Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1918. COUNT WILHELM

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 136, 5 December 1918, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1918. COUNT WILHELM

1 During the thirty yeara of his reign Wilhelm 11. was the best advertised mitt in Europe, and Count Wilhehn of Hohenzollem may perhaps find some comfort to-day in the knowledge that even in liis private station he still retains that proud prominence. The throne has toppled over; the mailed fisfc has lost its power; the shining- armour is sadly stained and 1 rusted; but the limelight is still there, and "true as the needle to the pole" Count Wilhehn stands in tho very centre of its glare, exactly as Kaiser Wilhehn had stood for thirty years before. Even as Napoleon on his deap-eaa prison, so Wilhelm in his Dutch castle continues to attract the gaze of a world which he has ceased to terrify. We are assuming that it is the Count And not the Kaiser upon whom the eyes of the world are resting, but it may be. wise not to, be too sure about it. It is nearly a month since* his abdication was first reported. "The nKaiser has abdicated," said a London official message of the 9th November, "and the Crown Prince has renounced the throne of the German Empire and (Prussia." We now have it on the au.thority bf the Crown Prince himself that he has "renounced nothing and signed nothing"; and it is equally clear ■thait at the date of the official announcement the Kaiser was in the same position. . The word of Prince Maximilian) who was supposed to represent the new spirit of decency, democracy, and veracity that was transforming Germany, is obviously worth no more than that of his predecessors, who lied as freely as Napoleon and Metternich when the need arose. - Does the latest report of Wilhehn's abdication rest upon any better foundation?. He has, it seems, at last sigiied something, but the Morning Post points out 'that the document is not signed by any responsible'official, and says nothing concerning'the succession. Tha scrap ot paper may possibly be as much of a "fake" as the previous abdication, to which the highest of responsible officials—the Chancellor of the day —bore witness last month.

The question is, perhaps, in the main one of dramatic or academic interest. If Wilhelm 11. has not really resigned, it is within the power of the Allies to enforce his resignation. If he hae really resigned, the scrap of'paper will assuredly not prevent his restoration to the throne if 'he and: his people change their minds ijndi are free to aot. Whether it iy Kaisier Withelm or Cotmt Wilhelm who is Turn taking refuge in Holland, the duty of the Allies is equally clear. It is not upon a German icrap of paper .that they-- can. hope to re-establish the peace wMcih. was shattered by the German destruction of another scrap of paper. As matters now stand, the reinstatement of Wilhelm—if he really does need reinstatement—would he as simple a matter as his alleged abdication, and such a position is plainly intolerable. In one respect the delay in his abdication has been an advantage to ithe Allies, and a further delay would be no disadvantage. One of Holland's objections to the extradition of the Kaiser was said to bo" that there was no Kaiser to extradite. It was not Germany's All-Highest War Lord—the man in whom the supreme command of all her military, forces was vested—that had ■claimed the privilege of Dutch hospitality, but merely a private citizen, one of those countless Counts who at all times grow almost as freely on ..her prolific soil as iron crosses in lime of war. The fact which now appears to I>e clearly established, that 'it was the supreme commander'of the German armies who in time of war beat a precipitate retreat <from angry subjects and victorious enemies into Holland, completely disposes .of thi» pl<s»i. U wm CJteA-many'st Knisw B^jWmjttj^jn.-fthiei wfej crcasd tltg

Dutch frontier at Maastricht, and for three weeks' at any rate has been enjoying neutral protection.

If, then, tho royal refugee sustained 'both these characters at the time of his entry upon Dutch soil, it is impossible to suppose that international law or the comity of nations will recognise the thimble-rigging process by which he is now alleged to have retired inlto private life. •' International law, which this fugitive himself declared not -long ago to have no- existence at all, can hardly be such a "hass" as that. When Napoleon after Waterloo was brought to England in the Bellerophon, he claimed to have surrendered as a private citizen, and as such to settle down in peace on a country estate. Hopes were even entertained by his friends that if he could once be got on shore the King's Bench would issue a habeas corpus for his release. But their sublime'faith in the impartiality and the technicality of English law. was not put to the crucial test, for Napoleon was transtopped at sea and sent to St. Helena. We refuse to believe that legal technicalities have any better chance now against the clear demands of justice and of the peace of .the world. The broad grounds of policy seem to afford a sufficient ground for this scepticism. As the AttorneyGeneral himself says, the legal-grounds for the Kaiser's or ex-Kaiser's extradition, are really a subsidiary matter; the real basis of the claim is a moral one. "Holland," he -says, "must realise that a country which shelters a criminal is scarcely entitled to inclusion in the League of Nations." Tie AHies ' are evidently prepared to create a precedent if they cannot find one. !