1. The Chief Executive. — The Christian government of which Article 1 of the Treaty of Berlin speaks was to have as its first element a prince freely elected by the people.

This liberty of election was not, however, absolute. A restriction was placed, but only one, we believe: no member of the reigning European dynasties could be elected Prince of Bulgaria. It is easy to discover the reason for this provision, which under a general and impersonal form, was aimed directly at Russia. It was not desired that a grand duke, installed in Bulgaria, should make of the Principality an autonomous province of the Muscovite Empire. Nothing in the protocols of the Congress of Berlin permits the belief that there was any desire to push the precautionary measures further than that. If this condition was fulfilled, that the prince elected by the people should not belong to a reigning dynasty of the Powers, the choice of the Bulgarians would not be contested. Article III states, however, that this choice must be confirmed by the Sultan with the assent of the great Powers. Apart from the single case referred to in the text, could this confirmation and assent have been refused? On this point even the language of the Treaty of Berlin and the protocols of the Congress are not at all clear. It seems that very little concern was shown over the accumulation on this point of the germs of a thousand difficulties. Neither was it foreseen what would be the effect of Article III in case, for instance, only certain Powers should have refused their assent. Would a majority have sufficed or would unanimity have been necessary? And what if the confirmation of the Sultan should have been given while the assent of the Powers had been refused, or inversely ? All are questions difficult of solution. Many constructions have been proposed. The simplest, we believe, is this one. If the election was to be free — and that was the intention of the Congress — the confirmation of the Sultan and the approbation of the Powers should properly have followed an election regularly conducted, that is to say, one in which the person elected did not belong to a reigning family. The opposition of the Sultan or of the Powers, if based upon personal considerations, would have conflicted with the principle of free election. The right of the Sultan was purely honorary. It calls to mind what happens in Egypt where the case is seen of an hereditary Khedive who receives the investiture. In saying “ hereditary ” we imply that the investiture could not be. refused. It is given, however, because nominally the Sultan is the suzerain of the Khedive, as he was, nominally the suzerain of the Prince of Bulgaria.