English rather than of the colonial school. Although eminently broadminded in his criticisms of imperial policy he does not hesitate at times to express an unfavorable judgment upon the patriotic but ill-advised centralizing tendencies of some of the Tory imperial federationists and is even more critical of the separatist agitation of many of the nationalist leaders in the dominions. He is especially concerned over the maintenance of the unity of the Empire in matters of war, peace and foreign affairs, although upon this point there is a marked division of opinion in the dominions as to the best means by which it may be attained.

Probably the least satisfactory portion of the study from the standpoint of the colonial nationalist is that which deals with the war policies of the dominions. The author is inclined at times to look upon the opposition of the various radical elements to the conduct of the war as unpatriotic rather than as a manifestation of distrust of the war aims and economic policies of the British and dominion governments. During the latter portion of the war, it must be admitted, there was a marked revival of local party politics and feeling which interfered in no small measure with the vigorous prosecution of the war; but for this unfortunate result no particular party or group can be held entirely responsible and least of all the Canadian farmers (p. 51).

The author's treatment, moreover, is open to the further criticism that he is prone to pay relatively too much attention to the proceedings of Parliament and correspondingly to overlook the more obscure but equally important currents of political thought throughout the country. For example, the influence of the agrarian movement in the Northwest has received but scant attention though it has been one of the most remarkable features of the political life of Canada. Or again, the true attitude of the Liberal party upon the question of the international status of the dominion will not be found in the captious parochial speeches of Mr. Fielding in the House of Commons but in the nationalist editorials of the Liberal papers throughout the country.

But these defects in treatment are more than offset by his masterly handling of the difficult legal and constitutional questions arising out of the colonial mandates and the international status of the dominions under the League of Nations. The discussion of these topics reveals a breadth and surety of knowledge such as is not to be found in any of his contemporaries. It is a little surprising, however, to find that Mr. Keith has overlooked the question of the legality of the preferential policy of New Zealand in Samoa under the tripartite convention of 1899. The Hymans interpretation of the words "members of the League" in Article 22 of the Covenant has also apparently escaped his attention, though it throws considerable light upon Lord Milner's contention (p. 194).

In view of the superior excellence of this study as a whole it seems almost petty to point out a few trifling inaccuracies which have crept into the

volume, but a reference to two or three of these may be justified on the ground of scientific accuracy. The seat of the local Court of Admiralty of New Brunswick is St. John (p. 21) and not St. John's. Mr. T. A. Crerar did not enter the Unionist cabinet as a Liberal but as a representative of the Progressives (p. 202). The farmers of the Northwest had already begun to play a distinct part in federal politics prior to the victory of the Ontario farmers in 1919. It is scarcely correct to represent the whole Liberal party of Quebec as committed to the policy of protection in view of the opposition of many of the rural members to the policy of high customs duties.

But these minor criticisms do not detract from the outstanding scholarly character of the work. This study, we may then conclude, is the most authoritative exposition that has yet appeared upon the general question of the political and constitutional results of the war upon the British Empire. C. D. ALLIN.

The New Constitutions of Europe. By Howard Lee McBain and Lindsay Rogers. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922. pp. x, 612. $3.00.

Students of comparative government, and in fact all persons interested in the political changes wrought as a consequence of the World War, owe a debt of gratitude to Professors McBain and Rogers for bringing within the compass of a single volume the new fundamental laws of the states of Europe. Yet the volume is not merely a collection of texts. An introduction of 164 pages gives a comparative study of the various principles involved in recent constitutional developments. This is followed by the texts (each preceded by an historical note) of the constitutions of Germany, Prussia, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, Russia (the Socialist Federated Soviet Republic only), Poland, the Free City of Danzig, Esthonia and Finland, and in an appendix, for the purpose of comparison, the constitutions of Belgium, France and Italy. A few pages on the "Recognition of New States since 1913", reprinted from Temperley's A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Vol. V, and Viscount Bryce's letter concerning the Conference on the Reform of the Second Chamber carry us down to the index, which seems to be well done.

In their preface the authors explain their plan of inclusion and exclusion. It is not to be expected that a volume of this character can remain complete for any length of time in a world of such constant political change. Consequently, it can no longer be said (p. vi) that “Lithuania is still operating under a provisional constitution adopted April 4, 1919". Then, too, the Kingdom of Rumania now has a new fundamental law. If the principle

1 See Current History, Vol. 17, December 1922, p. 486.

* According to L'Europe Nouvelle, it was published in No. 282 of the Official Journal of Rumania, March 29, 1923.

of inclusion and exclusion was based upon the newness of the fundamental law to English readers, we wonder why no space is given to the constitution of Denmark. If the principle of inclusion and exclusion was based upon the effects of the World War, we wonder why the volume was limited to Europe.

