year ago, namely, that the provision of a treaty suspending its obli- gations under specified conditions is as valid and as binding upon the parties to the contract as any provision which it suspends. We should be slow to believe that Colonel Roosevelt is basing his 18 violent assertions on so sleazy a texture of con- tractual obligation as that which Mr. Leon gener- ously produces in his behalf. It must be some other part of this Fifth convention, or some part of some other convention, that the Colonel has vaguely in mind. But Mr. Leon's chivalry does not fail him even on uncertain ground. He goes on to say : ' * The reasoning may be claimed to be logical as far as it goes, though all will admit somewhat narrow. But it overlooks a fundamental proposi- tion which holds as true as between nations as it does between individuals in their contractual obli- gations, namely, that none may set up his own wrong as a defence. Germany says in effect: ' Serbia, a non-signatory, is a belligerent, hence I am not bound by that treaty in the present war.' In other words it would be in any case, and was in this case, only necessary for Germany to study the situation and pick out a non-signatory to be attacked, thereby to relieve herself of the obliga- tions of that contract. Is it conceivable that such procedure is within the scope and intent of the treaty V 9 Perhaps so and perhaps not; but, with all the respect that is due to Mr. Leon's candor and pene- tration, let us ask what that question has to do with the "bounden duty" of the United States to enter a European struggle to prevent or punish the invasion of territory neutralized not by a con- vention of The Hague but by special treaties to which we are not a party? The important distinc- tion between neutral territory, in the sense of the convention of The Hague, suspended as to Bel- gium by the belligerency of Serbia, and territory neutralized, and in the case of Belgium guaranteed by the Prussian treaty, which Germany violated, has not been more clearly pointed out than by the editor of the North American Review in the May number : "The neutrality of neutralized States is a mat- 19 ter of conventional agreement between Powers who are more or less interested in preventing the State from being absorbed politically by any Power, or from becoming a base of military oper- ations, or from otherwise assisting neighboring rival States. The agreement imposes a condition of permanent neutrality. It is, in fact, a guaran- tee, not only by the neutralized State that it will not engage in aggressive warfare, but also by the other parties to the treaty that it shall not be at- tacked by any of them. ' ' The United States, of course, neither by any special treaty nor by any convention of The Hague is a party to the neutralization of Belgium or a guarantor of her neutrality. The writer in the North American Review continues : "It would manifestly be improper and presump- tuous for this Government to complain of the violations of such a treaty of neutralization to which it was not a party in any sense. * * * It is not necessary to examine into the question as to whether these treaties [of The Hague] were in force by virtue of all the belligerents being par- ties, for the reason that, quite contrary to Mr. Roosevelt's definite assertion, no Hague conven- tions were violated by the German invasion of Belgium. "It is admitted that if Germany before invad- ing the territory of Belgium had declared war upon that country, the latter would have become impressed with the character of a belligerent, to whom the provisions of Article 1 of Convention V. and Article 1 of Convention XIII., relative to the inviolability of neutral territory, would not be applicable; and that, having exercised this sove- reign right Germany could not be charged with violating neutral territory in contravention of the terms of the Hague convention; but the fact that this is what happened is commonly ignored. Nevertheless, the published diplomatic corre- spondence shows that Germany did declare war 20 by ultimatum and that a state of war actually existed between Germany and Belgium before German forces penetrated into the territory of the latter country." This state of war was brought about between Germany and Belgium in precisely the manner prescribed by Article I. of Hague Convention No. III. of 1907. The German Government pre- sented to Belgium a note proposing that German troops have free passage through Belgian terri- tory, and threatening, in case of refusal, to treat Belgium as an enemy. Belgium refused, with full knowledge that the consequence would be war with Germany. Thereby she lost her neutral character — in the sense of the conventions of The Hague — and by operation of the ultimatum became a bel- ligerent. After this status in the relations of the two countries was reached a state of war existed and German forces began the invasion of Belgium. That Germany was violating Prussia's agreement neutralizing Belgium is another matter, with which we have nothing to do. We commend this acute and conclusive reason- ing not only to Mr. Leon but to all who have been influenced by Colonel Koosevelt's nebulous accu- sations. Moreover, we call the attention of such investi- gators to the main fact, underlying every other consideration of national duty, that when this Government began to associate itself with the European signatories and ratifiers of the several conventions of The Hague we did so with the ex- press reservation and notification to all concerned that " nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States to depart from its traditional policy of not intrud- ing upon, interfering with or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal ad- ministration of any foreign State." And President Wilson has omitted in the case of Belgium no action required of our Government by any engagement undertaken at The Hague. 