clared for the Venizelos Provisional Government.

The so-called Provisional Government of Greece, formed in Crete on Sept. 26 by ex-Premier Venizelos and his supporters, and operating now from headquarters at Saloniki, declared war against Germany and Bulgaria on Nov. 25. On the same day M. Venizelos issued an address in which he said:

In fighting this fight we wish to wipe out the stain which has been placed upon the Greek Nation by the disregard of our treaty obligations to Serbia; we wish to play our part in the freeing of our territories invaded by the Bulgarians; we wish to emphasize in a tangible and concrete manner our absolute conviction that Greece can never progress, nor even exist, as a free and independent State, except by continued maintenance of the closest contact with those powers who have supported her on every occasion; who rule the Mediterranean, and who at this very moment are fighting for the liberty of Europe and for the right of every small nation to live in freedom and independence.

M. Venizelos reaffirmed his allegiance to the King, strongly disclaiming that the movement was anti-dynastic, and continued:

As soon, however, as the war is terminated, and after we have insured, as far as possible, the safeguarding of our country's national interests and raised Greece from the position into which she has been assigned by the violation of the Greco-Serbian treaty, then we will see what guarantees can be obtained for the future against the possibility of a certain limited number of persons around the King imposing upon the Crown opinions which are in direct contradiction to the will of the people, and forcing upon the people against their will a policy calculated to drive our country to national suicide.

The conflict to which I have referred can only be thoroughly and efficiently settled in one way, and that is by the free verdict of the people. We shall ask to be assured of

this freedom in a practical manner, and we are convinced that the allied powers will assist us to this end. *** Nothing but the re-establishment of the constitutional régime, which has been violated, and the restitution to the people of the right to decide their own destinies can offer any guarantee that Greece will continue in the future to maintain close and cordial relations with the powers of the Entente. Whereas, on the other hand, the maintenance of absolutist rule, from which we have been suffering for the last twenty months, would facilitate Greece's departure from her natural path, and would render possible a rapprochement between her and the Central Empires.

Such is the objective of the struggle we have undertaken.

We wish to fight for our national interests side by side with our natural and traditional friends.

We wish to make good, as far as we can, the harm that we did to heroic Serbia by the non-fulfillment of our engagements.

We wish finally to insure in the future the right to be a free people, the masters of our own destinies.

In a word, we are struggling for precisely those principles, for the triumph of which over Prussian militarism the allied powers are waging their great war.

In these circumstances we feel that the great powers who have done so much for Greece in the past will appreciate the position in which Greece finds herself today, and we are confident in our hope that the powers, appreciating likewise the goal that we are striving to attain, will grant us that material and moral support of which we are in need to enable us to bring our struggle to a successful conclusion.

A warrant was issued at Athens on Dec. 18 for the arrest of M. Venizelos on charges of high treason. He is at the front fighting the Bulgarians. Admiral du Fournet has been superseded by Admiral Gauchet as commander of the allied fleets in Greek waters. The situa

tion continues to be complicated and full

of unknown elements.

most powerful nation belonging to the Greek Catholic Church; next, through a national movement, a part of the upheaval which created Rumania, and, finally, through the armed intervention of France, England, and Russia at a time when the Greek national movement had degenerated into hopeless disorder and anarchy.

The Greek Nation was actually constituted by these three great powers by a treaty signed in London on July 6, 1827, supplemented by a conference of the three powers at the Foreign Office in London on March 22, 1829, which declared, among other things, that "Greece shall enjoy, under the suzerainty of the Porte, the internal administration best calculated to guarantee the religious and commercial liberty, as well as the prosperity and repose, which it is desired to assure it. With this view, that administration shall be assimilated, as much as possible, to monarchical forms, and shall be confided to a Christian Chief or Prince, whose authority shall be hereditary, in the order of primogeniture. In no case can that Chief be chosen among the Princes of the families reigning in the three States of the powers who signed the treaty of July 6, 1827, and the first choice shall be effected in concert with the three Courts (of France, England, and Russia) and the Ottoman Porte. In case of the extinction of the reigning branch, the Porte shall participate in the choice of the new Chief in the same manner as it took part in the choice of the first," that is, under the supervision and with the consent of France, England, and Russia.

