Committee to administer the island in the name of King George, giving notification of that fact to the foreign consuls in Crete. Mr. Zaimis, being at that time fortunately absent from the island, escaped the dilemma with which he would have been confronted had he been in his post, of being faithful to the Powers or to his country. He now resumed his duties in the Greek Chamber, this being another anomaly, because he never resigned his Cretan post.

The protecting powers in answer to the Cretan communication, which does not seem to have disturbed them in the least, said that "they would consider favorably the discussion of the question with Turkey, if order was maintained in the island and the security of the Mussulmans was secured." On the other hand, in their joint note to the Porte, they reassured the Turkish Government that the status quo and the supreme rights of the Sultan would be maintained in the island. This dubious expression of "supreme rights was subsequently explained by the Powers as meaning sovereign rights, although the Powers in their previous dispatches to the Porte referring to their resolution to make Crete a separate state under the suzerainty of the Sultan used the words supreme rights as equivalent to suzerain and not to sovereign rights.

On July 27 of the present year the international troops were withdrawn from the island, notwithstanding the efforts of the Porte to postpone their departure. The protecting Powers have, however, decided to station some gunboats in Suda Bay in order to protect the Turkish flag, floating on a barren islet in that bay, as the emblem of the supreme rights of Turkey on the island, and at the same time notified again the Cretan Government that they would maintain the status quo in Crete, meaning thereby that its political status shall not be changed.

On July 27, 1909, as soon as the international troops retired from the fortress of Chanea, the Executive Committee hoisted there the Greek flag.

This action gave rise to a serious incident. The protecting Powers considering that the Greek emblem on the fortress was a violation of the status quo, which they agreed to maintain in the island, demanded from the Cretan Government the lowering of the

flag. The answer of the Executive Committee to that peremptory demand was that since their declaration of union with Greece, namely, in October, 1908, the Greek flag was hoisted on all their public buildings, and what was more significant, that it was hoisted on the fortress of Rethymno, after the evacuation of that place by the Russian troops some months ago, and that the Committee did not see the difference between the two cases.

But the Powers in their rejoinder explained to the Cretans that when the Greek flag was hoisted at Rethymno and the other public buildings they had not sent their note in regards to the maintenance of the status quo, and that, therefore, whilst all the flags hoisted. before their joint note could not be objected to, on the contrary that hoisted after the note on the Chanea or other fortress should be lowered.

On the refusal of the Cretans to acquisce in the demand of the Powers, blue-jackets from the international fleet, landing at Chanea, proceeded to the fortress and at an early hour, before the flag was hoisted, cut the staff, thus giving a technical satisfaction to Turkey.

It is really difficult to understand why the hoisting of the Greek flag at Rethymono and the public places was not considered by the Powers as a violation of the status quo, since long ago they had assured the Porte that they would maintain in the island the supreme rights of the Sultan. Can it be said that their last note was more sacred than those of previous dates?

The recent political upheaval in Greece brought again into prominence the Cretan Question, on account of the declaration made by many Cretan leaders that the inhabitants of the island were firmly resolved to send deputies to Athens as soon as the "Boule" would reassemble after the next elections, which were to take place in the beginning of this year.

Sensitive "Young Turkey," considering such an act as an "encroachment upon her imprescriptible sovereign rights" whatever those might be threatened to thunder again from Mount Olympus (in Thessaly) her inveterate enemies the Hellenes.

Greece, on one hand, unprepared to receive such a shock, and, on the other, perceiving that Europe, for one reason or another, was not

yet willing to take the promised "forward step "forward step" in regards to Crete and would probably leave her, the Hellenic Kingdom, to its fate in case of an invasion of Thessaly by the Turks, was trying to devise means to ward off the incoming danger, when, the Military League in its perplexity resorted to a measure which the Athenians of nearly 2,500 years ago applied in their moments of despair.

In fact, it was over five centuries B. C. that the citizens of Athens, having incurred the "wrath of the Gods" for violating the sacred right of asylum by murdering in a temple some insurgent citizens, were visited by a terrible pestilence, and "oppressed with sorrow and despondency saw phantoms and heard supernatural menaces, and felt the curse of the Gods upon them without abatement.”

