The Project Gutenberg eBook, The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915, by Various

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915

Title: The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915 What Americans Say to Europe

The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915

Release Date: September 16, 2005 [eBook #16702]

The New York Times Current History of the European War, Vol. 1, January 9, 1915

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEW YORK TIMES CURRENT HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN WAR, VOL. 1, JANUARY 9, 1915

***

E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team

Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this file which includes the original illustrations. See 16702-h.htm or 16702-h.zip: (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/7/0/16702/16702-h/16702-h.htm) or (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/6/7/0/16702/16702-h.zip)

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.