·| 2º.+ ·***、、、、、、、、、、、、、 §§§§§§§¿§§?、。 #**ךģ*: *）（.* §§§§ 。。、、、、、、、 §§ §§§§§ğ×#}; ¿ §§§§ §§ ș.， 5 §x* -， - §§§§*3§§§§§§§§§§§§28，38£§§§§§ *******）（r_ae.--~~~~- *-¡ºjº！）. №g ’:’， :，$3&-≡ {{，}3&3&&3&4&5&№--§§§§§§§§§§§§§ מ.š.， &&&&&&&&&&&&&3&&3&&3&&·-- *#！***！*®:::：:：：：：:::：::：:::§.* *T** ≡≡≡§§§§¶√∞:'，-§§§§§§§***-…<* …+ § 4ſae?·|-×£§§§§§§§§§§§§§）: ·-§§zº-ſºļºſ，·-&************§¶√∞ae:- ·;?- --~§:№gº*… …" . 2：（-， -， *， ***·¡ ¿ $¢;:::&... :（ ¿?， - - --··- ….. * … --、、、、、、、、、、、 |-|--§**， º*;，&& ſ. *****åJ „k”），§:（§§§）;'ſ&ºffſ）: №ț¢&& ！！！¿??-2]， ****- -șş% ', *¿¿.* 3. № ± （~€.ſae:33， -£. №ºaeae :---~~ ·3×。、。、、。· ---- §§§¿??¿š*******·.***）§§§§）; ·！！！！！！！& ***¿… -******, ******¿??¿ §§§§šºg、。、、、。、。、、、。-*…*.*?'*…*…***）, šº“·<！*® ærae'-…-->-¿?→· -§§§§.~ ---· -§§§§§§§§§§§§§&& &&→+ $$$$$$$$$$$!！！！!！！！!！！！！！！！、××××, §§¶r√¶√≠√∞;&~- -、、。-- §§§§§§§§§§-|-™ae-- §§§·¿---、、、。£§！~~;~~~~）;~- -ſaeg ¿É-*.*?\}§*,→·*******· ¿?* w:|-. .-.------· * ¿… * *%-ºs -º:·- - - - -::：（**）. №. ！！!！！！！！ ------ ; ·× .· --£§3，5...;）;--·§§§！！！?· -·！* * *g）.~¿-?）， -º…:.，，,3|-w: -****®, №ž！ ~^- -->. ~~~~-¿¿.**）:.ae *±,±，±）， §%， _■*?（.*?）$'; &#ff;&£$ $;'; §ïae. §§ §。º -ș№ ≡ §§§§ -§§§… ·· -、。 … ►§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ „tºj*¿¿.*¿¿.*¿¿.*（\（{ ≡§§§§§！！！！！ • ！&æ， º sºš， * ~~~~ ~~~~ae- - - - - - «• • →** • * * * • • 、、、、、、、、。、。、::：:::：:::：:：::::：:::::::：::：::：:::：:::::::：:};∞ √≠ √æ√≥ ± − ×=******************************æv√≠ √æ√≥ ≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡***Ē！！！！！！！！$. № № šī šī£. №，，,，，，，，，，，…）：ºrº-2，±），*®**¿¿.*ſ*:）*）*）*）*，，,,，，，，，& ~~~ī£® 7------ - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - - -<！-：-，*æ：æ ææ， ær*******---- ż:$:$5±5， ±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±√¶√≥±±3，±，±，±，±5， ±（√¶§§§§№ż3;&&&&&&&&&************************...！！！！！！！！！！！ ！！！！！！！！！！！！！ 3FOE™:№º;№t::：:::::：:::：:::::555±3，±，±，±，±，±，±,±,±,±,±，±，±，±，±，±======±（√∞ae sā， īsāršāš ū • （šā saeſ. * * * * * * ±， ±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±,±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±)， §！！！！！！！！！$$$£§！！！！！;&#####$2:$±!！！！！!!！！！！！！！！！！！$$$£§！ Oeçšī£§§§§§§§§§§§§§：№żżjaeĘaeae;$$$$$$§§§§§§§§§§§§§35333333ff3355555，5 £§§§§§§§§§:ſſae;& ！? --→ · § →ſ， → → → • • • •* ¿ț¢×××××.*.*¿¿.**%！！№ ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！$$$$£§§§E§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§©®°¶√≠√353ī£§§§§§§5?）、。、、。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、。。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、2、、、、、、、、:::::*、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±）,§¶√∞ §§§§§:꟎žŻ:$2;&##№|№5£§§§§§§§§:№:3，5‰ae;■■■■■■■■■！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！$$$±，±，±，±，±，±，±√¶√≠√±±，±,±，±，±，±5， ±√（√∞Gº~-.*-->§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§:::::：:::::：::：&aessae ****-- - ----- - ...，∞ √ √≠≤≥±−×–*x → x::：::：::::：::：：：:::::：::::：::：:::：:：:：:：:：:zx2≡aesaessae::：:::：::：::：：:§¶√¶r√∞ √≠√≠√∞ √°√∞ √æ√≠√æ√≠ ≤ ≥ ≡≡≡≡§Ęaez::::：::：::：::55，5€55，5€$£§§§:ss！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！ſae::====：:>=====：:±- §5----·،º！&ſe ºx-- §§§§§§§§§@₪aeaeaeaeaeae × ≤ ≥ ±，±，±，±，±），·»*· ：*…---- ··-x·--<！-----;· →* |-! ***¿-???? Oe:：:::::::-••-***#！***！*...*..*…sº wºx-ærae，，，，,，，，ryssae aexae， wae！！!！！ *y*！***！*…！！！！！！！!！！~，~x~*~*=~sººſ，**********• × × （−）=（=，，=，<==， ！*®******•••• → →***********--*****•¿¿.*¿¿.***§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§¶√≠≤≥±±±√¶√∞i√≠√¶√≠√≠≤≥±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，± ，aegae; }±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±（::::：::：:::§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§Ę±±3，±5， ±（√¶ºš ！！！！！！！！！！！!!！！！=№aeae;$±±3，±，±，±，±，±ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ5€$£§！№，|- -*-- -·-·:）*****~~ ~ ~ ！、|×-• • ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ►►±√°、、、、、、、、、、、、、、æ√≠√∞A√∞ √≥± ）;，→|--·---× × × × × × × × × × × × ≤ ≥ ±−×÷←→·§§§§ §>:$:ſt?！！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！$$$$$№aei！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！!$$$$$$$№tºſ… -- -** - - ~*********…*…×z- * * *·-:> ********·&& ！！！|- -- -.-- -•）›‹‹‹r›-ºff→·'ſ---------~---. -. - - … ···.*=...=…=}×æ√æ√æ√≥ a√∞a √æ√≠√æ√æ șæ√æ√≠≤≥±−× × × × × ×*-******-****************************************■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■š. 2，3×3×3， ×××××。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、 £<>№aeaeaeae--«•-• ·- ±3，±3，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±），！№ſſae±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±√（√≠√¶G√≠√¶√¶√≠√∞*№， №t！！！！！$$£§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§：№№ ::::::：::::：:::：：:::::::::::：:：::::§§§><！:::：:：::：::::::±±，±，±），¿№●><！--raw-&&→→s， →º， →ſ， →º， →y, →********，“）.**…*..*ĒĢēș№raese:::::：:::::::：::=≡:::::：:::::::：：:：:::::：::：:：::=≡：5555?！?！?！?！?！?！ ?? №, º• → . ，::：y ~~~;~~） ~- ------·--~~~~~ ·===========--~~~~）;~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~--~~~~~-~~ ~ ~ ~~------- ----><！-- <;: . §5?！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！±±，±，±，±，±,±,±，±，±,±，±，±，±,±，±，±,±，±,±，±Œč-№ĒĢĒ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！--********************** =:= * ±±±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±******** ！！！！！----- ………..… ~4…; ~~~~ • • • • • • •--~~~~ >~~~:=--~--~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~=======~::~~==+==+==~::~~--~~~~::~~======::* « <--- « … <！-- ...*** • *. ~）; * * •===~:：~~==================--~~~~------~~~~ ~~~~-------------~--~~~~ ~~~ sº axle A “sough puo Aeo $35l "Iz 'N'ſ "it'd : "A : N “asnoeiſts i ， ';'x **…- • ? E ON 1 t , ， **- # PRICE -* **. ( *-- ** ſ; };', ！--* * *. ！, ¡ ¿ † 8. |}" …,'， ， ; ） ſº... '） { … · }|！” “ ºl €. „ţſ.. • - -ſt!-* · · · ·• !-”…\ , \, „ . .' '~^…" -| 1， * 1 r.- |\,\ !