e
penalty of death." And finally here is an extract from a
proclamation of Marshal Baron von der Goltz, posted up in
Brussels on October 5, 1914: "In future all places near the
spot where such acts have taken place [destruction of
railway lines or telegraph wires]--no matter whether guilty
or not--shall be punished without mercy. With this end in
view, hostages have been brought from all places near
railway lines exposed to such attacks, and at the first
attempt to destroy railway lines, telegraph or telephone
lines, they will be immediately shot."

ARTICLE 56 of the Hague Convention provides that "_the
property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated
to religion, charity, and education, to the arts and
sciences, even when state property, shall be treated as
private property. All seizure of, destruction, or willful
damage done to institutions of this character, historical
monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and
should be made the subject of legal proceedings._"

Four names, which will be eternally remembered, are here
sufficient to answer: there is Rheims and its Cathedral,
Louvain and its library, Arras and its Town Hall, Ypres and
its bell tower.

In the course of this war, Germany has disavowed her signature any
number of times and has broken her pledges just as often as she has
made them. Germany is a proven perjurer not only in the eyes of the
nations at war with her, but also in the regard of the forty-four
countries signatory of the Hague Convention. However, we have never
heard that a single one of these nations lodged a protest against her
actions. The Hague Convention has been torn into shreds, and not one
of its signers has entered the slightest protest.

Is the next society of nations to be modeled on the same principles?
Is the next society of nations going to draw up articles of the same
kind as the Hague society? Is the future society of nations to accept
among its members the same Empire of Germany which in 1914 declared
bankruptcy? Will the future act of the society of nations be a simple
scrap of paper, like the last act of 1907?

But let us cease asking these questions. There is no gain in asking
certain questions to gain certain replies. There is no gain in
examining certain problems to make the difficulties of the solution
more apparent.

There is no doubt