It seems that the Athenians in their plight having consulted the Delphian oracle, were told to invite "a higher spiritual influence from abroad, and at their solicitation Epimenides, the famous Cretan sage, came to Athens, from the island in order to save the city of Minerva from the consequences of the divine wrath. The celebrated Cretan, who was nicknamed Purifier and Medical Prophet, so the story goes, succeeded "to restore both health and mental tranquility at Athens," paving besides the work of his contemporary Solon the law giver, and departed, "carrying with him universal gratitude and admiration.”

The modern Athenians, therefore, in imitation of their forefathers, turned also their eyes on the island of Minos for help and assistance, and thus brought to Athens the well-known Cretan patriot Mr. Venizelos, who seems, so far, to have achieved not less success by extricating, be it temporarily, Greece from a dilemma, by suggesting the convocation in violation even of the constitution — of a National Assembly, thus putting off for another year the danger which would have resulted from the incoming elections of sending Cretan deputies to the Boule. There is no doubt that Greece will utilize the services of Mr. Venizelos until the end of the crisis, who will very probably, like his compatriot, Epimenides, win later on the "gratitude of the Athenians."

But the ever-watchful "Protecting Powers," not satisfied with this arrangement, gratified their rebellious wards, the Cretans, with

a peremptory note by which they told them that should they carry out their project in sending deputies to the Greek Boule or the National Assembly, the necessary steps would be taken by them to frustrate the Cretan plan.

To revert to our subject, it may now be asked what is, after all, the political or international status of Crete?

She is certainly not an independent state, nor can rightly be considered as part of the Hellenic Kingdom, although the country is administered in the name of King George and the laws of Greece apply mutatis mutandis, and although its public officers swore allegiance to the King of the Hellenes; nor can the acceptance by the Postal Union of letters from Crete with the emblem of "Hellas" on their postage stamps be considered as an acquiescence by the Powers of the union of Crete with Greece.

The island is, as it was well observed by Sir Edward Grey, in trust, in the hands of the four protecting Powers, which trust seems to be dormant for the moment, or at least exercised in a benevolent manner; for otherwise it cannot be explained how the "trustees permitted their "ward" to act as if the island was not in the least connected with the Ottoman Empire.

As a matter of fact the protecting Powers have all along played a double game; on one hand they kept assuring the Porte that they would maintain her "supreme rights," on the other hand, they have been paving the way for the union of the island with Greece.

They have encouraged that hope not only in words, but also in acts. The appointment of a Prince of the Greek Royal house as High Commissioner, of Greek officers at the head of police and militia of the island, and the right given to the King of the Hellenes to nominate in future the High Commissioner could not have any other meaning but that they had firmly resolved to solve the Cretan question in accordance with Hellenic aspirations. In their early communications, both to Greece and to the Cretans, they declared that for the present the union was not possible; in their recent notes they said that the realization of that desideratum depended on the maintenance of order on the island; and in their very last note to the Executive Committee, after the declaration of union

with Greece, they promised to consider favorably that wish and to discuss the question with the Porte.

It is, therefore, evident that the only question to be discussed with the Sultan's Government - provided the Powers are consistent with their previous policy- is the incorporation of the island with Greece. It is to that policy that they are committed. Any one conversant with the diplomatic history concerning Cretan affairs can not form any other opinion.

Autonomy or any other similar regime ought to be out of the question, because that was already settled over twelve years ago when Crete became a separate state, which arrangement even the Porte had tacitly accepted.

As a matter of fact, there now exists in the island a self-government without any restriction or limitation, with the exception of the shadowy rights of the Sultan indicated in the emblem of a flag on a barren islet in the Cretan territorial waters; it is therefore not likely that the Cretans will accept any other solution but union with Greece.

But will European diplomacy cut that Gordian knot, or will they wait for a modern Theseus to kill the new Cretan Minotaur?

THEODORE P. ION.