Part 6

Both in itself and as an episode of the present European conflagration, the death of the King of Rumania is an event of singular importance. The late King was in many respects the maker of his adopted country. When, in March, 1866, he accepted the crown the condition of the Danubian principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, was little better than that of a misgoverned Turkish province. They still owned Ottoman suzerainty, their army was non-existent, their financial resources were precarious, the condition of their people was wretched, their means of communication were primitive, and their public affairs were in a condition bordering on anarchy. With the support of the French Emperor, to whom he was distantly related, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen faced one of the most difficult tasks ever allotted to an inexperienced ruler, and carried it to triumphal completion.

He created an army, introduced railways, won independence for his realm and for himself. He evolved order out of chaos, secured military renown at Plevna as commander of the joint Russo-Rumanian forces in the Russo-Turkish war, established national finance on a sound basis, built up a considerable export trade, extended the frontiers of the principality and raised it to the rank of a kingdom, and watched with untiring vigilance over every aspect of national development. Not only as the first recognized and independent sovereign of modern Rumania, but as her creator, King Charles will ever hold a foremost place in Rumanian history.

In this great work the late ruler derived advantage, not only from his eminent personal qualities, but from his foreign origin. As a German Prince, powerfully connected, he stood outside and above Rumanian party factions, and succeeded gradually in imposing his will on them all. Born on April 20, 1839, at Sigmaringen, near the source of the Danube, he was barely 27 when he accepted the call to rule an unknown country with which his only connection was that, like the estates of his family, it, too, was watered by the Danube. Of middle height, well built, pronounced features, and clear, gray eyes, his personality expressed quiet energy. His statecraft he learned by experience and from the excellent counsel of his father, Prince Charles Anthony of Hohenzollern, head of the senior and Roman Catholic branch of the Hohenzollerns. Only once did he falter. In March, 1871, when the French sympathizers of his subjects exposed him as a German Prince and a Hohenzollern to great unpopularity, while the bankruptcy of the Jewish speculator to whom his railway schemes had been intrusted threw discredit upon his ideas of economic development, he summoned the members of the Provisional Government from whom he had accepted the crown and announced to them his decision to abdicate. Fortunately for Rumania, they succeeded in dissuading him from his purpose. The famous Conservative statesman, Lascar Catargi, formed a Ministry which held office for five years and enabled the ruler to turn the most dangerous corner of his reign. Thenceforward the path was comparatively clear, though by no means easy. It led to Rumanian participation in the Russo-Turkish war, to the conquest of national independence, and eventually, on May 22, 1881, to his coronation as King of Rumania, with a crown made of steel from a Turkish gun captured by Rumanian troops at Plevna.

Yet the Rumanian triumph was not unalloyed. Russia injudiciously and ungratefully insisted on depriving Rumania of the portion of Rumanian Bessarabia of which Russia had been deprived after the Crimean war, and allotted the Dobrudja, a swampy region south of the Danube, to the principality as compensation. The indignation in Rumania was indescribable and has never entirely subsided. The Senate in the Chamber declared the resolve of the country to defend its integrity by force. The Czar threatened to disarm the Rumanian Army--a threat which drew from Prince Charles the proud reply: "The Rumanian Army, which fought so gallantly before Plevna under the eyes of the Czar, may be annihilated, but will never be disarmed." But he nevertheless recognized the futility of resistance to the Russian demand, and exerted himself to calm the national excitement. In later years the breach was partially if not wholly healed.

Of the more material achievements of his reign there is little space to speak. The best record of his life is to be found in the present condition of the country--_si monumentum requiris circumspice_. His furtherance of the petroleum industry, of the export of grain, timber and other agricultural produce, the building of the great bridge over the Danube at Tchernavoda, and the extensive harbor at Constanza, the network of railways, the immense system of fortifications defending the capital, and the line Fokshani-Galatz--all these and much more are mainly his work.