Greece, after three centuries of slavery and a bloody revolution, was thus constituted by the three allied powers. There had been a period of nominally republican government, with Count John Capod'Istria as President. He is referred to in one of the documents accompanying the London agreement: "The sacrifices which the powers have already made, and those which they continue to make, for Greece give them incontestably the right to interfere in an active manner in the form of its government and to exclude from it all the principles which should be

thought incompatible at the same time with the real social tendency of the Greek people and with the repose of Europe. The President, whose opinion is of preponderating weight in this affair, goes even further, for he recognizes in the three allied powers the right not only to require from Greece guarantees of order and stability, but also that of founding a monarchical government."

The conference of London on Feb. 3, 1830, declared that "Greece owes her existence to the succors of every kind which the three powers have lavished upon her. * * * On these grounds they consider that they have a right to expect from her an entire deference to their decision.

* * * "

As a result of Russian victories leading up to the Treaty of Adrianople, Tur key was compelled to accept the liberation of Greece under nominal suzerainty, with a moderate tribute or contribution. The three powers chose Prince Leopold as first ruler of the new Greece-the same Prince who later made an admirable ruler of Belgium during thirty-four years. He came to Greece, but, because he could not add Crete to his kingdom, he soon departed. Otto of Bavaria was then chosen by the three powers. For some ten years he reigned harshly and despotically. Then a revolution compelled him to accept a Constitution and dismiss his Bavarian troops, who had terrorized the Greeks. His reign ended in 1863.

The three powers, France, England, and Russia, held themselves to be, and in fact were, both creators and trustees of the Greek Nation. As such they chose Prince Otto as a first ruler. As such they financed Greece, contributing $12,000,000 to the Treasury of the needy State. About one-fourth of this sum went as tribute to Turkey; so that, in a sense, these three powers bought modern Greece from her century-long oppressors. Again, as trustees, the three powers, on the final failure of Otto of Bavaria, chose the Danish Prince, who reigned as King George I. and who was seated on the throne of Greece in virtue of a treaty signed in London on July 13, 1863. In the following year a semi-revolutionary movement gave Greece the very demo

cratic Constitution which is still, at least nominally, in force.

Therefore the three powers, France, England, and Russia, who liberated and created Greece, held themselves morally and formally bound to continue their trusteeship. There choice of a ruler showed this. Their action in choosing a second ruler, in 1863, a third of a century later, showed that their duties and rights in Greece were still entirely operative. Their intervention, which saved Greece from reconquest by Turkey after the inglorious war of thirty days in the Summer of 1897, demonstrated that the same duties and rights are wholly valid now. In reality no further legal and moral justification is needed for everything these same powers have done in modern Greece in recent months, whether at Saloniki or at Athens.

III.

But they have further justification of the strongest kind. Eleutherios Venizelos, as Premier of Greece, commanding a strong parliamentary majority, and, therefore the mouthpiece of Constitutional authority in Greece, invited these three powers to land at Saloniki to act against the Bulgarians and their allies. This was quite frankly admitted by the German Minister, recently expelled from Athens. It has never been questioned and cannot be questioned.

There is a further obligation. Greece stood bound by treaty to fight to defend Serbia. Constantine, in spite of the strong insistence of Venizelos, refused to be bound by this treaty, therefore Venizelos invited the three powers to bring Serbia the help which Greece had bound herself in honor to give but had failed to give owing to the interference of Constantine with the Constitutional Government of Greece.

The framers of the Greek Constitution of 1864 copied English models, and, as the British Constitution formally invests in the sovereign powers which are really exercised by Parliament, the

Greek

Constitution used the same phrases. But, adopting the phrases of the British Constitution, it failed to adopt the moral guarantees which absolutely check all arbitrary action by the British sovereign. Constantine has taken advantage of this, has wholly ignored the moral guarantees, and precisely by keeping the letter of the Greek Constitution has grossly violated its spirit. This creates precisely such a state of affairs as was foreseen by the three constituting powers in 1830; circumstances which would " give them incontestably the right to interfere in the form of its government and to exclude from it all the principles which should be thought incompatible with the real social tendency of the Greek people."

