Belgian neutrality. It is charged that Germany violated an alleged treaty with Belgium, which treaty is supposed to have guaranteed the integrity of Belgium.  When Germany found her efforts to maintain peace frustrated, Russian troops having crossed the German frontier on the afternoon of Aug. 1, while France opened hostilities on Aug. 2, she announced to Belgium on Aug. 2, 1914, that she found herself under obligation, to prevent a French attack through Belgium, to pass through Belgian territory; she expressed her readiness to guarantee the integrity of the kingdom and its possessions and to pay any damage caused if Belgium would, in a friendly way, permit such a passage of troops through it.

The English “White Book” contains, Paper 151, dated Aug. 3, 1914, which paper we repeat in full: 

(British Minister to Belgium to Sir Edward Grey.)

French Government have offered through their Military Attache the support of five French Army corps to the Belgian Government.  Following reply has been received today:  We are sincerely grateful to the French Government for offering eventual support.  In the actual circumstances, however, we do not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers.  Belgian Government will decide later on the action which they may think it necessary to take.

In short, Belgium says in the foregoing notice to France, that she does not propose to appeal to the guarantee of the powers.

Was Germany justified in disregarding any previous treaty which related to Belgium if her interests required her so to do?

United States Supreme Court: In its unanimous opinion in the Chinese exclusion cases, reported on Pages 581 to 611 of Vol. 130 of United States Reports, the Supreme Court of the United States had this very question before it.  A treaty had been entered into by the United States and China, allowing Chinese subjects the right to visit and reside in the United States and to there enjoy the same privileges that are enjoyed by citizens of the United States.  After that treaty an act of Congress was passed in violation of the treaty, providing it to be unlawful thereafter for Chinese laborers to enter the United States.  The question was, whether we had the right to violate a treaty solemnly entered into with another country?  On this subject the court said (Page 600): 

The effect of legislation upon conflicting treaty stipulations was elaborately considered in THE HEAD MONEY CASES, and it was there adjudged:  “that so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal,” 112 U.S. 580, 599.  This doctrine was affirmed and followed in WHITNEY v.  ROBERTSON, 124 U.S. 190, 195.  It will not be presumed that the legislative department of