Chapter III, which deals with the realization of independence, is especially weak and contains errors. Lastly, in the final Title II, which in special reference to the violations of the Treaty of Berlin develops into a dissertation regarding the obligatory force of treaties in general, the author proves sufficient scholarship but little informed as to the most recent doctrines. His adherence to the principle of nationalities and his critique of the theory of the balance of power, at present the only possible guaranty for maintaining peace, are possibly the result of the enthusiasm of a generous, but certainly of a somewhat unsophisticated and romantic nature. GEORGES SCELLE. Principles of the Constitutional Law of the United States. By Westel W. Willoughby. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Company. 1912. pp. 576. The original treatise in two volumes, of which the present single volume is an abridgment, was reviewed in the JOURNAL for October, 1911. To those who are familiar with the merits of the larger work, little need be said in commendation of the decision of the author to issue an edition adapted to the use of undergraduate students. In the larger work the difficult questions of constitutional law were discussed. at length and the more important decisions of the Supreme Court were commented upon in detail; in the abridged edition this discussion and comment has been necessarily reduced in amount, but the process of reduction has been one of condensation rather than of elimination. No complicated subject is passed over without attention being called to the fact that a difficulty exists, so that the instructor of a class can, when the circumstances justify, require of the student a closer investigation of the question. The author, in fact, points out in his preface that it has been his effort "to suggest, and in a measure to discuss, the unsettled questions of our Federal jurisprudence." The abridged edition has thus lost nothing of the peculiar merit of the original. The point of approach is in each case the same, and it is the characteristic method of treating the subject which distinguishes both editions from other commentaries on international law. Professor Willoughby's point of approach is that of the political scientist. He is concerned with determining not only what his authentic interpretation of the Constitution is at the present day, but also what are the fundamental principles upon which the interpretation of the Constitution has in each case been based; and in so doing he exhibits the growth of judicial opinion on a given question and suggests the probable trend of future decisions on points of law not altogether settled. It is to be noted that in his arrangement of the subjects covered by the Constitution the author departs from the traditional method of following the Constitution clause by clause. This enables him to group together correlated clauses of the Constitution, and to present a unified treatment of principles which have been developed from several distinct clauses of the Constitution. Moreover, in thus departing from the text of the Constitution in favor of a more logical arrangement of subjects, the author is enabled to discuss in their proper place those principles of constitutional law which are not expressly stated in the Constitution, but which have been developed from other principles expressly stated or from the construction of the Constitution as a whole. The treatment of the doctrine of Federal Supremacy in the larger work was carried out in masterly style, and was in itself a distinct contribution to the literature of constitutional law; it is unfortunate that in the abridged edition the discussion of this important subject had to be in any way curtailed. Professor Willoughby is at his best when engaged in discussing and determining the fundamental principles of constitutional construction and the processes of reasoning by which the Supreme Court has come to its decision in questions involving the statement of a new doctrine or the extension of an old one. As a political scientist he makes it his object to investigate cause and effect in the principles of the law and to discover the hidden forces at work in the development of the law. On such subjects as Federal Supremacy, Interstate Commerce, Federal Powers of Taxation, the Obligation of Contracts, in the abridged as well as in the larger work, the author follows step by step the historical progress of judicial decisions, marking the advance which each succeeding decision made upon the law as previously interpreted, and weighing carefully the force to be given to the latest decision upon the question. It is this scientific spirit in which Professor Willoughby approaches his subject and the careful criticism to which he subjects the decisions. of the Supreme Court, which has enabled him to produce a work marked at once by originality and depth of insight. Under his method of treatment the Constitution appears as a living and growing instrument of government; its historical past is set forth to the extent necessary to throw light upon its present interpretation, while its future interpretation is rendered possible of prediction in the light of the principles upon which existing decisions have been based. While it is, of course, not to be expected that the present compendious volume could afford space for the extended and critical discussion of questions which marks the larger treatise, its value for class room use, apart from its intrinsic merit, is largely enhanced by the fact that it follows the lines of the complete work, to which reference can at any point be made by the instructor. CHARLES G. FENWICK. Une clause des traités de 1814 et de 1839 "Anvers, Port de Commerce." These are two of the latest contributions of a polemic nature to the controversy which is just now agitating the minds of the publicists of Holland and Belgium concerning the international status of Antwerp and the neutrality of the Scheldt.2 The question is by no means a new one, but its importance does not seem to have been fully realized until more recent years, and it is not difficult to detect that the growing fear of a possible conflict between Great Britain and Germany is the underlying cause of this sudden interest. The difference of opinion is due largely to conflicting interpretations of two treaties: the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814, Article 15 of which provides that "Dorénavant le port