Слике страница

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 situation continues to be complicated and full of unknown elements.

[ocr errors][merged small]

By Charles Johnston


ERMANY has led her troops into

Belgium, and is exercising certain powers there; the Entente

Allies have introduced their troops into Greece, and are exercising certain powers there. Are the two cases identical, in law and in their ethical relation? We can only solve the question by solving the legal status of the two nations, Belgium and Greece.

I. There are close relations between the two nations. Belgium and Greece, as modern nations, were founded at the same time and very much in the same way. Neither owes its sovereignty and international status to a national revolution, though this was, in both, a cooperating cause. Both owe their status to treaties signed, not in Brussels or in Athens, but in London. The treaty which established Belgium

as a neutral State" was signed in London on Nov. 15, 1831, by the representatives of England, France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The treaty which made modern Greece a nation was signed likewise in London, on July 6, 1827, and reaffirmed in 1830, supplemented by a treaty signed at Constantinople on July 21, 1832.

Both small nations were, therefore, in the making at the same time, and in the formation of both the present Entente Allies played the greater rôle—in Greece they accomplished the whole task of liberation.

Belgium came into being as a result of the collapse of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, due in part to the unfair treatment of the Belgians by the Dutch ruler; but more to the national aspirations of the Belgians.

But the Belgians were not strong enough to build their own State; therefore England and France came to their rescue and entered into an agreement with the other major powers that Belgium should be “a neutral State,". Prussia and Austria being signatories to this now famous “

paper." All the signatory powers were bound under this treaty not only to refrain from any violation of Belgian territory or sovereignty but, further, to come to the rescue of Belgium with armed force should any power infringe Belgium's neutrality. It was under the terms of this treaty that France and England led troops into Belgium when her neutrality was violated by Germany on Aug. 4, 1914.

The German Chancellor has publicly charged that Belgium had forfeited her neutrality before the Germans violated it. On two occasions, on both of which Belgium was threatened by Germany, the British Military Attaché at Brussels conferred with the Belgian War Minister as to the aid which England would bring to Belgium should she be attacked by Germany. This is the basis of the German Chancellor's charge. But it is absolutely clear that the facts charged in no way constitute a violation of Belgian neutrality. If Belgium was threatened it was not only the right, it was the duty, of the signatory powers to prepare to defend her.

So weak was the charge against Belgium felt to be that it

supported by forgery. Whereas, according to the papers seized at Brussels, the British Attaché insisted • that our conversation was strictly confidential,” the North German Gazette, which received the papers from the German Chancellor, rendered the phrase thius: The British Attaché insisted 'that our convention should be absolutely confidential.” This is, of course, simply forgery of a peculiarly despicable kind.

The newly created Belgium was governed by Leopold I., (1831-65,) Leopold II., (1865-1909,) and by her present ruler, Albert, who came to the throne, on the death of his uncle, in 1909.

II. Modern Greece became a nation first through the influence of Russia, as the


scrap of

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.



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

As a result of Russian victories leading up to the Treaty of Adrianople, Turkey 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

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]



[ocr errors]


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

phrases. But, adopting the phrases of Therefore the three powers, France, the British Constitution, it failed to England, and Russia, who liberated and adopt the moral guarantees which absocreated Greece, held themselves morally lutely check all arbitrary action by the and formally bound to continue their British sovereign.


has trusteeship. There choice of ruler taken advantage of this, has wholly showed this. Their action in choosing a ignored the moral guarantees, and presecond ruler, in 1863, a third of ao cen cisely by keeping the letter of the tury later, showed that their duties and Greek Constitution has grossly viorights in Greece were still entirely oper lated its spirit. This creates precisely ative. Their intervention, which saved such a state of affairs as was foreseen Greece from reconquest by Turkey after by the three constituting powers in 1830; the inglorious wa of thirty days in the circumstances which would give them Summer of 1897, demonstrated that the incontestably the right to interfere in same duties and rights are wholly valid the form of its government and to ex

In reality no further legal and clude from it all the principles which
moral justification is needed for every should be thought incompatible with the
thing these same powers have done in real social tendency of the Greek peo-
modern Greece in recent months, whether ple.”.
at Saloniki or at Athens.


There is, therefore, an absolute conBut they have further justification of trast, legal, moral, and ethical, between the

strongest kind. Eleutherios Veni Germany's action in Belgium and the aczelos, as Premier of Greece, command

tion of the “ three guaranteeing powers,” ing a strong parliamentary majority, France, Russia, and England, in Greece. and, therefore the mouthpiece of Con

Germany was solemnly bound by treaty stitutional authority in Greece, invited

not to violate the territory or these three powers to land at Saloniki

eignty of Belgium. The three guaranto act against the Bulgarians and their teeing powers were equally bound by allies. This was quite frankly admitted treaty, under circumstances such by the German Minister, recently ex

exist, to intervene in Greece; further, pelled from Athens. It has never been they were asked so to intervene by the questioned and cannot be questioned.

Constitutional Government of Greece, to There is a further obligation. Greece

repair the pledges to Serbia which had stood bound by treaty to fight to de

been broken by Constantine. fend Serbia. Constantine, in spite of the The true analogy with the action of strong insistence of Venizelos, refused France, England, and Russia, in their into be bound by this treaty, therefore tervention in Greece, is the action o, Venizelos invited the three powers to these same powers intervening in Bel, bring Serbia the help which Greece had gium. In both cases they come in obedibound herself in honor to give but had ence to solemn treaty engagements; in failed to give owing to the interference both cases they come to give effect to of Constantine with the Constitutional the real national life and the lawful auGovernment of Greece.

thority of the nation. In Greece the The framers of the Greek Constitution three guaranteeing powers are seeking of 1864 copied English models, and, as to save the honor of Greece, just as, in the British Constitution formally in

1897, they saved her national life; just vests in the sovereign powers which are as they are seeking to redeem Belgium really exercised by Parliament, the

from abominable wrongs.



Sinking of the Arabia, Marina, and Other Vessels Without Warning




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

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

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

« ПретходнаНастави »