Little is yet known of the action of King Charles in the last crisis of his life. It is a strange coincidence that just as the Franco-German war of 1870-71 brought him into conflict with the Francophil tendencies of his subjects and led to his offer of abdication, so the present war should again have engendered rumors of his abdication on account of his alleged antagonism to the national desire for the acquisition of Transylvania and the Southern Bukovina, which are peopled by more than 3,000,000 Hungarian and Austrian Rumanes. The Rumanian people felt that the hour for the liberation of their kindred had struck. Russia is understood to have invited Rumania to occupy the desired territory. But King Charles, who brought and kept Rumania within the orbit of the Triple Alliance, was, as a Hohenzollern and a German Prince, averse to hostile action against the German Emperor and the Emperor Francis Joseph. It is, moreover, stated that he was bound by his word of honor never to take the field against a Hohenzollern cause.

The late King Charles married, in November, 1869, Princess Elizabeth of Wied, the gifted "Carmen Sylva," whose brilliant literary and artistic talents have gained her a worldwide reputation. The only child of the marriage, the infant Princess Marie, died in 1874--a bereavement that ever left a note of sadness in the lives of her parents.

THE NEW KING.

King Ferdinand, who now succeeds his uncle on the throne of Rumania, was born in August, 1865, and, like his predecessor, is a Hohenzollern and a Roman Catholic.

Among his near relatives are the King of the Belgians and his namesake, Tsar Ferdinand of the Bulgarians, who are both first cousins, and his niece, Queen Augustina Victoria, the consort of Dom Manoel. Through his mother, the Princess Antonia, who was born an Infanta of Portugal, King Ferdinand is kin with all the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to which his consort, the new Queen Mary, belongs as daughter of the late Duke of Edinburgh.

Her Majesty is thus first cousin to King George and to the Czar, as also to Princess Nicholas of Greece. Her three sisters are married respectively to the Grand Duke Cyril of Russia, Prince Ernest, the eldest son of the mediatized Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, and to the Infante Alfonso d'Orléans of Spain.

Their Majesties have six children, of whom the Crown Prince Carol, who celebrates his 21st birthday this week, and the Princess Elizabeth, born in 1894, are of marriageable age. The youngest, Prince Mircea, who bears a historic Rumanian name closely connected with Silistria, was born during the Balkan war at the beginning of 1913. King Ferdinand's family is a remarkable example of religious differences--his Majesty is a Roman Catholic, the Queen is a Lutheran, and their children are members of the Orthodox Church of Rumania.

The Rumanian Minister has received a copy of a proclamation published in The Official Gazette stating that the new King will follow in the footsteps of the late monarch and will accomplish the ideals of the Rumanian race.

IN RUMANIA'S PARLIAMENT.

[From The Messaggero of Rome.]

BUCHAREST, Dec. 17.

The intention of the Government to avoid in Parliament any discussion of the political action of the Ministry was reaffirmed yesterday by Premier Braliano, who, in a brief declaration in the Chamber, prayed the parties to waive any discussion whatever upon the answer of Parliament to the speech from the throne, and to have confidence in those governing the country.

The independent Deputies, however, have shown themselves determined to provoke a discussion. Among the others, Mr. Couza, a Nationalist, demanded permission to express his personal admiration for the valor of the Servians, and insisted on ample measures being taken for preventing the exportation of articles of which in due time there will be an absolute deficiency in the country.

Constantin Mille, an independent, and proprietor of the newspaper Adeverul, delivered a long speech in which he declared himself dissatisfied with the policy of the Government, which ought to have taken a decisive stand at the beginning of the conflict. Instead of doing this, the Government has put us in the position of not knowing to which side we must turn, as long as our only intention is to turn first to this side and then to that, without having the necessary guarantees.

After paying high tribute to the valor of the Servian Army and the heroism of Belgium, the speaker demonstrated that Rumania, since the beginning of the conflict, ought to enter the war on the side of the Triple Entente.

He afterward protested against certain facts that the expressed neutrality of the country cannot tolerate; such as the passage through Rumanian territory of guns and ammunition from Germany for Turkey; the taking over by Germany of certain medical supplies originally intended for the Rumanian Army, and exchanging the same for grain.

