time a just equation of relative advantage has been preserved between belligerents. Assuming that neutral interests also must receive consideration, and granting that they have not been adequately protected, it is inevitable that, while resort to war continues, accepted rules will have to be revised in the light of circumstances unforeseen at the time of their formulation. The principle of immunity is far from being realized in practice today, not because belligerents choose to disregard the rules of international law, but because under present conditions the destruction of an enemy's trade in its entirety appears to constitute an object of warfare of the first importance. So long as that attitude persists, there will be necessary a work of reconstruction which will select and legalize those extensions of practice which are consistent with the progress of international law and will reject other extensions the operation of which is contrary to progress. HAROLD SCOTT QUIGLEY.

THE HELLENIC CRISIS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

PART I

It is not the broad-chested and broad-backed men that are the safest, but those who think well prevail everywhere. Thus the broad-ribbed ox is driven in the path-way by a little whip. Sophocles, Ajax. 1248-52. a

THE Hellenic crisis which, from the beginning of the European War up to the present time (December 15, 1916), baffled all political calculations and brought Greece to the very verge of destruction, is principally due to the fundamental difference in the conception of the Constitution by the King of the Hellenes, on one side, and the Hellenic nation, at large, on the other. This divergence of views between sovereign and people, in general, not only resulted in an internal upheaval and external pressure culminating in a forcible intervention, but also left a stigma on the country on account of the violation of solemn treaty obligations.

But the ruler of Greece and his ministers, who execute the orders. of their King, not only repudiate the charge of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the obligations of a treaty, but claim that although, as a matter of fact, they observed a "benevolent neutrality" towards the Quadruple Entente, as promised, and strict neutrality towards the Teutonic Powers and their satellites, as the rules of international law prescribe, the territory of their country was occupied or invaded by both sets of belligerents, followed by various acts of spoliation. The former, namely, the Allies, pretend that their initial occupation of Greek territory was done at the invitation of the Greek Government of the time, and that the subsequent occupation and the other coercive measures were due to the unneutral conduct of the Greek King, acting through his nominees, a An allusion to the physique of King Constantine and the wisdom of Mr. Venizelos.

the Ministers.

The latter, namely the Central Powers and their allies, allege that, being entitled to an equal treatment by Greece as a neutral state, the invasion and occupation of Greek territory is justified. In other words, the Teutonic group contend that as Greece willingly or unwillingly allowed the use of her territory to their enemies as a base of military operations against them, they also have the same right to utilize such territory for the same purpose.

The questions which will, therefore, be here examined are:

First: Whether Constantine, the King of the Hellenes, violated the Constitution of the country, setting thereby at naught the liberties of the people, and imposed his personal policy, both in the internal and external affairs of Greece.

Second: Whether the King and the Government installed by him after the fall of the Cabinet presided over by Mr. Venizelos, by refusing to afford military assistance to Serbia when the territory of the latter country was invaded by the Bulgarian army, violated the obligations arising out of the treaty of alliance between Greece and Serbia.

Third: Whether the occupation and use of Greek territory by the Allies for military purposes and the forcible measures taken by them against Greece, and the invasion of such territory by the Central Powers and their supporters, and the consequences resulting from it, are justifiable either by reason of a treaty obligation or unneutral conduct on the part of King Constantine's Government.

The first question is connected with constitutional law, the second and third concern international law. They will therefore be examined in their order.

But in order to comprehend the questions at issue, it is necessary to review shortly the historical development of the Constitution of Greece and the events which gave rise to the Hellenic crisis, resulting in the formation of the Provisional Government now established in the capital of Macedonia, namely, in Salonica.