· *{... , *-• {•* •' ' . *wº •º • • •° *-+. № W ，* & * * * * * ******--> + × × × … • • r ） = …. •… ►• • • * * r.-> • • •• ••** * * * * * * * * - k. w \， a----• • • • •* …:… • •::::::::******£§！=5::::::::：：： *** -* -• • • • •---- « » … --•• • · · -----• • • • •→ → →• ！.---- • • • •----→ ∞， ∞; ∞， ∞u• • •-------- -- -*-----• ！ ！ ！*r •wº •rw ----**§§§ 3:----， ，---- - •&r•• • • • • ……* ----± • • •:::::::::: ， ！• • • •& x ， ！|-araaer º ------ - - -• • • • •- - -- • §:ſsr·→• • • • •-- ***- & w. • • • • •*… --• • ** **• • •*…*… … • • • u • ו •， ， ， ， …！ ！！ **** • • • • • - -• …- - - - ----- • º \，,º- ** a #: THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR" BY FERNAND PASSELECO Reprinted by permission from the “NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER " for May, IQI7 º T. FISHER UNWIN, Ltd., 1, ADELPHI TERRACE, LONDON. I917. ñºs.. . . THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR '' “Sa parole fut peut-être sincére; maissa pensée était double.” HE discussion over the “Scrap of Paper” is Tº to have been closed for some time. This is, however, erroneous. Nothing is ever closed where Germany is concerned. The German character has with many other things, good and bad, the peculiarity of being adhesive, persistent, and recurrent. In consequence Ger- many has reopened the discussion upon the famous interview of August 4, IQI4, between the Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg and the British Ambassador, Sir Edward Goschen. sThe Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of January 25, 1917, has published a correspondence of an . obviously German or Germanophile origin, with > the object of exonerating the Imperial Chancellor s from the reproach of having at this historic interview qualified the treaty guaranteeing g Belgian neutrality as a “scrap of paper.” The Kölnische Volkszeitung (No. I25, of February I4, 1917) only too willingly reproduced this justifica- # tion, and other German newspapers followed suit. l w & wº wº ge g | This correspondence brings into the discussion x neither unpublished documents nor new argu- - 3 2 * c Q-> THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” ments, but makes the pretence of wishing to place facts upon an impartial basis, after the passions of the first moments have been assuaged. The author evidently counts upon the forgetfulness or inattention of the public which has no longer the documents before its eyes. It therefore seems desirable to recall them, and to determine the final conclusions of historic criticism upon this momentous incident at the outset of the war. The correspondence published by the Dutch paper limits itself to opposing, point by point, to Sir Edward Goschen’s report the embarrassed and somewhat confused explanation given by the Imperial Chancellor to the Associated Press representative on the 25th of January, IQI5 (Kölnische Zeitung, January 27, 1915; The Times, January 26, 1915; Basler Nachrichten, January 29, 1915, etc.). - - The reader belonging to neutral countries finds himself, therefore, from the point of view of the position of the problem, simply faced by two contradictory and irreconcilable narratives of one and the same fact : one, the British Ambassador’s, almost contemporary with the fact itself, since it is dated the 8th of August, IQI4; the other, the German Chancellor's version, subsequent.by more than five months. The first is a diplomatic report, the second manifestly bears the stamp of a brief. In his report of August 8, 1914, addressed to - 4 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” Sir Edward Grey, Sir Edward GOSchen says (English Blue Book, No. 160) — I found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once began a harangue, which lasted for about twenty minutes. He said that the step taken by His Majesty's Government was terrible to a degree ; just for a word —“neutrality,” a word which in war time had so often been disregarded—just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her. All his efforts in that direction had been rendered useless by this last terrible step, and the policy to which, as I knew, he had devoted himself since his accession to office had tumbled down like a house of cards. What we had done was unthinkable ; it was like striking a man from behind while he was fighting for his life against two assailants. He held Great Britain responsible for all the terrible events that might happen. I protested strongly against that state- ment, and said that, in the same way as he and Herr von Jagow wished me to understand that for strategical reasons it was a matter of life and death to Germany to advance through Belgium and violate the latter's neutrality, so I would wish him to understand that it was, so to speak, a matter of “life and death” for the honour of Great Britain that she should keep her solemn engagement to do her utmost to defend Belgium's neutrality if attacked. That solemn compact simply had to be kept, or what confidence could anyone have in engagements given by Great Britain in the future ? The Chancellor said : “But at what price will that compact have been kept 2 Has the British Government thought of that ?” I hinted to his Excellency as plainly as I could that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an excuse for breaking solemn engagements, but his Excellency was so excited, so evidently overcome by the news of our action, and so little disposed to hear reason that I refrained from adding fuel 5 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” to the flame by further argument. As I was leaving he said that the blow of Great Britain joining Germany's enemies was all the greater that almost up to the last moment he and his Government had been working with us and