d'Anvers sera uniquement un port de commerce," and the Treaty of London of April 19, 1839, which reaffirms this provision in similar language: "Le port d'Anvers, conformément aux stipulations du traité de Paris du 30 mai 1814, continuera d'être uniquement un port de commerce." (Art. 14) In order to appreciate more fully the exact situation it might perhaps be well to recall briefly the geographical position of the localities under discussion. The city of Antwerp is situated on the right bank of the river Scheldt, some 30 kilometers from its mouth. A short distance below Antwerp, in front of the island Beveland, the river divides into two channels, respectively north and south of the island, and enters Dutch territory (Province of Zeeland). The southern arm, which is usually known as the West Scheldt or Hont (Escaut occidental) reaches the sea at See also Ernest Nys, L'Escaut en temps de guerre, Bruxelles, 1910; and den Beer Portugael, L'Escaut et la neutralité permanente de la Belgique, d'après les traités de 1839 et 1907. La Haye, 1910. Flushing (Kissingen), and is the more important of the two for ocean commerce. In 1839, when Holland finally recognized the independence of Belgium, she continued to levy toll on all shipping passing through the 23 kilometers of the Scheldt which lie in Dutch territory, until 1863 when she sold that right, and the river was opened to the trade of the world. To-day Antwerp is not only one of the greatest commercial ports of the world, but also one of the strongest fortresses of Europe. It is asserted on good authority that when all the projected forts and batteries are completed it will be practically impregnable, at least so long as its communications by sea are preserved intact. No little excitement was therefore caused when, a few years ago, rumors spread that the German Emperor, in an alleged letter to Queen Wilhelmina - which, it may be safely asserted, never existed - had advocated the erection by Holland of a modern fort at Flushing! And when the Netherlands Government, acting upon the recommendations of a commission-appointed long before the Kaiser's letter is said to have been written-seriously considered the projects of fortifying Flushing and various other places, this action was at once interpreted as being aimed at England to further the sinister designs of Germany, and a storm of indignation broke out in the Belgian, French, and British press. Paraphrasing the well-known words of Napoleon I: "Anvers est un pistolet braqué sur le cœur de l'Angleterre," the London Times (December 21, 1910) referred to the proposed fortress at Flushing as "A pistol aimed at England, and a slap in the face of Belgium"; and a member of the French Chamber of Deputies exclaimed (January 16, 1911): "J'estime que le fait de fortifier Flessingue constitue une violation de la neutralité de la Belgique." Now it will be remembered that the permanent neutrality of Belgium was guaranteed by the Powers in 1839 and was recognized by the Netherlands in her treaty with Belgium of the same year. This obviously imposed upon the Netherlands Government the obligation to prohibit the use of the river Scheldt for any warlike operations. This is not denied by the Belgian writers, led by M. Nys, but they insist that such prohibition should apply only to vessels of Powers intending to attack Belgium, and not to those whose purpose it is to protect it and preserve its neutrality. It is further asserted that by the treaty of 1839 between 3 Cf. also Baron Descamps, Le droit de guerre et le droit d'alliance dans la constitution internationale de la Belgique, Bruxelles, 1901. And his La Neutralité de la Belgique, Belgium and Holland, the two countries agreed to exercise divided sovereignty over the Scheldt, as it provided for their joint supervision over pilotage, fisheries, maintenance of channels for navigation, etc., and that consequently Holland could not claim exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of the river. Moreover, the liberty of navigation on international rivers, as determined by the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Paris (1856), should apply to men-of-war as well as to merchant vessels. As regards the port of Antwerp itself, it is essential as a basis of operation for the fleet or army of any Power called upon to safeguard Belgian neutrality. Such temporary use of the port for military purposes would not constitute a violation of the provisions in the treaties of 1814 and 1839. In fact, Antwerp never existed as a purely commercial port, but had always been well fortified, and its right to such fortifications had never been disputed. M. den Beer Portugael defends the opposite side. He denies that a fort at Flushing would be aimed at Great Britain 5 or any other single Power. But he believes that the Netherlands Government, as a neutral party, has not only the right, but according to the laws of neutrality as laid down by the Second Hague Conference, also the duty to prevent the use of the Scheldt by any Power, whether attacking or protecting Belgium. In doing so it is not interfering with the execution of the guarantees of Belgian neutrality assumed by the Powers, inasmuch as there are other approaches to Belgium than through Dutch territory. The latter, over which Holland exercises complete and undivided sovereignty the joint supervision with Belgium as to navigation, fishing, etc., being of a purely economic nature—must be respected as neutral by the Powers; and to safeguard its inviolability the Netherlands Government is fully justified in erecting forts at Flushing and elsewhere in that region. The freedom of navigation on international rivers refers exclusively to merchant vessels, and can never be invoked in favor of war vessels. That Antwerp has a perfect right to erect as many forts. 4 Cf. in this connection the contention of the United States in the North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration with regard to "Question One" submitted to the Tribunal and decided in favor of Great Britain. 5 "Si l'on pouvait lire dans le cœur des Néerlandais, on y verrait la vive sympathie que la grande majorité d'entre eux a pour les Anglais. * Ceux-ci vous ressem blent beaucoup en manières, en coutumes, en caractère; peuples navigateurs tous les deux depuis des siècles, vivant près de la même mer, nous nous comprenons," p. 3. This fact is frequently lost sight of by writers discussing the probability of the annexation of Holland by Germany. |