Any one conversant with the history and social life of modern Greece cannot but be struck with a national characteristic of the Hellenic people, that is, their intense love of political and personal liberty, and, as a consequence, their resentment toward anything

tending to the curtailment of that liberty in any shape whatever. In fact, the Greek War of Independence (1821-1828) aimed not only at the shaking off of the Turkish yoke, which was weighing heavily upon them, but also at the creation of a state in which the nation could enjoy every possible freedom, be it political or individual. In short, the great rebellion of the Hellenic nation against the Ottoman Empire a revolution great for the sacrifices which it entailed and the deeds accomplished - strove to create a body politic which should not only be independent internationally, but also be governed by liberal institutions. This is attested by the history of the people, both before and during the struggle for their political emancipation from the Turk, and is also proved by the events after the establishment of the Hellenic state.

Thus, when the first national assembly of the Greek insurgents met shortly after the rising at Epidaurus (or near that town) in January, 1822, in order to frame a constitution for the future state, it issued a proclamation in which, after declaring that the Hellenic nation could not longer remain "under the horrible Ottoman rule" and "bear the heavy yoke of tyranny" of which "there was no parallel," asserted its political independence. The tentative constitutional charter, which was then framed, known by the name of "Constitution of Epidaurus," guaranteed to the citizens of the new state the equal protection of the laws and liberty of conscience; it abolished slavery, then a Mohammedan institution, practiced in truth only by Mohammedans, and adopted liberal resolutions for the safeguarding of personal freedom.1

This assembly by another declaration, after indorsing the principle of the French Revolution which asserted the "natural, immutable and sacred rights of humanity," called the newly created state the "Provisional Government of Greece" instead of Republic, contrary, it seems, to their wishes and inclinations. The reason for this reserved attitude of the Greek revolutionists was due to the aversion to anything tending to political freedom then prevailing in the Continent

1 S. Tricoupis, Istoria tis Hellenikes Epanastascos, Vol. II, p. 106 (ed. 1888); see also N. Saripolos, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Griechenland (Das Öffentliche Recht der Gegenwart, Vol. VIII, p. 12).

of Europe. In fact, the diplomacy of the time was still under the spell of the evil genius of Prince Metternich, seconded by the abhorrence of Alexander I of Russia to encourage rebellion of any kind.2

During the war of the revolution, namely, in May, 1827, the national assembly which met at Troezena and elaborated a "final constitution" for Hellas, declared by one of its provisions that "sovereignty had its foundation in the nation," that "all power is derived from the people," and that "it only exists for the people." In a word, the members of that assembly who were reflecting the national will, were entirely inspired by the principles of the French Revolution in regard to the foundation of government, and followed the maxims embodied in the liberal Constitution of France of September 3, 1789 3 and, to use the immortal words of Lincoln, the Greek revolutionists had then created a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

After the famous battle of Navarino (October 20, 1827)-second only to that of Lepanto (October 7, 1571) — in which Christianity triumphed for the second time in the Egean waters over Mohammedanism, the creation of an Hellenic state, or its resurrection, became a reality. A year after that "untoward event," to use the words of the King's speech at the opening of Parliament, inserted in it by the Duke of Wellington, the representatives of the Greek nation, who met again at Poros in December, 1828, in order to deliberate on national affairs, fearing that the Governments of the three allied courts, namely, France, Great Britain and Russia, might, on account of the then existing attitude of Europe toward national movements for constitutional government as exhibited in the famous congresses of the time, such as those of Troppau, Verona and Leybach (which are

2 On July 20, 1825, the clergy, the representatives of the nation, and the naval and military chiefs in their appeal to England said that they had taken up arms in defense of mankind's natural and imprescriptible rights to freedom of property, religion and liberty. It was on account of the desperate condition of the revolution at that time that the Greek nation wished to place themselves under the protection of Great Britain, and solicited the nomination of an English prince as their sovereign. "The Greek nation," they said, "places the sacred deposit of its liberty, independence, and political existence, under the absolute protection of Great Britain." Napulia, July 20, 1825. — H. H. Parish, the Diplomatic History of the Monarchy of Greece, ed. 1838.) 3 Saripolos, ibid., p. 5.