supporting our efforts to maintain peace between Austria and Russia. I said that this was part of the tragedy which saw the two nations fall apart just at the moment when the relations between them had been more friendly and cordial than they had been for years. Unfor- tunately, notwithstanding our efforts to maintain peace between Russia and Austria, the war had spread and had brought us face to face with a situation which, if we held to our engagements, we could not possibly avoid, and which unfortunately entailed our separation from our late fellow-workers. He would readily understand that no one regretted this more than I. After this somewhat painful interview I returned to the embassy and drew up a telegraphic report of what had passed. This telegram was handed in at the Central Telegraph Office a little before 9 p.m. It was accepted by that office, but apparently never dispatched. The Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, in his interview of the 25th of January, IQI5, states (Vossische Zeitung, January 28, 1915; New York Times, Current History, vol. i., p. II.20):— My conversation with Sir E. Goschen occurred on the 4th of August. I had just declared in the Reichstag that only dire necessity, only the struggle for existence, com- . pelled Germany to march through Belgium, but that Germany was ready to make Compensation for the wrong. committed. When I spoke Talready had certain indica- tions, but no absolute proof, on which to base a public accusation that Belgium had long before abandoned its neutrality in its relations with England. Nevertheless, 6 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” I took Germany's responsibilities towards neutral States so seriously that I spoke frankly on the wrong committed by Germany. What was the British attitude on the same question ? The day before my conversation with the British Ambassador, Sir Edward Grey had delivered his well-known speech in Parliament wherein, while he did not state expressly that England would take part in the war, he left the matter in little doubt. One needs only to read this speech through carefully to learn the reason of England's intervention in the war. Amid all his beautiful phrases about England's honour and England's obligations we find it over and over again expressed that England's interests—its own interests—called for participation in war, for it was not in England's interests that a victorious, and therefore stronger, Germany should emerge from the ~war-—This-old-principle of England's policy—to take as the sole criterion of its actions its private interests regard- less of right, reason, or considerations of humanity—is expressed in that speech of Gladstone's in 1870 on Belgian neutrality. from which Sir Edward quoted. Mr. Gladstone then declared that he was unable to subscribe to the doctrine that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is binding upon every party thereto, irrespective altogether of the particular position in which it may find itself at the time when the occasion for action on the guarantee arrives, and he referred to such English statesmen as Aberdeen and Palmerston as supporters of his views. England drew the sword only because she believed her own interests demanded it. Just for Belgian neutrality she would never have entered the war. That is what I meant when I told Sir E. Goschen, in that last interview when we sat down to talk the matter over privately man to man, that among the reasons which had impelled England into War. the Belgian neutrality treaty had for her only the value of a scrap of paper. I may have been a bit-excited and aroused. Who would not have been at seeing the hopes and work of the whole period of my 7 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” Chancellorship going for naught 2 I recalled to the Ambassador my efforts for years to bring about an under- standing between England and Germany, an understanding which, I reminded him, would have made a general European war impossible, and have absolutely guaranteed the peace of Europe. Such understanding would have formed the basis on which we could have approached the United States as a third partner. But England had not taken up this plan, and through its entry into the war had destroyed for ever the hope of its fulfilment. In comparison with such momentous consequences, was the treaty not a scrap of paper ? England ought really to cease harping on this theme of Belgian neutrality. Documents on the Anglo-Belgian military agreement, which we have found in the mean- time, show plainly enough how England regarded this neutrality. As you know, we found in the archives of the Belgian Foreign Office papers which showed that England in 1911 was determined to throw troops into Belgium _without the assent of the Belgian Government if war had then broken out. In other words, do exactly the same thing for which, with all the pathos of virtuous indignation, she now reproached Germany. In some later dispatch Grey, I believe, informed Belgium that he did not believe England would take such a step, because he did not think English public opinion would justify such action, and still people in the United States wonder that I characterised as a scrap of paper a treaty whose observance, according to responsible British statesmen, should be dependent upon the pleasure of British public opinion, a treaty which England-herself-had long since undermined by military agreements with Belgium. Remember, too, that Sir E. Grey expressly refused to assure us of England's neutrality even in the eventuality that Germany respected Belgian neutrality. I can understand therefore English displeasure at my characterisation of the treaty of 1839 as a scrap of paper, for this scrap of paper was