's alleged forfeiture
of its rights as a neutral nation, although at the time referred to
the German Chancellor had not only asked the permission of Belgium to
cross its territory but immediately before his interview with the
British Ambassador he had publicly testified in his speech in the
Reichstag to the justice of Belgium's protest.

The other and inconsistent suggestion is that, without respect to
Belgium's rights under the treaty of 1839, the violation of its
territory by Germany was not the cause of England's intervention; but
obviously this hardly explains the German Chancellor's contemptuous
reference to the long standing and oft repeated guaranty of Belgium's
neutrality as merely a "scrap of paper."

Having thus somewhat vaguely suggested a twofold defense, the
Chancellor, without impeaching the accuracy of Goschen's report of the
interview, then proceeded to state that the conversation in question
took place immediately after his speech in the Reichstag, in which, as
stated, he had admitted the justice of Belgium's protest against the
violation of its territory, and he adds that,

when I spoke, I already had _certain indications but no
absolute proof_ upon which to base a public accusation
that Belgium long before had abandoned its neutrality in
its relations with England. Nevertheless I took Germany's
responsibilities toward the neutral States so seriously that
I spoke frankly of the wrong committed by Germany.

If the German Chancellor is truthful in his statement that on August
the 4th, when he spoke in the Reichstag and an hour later had his
conversation with Goschen, he had "certain indications" that Belgium
had forfeited its rights as an independent nation by hostile acts,
then the German Chancellor took such a serious view of "Germany's
responsibilities" that, without any necessity or justification, he
indicted his country at the bar of the whole world of a flagrant
wrong. If he could not at that time justify the act of the German
General Staff, he should at least have been silent, but, according to
his incredible statement, although he had these "certain indications"
and thus _knew_ that Germany, in invading Belgium, was simply
attacking an already hostile country, he deliberately explains, not
only to his nation but to the whole world, that such invasion was a
wrong and had no justification in international law. How can any
reasonable man, whose eyes are not blinded