Slike strani
PDF
ePub

all the enemies of Serbia.55 This straightforward statement of Mr. Venizelos, it seems, so aroused the wrath of the King that he immediately sent for the Premier and asked him to resign, which was practically a dismissal. The Premier, although enjoying the confidence of the Legislature, was obliged, on October 5, 1915, to abandon the premiership much to the chagrin of his friends and to the astonishment of the world. This high-handed proceeding of King Constantine was the forerunner of many others which have culminated in the present situation.56

After the resignation of Mr. Venizelos, the King again selected

55 See sittings of the Boulé of October 5, 1915, in Supplement of Patris, Athens, 1915; also, London Times, October 7, 1915.

56 It was during this interview that King Constantine gave vent to his strange views about his so-called divine right of rule over Greece. He plainly told Mr. Venizelos, when the latter urged him to fulfil the treaty obligation towards Serbia, that he (the King) was prepared to "leave the internal affairs of Greece to the Government," but that "in regard to external relations, he considered himself alone responsible before God for their direction." But the Greek statesman in no less plain language told the Sovereign that he was "enunciating the doctrine of the divine right of Kings with which the Greeks had nothing to do." "Your father," said Mr. Venizelos to Constantine, "was freely elected by the Greek people to be their King, and you are his successor. There is no divine right in that title. It is based on the mandate of the people." (London Times, October 11, 1916.) The question has often been asked as to how King Constantine got into his head this peculiar notion of being a sovereign of Greece by Divine right. Some ascribe it to his relationship to Emperor William II; others assert that the King was haunted by such ideas even during his father's lifetime, who vainly, it seems, tried to dissipate this extraordinary conception of his son as to the origin of his future legal rights. But the case of the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Germany is entirely different. The Kaiser claims that his crown was not given to his family, but placed upon the head of the Hohenzollern by the grace of God. Thus, speaking at Coblenz on August 31, 1897, he said that his grandfather (William I) came forth from Coblenz to ascend the throne as a chosen instrument of the Lord," that thus he regarded himself," and that his was a "Kingship by the grace of God." (See the Times, September 2, 1897. See also speech at Koeningsberg, August 25, 1910, in the Times, August 27, 1910.) That this theory is now obsolete not only in England, but also in the countries of Continental Europe, is the view of various distinguished jurists. Even Blackstone, writing shortly after the middle of the eighteenth century, says that such a title may be allowed under the theocratical establishment of the children of Israel" (Commentaries, Book I, Chap. 3).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

On the other hand, the learned author of the "Law and Custom of the Constitution (Sir William Anson), in tracing the origin of this doctrine, tells us that when the Reformation destroyed the feudal conception of society, and

Mr. Zaimis for his Prime Minister, who, on October 7, 1915, formed a Cabinet to the liking of the sovereign, and during his Premiership simply carried out the instructions of the King, like all the other Premiers who assumed power after the fall of the Venizelos Cabinet. A week after the fall of Venizelos, i.e., on October 14, 1915, Bulgaria, having evidently received assurances from King Constantine that Greece would not assist her ally Serbia, declared war upon the latter country. The will of the sovereign, in defiance of the sovereign will of the nation, was to avoid a clash at any price between Greece and the Teutonic Powers, even at the cost of dishonoring the country by violating a solemn treaty. Therefore, the new Prime Minister, in obedience to the command of his royal master, informed the Serbian Government after the invasion of its territory by the Bulgarian troops, that Hellas was not bound to draw the sword for the sake of Serbia, because, as Mr. Zaimis argued, the treaty of alliance between the two contracting parties had in view a Balkan and not a European war. Such was the construction given to the provisions of that treaty by the Greek Government then in power.57

the "dependence of the King upon the earthly power was exploded," men sought for some theory of political duty and they found it in the conception of Divine right (Volume I, ed. 1911, pp. 37-39). See also Gneist, Geschichte der Englischen Verfassung, pp. 545–546. See also valuable information given on

this point by Duguit, Traité de droit Constitutionnel (Vol. I, pp. 24-28).

On the theory of Divine right generally, see Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, ed. 1914, pp. 670 et seq.; also, Bluntschli, Allgemeine Staatslehre, ed. 1886, pp. 332-334, remarks (a, b, c, d, e, and f), who asserts that Frederick the Great repudiated this doctrine, and justly observes that the new world cannot be beguiled with this production of a morbid imagination."

On the exaggerated conception of regal rights of Louis XIV, see F. Laurent, Histoire du droit des gens, Vol. XI, pp. 10–13.

E. Glasson tells us that the words "King by the Grace of God," which had at one time disappeared from the English coins, reappeared during the cabinet of Lord John Russell, in order to satisfy "certain trivial scruples" (Histoire du droit et des constitutions politiques, civils et juridiques de l'Angleterre, Vol. V, pp. 407–408).