for England extremely ~ —-e-r--arrºr---------~~~~ :------------ THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” valuable, as furnishing an excuse before the world for embarking in the war. I hope, therefore, that in the United States you will think clearly enough and realise that England in this matter, too, acted solely on the principle, “Right or wrong, my interests.” Such are the two versions. To which of the two is the serious mind entitled to give credence 2 The conversation of the 4th of August between the Chancellor and the British Ambassador having taken place without witnesses, it is the question of the truthfulness and even the sincerity of those two speakers that has to be really settled. The hypothesis of a simple misunderstanding may be disposed of, the Chancellor having shown himself so emphatic on the 25th of January, IQI5. According to his assertion he expressed himself in so clear a manner on the 4th of August that his visitor could not possibly have misunderstood his meaning. The German Press, in his defence, pretends that the version of the 25th of January, I915, is the only one in harmony with that attitude of “noble frankness” which the Chan- cellor adopted, a few hours prior to the interview, in his speech in the Reichstag on the 4th of August, IQI4; that Press also, in consequence, bases the discussion upon the ground of the Chancellor's sincerity. Let us therefore follow them over their own ground, observing however in advance that, in taking up the case from this standpoint, we do 9 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” not propose treating either von Bethmann- Hollweg or Sir Edward as private individuals but as official representatives of their respective countries. From this standpoint, what do the official papers composing the dossier reveal 2 The English side produces only one document: - the narrative contained in the report of the ** -- British Ambassador, drawn up in London four days after the interview. But there is in existence one other piece of evidence which has never been published, and which would enable us to check the exactitude of the first, namely, the telegraphic minute of the interview handed in on the same night shortly before nine o'clock by the Ambas- sador at the Central Telegraph Station in Berlin, and addressed to the Foreign Office, which telegram was accepted but never transmitted by the German officials. The latter preserved a copy, and the German Government could produce it, but has never done so, whilst allowing the German Press to comment upon the tardy drawing up of the report of the 8th of August, 1914. One may —nay, one must—reasonably infer from this abstention that the telegraphic minute of the interview would, if it were disclosed, confirm the report. . - Moreover, the version of the report is indirectly corroborated by the uncontested accounts of other interviews which the British Ambassador IO THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” had on the same day (August 4) with other eminent German officials, either before the “scrap of paper” interview (interviews at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. with the Secretary of State, von Jagow) or after (interviews at 9.30 p.m. with the Under- Secretary of State, von Zimmermann, and later in the night with Herr von Jagow). In those different conversations, from the German side, all efforts were concentrated upon persuading England to reconsider her decision, and various reasons were invoked : the close racial affinity between the British and German peoples, the recent tightening of Anglo-German relations, the sincere co-operation of their diplo- macy in the course of the last few years, and finally the terrible blow which British interven- tion would deal to the Empire, already at grips with formidable enemies. To all these arguments Sir Edward Goschen had only one invariable answer, that the honour of Great Britain com- pelled her to keep her engagements as guarantor of Belgian neutrality, and that the general interest of Europe and Great Britain, as well as the maintenance of the existence of international society, demanded that such treaties should be inviolably respected. -- - In none of these interviews is there any allusion whatsoever to a disregard, either by Belgium or by England, of the treaty of 1839. On the other hand, the Secretary of State, von II THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” Jagow, like the Chancellor himself, spontaneously confessed therein the injustice which Germany, under pressure of strategic reasons, had regretfully committed. --~~~~ - A similar confession and a stronger expression of the same feeling of regret are to be found in the account of the interview which the Secretary of State, von Jagow, had on the same 4th of August with Baron Beyens, Belgian Minister in Berlin, and of which the latter at once sent a telegraphic report to Brussels (Second Belgian Grey Book, No. 25). - - To sum up : (1) The British Ambassador's version is plausible and perfectly coherent in all its parts. (2) The version is in no way contradictory of any of the other contemporaneous accounts of the events of that fateful day. Quite a contrary fate befalls the German version of the 25th of January, IQI5. The official representative of the German Empire has indeed given proof of an extraordinary versatility as regards his interview with the English Ambassador on the 4th of August, IQI4. Wishing to demonstrate that he could not reasonably be taken as having meant then that the guarantee of Belgian neutrality had in the eyes of Germany no more value than a “scrap of , paper,” the Chancellor alleges on the 25th of January, IQI5, that as far, back as the 4th of * * * * • -->, r” I2 