IV.

There is, therefore, an absolute contrast, legal, moral, and ethical, between Germany's action in Belgium and the action of the "three guaranteeing powers," France, Russia, and England, in Greece. Germany was solemnly bound by treaty not to violate the territory or sovereignty of Belgium. The three guaranteeing powers were equally bound by treaty, under circumstances such as exist, to intervene in Greece; further, they were asked so to intervene by the Constitutional Government of Greece, to repair the pledges to Serbia which had been broken by Constantine.

The true analogy with the action of France, England, and Russia, in their intervention in Greece, is the action o these same powers intervening in Belgium. In both cases they come in obedience to solemn treaty engagements; in both cases they come to give effect to the real national life and the lawful authority of the nation. In Greece the three guaranteeing powers are seeking to save the honor of Greece, just as, in 1897, they saved her national life; just as they are seeking to redeem Belgium from abominable wrongs.

E

VIDENCE that German subma

rines are violating the pledge given to the United States last May has been accumulating during the month and has presented a problem of increasing gravity. According to a British Admiralty announcement on Nov. 15 thirty-three vessels were sunk by German submarines without warning between May 5 and Nov. 8, resulting in the loss of 140 lives. Twenty-six of these were British ships, those whose sinking entailed the heaviest mortality being the Golconda, on which nineteen lives were lost; the Euphorbia, eleven lives lost; the Franconia, twelve, and the Marina, eighteen. Many other cases have been added since the date named.

The issue of international law has centred chiefly about the Arabia and the Marina, both of which had Americans on board. Each of these has been the subject of diplomatic investigation by the United States. The sinking of the Peninsular and Oriental liner Arabia in the Mediterranean on Nov. 6 involves no question of indemnity, such as arose in the Lusitania case, for only one American was on board, and he was saved. But the evidence that this passenger vessel was torpedoed without warning is none the less a matter of serious concern, as it involves a violation of the pledge extorted from Germany at the time of the Sussex episode.

The sinking of the British freighter Marina on Oct. 28, 100 miles off the Irish coast, involved the loss of six American lives and was at once taken up vigorously by the American Government. Affidavits obtained from survivors by Ambassador Page and transmitted to Secretary Lansing declare that the Marina was sunk by a German submarine torpedo without warning, that it made no resistance, and did not try to escape. The affidavits showed that the vessel was armed with a 4.7-inch gun mounted astern for

defensive purposes, but that the weapon was not used. There was no opportunity to use it, because the officers had no warning that the vessel would be sunk. The affidavits indicate that the Marina was struck by two torpedoes, with an interval of twelve minutes between, and that the second was followed by a boiler explosion. The loss of the Americans' lives was due to their drowning as the lifeboats were being launched in a rough sea. One of the boats was in the water seventeen hours, another twenty-one hours, and a third thirty-one hours.

The cases of both the Marina and Arabia are regarded in the United States as a continuance of Germany's lawless submarine warfare, thinly disguised by excuses and inadequate explanations. The German Government admits the act in both cases, but asserts that the submarine commanders believed the vessels to be armed transports. The correspondence between Washington and Berlin on the subject has been conducted thus far through Joseph C. Grew, the American Chargé d'Affaires at Berlin, and Dr. Alfred Zimmermann, the new German Foreign Minister.

Germany's Reply on Arabia

On Nov. 21 the American Government sent an informal inquiry regarding the facts in the case of the Arabia. The text of the German reply is as follows:

Foreign Office,

Berlin, Dec. 4, 1916.

The undersigned has the honor to inform Mr. Grew, Chargé d'Affaires of the United States of America, in reply to the note of the 21st ultimo, Foreign Office, No. 14,401, that the investigation conducted by the German Government concerning the sinking of the British steamer Arabia has led to the following results:

On the morning of Nov. 6 a German submarine encountered a large steamer coming from the Cerigo Straits, 100 nautical miles west of the Island of Cerigo; the steamer was painted black and had black superstructures, and not, as is otherwise the case with