The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 / What Americans Say to Europe
E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
CHARLES W. ELIOT
(Photo (c) by Paul Thompson.)
JAMES M. BECK
THE NEW YORK TIMES submitted the evidence contained in the official White Paper of Great Britain, the Orange Paper of Russia, and the Gray Paper of Belgium to James M. Beck, late Assistant Attorney General of the United States and a leader of the New York bar, who has argued many of the most important cases before the Supreme Court. On this evidence Mr. Beck has argued in the following article the case of Dual Alliance vs. Triple Entente. It has been widely circulated in France and Great Britain.
Let us suppose that in this year of dis-Grace, Nineteen Hundred and Fourteen, there had existed, as let us pray will one day exist, a Supreme Court of Civilization, before which the sovereign nations could litigate their differences without resort to the iniquitous and less effective appeal to the arbitrament of arms.
Let us further suppose that each of the contending nations had a sufficient leaven of Christianity to have its grievances adjudged not by the ethics of the cannon or the rifle, but by the eternal criterion of justice.
What would be the judgment of that august tribunal?
Any discussion of the ethical merits of this great controversy must start with the assumption that there is an international morality.
This fundamental axiom, upon which the entire basis of civilization necessarily rests, is challenged by a small class of intellectual perverts.
Some hold that moral considerations must be subordinated either to military necessity or so-called manifest destiny. This is the Bernhardi doctrine.
Others teach that war is a beneficent fatality and that all nations engaged in it are therefore equally justified. On this theory all of the now contending nations are but victims of an irresistible current of events, and the highest duty of the State is to prepare itself for the systematic extermination, when necessary or expedient, of its neighbors.
Various
---
In the Supreme Court of Civilization
Critics Dispute Mr. Beck
Russia to Blame
In Defense of Austria
Defense of the Dual Alliance—A Reply
What Gladstone Said About Belgium
Fight to the Bitter End
Woman and War
The Way to Peace
Prof. Mather on Mr. Schiff
The Eliot-Schiff Letters
LA CATHEDRALE.
THE CATHEDRAL.
Probable Causes and Outcome of the War
Appreciation from Lord Bryce
A Reply by Dr. Francke
DR. ELIOT'S SECOND LETTER
DR. ELIOT'S THIRD LETTER.
Dr. Dernburg's Reply to the Third Letter
Dr. Jordan's Reply to Dr. Dernburg
Dr. Irene Sargent's Reply to Dr. Dernburg
DR. ELIOT'S FOURTH LETTER.
DR. ELIOT'S FIFTH LETTER.
THE LORD OF HOSTS.
A War of Dishonor
Might or Right
JEANNE D'ARC—1914.
The Kaiser and Belgium
Reply to Prof. Burgess
PROF. BURGESS'S SECOND ARTICLE.
Reply to Prof. Burgess
America's Peril in Judging Germany
An Answer by Prof. Ladd
Possible Profits From War
"To Americans Leaving Germany"
German Declarations
A Second Appeal
The Eucken and Haeckel Charges
Concerning German Culture
Culture vs. Kultur
The Trespass in Belgium
Apportioning the Blame
PARTING.
French Hate and English Jealousy
Dr. Sanderson Replies
In Defense of Austria
Russian Atrocities
"The United States of Europe"
A New World Map
The Verdict of the American People
Interview With Dr. Hillis
TIPPERARY.
As America Sees the War
TO MELOS, POMEGRANATE ISLE.
What America Can Do
TO A COUSIN GERMAN.
What the Economic Effects May Be
Effects of War on America
Germany of the Future
Germany the Aggressor
Militarism and Christianity
VIGIL
Nietzsche and German Culture
Belgium's Bitter Need
A CORRECTION.
Certainly Not!