21 REPRINTED FROM TEE NEW YORK SUN OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1915. The Monroe Doctrine Reservation, (Editorial) We cannot permit Mr. Maurice Leon, with all his candor and intelligence, to take out of Colonel Eoosevelt's mouth the defence and explication of the Colonel's repeated statement about the "bounden duty" of this Government with regard to the violation of Belgium's neutrality. Accordingly, we confine ourselves to exhibiting a single extract from a second communication which we received by telegraph on Monday from Mr. Leon on this subject. His remarks refer to what The Sun has said about the American reser- vation with regard to the Monroe Doctrine: "A declaration made at The Hague in behalf of the United States is cited as putting the world on notice that this country adhered to its traditional policy of non-entanglement and non-intrusion. "It is sufficient to say in reply that that decla- ration, made after American intervention in China during the Boxer trouble, can hardly have been understood by any one to mean that the United States should be expected to omit every word or act necessary thereafter to secure com- pliance with the rules of international decency codified at The Hague; for otherwise, was not adherence by the United States to the convention an empty formality, mere lip service intended as a forerunner of the policy of emitting words and omitting acts in everything that pertains to inter- national affairs inaugurated under the Bryan regime? — a notion utterly inconceivable in 1907, as I call upon The Sun to bear witness. ' ' No, Mr. Leon, it is not sufficient to say that in reply. It cannot be that Mr. Leon really means that 22 the Monroe Doctrine declaration or reservation was made after American intervention in China at the time of the Boxer troubles. His knowledge of chronology is too accurate to permit that sup- position. He must be aware that our march to Pekin occurred in August, 1900, and that the aforesaid declaration, limiting our responsibility and "bounden duties" under the conventions of The Hague, was first spread on the minutes of the conference more than a year earlier, on July 25, 1899. Perhaps what Mr. Leon does intend to say is that after our march to Pekin nobody can suppose that the Monroe Doctrine declaration means what it declares. We cannot agree with him. It was reiterated with deliberate intention and undi- minished force long after the march to Pekin, namely, in October of 1907, when the American delegates signed the first of the second series of conventions of The Hague and by the Senate of the United States on April 2, 1908, in ratifying that convention. The reservation is as much a part of our treaty engagements as any section of any article of any convention of The Hague. Mr. Maurice Leon ought to be told these facts if they have temporarily escaped his memory. He ought to know that the Monroe Doctrine reserva- tion was a general reservation, expressly intended to disclaim responsibility for and avoid entangle- ment in just such questions of foreign policy as the guarantee of Belgian neutrality by several European Powers. Our march to Pekin to rescue our embassy and assert our treaty rights in China had no more to do with our "bounden duty" under the conven- tions of The Hague than the military operations of Julius Caesar against Vercingetorix in 52 B. C. But, as we have already remarked, The Sun can- not allow even Mr. Maurice Leon to take out of the Colonel 's mouth the words for which the country is waiting. 23 REPRINTED FROM THE NEW YORK SUN OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1915. Mr. Maurice Leon's last word for the Colonel. To the Editor of The Sun — Sir: No one con- tends that the United States is a guarantor of the neutralization of Belgium, whether by the treaty bearing the signature of a King of Prussia since dishonored by his heirs or by any other treaty; nor that the United States ought to depart from the Monroe Doctrine. I have argued that the Fifth convention of The Hague was binding on Germany notwithstanding the belligerence of Serbia and Belgium, and am glad to note that The Sun does not further uphold what the editor of the North American Review, misled by a notion of literalistic attorneyship, said in support of the right of a contractant to re- lease himself by his own wrong from an obligation which but for that wrong would admittedly be binding on him. Practically the whole civilized world subscribed at The Hague to the principle, there clearly for- mulated, that the territory of a neutral Power is inviolable and may not be traversed by armed forces and convoys. Colonel Roosevelt has asserted that it was the "bounden duty" of the United States to uphold that principle in the face of a flagrant infringe- ment so far reaching as to threaten an era of worldwide international anarchy. The Sun's position in the last analysis is that the United States is warranted in relying upon a thrice recorded declaration of adherence to traditions of American aloofness as justification for failure to oppose that infringement. There is much to be said in support of either proposition, but I wish to be recorded as still siding with the Colonel, if The Sun cares to do the recording. Westport, September 3. Maurice Leon. 24 A WEAPON AGAINST GERMAN POLITICAL PLOTS. REPRINTED FROM THE BROOKLYN DAILY EAGLE OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1915. ARE FRIENDS OF PEACE REAL PEACE MAKERS? The Pro-German Organization Now in Session in Chicago and the Part Some of Its Members Took in Attempting to Discredit the President of the United States and Spread the Teutonic Propaganda Against the Welfare of This Country. By Frederick Boyd Stevenson. Maurice Leon of 60 Wall street has formulated for The Sunday Eagle, in the form of a tentative brief, a list of the issues by which may be deter- mined the extent of the liability of German propa- gandists in this country to punishment under the Federal law. Mr. Leon is a lawyer of long ex- perience, whose specialty is the branches of inter- national law and the conflict of laws. He cites a provision of the Federal Statutes contained in section 5 of the act of March 4, 1909, which reads as follows : u Section 5. (Criminal correspondence with foreign governments.) Every citizen of the United States, whether actual resident or abiding within the same, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or in any foreign country who without the permission or authority of the Government, directly or indirectly, commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with an intent to in- 25 fluence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in re- lation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the Government of the United States; and every person, being a citizen of or resident within the United States or in any place subject to the juris- diction thereof and not duly authorized who coun- sels, advises, or assists in any such correspond- ence with such intent shall be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned not more than three years; but nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself or his agent to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. (35 Stat. L. 1088.) Mr. Leon says: "This statute enables the Federal authorities to visit punishment upon every citizen of the United States who directly or indirectly commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any agent thereof with an intent to defeat the measures of the government of the United States. It also applies to every person residing within the United States, even though of alien nationality who ' counsels,