SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 345 | Next

Various

"The New York Times Current History: the European War, February, 1915"

She shall be
bound to observe this same neutrality toward all other States._
_Article 26--Consequent upon the stipulation of the present treaty there
shall be peace and unity between H.M. the King of the Belgians, on one
part, and H.M. the Emperor of Austria, the King of the French, the King
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the King of Prussia,
and the Emperor of all the Russians, on the other, respectively,
forever._
The treaty, however, was not at once put into force, for there was a
pending quarrel between Belgium and the Netherlands. When peace was made
in 1839 the treaty was again brought forward, signed, and promulgated.
Thereupon all the States of Europe recognized the Kingdom of Belgium.
The plenipotentiaries who then signed the treaty were Palmerston for
Great Britain, Sylvan van de Weyer for Belgium, Senfft for Austria, H.
Sebastiani for France, Buelow for Prussia, and Pozzo di Borgo for Russia.
It has been asserted that, for various reasons, it was not incumbent
upon the German Empire to observe the treaties contracted for by the
Kingdom of Prussia. But these assertions, even to German statesmen,
amount to nothing. That the German Government recognized that "the
neutrality of Belgium is determined by international conventions" has
been repeatedly asserted by its numbers, from the inauguration of the
Imperial Constitution, April 16, 1871, down to Aug.


Pages:
333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357