He then assailed the propaganda carried out by German emissaries through certain news agencies, and the corruption of certain papers of the Rumanian press.

And during all this time, concluded Mr. Mille, our brethren in Transylvania are being exterminated by war while expecting our intervention. The Government must break its silence, which is becoming more and more suspicious, and frankly affirm its intention.

RUMANIA'S POLICY.

[From The London Daily Telegraph of Dec. 29, 1914.]

BUCHAREST, Dec. 28.

Today, in the debate on the address in reply to the message from the throne, the Prime Minister repeated the declaration made in the Chamber asking the majority to waive discussion and the Opposition to leave the Government full liberty of action to fulfill its great duty.

The Conservative Party, by the mouth of its chief, expressed its willingness to do this. M. Disesco, on behalf of the Conservative Democrats, repeated the declaration made by M. Take Jonesco, in the Chamber, according to which Rumania ought to abandon her neutral position and make an immediate alliance with the Triple Entente.

M. Disesco added that the Rumano-Austro-German alliance ceased to exist from the day when the Crown Council was held at Sinäia; that council settled the matter of Rumania's neutrality. The speaker laid stress on the ingratitude of Austria toward Rumania in 1913, and alluded to the statements made recently by M. Take Jonesco concerning the threat of Austria against Rumania in 1913 should that country attack Bulgaria.

He concluded by observing that the two sections of the Opposition, Conservative and Conservative-Democrat, had declared for abandonment of neutrality and an alliance with the Triple Entente, and expressed the hope that presently this policy will be adopted officially. The address was afterward agreed to unanimously.

A large number of Senators telegraphed to the President of the Italo-Rumanian League at Rome expressing their happiness at witnessing the realization of the league's initiative, and requesting the President to consider them members of the Rumanian section of the league, which, being convinced of the profound significance and great usefulness of closer relations between the two countries, they joined with enthusiasm.

"LEAGUE OF UNITY."

BUCHAREST, Dec. 27.

At a special session today the League for the National Unity of All Rumanians acclaimed with grand enthusiasm the new committee, which has as President the Rev. Father Lucaci, the great propagandist of and martyr for the Rumanian cause in Transylvania and a member of the Rumanian National Committee of Hungary. There were also elected MM. Take Jonesco, Nicolas Filipescu, and Delavrance Gradischteano, all former Ministers. The committee is charged with the hastening of action by Rumania for the conquest of the Rumanian provinces of Austria-Hungary.

RUMANIAN STATISTICS.

[From Le Messager d'Athenes, Nov. 28, 1914.]

According to statistics published in a Rumanian paper, when the foreign press speaks of Rumanian aspirations it sums up the whole question in the word Transylvania.

It is not unnecessary perhaps to remark that this word has in this case a significance rather political and ethnological than purely geographical. This word comprises all the Austro-Hungarian territories occupied by Rumanians, with the understanding that Transylvania is the most important as regards area and Rumanian popularity.

Actually the Rumanian claims on the Austro-Hungarian territories are the following:

Transylvania--57,250 square kilometers, 2,850,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,750,000 are Rumanians.

Banat--28,510 square kilometers area, and 1,730,000 inhabitants, of whom 700,000 are Rumanians.

Chrishana--Area, 41,338 square kilometers, and 2,920,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,100,000 are Rumanians.

Mamoaresh--Area, 9,720 square kilometers, and 360,000 inhabitants, of whom 120,000 are Rumanians.

Bukowina--Area, 10,471 square kilometers, and 900,000 inhabitants, of whom 300,000 are Rumanians.

Total area, 147,280 square kilometers, and 8,760,000 inhabitants, of whom 3,970,000 are Rumanians.

In consequence, of 8,760,000 inhabitants of trans-Carpathian Rumania, nearly 4,000,000 are Rumanians, 2,200,000 Hungarians, 1,000,000 Serbo-Croatians, 730,000 Germans, and so on.

RUMANIA'S CLAIMS.

[From The London Times, Nov. 25, 1914.]

SOFIA, Nov. 23.