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” August, IQL4, he already knew—without yet. possessing formal evidence=that Belgium had Secretly bartered her neutrality for the benefit of England; consequently he had merely meant that by Belgium's and Great Britain's own action and wrong-doing the treaty had declined, So far as the contracting parties in general were concerned, to the value of a “scrap of paper.” Unfortunately for the Chancellor, this belated and highly interesting interpretation is contra- dicted by the official declarations which he made prior to the interview. As a matter of fact the Chancellor confessed spontaneously in the Reichstag, on the 4th of August, IQI4, that the invasion of Belgium was an act “contrary to the dictates of International Law,” and that the “protestations of the Govern- ments of Luxemburg and Belgium were justi- fied.” He went even further, and stated that in acknowledging Germany’s “misdeed” “he spoke frankly” (ich spreche offen). - In other words, in “pleading guilty” the Chancellor formally begged his auditors in the Reichstag to submit themselves unreservedly to the frankness of his avowal. By confessing the injustice (Unrecht) committed by Germany, he attested that all reticence was banished from his mind. That is to say, he excluded in advance and from the first moment the explanation of any mental reservation, by which five months later I3 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” ~ he endeavoured to legitimise the substance of his tête-à-tête conversation with the British Ambas- sador on that particular night. Furthermore, we have seen that a similar avowal of an injustice committed for strategic reasons was made by the Secretary of State, von Jagow, in his official conversations both with Sir Edward GOSchen at 9 a.m. and at 7 p.m., and later in the evening with Baron Beyens. Again, on the 8th of August the confession was implicitly reiterated by the German Government when, making an offer to Belgium of a separate peace (Belgian Grey Book, Nos. 60, 62, 63, 64, and 65), they apologised for having been compelled by events to enter Belgium by force. Now, in order to prove injustice and wrong- doing on Germany's part from the point of view of International Law, the treaty of I839 must needs be considered as legally intact. Such was certainly in those days the personal conviction of official Germany. Let us recall that only one year previously, in April, IQI3, the Secretary of State, von Jagow, had replied officially to that effect to a question put by Liebknecht at a sitting of the Budget Commission in the Reichstag, and that in 1911 the Chancellor himself in reply to a question of the Belgian Government gave, in unequivocal terms; the assurance of Germany's fidelity to the treaty. It was only after the rejection of the offer of a I4 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” separate peace that the German Government started attacking Belgium's political honour and organising that famous campaign of Press and Governmental declarations which are still fresh . in all memories. From that time Germany shrank from no inconsistencies, left no means untried, in order to impress ill-informed neutral opinion. On the 13th of October, 1914, the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, in an official note, announced that certain documents (the so-called Anglo- Belgian Conventions, Ducarne-Barnardiston of 1906 and Jungbluth-Bridges of 1911) had been found in Brussels, revealing, according to that paper, the existence of a secret military agreement **-xxº~. 9. concluded in 1906 between Great Britain and Belgium. The semi-official journal stated that this fact was known in competent high German circles long before the war. In contrast with the official German declarations of 1911 and 1913, this “long before the war” appears somewhat astonishing. . On the 2nd of December, IQI4, in a speech before the Reichstag, the Chancellor strove to discount the value of his declaration of the 4th of August. For the first time, he declared that Belgium's felony was known to him before the 4th of August, at any rate by assumption, and that in order to have asserted this then, he only needed certain documentary proofs, such as those which had just been discovered in the Belgian archives in Brussels. I5 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” The Chancellor repeated and developed this affirmation in his interview of the 25th of January, I915, and German propaganda in its turn exploited the theme against Belgium and England to excess for a whole year, but not without having first altered the word “conversation,” as it was in the Ducarne report, to “convention.” In the end, however, the truth came to light. Inadvertently in 1916, during a debate in the Reichstag, a confession of the mendacity of the explanation escaped from the lips of the Secretary of State, von Jagow. In fact, at the sitting of the 6th of April, the Chancellor's representative declared, in reply to a question from the Socialist member Haase : “When the Chancellor made his declaration of the 4th of August he could not have known that Belgium had already secretly taken sides.” Herr von Jagow accordingly took the trouble personally to demonstrate that the intimate con- viction invoked by the Chancellor on the 25th of January, IQI5, with a view to lending plausibility to his tardy explanation of the expression “a - scrap of paper,” was a pure invention on his part. Certain German professors imagined they would help the Chancellor out of the hole by affirming that on the 4th of August he spoke, and only could have spoken, as a “politician,” as a “diplo- matist,” eager to show Belgium an easy way of retracting her former refusal. . I6 