Switzerland’s neutrality, as exhibited during the present European conflict and also on the occasion of other wars of the past century, does not found itself simply upon principles of international law, but rests directly upon a series of explicit international and constitutional documents and is deeply interlocked with the historical development of the country and with the foundation and growth of its government. Differentiating itself widely from that attitude of mere aloofness exhibited by a nation which declines to join a struggle in which others may be engaged, Swiss neutrality is an essential element of the country’s governmental existence and is intended by the nature and sanctions of its origin to be as permanent as the nation itself. Such an aspect of neutrality is termed neutralization; though in origin quite dissimilar to that of Switzerland, this international quality was also characteristic, at the outbreak of the present war in 1914, of Belgium and Luxemburg, as well as of a variety of smaller governmental entities or adjuncts.

Since the outbreak of the Great War in the summer of 1914 the conviction has deepened that whatever may have been the conflict of interests between the nations of Europe due to their efforts to maintain or increase their political influence and territorial extent, this calamitous struggle would not have been precipitated, and certainly England and the United States would not have felt forced to become parties to it, had there not existed in Germany a controlling political philosophy which marked her off from other States and made her a menace to the rest of humanity. It is true that the proximate cause that brought Great Britain into the war was the invasion of Belgium by the German army, which jeopardized her own security from invasion; and it is equally true that it was the disregard by Germany of our own commercial rights as a neutral nation that was the immediate cause of our own declaration of war. But back of these proximate or immediate causes was a real efficient cause which impelled both Great Britain and the United States to enter the contest and to pledge to its successful prosecution their entire manhood and material resources.

Political scientists make a sharp distinction between the terms “State” and “Government.” A State is a group of individuals viewed as a politically organized unit. In the eyes of the law it appears as a corporate being possessing supreme authority and issuing commands in the form of laws addressed to those over whom it claims authority. A Government is the machinery or complexus of organs through which this state-being formulates, expresses, and enforces its will.

In my preceding paper I dealt wholly with the Prussian conception of the State and had nothing to say regarding Prussian conceptions of Government. In this paper I shall have little to say regarding the Prussian theory of the State and shall devote myself almost wholly to a consideration of the Prussian governmental system. Of this system, however, I shall speak of but one of its features, namely, its strong monarchical character. In result there should appear what justification there is for the demand of the United States and of the Entente Powers for a modification of the Prussian system.

Freedom is a relative term. It involves limitations as well as rights. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of any kind. A man is free only when his neighbors are limited. The matter is one of adjustment. As to the seas, the question is not one of “whether,” but of “how much.” It is, therefore, not surprising that there is a wide divergence of opinion as to what the term “freedom of the seas” means.

Each world Power has certain major and certain minor interests, and it is from this point of view that each fixes its definition of terms. Possibly peace will come about through an agreement on phrases, the divergences of opinion appearing only on conference; but when this country speaks of the “freedom of the seas” as a necessary peace term, it states nothing more definite than if it had said, “we want peace with honor.”

Freedom of the seas in time of peace is so generally acknowledged that it is hard to realize it was not so very long ago, as the course of history runs, that America fought for this principle. For a long time it was strenuously asserted that the cruisers of one nation might lawfully search merchant vessels of another nation in time of peace. Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco, in the early part of the last century, supported themselves by tribute levied on commerce as an alternative to piratical depredations. America’s first military excursion to Europe put a stop to this practice.

It was two years after the United States formally declared for the recognition of the new Latin-American states and after several Spanish-American states had been recognized before the question of recognizing Brazil arose. When, in April, 1824, Rebello presented himself in Washington as the Brazilian chargé, a difference of opinion arose in Monroe’s cabinet, because Brazil was a monarchy, while all of the other American governments were republics, and some hoped that monarchy might have no foothold on the continent. Others, however, advocated the recognition of Brazil the more strongly because it was a monarchy in order to show the world that it was the fact of independence which actuated the United States rather than the form of government.

The opposition to recognition was strengthened by recent news of a formidable separatist movement in the north, with Pernambuco as a center, the purpose of which was to establish an independent republic under the name of the Federation of the Equator. This; raised a serious doubt whether the government at Rio de Janeiro were really in effective control. It was reported, too, that the assistance of French naval vessels had been accepted in order to repress the Pernambuco revolt. This conjured up the specter of the so-called Holy Alliance, for the exclusion of which from America Monroe’s famous message of the preceding December had declared. There was also a strong suspicion, supported by persistent rumors, that Dom Pedro (who had allowed himself to be made Emperor when in 1822 Brazilian independence from Portugal was declared, who had summoned a constituent assembly and then quarreled with it and finally forcibly dismissed it because it proved too liberal to suit his ideas of prerogative, and who had appointed a council that had drawn up a fairly liberal constitution in harmony with his wishes which he had not yet taken the oath to observe) really wished to restore Portuguese sovereignty and rule Brazil as a vassal of his father, the King of Portugal. About the middle of May, however, word came that in the preceding March the Emperor had taken the oath to the constitution of the independent Brazilian Empire. After Rebello had given assurances concerning the suppression of the slave trade and the observance of treaties that had been negotiated with Portugal, he was formally received by President Monroe as Brazilian chargé on May 26, 1824. He expressed his gratitude that “the Government of the United States has been the first to acknowledge the independence of Brazil.”

The third part of the essay on the Hellenic Crisis, which has happily received a satisfactory solution, will deal with the incidents which are connected with the law of nations and inquire as to how far the European belligerents in their dealings with Greece, and the Greek Government in its relations with them, adhered to the tenets and usages of international law.

The points to be here discussed are of a manifold character.

First, it will be examined whether the serious charge made by the Entente Powers against Constantine, the ex-King of the Hellenes, that he violated the obligations arising out of the Treaty of Alliance between Greece and Serbia, by which the two states bound themselves to assist each other for the defense of their respective territories in case of attack by a third Power, and particularly by Bulgaria, is well founded according to the letter and spirit of the instrument of alliance.

Secondly, whether the military occupation of portions of the territory of the Hellenic Kingdom by both sets of belligerents, the seizure of its war material and other public property, and particularly the coercive measures employed by the Entente Powers against the Government and people of Greece and their forcible intervention in the internal affairs of that country, can be justified either by reason of treaty stipulations or on account of the unneutral conduct of the then King and his government towards the Entente Allies. The first point to be examined is the obligation arising out of the treaty of alliance between Greece and Serbia.