In any event, one is surprised at the statement (p. vi) that "no new constitution has been adopted in the new state of Hungary". It is quite true that no single constitutional document has been promulgated in Hungary since the World War began, but it must be remembered that no single document was to be expected in a state whose constitution is embodied in the more plastic form of numerous laws, enacted and altered from time to time through the regular legislative processes. Under this head is to be considered Law 1 of 1920 on the restoration of constitutional order and on the provisional regulation of the exercise of the supreme power of the state. It is the preamble of this law that makes a series of declarations of fact. First, the exercise of the royal power ceased on November 13, 1918. Secondly, the union with Austria ceased in consequence of the events. Thirdly, the exercise of the supreme power was no longer possible according to normal procedure, and, therefore, the National Assembly was the only legal representative of the sovereignty of the Hungarian state. Henceforth, the legislative power, formerly exercised by the King and the Diet, is to be exercised by the National Assembly alone, and the judicial power, formerly exercised in the name of the King, is to be exercised in the name of the Hungarian state. The fundamental character of this first law is amply shown by its very terms. It provided that all laws of the so-called People's Republic and of the Republic of Soviets, with certain exceptions, were no longer in force. For the provisional exercise of the head of the state, the National Assembly elects by secret ballot from the ranks of the Hungarian citizens a Governor or Regent who exercises all the powers of the King, with the following exceptions. Laws enacted by the National Assembly do not require his sanction. The Regent may not adjourn the Assembly. He may dissolve it only in case of its absolute inability to proceed with legislation. The regent exercises the executive power through a government or ministry, responsible to the National Assembly. He has not the right to confer nobility, but his person is inviolable and he enjoys the same protection of the penal law as the King. For the rest, his powers are similar to those of the King. He represents Hungary in her international relations. He sends and receives ambassadors and concludes alliances and other treaties through the responsible ministry, although, in so far as they concern matters of legislation, only with the consent of the National Assembly. The previous consent of the National Assembly is also necessary for a declaration of war or the conclusion of peace, or for the employment of armed forces outside the national territory, except in case of immediate danger from without.

These are the chief provisions of Law 1 of 1920, which was enacted on

February 28, 1920. On the day following its enactment, Admiral Nicholas von Horthy was elected Regent and still occupies that position. Among the later laws of fundamental character might be mentioned Law 47 of 1921, which, under the pressure of the Little Entente, provided for the disbarment of members of the Hapsburg family from the throne of Hungary. 3

The passage of time has rendered equally incorrect the statement (p. vi) that "Latvia is still governed by a constituent assembly elected in April 1920." 4

The authors are to be congratulated, however, upon achieving so difficult a task so rapidly, and in fact such defects as exist are properly chargeable to this very rapidity of execution rather than to lack of care. It is unusual to find the footnotes so painstakingly prepared, with credit given wherever properly due. The work of translating official documents is a thankless, and, we might say, an endless task. The translator cannot hope to satisfy everyone, when he cannot satisfy even himself. The authors were justified in presuming that official translations were trustworthy sources, but a comparison of the official French version of the bilingual constitution of Finland with the Swedish or Finnish text would have disclosed that even official translations are not always accurate. However, this and similar defects will no doubt be remedied in future editions, and will be overlooked because of the utility of the volume as a whole.

HERBERT F. WRIGHT.

Völkerrecht. By Dr. Theodor Niemeyer. Berlin and Leipzig: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1923. pp. 166.

This little book is No. 865 in the German popular science series known as "Sammlung Göschen". The treatment of the subject is therefore somewhat restricted by the limitations imposed by the publishers on the author; but it is far from being dilettante. Indeed, the chief merit of the book is its thought-provoking though compendious presentation of the fundamental problems as to the concept and the essential nature of international law. Every one of the five chapters composing the book is an exposition of these problems in their application to various sub-topics. Distinctions, often ignored, are clearly drawn between international law as a systematic statement of positive rules and international law as a science dealing with the origin, historical evolution and present basis in existing world economic and social needs and conditions of such rules. Professor Niemeyer emphasizes the latter. Abandoning the Kantian notion of law as leading to the negation of international law as law, he examines Stammler's formula that law is For an account of the steps leading up to these constitutional laws, see my article on Hungary: a Kingless Kingdom, in America, December 2, 1922.

See English translation of the constitution of October 1, 1921, in Current History, Vol. 17, December 1922, p. 480.

the expression of the social ideal and considers how "Sitte" and "Sittlichkeit" are factors in the shaping of law. He eschews the dogmatic formulas drawn from analogies with private civil law, which he shows to be misleading, particularly the analogy between treaty and contract (pages 127-129), and holds that the proper approach to the problems of international law is "rechtspolitisch", i. e., it should regard the vital necessities of nations and of peoples as ascertained sociologically. A great complex of problems is thus opened up. And these it is the true function of international law as a science to grapple with. Indeed, Professor Niemeyer defines the science of international law as "the science of the problems arising from the application of the concept of right (Rechtsgedanken) to international relations". As to the existing positive rules of international law, he takes the rather pessimistic view that the World War destroyed the old criteria of law (Recht) and new ones have not been adopted or even been clearly formulated. He, therefore, makes the conditions existing prior to 1914 the basis of his discussion. That branch of the subject commonly designated as the “Law of War" is summarily dismissed in an appendix by the denial that war is a legal relation. "Mankind", he says, "must substitute for its faith in a law regulated war, a greater appreciation and cultivation of the Law of Peace as a safeguard against war."

Though a miniature, the book is the finished product of a finished scholar. GEORGE C. BUTTE.

Répertoire Général de Législation et de Jurisprudence en Matière de Dommages de Guerre. By René Roman. Paris: Revue des Dommages de Guerre, pp. 374, index. 30 francs.

This book contains the text of the law of April 17, 1919, concerning reparations for damages from the war, fortified under the appropriate sections by legislative texts completing, interpreting or modifying the law, ministerial circulars, court decisions, answers from the Minister of the Liberated Regions appearing in the official journal and the directions of the office of Industrial Reconstruction. The whole basis of the law may perhaps properly be said to be contained in its first article under which "The Republic proclaims the equality and the solidarity of all French as to war charges", and in Article 2 which declares that "certain damages, material and direct, caused in France and Algeria to movable and immovable property create right to integral reparation", etc. The principle, therefore, is adopted by the French that the damages resultant upon a state of war are not to be borne by the individual who is the direct and immediate loser, but become the charge of the entire state.

This work in France and so far as its subject matter is concerned, may fairly be regarded as invaluable, but of course it opens out a field of investigation entirely theoretical and remote so far as this country is concerned.