The efforts made by Germany and Austria-Hungary to win over Rumania, or at least to induce her to refrain from prosecuting her claims to Transylvania, are being pursued with indefatigable energy and perseverance. The same methods are being employed in Bucharest as here, but on an even larger scale. The issues involved seem to be more fully realized by the Central European powers than by their opponents, and no pains are being spared to draw Rumania and Bulgaria within the orbit of their influence.

The campaign in Bucharest was at first attended by a certain measure of success, owing to the attitude of M. Bratiano, the Premier; of M. Carp, a former Prime Minister, and of M. Marghiloman, the present leader of the Conservative Opposition. But many influential Liberals have already associated themselves with the programme of the action advocated by M. Take Jonesco, the chief of the Conservative-Democratic Party, and of M. Filipescu, a former Conservative Minister, whose advocacy of a forward policy threatens to cause a split in the Conservative camp. The great bulk of the political world desires to profit by the European crisis to secure Transylvania, the only difference of opinion being with regard to the advisability of immediate action. The consultative committee of the Conservative Party has passed a resolution demanding the abandonment of neutrality.

The concessions offered by Count Tisza, the Hungarian Premier, in the hope of averting the coming storm, make no impression on the Rumanians either within or without the monarchy. He promises to allow the teaching of Rumanian in the schools, the use of the language in the public services, and increased Rumanian representation in the Hungarian Parliament. But the time for concessions has gone by. The Austrian advance into Servia threatens to cut off Rumania from Southern and Western Europe and to prevent the arrival from the United States of the large supplies of stores and medicaments ordered there.

It is evident that neither Rumania nor Bulgaria can long maintain their present attitudes. It remains for the powers of the Entente to devise a means for securing the co-operation of both States.

Servia recently inquired in Bucharest whether Rumania would oppose territorial concessions to a neighboring State, evidently indicating Bulgaria. Rumania replied that she would be happy to see all the quarrels of her neighbors arranged. The Government at Nish, appreciating the necessities of the situation, is now disposed toward a policy of concession. Servia's only hope of maintaining an independent existence lies in the success of the Entente powers. She is, therefore, bound to consent to any course they may deem necessary at the present juncture.

UTTERANCES OF STATESMEN.

_The New York Daily Greek Atlantis, in its issue of Nov. 21, 1914, reports as follows the statement of three Rumanian leaders to a Greek paper in Constantinople. The Rumanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Purumbaru, said:_

Rumania is inspired by a sincere desire not to displease either of the two European Georges. Having adopted a policy of neutrality, she will maintain it to the end. Russia has expressed her satisfaction with the present attitude of Rumania, while Austria, since the beginning of the war, has avoided taking any oppressive measures against the Rumanians of Transylvania. As regards Italy, the Rumanian people harbor the friendliest intentions toward her. The Italo-Rumanian relations are most cordial. In Rumania the policy of Italy is followed with much attention. The relations of Rumania toward the other Balkan States, and especially toward Servia and Greece, are good. It is true that the Bulgarian intentions are not very clear. It appears, however, that the desire for peace is strong in Sofia, where it is felt that the interest of Bulgaria lies in adapting rather the country to the present situation than in throwing it into a struggle whose results would be unknown beforehand.

As for Servia, Rumania has not intervened on her behalf in this war, as it had not its origin in the Treaty of Bucharest.

In accordance with the common understanding of all the Balkan States, Rumania is always in favor of a union of them all, but opposes any combination between two or more Balkan States to the detriment of another.

_M. Jonesco, leader of the Opposition, spoke on the Balkan situation as follows:_

I always believed and still believe that the Balkan States cannot secure their future otherwise than by a close understanding among themselves, whether this understanding shall or shall not take the form of a federation. No one of the Balkan States is strong enough to resist the pressure from one or another of the European powers.

For this reason I am deeply grieved to see in the Balkan coalition of 1912 Rumania not invited. If Rumania had taken part in the first one, we should not have had the second. I did all that was in my power and succeeded in preventing the war between Rumania and the Balkan League in the Winter of 1912-1913.