That these words have no serious meaning now is the view also of Italian writers, who tell us that the King of Italy calls himself "King by the Grace of God, and by the will of the nation." (See L. Palma, Corso di Dirit to Costituzionale, Vol. II, p. 375; see also C. Brusa, Staatsrecht des Königreichs Italien in Marquardsen's Handbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts, Vol. IV, pp. 72-76.

57 This point will be fully discussed in the second part of this article.

The new Government could not, however, long stand on its feet, and lacking the support in the Boulé of the party of Mr. Venizelos, the Zaimis Cabinet was obliged to resign on November 5, 1915. The King looked around again for another Premier who would follow "his policy," and such a Prime Minister was found in the person of Mr. Skouloudis, who, with the support of Mr. Gounaris, formed a Cabinet. The new Premier, as the events subsequently proved, was reduced to a mere scribe to carry out the royal will whatever that might be. Now the King, upon the advice of his "Ministers," and contrary to all parliamentary usage, again dissolved the Boulé, so as to be unhampered in carrying out "his policy." But Mr. Venizelos and his party, considering this step to be contrary to the Constitution, refused to take part in the elections which took place in December, 1915. The elections being unchallenged, all the candidates put forth by Mr. Gounaris were elected. Consequently the new Cabinet remained in power to carry out the royal will. From that time Greece began to suffer the consequences of the "royal policy."

The history of Hellas, both ancient and modern, does not offer an example in which its public affairs were conducted in such a narrow-minded, stupidly stubborn way, bordering even upon treachery. The guiding spirit of this pernicious policy was no doubt King Constantine who, imagining himself to be a God-sent sovereign, assumed dictatorial powers, threw to the winds the Constitutional Charter which he had pledged under oath to maintain, and destroyed every vestige of the liberal institutions with which the country was endowed. According to all accounts, the "King of the Hellenes" inaugurated on the shores of the Mediterranean a system akin to that in vogue on the shores of the Bosphorus, emulating the notorious ex-Sultan Hamid in his system of spies and parasites, of prosecutions and ruthless treatment of those who opposed his policy.

It was but natural that the ultimate result of this "royal policy" was the humiliation of Greece, the loss of the friendship and esteem of her benefactors and traditional protectors, the contempt of her enemies, financial ruin, and, worse than all her calamities, the loss of honor in not fulfilling her treaty obligations toward her faithful ally, Serbia.

Is it, therefore, any wonder that the modern Cretan Epimenides,58 being transformed by Pallas Athena into a full-fledged Hercules, should be preparing to cleanse the new Augean Stables in Greece, or into a modern Theseus 59 who, after accomplishing the great task set upon him and his associates, expects to return to Athens in order to establish the national union shattered to pieces by the "King of the Hellenes."

THEODORE P. ION.

58 A name given to Mr. Venizelos by the present writer in an article entitled "The Cretan Question" in the April, 1910, issue of this JOURNAL, on account of his great services to Greece during the peaceful revolution of 1909, when by his presence in Athens he brought about a speedy settlement of the then burning questions. Epimenides, the Cretan prophet and poet, was brought to Athens by the Legislator Solon to cure the evils then prevailing in the city.

59 Theseus, a Greek hero, according to tradition, after performing many heroic deeds, returned to Athens, and there united the various tribes, then at war with each other. In token of this national union, he instituted the famous festivals of Panathenæa.

CONTRIBUTIONS, REQUISITIONS, AND COMPULSORY

SERVICE IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY 1

[BEING PART XII OF "SOME QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE EUROPEAN WAR," CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS NUMBERS OF THE JOURNAL]

IN all the wars of the past century in which Germany was a party, her policy in respect to the exaction of pecuniary contributions, the imposition of fines on communities, and the requisition of supplies and services from the inhabitants of occupied territory has been especially rigorous and in accord with the extreme views which her military writers and publicists have always held in regard to the rights of a military occupant. Bluntschli charged the Prussians with having levied without sufficient reason excessive contributions during the War of 1866 on various towns and cities which took sides with Austria, and he adds that such methods of warfare were not civilized, and Europe no longer recognizes them as such.2 The town of Frankfort was assessed 12,000,000 marks, and after this sum had been handed over, 40,000,000 more was demanded but was subsequently remitted by the King of Prussia, to whom the town sent a deputation praying to be relieved of this enormous imposition. Rations of the value of about 40,000,000 marks were also exacted from the town. Other towns were subjected to similar requisitions.

During the Franco-German War of 1870-71, the Germans, as is well known, not only resorted to the power of requisition on a huge and unprecedented scale, but in addition levied heavy contributions on many towns and districts which they occupied, as well as imposed exorbitant fines on communes in which francs tireurs operated and

1 German policy in respect to fines and other collective penalties will be considered in another paper.

2 Droit International Codifié (French trans. by Lardy), sec. 654.

3 Spaight, War Rights on Land, p. 393.

4 Hozier, Seven Weeks War, p. 80.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »