Kelly Miller's History of the World War for Human Rights. Kelly Miller

of the United States. Let me say how much we feel ourselves honored to have been called upon to express the sentiments of our King and of our whole nation to the illustrious statesman whom the American people have called to the highest dignity of the commonwealth.

      "Ever since her independence was first established, Belgium has been declared neutral in perpetuity. This neutrality, guaranteed by the Powers, has recently been violated by one of them. Had we consented to abandon our neutrality for the benefit of one of the belligerents, we would have betrayed our obligations toward the others. And it was the sense of our international obligations as well as that of our dignity and honor that has driven us to resistance.

      "The consequences suffered by the Belgian nation were not confined purely to the harm occasioned by the forced march of the invading army. This army not only seized a great portion of our territory, but it committed incredible acts of violence, the nature of which is contrary to the laws of nations.

      "Peaceful inhabitants were massacred, defenseless women and children were outraged; open and undefended towns were destroyed; historical and religious monuments were reduced to dust and the famous library of the University of Louvain was given to the flames.

      "Our government has appointed a Judicial Commission to make an official investigation, so as to thoroughly and impartially examine the facts and to determine the responsibility thereof, and I will have the honor, Excellency, to hand over to you the proceedings of the inquiry.

      THE UNITED STATES' ATTITUDE.

      "In this frightful holocaust which is sweeping over Europe, the United States has adopted a neutral attitude.

      "And it is for this reason that your country, standing apart from either one of the belligerents, is in the best position to judge, without bias or partiality, the conditions under which the war is being waged.

      "It is at the request, even at the initiative of the United States, that all civilized nations have formulated and adopted at the Hague a law regulating the laws and usages of war.

      "We refuse to believe that war has abolished the family of civilized powers, or the regulation to which they have freely consented.

      "The American people has always displayed its respect for justice, its search for progress and an instinctive attachment for the laws of humanity. Therefore, it has won a moral influence which is recognized by the entire world. It is for this reason that Belgium, bound as she is to you by ties of commerce and increasing friendship, turns to the American people at this time to let you know the real truth of the present situation. Resolved to continue unflinching defence of its sovereignty and independence, it deems it a duty to bring to the attention of the civilized world the innumerable grave breaches of rights of mankind, of which she has been a victim.

      "At the very moment we were leaving Belgium, the King recalled to us his trip to the United States and the vivid and strong impression your powerful and virile civilization left upon his mind. Our faith in your fairness, our confidence in your justice, in your spirit of generosity and sympathy, all these have dictated our present mission."

      THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE.

      In the report handed to President Wilson, the preface sets forth that the committee appointed to investigate the conduct of the German invaders, and all of the surrounding circumstances, consisted of Messrs. Cattier, professor at the Brussels University; Nys, counselor of the Brussels Court of Appeals; Verhaegen, counselor of the Brussels Court of Appeals; Wodon, professor at the Brussels University; Secretary, Mr. Gillard, Director of the Department of Justice. Afterwards, when the invasion made it necessary to transfer the seat of the government from Brussels to Antwerp, a sub-committee was appointed there, consisting of Mr. Cooreman, Minister of State; Members, Count Goblet d'Aviella, Minister of State, Vice President of the Senate; Messrs. Ryckmans, Senator; Strauss, Alderman of the City of Antwerp; Van Cutsem, Honorary President of the Law Court of Antwerp. Secretaries, Chevalier Ernst de Bunswyck, Chief Secretary of the Belgian Minister of Justice; Mr. Orts, Counselor of the Legation.

      In brief the report submits first, that in violation of the perpetual treaty of June 26, 1831, Germany notified Belgium that France was about to march upon Germany, and that Germany proposed to frustrate such a move by sending its soldiers through Belgium; that the German government had no intention of making war against Belgium, and that if Belgium made no opposition it would evacuate Belgium after hostilities ceased, and during the period the German forces were in the country, would buy everything needed for its army. Belgium replied that it had assurance from France that France had no intention of invading Belgium, and that if France attempted to pass through Belgium would oppose such an act with force. It informed the German Imperial Government that it would similarly oppose any move on the part of Germany to pass through.

      Nevertheless Germany proceeded at once through Belgium. Quoting articles from the Hague treaty, the commission's report reads:

      THE DAYS OF BARBARISM.

      "In the days of barbarism, the population of a territory occupied by the enemy was deprived of all judicial capacity. At that time," as Ghering writes ironically, "'the enemy was absolutely deprived of rights; everything he owned belonged to the gallant warrior who had wrenched it away from him. One had merely to lose it.'

      "In our days the rules of warfare clearly establish the difference between the property of the government of the territory occupied and the property of individuals. While the present doctrine allows the conqueror to seize, in a general way, everything in the way of movable property belonging to the State, it obliges him, on the other hand, to respect the property of individuals, corporations and public provincial administrations.

      "The Hague Convention, signed October 18, 1897, by all the civilized States, among others by Germany, contains the following stipulations regarding laws and customs of warfare on land:

      "'Art. 46. The honor and right of the family, the life of the individual and private property, as well as religious convictions and the exercise of worship, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.

      "'Art. 47. Pillaging is formally prohibited.

      "'Art. 53. When occupying territory, the army can only seize cash as well as funds and securities belonging entirely to the State; also depots of arms, ways and means of transportation, warehouses and provisions, and in a general way all movable property belonging to the State and liable to be used for warlike operations.

      "'Art. 56. Property of municipalities, property of establishments consecrated to worship, to charity and instruction; to art and science, even though belonging to the State, will be treated as private property.'

      "In defiance of these conventional rules, voluntarily and solemnly accepted by Germany, she has committed, from the beginning of her invasion of Belgian soil, numerous attacks upon private property."

      GERMAN CUPIDITY.

      At Hasselt, the report shows that on August 12, 1914, the Germans confiscated the funds of the branch of the National Bank, which amounted to 2,075,000 francs. At Liege, on entering the city, they forcibly seized the funds of a branch of the same bank, amounting to 4,000,000 francs. Moreover, upon finding at that branch bundles of bank notes of 5-franc denomination, representing an amount of 400,000 francs, and which were not yet signed, they forced a printer to sign those bank notes by means of a rubber stamp, which they had also seized, and afterwards put the notes in circulation. The bank, it is explained, was a shareholders' corporation, the capital having been obtained by subscription from private parties and was in no wise an institution of the State.

      The enormity of this offence is made apparent by the fact that in the war of 1870, when the Prussians entered Rheims in the Franco-Prussian war, and they wanted to confiscate the funds of the branch of the National Bank of France, Crown Prince Frederick ordered that funds which were found at the bank could not be seized so long as they were not used for the maintenance of the French army, it having been contended by directors of the institution that the bank was not a State, but a private