I risked my popularity, and I do not feel sorry for it. I employed all my efforts to prevent the second Balkan war, which, as is well known, was profitable to us. I repeatedly told the Bulgarians that they ought not to enter it because in that case we would enter it too. But I was not successful in my efforts.

During the second Balkan war I did all in my power to end it as quickly as possible. At the conference of Bucharest I made efforts, as Mr. Pashich and Mr. Venizelos know very well, to secure for beaten Bulgaria the best terms. My object was to obtain a new coalition of all the Balkan States, including Rumania. Had I succeeded in this the situation would be much better. No reasonable man will deny that the Balkan States are neutralizing each other at the present time, which in itself makes the whole situation all the more miserable.

In October, 1913, when I succeeded in facilitating the conclusion of peace between Greece and Turkey, I was pursuing the same object of the Balkan coalition. On my return from Athens I endeavored, though without success, to put the Greco-Turkish relations on a basis of friendship, being convinced that the well understood interest of both countries lies not only in friendly relations, but even in an alliance between them.

The dissensions that exist between the Balkan States can be settled in a friendly way without war. The best moment for this would be after the general war, when the map of Europe will be remade. The Balkan country which would start war against another Balkan country would commit, not only a crime against her own future, but an act of folly as well.

The destiny and the future of the Balkan States, and of all the small European peoples as well, will not be regulated by fratricidal wars, but, with this great European struggle, the real object of which is to settle the question whether Europe shall enter an era of justice, and therefore happiness for the small peoples, or whether we will face a period of oppression more or less gilt edged. And as I always believed that wisdom and truth will triumph in the end, I want to believe, too, that, in spite of the pessimistic news reaching me from the different sides of the Balkan countries, there will be no war among them in order to justify those who do not believe in the vitality of the small peoples.

RUMANIANS IN HUNGARY.

_N. Filipescu, ex-Minister of War, said:_

The position of the Rumanians in Hungary is not so bad after all. Since the beginning of the general war the Rumanians of Hungary gave proofs of their faith and devotion to Hungary.

We hoped to see this country appreciating the fact. Our belief is strengthened every day. I am convinced that if from this war Hungary should emerge victorious she would show less good-will toward the Rumanians of Transylvania. It is the first time that I have expressed in this way my opinion as a seeming threat. I hoped that the Hungarians would in the end take to the right path. But I see that we have nothing to hope from that side, and I only regret our former amicable relations with Germany.

Two Balkan States--Servia and Greece--are nearer to us on account of the recent past. But in saying this I do not mean that our relations in the future will be less friendly. With the other States, and especially Bulgaria, our relations might become better. This is our sincerest desire. As for Turkey, we never ceased to be on good terms with her, and I hope the same will hold good in the future.

Exit Albania?

Departure of Prince William of Wied--After the Revolution of July, 1914.

[From Il Corriere della Sera of Milan, Italy, of Sept. 3, 1914.]

DURAZZO, Sept. 3.

An hour ago the Italian yacht Misurata, flying the Albanian ensign on the foremast and the Italian colors aft, weighed anchor and proceeded to Venice. Aboard the Misurata were Prince William of Wied, Princess Sophie, Tourkhan Pasha, (the Albanian Premier,) Akis Pasha, and other members of the Court.

Princess Sophie, coming aboard the launch which took them to the Misurata, was weeping. Prince William looked calm. The Italian marines and the Rumanian volunteers cheered, and the cruiser Libia saluted the Prince with the regular number of salvos. The square near the seashore was by that time full of refugees.

Prince William bade Durazzo good-bye, but every one is convinced that he will never come back.

Last Monday (Aug. 31) the Ministers of the powers met in the Italian Legation to consider the taking of certain measures, in case of trouble, which was already brewing on account of the non-payment of the apportionments to the men of the garrison.

On the morning of the next day the Minister of Rumania brought to the palace a letter from the insurgents addressed to the representatives of the powers and announcing that the patience of the insurgents was exhausted, and that they were resolved to enter Durazzo by any means. An identical letter was addressed to the inhabitants of the city.

It was then that the Prince decided to abandon Durazzo.