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” But let us remark that Herr von Jagow said : “The Chancellor could not have known”; and not : “The Chancellor could not have said.” Even admitting the professors’ hypothesis, another question, and a very serious one, would still arise regarding the reliance to be placed on the Chancellor’s word : When are we to believe the Chancellor’s statements 2 On the 4th of August, IQI4, when he solemnly declared he was speaking with the utmost candour, or on the 25th of January, IQI5, when, for the purposes of his cause, he affirmed that he had lacked frank- ness on the 4th of August, while at the same time protesting that he had been most frank 2 Whatever the answer may be, one point remains beyond dispute : the Chancellor’s word was too wanting in consistency to be admitted in this controversy as an argument, or even as a mere reference, by any prudent historian. Then comes into line the deciding factor of ordinary common sense, patent to every one, which entirely denudes the Chancellor's version of all plausibility. - He made, so he pretends, on the 4th of August a Supreme effort to win England back to a policy of neutrality and of abstention, in spite of the invasion of Belgian territory, which had already begun. Who can be brought to believe that the best way to succeed in this object was to main- tain with insolence to the face of the British I7 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” Ambassador that he was only making a hypo- critical display when he affirmed that for Great Britain the respect of her engagements was a question of life or death, and to represent to him that as a matter of fact she valued a treaty of guarantee bearing her signature no more than she did a “scrap of paper” Such an insult would have aroused even the most phlegmatic diplomatist, and would alone have been enough to confirm Great Britain in her determination to go to war. No doubt German diplomacy is considered, in Germany as else- where, as being void of finesse and tact; but, really, who would have believed it possible that an Imperial Chancellor could have blundered in such a manner at such a moment P And who could believe in his declaration when he confers upon himself this brevet of incapacity ? But, then, how are we to disentangle the con- tradiction existing actually between the declara- tion made to the Reichstag and the “scrap of paper” statement 2 The mystery can easily be solved. In the Reichstag the Chancellor was appealing to public opinion, and particularly neutral public opinion. This latter professes an absolute faith in treaties; it regards the treaty of 1839 as one of the essential 'foundations to the balance of European power and to the constitution of international Society. It would have indeed been imprudent to trample I8 THE “SINCERE CHANCELLOR” under foot such convictions; but, on the other hand, it was possible to attenuate the Scandal, more or less, by frankly admitting the crime, with a promise of reparation as Soon as possible. In his interview with the British Ambassador - the Chancellor was, as he admits himself, en tête à tête. He was arguing as man to man with the diplomatic representative of a country which had sincerely endeavoured to arrive at a rapprochement with Germany, and no doubt the Chancellor flattered himself that he would succeed in persuading Sir Edward to share those views of Realpolitik which inspired German diplo- macy. Von Bethmann-Hollweg thought that he could speak to an English Ambassador as he would have addressed a representative of Austria, Turkey, or Bulgaria. - Hence the contrast in the avowals and the words used. It is clear that in both cases the Chancellor showed an equal ignorance of psychology. Nothing, however, prevents us from admitting the fact that on both occasions his word remained, after a fashion, sincere; if it was not the same in each case, it was because he had not the same" audience, and because his thought was double- - ...~Tº--~~ --...----------- • ----- ~~~~~~ dealing-- Printed in Great Britain by The Menpes Printing & Engraving Co., Ltd., Craven House, Kingsway, London. W.C.2. - - : • - - --- - - 3 - - - - -- - - * * **, - - * é r * * - 4 tº # *. e & • *- a 4 * ºf * ** # t e f - - g { z - * - tº * * . . . \ * & i & **, *, * * * - * * ! - .* $ - * r - - - & ===）== * , t t w p * tº q + * * * * * - ::::::: • • • • • • • • • + t art tº • * * : * * * * * • • • • «^ * * * * * * tº e * * ** * = *ji is fift ºf at #2 * * * * * * * ！ ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ ！ ！！ ！… • w: --- « … w-， s œ ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ► ► ► ► ► ► * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * • • •w w.* ， ， ， ， ， • • • • • • • • • • • • • •=+ ******** ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • • • • • • • ► ► ae ：-（（（--~--~ ē， * • • • • • • • • • ** ** •• - - ~- - • *-* * • • • • • • → - → wa +* = ∞, ∞; ∞, ∞ × ± • • • • ****** • • • • • • ·ē， s ºs ww. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • *** • • • • • • • • ► ► ► ► ► ► ►* * * * * * - - - -， → |-<！-- • • • × × ×*** • • • • • *** • * * = ± ------…--• • • • • • • • æ æ ， æ & … - - -** --~~~~ » + s + w*.* » » » ». *** ± = w * * *-*- æ ææ æ ， ºw * § 37.35 × 5 × × × × × × × 1 » • • • • • • • • • ** ** t:::::::: • * * * * • • • • • • • • • • • • -- ----- * * * * ► ► ► ► ► ► ► • • • • • •- ---- * * * * sº tº i * * * , sº ºf $ 7 • * * * * * * * * : * * * * * * * : ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ► ► ► ºº！* #::::::::::::::: && • • • • • ► ► * * * * * * * * * • • •• • • • • •—• w.， w • • ******* • • • • • • • • • •ı. ，:::：::::：::: -, --~~~~ ~~~~~ 7 :::::::：.5;;:7:7:£7:575 <- ##. --~~~~*~*~ ' .tº ſ, ch iri -- o r By '' (as * * & P d tº " r h Il atter to: eer Letter’t H 2 p. d * M. . J e', o * & T w" R the . * * - B R N o. - t 8w 3 o . . . ti ? X -- ºr B 63 · · - }- v* * :-）! £+ w «»，- （ - '.