Kaiser And Holland.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 11, 1913:
His Desire for Coast Defenses Laid Bare in Chamber.
    THE HAGUE, May 1.— Although the Germanophobe press, both in England and on the Continent, has again and again asserted that the German Emperor was causing pressure to be borne upon the Government of Holland to induce it to neglect to fortify its eastern land frontier, but to use all its resources to fortify the coast, such assertions have been violently denied by the Government press of Holland.
    Those who have made the charges asserted that it was a part of the German policy to have Holland defenseless on the land side so that the country might be easily invaded by a German force in case of war between Germany and England, which force would also take possession of the coast defenses and use them as a base to operate directly against England.
    The debate in the Second Chamber of the States General on the Coast Defense bill, which began this week, shows that there is some ground to suspect the hand of the Kaiser, or at least an inclination on the part of a section of the Dutch Government to support the Germany policy.
    The Government's proposals include the construction of a fort near Flushing, at an estimated cost of $2,500,000; the strengthening of the ordnance of the fortresses already existing at the Hook of Holland, Ymuiden. and Harssens, necessitating an outlay of $292,000, and the carrying out of certain improvements at Fort Kykduin, upon which a sum of $1,900,000 is to be spent.
    A suggestive amendment was presented by a Progressive Deputy, who had once been Minister of War, Eland by name, to the effect that instead of constructing a fortress at Flushing the Government should confine itself to carrying out various defense works on the West Scheldt.
    M. Hugenholtz, the Socialist leader, declared that through the efforts of his party the amount in the bill had been greatly reduced, and should be reduced still further, unless some of the money should be applied to the land fortifications on the eastern frontier.
    "Why," he asked, "does the Government wish to fortify the country in the direction of England, who is pledged to observe the neutrality of Holland, rather than in the direction of Germany, who is not so pledged?"
    M. Hugenholtz was, moreover, of the opinion that the construction of a fort at Flushing would endanger Dutch independence, because England would then, look upon Holland as an ally of Germany, and would no longer protect Dutch neutrality. The North Sea Agreement, he declared, in no way required the signatories to improve their defenses.