MOLDO-WALLACHL1.
THE Ronman States have constituted themselves a unity in a somewhat unexpected fashion. The great diplomatic conflict of Paris turned upon the union of the Principalities under one go- vernment. The result of the fight was a compromise. The name, style, and title of " Principautes Unies de Moldavie et Valachie," a common flag, a Central Commission, or Federal Senate, com- pounded of eight men from each state, a united judicial appeal court,—these were secured by the unionists. Separate Assem- blies, separate Ministries, separate budgets, separate judicial in- stitutions, and, as it appeared, separate Hospodars, were gained by the anti-unionists. The authority of the Porte was reduced to simple suzerainty, represented by a tribute in hard cash and the final sanction of the chosen Hospodars by the process of investi- ture on demand. Legislative power is to be exercised collectively in each state by the Hospodar, the Assembly, the Central
Commission. Each Hospodor is to appoint Ministers, * who are to
be responsible ; appoint the magistrates ; appoint public servants ; Initiate the laws ; appoint an agent to represent him at the Porte ; convoke, prorogue, and dissolve the Assembly ; choose four out Of the sixteen members of the Central Commission,—in short, with some modifications, to fill the post of a constitutional monarch. The military forces of the two states are to be formed on an iden- tical organization, so that they may be united into one army, at the discretion of the two Hospodars. The commander-in-chief is to be named by each Hospodar alternately.
It will be seen that, although a great approximation was made towards an union the dominant idea was separation. But the Powers did not foresee the case which has actually occurred—the election, by Moldavia and Wallachia, of the same person, Couza, as Hospodar. Th:s common election looks very much like the driving of a coach and six through the Convention. Thus, he can, as Hospodar of Moldavia, by agreeing with himself as Hos- podar of Wallachia, unite the Army under one Commander-in- chief. He can unite for his own profit the civil lists of the two states. He can nominate the half Central Commission—four members as Hospodar of Wallachia, and four as Hospodar of Moldavia. He can send one agent instead of two to Constanti-
nople. Could he not, by a display of a little ingenuity, name one Ministry for both states, unite the two assemblies at Fock- shani, and thus pass laws common to both states, and a budget common to both ? The spirit of the Convention is dead against any such step, but so it is against the onion of duplex functions in one person.
And yet the case is not without parallel. An Emperor of Aus- tria is King of Hungary. A King of Sweden is King of Norway. A King of England has been King of Hanover. Two disputants may elect a common arbitrator ; two devisees may choose a common trus- tee. There is not a syllable of direct prohibition in the Convention of Path against the selection of a common Hospodar. Provision is made for two distinct Hospodars, but a dual Hospodar is not ex- pressly forbidden. If Colonel Couza choose to maintain a separate identity—first demand investiture as Hospodar of Moldavia, and afterwards as Hospodar of Wallachia ; and proceed to exercise the functions allotted to him in each capacity—separately, figuring first in one character then in the other,—how will the Powers, or the Porte, be able to make out a legal case against him? The gentle- man has committed political bigamy, but that is not an offence forbidden by the Convention or public law. He is willing to enter on a dual existence, but his duality is beyond the cognizance of the Powers. If each election has been perfectly regular, it is difficult to see how the fact that the chosen one is the same for both states can invalidate his election. If it can which election is invalid ? It would be to interefere with the free choice of Wallachia to say Couza shall not be her ruler, unless it can be shown that the choice of Couza by Moldavia renders him ineligible for Wallachia.
No one can envy him his double character—the Janus of the Danube sitting at Fockshani ; his Moldavian countenance beam- ing upon Jassy, his Wallachian visage smiling on Bucharest. He may argue that man is made up of duplicates—two brains, two ears, two eyes, two arms, two legs ; the oneness of his mouth being the appropriate symbol of the two civil lists which unite in his individual exchequer. He will be sure to have enough to do with his two houses his two Principalities, his two budgets, and that ominous unit the Central Commission.
But after all, may not this chance solution be the best for the Rouman countries, though it may not be the best for the happi- ness of the double Hospodar ? This election is a natural proceed- ing; it has come unexpectedly; it is an experimental marriage of the Principalities ; it is an approximate federation ; and would it not be worth while to see how it works ? Moreover, it is a fact, self-created ; and if it lead to growth, strength, the development of the valleys of the Danube and the Pruth, and the freedom of the Roumans from external influences, it may be the first step towards that United States of Eastern Europe which seems to offer the best solution of the Eastern question.
Previous page