^ * as h o h; I º wh emy s en One ** .." - :- . M id: .* *. ition . IIlº. * m * . 4. • *. oman tt O ri * * * oun * he R • ~ & ‘om }; № º ep º w EL . ， ！ niversi w º fir • ** , ， ， ,§5?? ！！! ± & $ $ $ | 5 · Ľ ģ3 （ºs （d. Q !} 0. is Be *. l .** - ora W. as B of …” y-GI ir of 1&W.O. r se - ; P ~3. Y. wn ne A ~~ f i. *- f B -ADMIRAL’ y I6 pp r r f 4. G. 8v t own m r the A ind d ll Beh a- en e ng C on February eti ered Me iv at - * y a ali 7 a > 3. Šs H * Ad at the *oli 4. MILE. AMMAER .# * I 6 os * 0. "…” + x l, - - ł. it! - S ſº - wº. -º * es of ti Sh y + *.* il. arra pita : N. From the 4. * y : pp. 8 en ons AR r - ... " • 1 * - 4 +º, + - "> * ~~~ : --- ? , 'w “ G *- " ; - - 4. -- --" ; : º - | **:: l sº 2, L. tº * * "t 3. * -- * ... : - - Mr t * . - i. - -- * sº e Si .LIAM R erº • • • • • • • • • •••/*• * …« ' |-- - \ ,|- - *• .*~*~|- ~~ ~-* → ·m.-- -- .‘— ！*-, !-… * |--|- +·• --}, ’- -–f–.. ';''--·~* ·,`- + .. $.: ~~. '~）;, ！+''*. -, ！ · · · ·· · · --· + '• !· · ·（, ， ， ,·-- , ' '.^, ... ”• • •, -> ·ſ.ºſ , , '... * * ·,· ..“ .‘, è* - º|§. 1§ → ~^�º,}•° ' ,+�. .· · ·）| •• ! }· · ·`-•’，“.}| .`-á º| .- ",'ſ '|!， |*.- i. ſi- "..., ：}· · ·• *-{ • • ►►-~~-į.' +}|--�· »«，§ 4|-· %%· · · ·· · · ·, , ，- · · · · ·8.}·|-+ + * #º.§5º ,3.�→ ·* -. ' ^,�)• •ſºlº，•ſë ·· · · ·8.'. ,-· ...，（- ,* 8;-ſ. |-`· · ·?-'. -. , ….… · · · · · · · · · ·*： №la ' , ， ,‘ “ №ſ" （, ， , º， ， , ， ， ， ， , ' '， ':$（'#' ， : „ ” ',', ，'$'， ）; | , , ， , ' ' ’ Jiº, §. ſº ', ſãº: º , '; ' ， '）; （ 5 ） : „'， ， 3 ， ！º și}, }， '&' : ' . ſº: "- , ， , , .ºg ſá …. • 9，2 ， , ， , ... （, ， , .. 3，8 ± √° ſ√≠ ≤ ≥ ≡ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± ' | ', ， , #：# ',ºğš ）, š ， gš Š Ř ř Š „ff; } # % ~ | ¡ ¿ -· *---| -- ~-|-· ！ »·• „“→ ++ _ •' ， ' ~~' ： ·* * ·，≤)- , ， ... ！ſă“， （s.º. . . . . . ;º ）. '！ ！ ！; №. 9 . . . . aegae ！ 55' ºg: || .2（） -,* †*Ģ9'. ， ， ，·|* {�... •. '*-\! #*#, ’** -£ +. , º�*G), {*!！!*'.'>'r ſy |-± 3.99）�*- e ?-●}***… į-,ſł* @, “.§ 8« *-}-|-∞w -: æ，|-‘Q’)|· ·ºſt:-|- *a „º • %§:· *“№ · göſ“A:|- |×28º.|- {*.¿?*, . ”* …ºt:: ſēļā�- .*:º）* * *）·$* -!\，- >' ）* ,- 5 №. 3，53 & 4 ） $ $ $ $ $ ¢ © ® ° § ø § ¶ ¡ ¿ºſ g. ?, º.ſ. Į ſºſ: {|�-x·'.' ’ ,' : '•5*，4• ‘·},}* +• --3. +→.- #}-$3. .--**®• ,„*}-}！} · ·2， , , ， ， , ， ºg ſ （ „ 8, º , ， ， ， , , ， ， și „L, §.· § © ® 38 %， , ， !} （!! ! >。 、 。 、: , ,º & № , ‘’’, , ， , ， }; º№ ſº, º 6 5 . . . . .' ; ,l : „ , ， , , , , s: : *. a * > . + •s * - r:- *. * * * ... * * - “. *-* * > º * ..." “- , , «… ' "！ #» •|- .*;º）; y',+ . . . »- * ,… **• • •- ）, •, , * * * -------... * * *- % -"|-\• • •-· · · · ·'; • w Lae，i . "!~ .�-- * , ' ' + į . «, ， , - • T# * \ ,.. '! ; * . |-{• ！. «} -'.�*-|-·|×} №ſ， 4 ！i, ſ ||（. . . . . . . ' -}-* -• × * -->·* •*~*， º.•*' ， , ,+*** • * * w ** 4. ; VO. - - * { * * z, z *. 1. t 3 * "T r *- ** , -> ---, - IS ... ." ADB . - * , *, , 5- « - - - - r r is - - ~ * *e. * ſ ... • * * “. . ~~ . . . > y 8 m ' .ſì，* .? v§ （-; .{+ • × °* * · * . . .-º . . . . ;-）+ →sº-*|-*** . -•º , , •\ •|-•± •-| : },|sº•！ 4~ !w-! ± •»~~ ~~）;------- • ！”-… ••#* ,*-8--•|- · -·• 3 •- \ -*** ·|- •* • •» ;… --}• .---:- * • */'.·→ -* -***--·+ *~}，\,„“-· §*· · ·|- }7 + …|-- -|- •° • × ° €+ .** -... *: w r.* * * , , , ，· · ·~^ -.-' .* \,~* · -·•|- ' ,*~'. , . ”-' ;*！ 4,\|-' : ·-- 1 *- -! «-*---- •* ·- *-*... • •-----} ·4 "… • •-t* ·× ×-*• • 4*-+, , *·* •+-·~ ~ .|-- -• •-.- -----~~）;z-r-rº-- -• • •; ·T;~z* -->- …*..*;+—;+-+-+-+---+--->y;+ →*-|-ºn ---* … »#• .*）r.----*， , ***}. }» y «… *-*-, * * .* •+--»* * w » ?4 «}* _.- +±-----|-|-*-*-•_*|-* -|-4 ,“ … • •••} •---…- -• … •*|-- *}- ·• •• • --- , ſ.ſ. .-}· *- *' ~~*-. ， * * *-· ,-*|--}f; . ' ;：-.*1--'. ， ,+• r+ * \,·--* ,- ~~‘,•* »*\A , ！· + à , ！*>• ! ,�|--*-* * ,, ，-!• • •;- “r• ſ! •~·^~→ ·}ť * ----•- ·, , ' :~~----：' *# -“.%-, ， , ， ，· „ “ .*,-·º.· · *' ' ）.„-“,† *-»·-|- -* *-* ,--ą... ~~|-|-- , , f, ’-* *, ,* · ··* ,, ，• ;!,- -· * *··- *w, v！' ,*·-<--* »,“, ’-…«*. --|-* *+>-•/~** ** …* ··º ,«~ ~ *-• •}*~ ș-|- <•-.*} |-- |-|- -* - ,-----|-|- -*-- * ... •-„”•\|-- -· · - ae! .*« *-|-... * *- -}-----' .* -, * |-•+|-... ** ... •|-#-·'. , ！|- ----^ _ ，- «-j` ſ .*“ ... .--· * *~* • •. **: -·-+!----·--, ，+→· • • •-*-· **· ：-）--» ; ·--• • •-* .: : … + \ ,^- , !! :） . . } -" + ſ +‘…- -_ ·„...r”， º* - .• ... * .·{|- *-… •*V· ** .| • • •, . » . . . * * ? ， ! ,- + →\! .-· • • •- '.* # ！` , , ' ', , , ,*, 'w- �|-!… \' .-• • • • . .** ·• × » - *, ， ， ， , , *--- «• • • .„.^-~ * ， , , ?-*.W.-&~ ~ ~* ,{-- * v-*+ ... * w. •---* {|-• • • •|-}-'.•-·|-… •|---*-! * \, |-* · * .yr. .?º' , ' ';|-a ---- , ！·--，• . . ~, * •· *-* … , , **• •*• .-w+ '· **N. ș*·|-„*|-*-- „ºw ---•* { ' * * · · · ··... ***'-^ ,*}|--• . . * .*|-r-:Y* ... •*, *-* ~,# . '.*' -4|-1 -- : * " .|-• -• ’|--* _ • • •--|--* • • •*：+ * !<.-** ,·--.*-- -·-- -·- *#|-·- '~ ,į. • „“* .. ' ,' -- $ . - 1· · · · · · · · · ·--·º. i.- .æ* № .+ · · * a* ... •|-, ， ，* ... *** : « * ,*u : „-+ +* *w łº- |--.*-_ī • .-« … • • • •--- •-- -*+·-· --|-----|-- …- … ~~~~ ----. . . . . . ., … -- ------: --~~~~…, … ~~~~ （75-ºº 7 *:：:：::：--：^=.*¿¿.*?）（:（~~~~ ~~ ~--- « -----|-|-- -, , ， *__ºr.--*** i;-'~- … . . . . . ~ ' ’ ，. . . . . . . ………*********, . ... • ?| - ^-, / ^）·-„*' ^）.?A , , , ） --- »（~~~~ /^ \ ł. \ § { * , Y. ----...---> h ||||| UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 O7479 7757 | ~ { i } { f t , ,， ！ （--~~~~;~~ ！= '<！--***5:2（3:（$$$$$3，1 • .. --~~~--~--~--~~~~&#Èž====:：=ääè=· - - 3: *... < \ --* •- - - -“ º. . . .. . . . . . . . .…... --……………！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！、、，* … -->±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±）, -- -• .-, ' •:---.-.-.-.-… №,zx-~！！！??！！?！！?！***！±，±，±，±，±5§§§§§:！！！±，±,±，±,±，±）， - - -- -· · · · ··· · · · · · · · · ·--~~~ -…--~~~~）{****„№Ë№&######$£§§§§§§§§！§§©®°¶√≠√≠ , • - -, •º . （…） ------------ ~~----.-.-.---><！--№ºº ！:：:：::::::::：：:}##šī£§§§§§§§§§ÊËĒĖ#####×××××***]|- ---- --±，±，±）,--- - ---. - . "·. . .-----· · · · ·….……... --……….…&=#№±žģī£§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§- ·-. . . . . . . . . . . . .ºº..ººº ……. --~~~~ ~~~~.…….………&a=&################№。£§§§§§*·§§§§§§§§§§§§§、、、、、、、、、、 -· · · · · · · · · · · ·, -,. . . '， ， ， ' ---------- - -· .-|-*、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、:::::*№.±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±§§§:№ſſae:*）^w5××××ק§§§！！！¿№aeae:øwæræ，。、、。::：&.*„sae. -|----~--~~~~==================:：：:：：:::：::：:::№ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ№žĒĒĒĒĒĖĘĘŔaȩ§§§§§§žšī£§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§Ź№ț¢ £ €$£§！！！！-¿šş，§§¿-- - →→→→→→?|-|-（±，±，±),••••-，*****）::：::：::::::*№ž33€::::::：::§§§:№:№aeaeae•^w2！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！±，±，±，±，±），、、、、、、、eae，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±），№gº±，±，±，±，±，±，±:ſae;±±±±，±，±，±），·Ķī£§.- §§§§ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĘĚĖĒĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĘ:§§§§§§§§！#############3Ë№ĘĚ3?:#$5&############ŽĒī£ī£±，±，±，±§§§§§§§§§ž№ğ！！??########ĒĒĒĒĒĒ£§§§§§§:：::：：:::：:::::::：：：§§§§∞ √æ√≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ ±±±№！！3！！3！！!！！！！！！！!！$$£§§§§§©®°¶√¶√≠≤≥±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±），?！?！！?！！?！！！！！！！(）.-！！！¿№r！»;x's wae!！！ſaeae:№ae，¿¿<！--（s2，…！！！！！！≡≡≡≡≡≡№，^ - , ！、、。、::：::::::№šī£3， -■■■ ■ ■ *****----<！！！！！！！！！！!！！！*******sae ºxºsae§§§§|-§§§§§----§§§§§§§§§§§×№:№aeaeſaeaeaeae！！！！！!！！!！！!！！！！！№ae，-----*§§§！！！！！！!！！！！！！！ §§§5::::：:žĒž::::ÈËEĘĚĖĒ;§§§§§§§§§§§§§№§§§§:№šķī£§§§§§:ſſae！！！！！！！！！！！！！！№ć:::：::：:::：&aesaer§§：№ț¢№№aeae--****:：=≡-ș****-±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±-·|-·&±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±√¶√∞ §§§ĒĒĒĒĖĘĚ3?！！?????¿№ț¢ £§§§§§§§Ēz::::*№§§§§§žī£3。。。、、、、、、、、、、。、、。（?:ĢĒĒĒĖĖĘĚĖĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĘĢĢĞĞĶī£73€¢ £§！！?！！?！！?!！！§§§§§ſae！！！！！！！！！！£§§：::：:::::：----&&！！! «）****！±wraeſe§！！！！！$$£§！！！！！！！&&ģ:Oe！！！！!!！！！ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĘĘĢĢĞſ，±±ç$£§ĚĖĒĒĖĘĘĢ§！！！！！!！!！！！！$$$±±:±，±，±，±，±，±，±#####žĒĒĒſae:！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ſae±，±，±，±ēš§§§§§§§§ 。、:::：:::：：:::：::§§§§§§§§§±（√¶√5::：:::：：::：:::::$£§§§§5）;¿ŠĶĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĚĖĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĚĖ########、、、、、、、±3，±，±，±，±，±§§§§§::$3&#$§$%--~ae*-------±±±3，±，±，±，±）,£§§§§§§*…*！！！！！&&{;;，，，。、、、。！！！！！！！！！！！！！!§！！！！！！ §§§§§§ī£$£§§§§§§§§§ī£§！！！5，33%，，，，，，。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、:¿№ №ſſae§§§§§§§！}{3！§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§żae，-××××××-ſaesºx ****** §§§§§§§§§§№Ë##$！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！，，，，，，§§§§§§§§§§§§§Ķī£§！！！！！！！！！！$$$$£§！！！！！！！！2×！，ſz:：::::::：:::::：:：:ffff！®£§§§§:№;!！！!！！!！$$$$£§§£Ë±-§§§§！！！！!！！！！！！！！！±±√¶EZ！！！！$£§:ſſ: Œœſ！£§！!！！！！！Œ œ •••••**ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĚĖĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĘ;$$$$::：：::::§::：::::::Oe！· ·:：-**§§©®°¶√≠√∞ae，±，±;aerºs，-::=≡≡≡≡?！！！&#####ſae:::::-£，！！！！！！->}}:::::::：:№ž:，:xx•~~~~）;ĒĢĒ（±（√¶ſae·x - - -±，±，±，±√¶√¶√<<-*****::::::：::Oe№ſºſ，3，5！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§-§§§§§§§iae·|-• …§§±√（√≠√æ√∞::：::::::：::·§§§§§§§§§§§ €$£§§！！！！！！!！！！！£&、、。、、、。§§！！！！！！！！$$§§§§§§-§§:、&xxaeaešº.§§5€$£§» ºſ-::&. wº-，§§§§§§§！::::::：::：:：：：}}§:ſſae;$;&5:::：:§§§§§¿№ķī£§§§§:5;:?!*， **-->¿??¿ $¢ £…，！！！!！!！！！！！，，。、「」、、、、、、、、、¿¿.±√æ√∞$£§§§:ſ§§§§§§§§§§§§$%&！！！！！！！！！！！！！¿•■.§§§§§§§§§- §§§）;$$$$$$$ÈÈȧ§§§§§$%$&#%$§$£§§§§§::！§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§~--~■■■■■■■■:：:：：：：：&ae，≤≤ ≥ ≠√∞',$£§§§§§§§§§§žī£± &！！！！！！！！！！！!！rºw£§！！$$$$$$$$$%$§§！！！！！！！ §§§§§§§±§§§§§#############$%$§§§§§§§§§§§§§·|×ſº：~--~·¿??¿3. №，;:№259，+.***•■■■■ae.！:）！！！！！！！！！！！。ſaecae?！！！！！！！！！§§§ §§§§§§§§§§§§§§----ſaeſī£§§§§ €$£§§§§§§waeſ§§§！！！！!！！5，-3############！*®£®£§#######ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ;Ź№gº?:?！§:::<£§！±333333$3: ${！！！¿Éī£§§§§§§ §§§§§§§№taeș.（x，x =§§§§！！！！！！-,-，-，№rſ！！！！！2，5）-（-）-ººs:·#！！！！！：- " … " ， ！§2.33 ±±?±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±№w ！！！!！！！！??.*::: ~$$$$$，?.?.?.??！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！§§§§§§@₪><ſ±（√≠√≠≤≥ wae，¿¿??¿??¿№§§§§§§§§§¿?∞∞∞ſ-，-，-，-）， ±−׿*********– ~~~~*~*~*~*~. . "* （ ）----º. -_-'！！!！！----• • • • w::。。、、、。、。24、55§§::！！！ZŁE Ż）√≠√∞.ºšº Ķ::：:::::：::::žī£; £§§§§§！！！$$$$£§§ș.ae±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±,±）, ?！?！*®r，-;&?:）?（.*?）&șaeae:§§§§©®（~~~-------**************-· -|- ----№šķī£®£###################$£§§§§§- ----±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±,±，±），§∞; ∞, √æ√≠ ≤ ≥ ≡≡≡≡！！！ ！！！!！！！---- - -**®£§§§§§******， … （ ： · · · · -…· -· -* （ 2 ） * *-----rº-±±######################Èžģī£§ĒĒĒĖĖĘĚĖĒ±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±），№::::::：：：:*----xºsae >> ===.===， ， ſ.， &:*********** . T-·º …-ſae±−× •* • ****:3:::：:::：:•ĶĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĖĘĘĢĢĒĢĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ**********::：:::::G！！！！！！--**::::：= ===~=++~~~~-------- →gaeaeaeaeĒ########ĶĒĶĒ№¿№z:::：::::::::：::::::*******************•'a， º r* → -----***|-******，·，≤）..…….…--> *= *（.***…--~~~~- 7-a, ----;3， ±±===--~~~~~~~F'№=--~~~~ā！！！ --~~~~ …?！?！?！?！！?！！?！！?！！?！！！！！！！！！！！！！ ！！！！！！！！！！！！ ！！ ！！3！? && ！ ！！ ！！ ！！ ！！ ！！ ！！ ！！！ ！！！！！！！ *** wºw **~ *: *）（$***** * №º *）ſae”）. ·&&&&§§§） §§§§§ ************- ↓ ↓ ±（√+√≠√° s√≠√∞r***********-º º *******************