« PreviousContinue »
court of justice, he says, is insufficient and inadequate, for it is not a question of judging but of legislating. We have experimented enough with wars, diplomacy and courts of justice in vainly attempting to bring about peace on earth, he argues. It only remains to try the international, worldembracing parliament.
The foregoing résumé of Professor Lavergne's argument will be sufficient to give the reader an idea of his line of reasoning. Such a book is easy to criticise. For one thing, its three chapters are not sufficiently connected in plan or thought, and a better, more exact title could be found for the work. Again, many Americans will be inclined to smile at the solicitude with which the author argues for his ideal international parliament, which he himself admits still lies far in the future. This is only another indication that Europeans are by force of circumstances taking problems of future international organization much more seriously than Americans. It might also be said in criticism that while the book begins as a theoretical study of the principle of nationalities it ends as a Tendenzschrift and that it is unfair to the principle of the judicial settlement of international disputes. But in spite of its shortcomings, whatever they may be, the book is a stimulating piece of work and reveals careful, logical thinking.
EDWIN H. ZEYDEL.
The Conduct of American Foreign Relations. By John Mabry Mathews,
Ph.D. New York: The Century Company, 1922. pp. vii, 353. $3.00.
This book is a study of law and practice in the management of our foreign relations. The author shows the basis and modes of control, describes the central organization, the diplomatic and consular service, shows how treaties are made and enforced, and how we enter into a state of neutrality, war and peace.
There are many books on our foreign relations, but this is the only one devoted to an exposition of how they are conducted. The author has smooth sailing when he describes the basis and machinery of control, but the waters become rougher when he describes the powers in treaty-making of each house of Congress and of both together and what are the untrammelled powers of the executive. Here we find much of conflict beginning when the government began and not yet settled. The principal sources of the book are: Moore's Digest, Butler's Treaty Making Power, Crandall's Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, John W. Foster's Practice of Diplomacy, Corwin's The President's Control of Foreign Relations, W. W. Willoughby's Constitutional Law of the United States, the volumes of Foreign Relations of the United States and the Supreme Court Reports, the richest mines of information being the Supreme Court Reports, Foreign Relations and Moore's Digest. The man who knows these three works thoroughly knows American international law.
Dipping into the middle of the book, the most important section is that which treats of treaty-making, and here Mr. Mathews draws a distinction between the "practical influence" of the Senate and the "legal control" of the President. The Senate may give its advice during the progress of treatymaking, but this is not necessary; or it may grant or withhold its consent to the ratification of the treaty which is necessary. The Executive is wise if he seeks the advice with a view to obtaining the consent. That the Executive and the Senate should each so jealously guard over its authority Mr. Mathews thinks coincides with the purpose of the framers of the Constitution, because they aimed to curb power. The House, too, has interjected itself into treaty-making, being a part of the machinery necessary to pass laws and appropriate money, which often are necessary to put treaties in force. In 1796 the House called on the President for the papers in the Jay treaty and he refused to send them. Similar instances of conflict have occurred since then without determination of the question of legal obligation. The House takes the action which the treaty requires after some of the members have made speeches insisting that it is not obliged to do so. Mr. Mathews thinks that the inclusion of the Senate in the treaty-making power has proved to be a wise provision in the government, but that a minority of the Senate should not be allowed to block action on a treaty and that a majority should be sufficient to approve the ratification, at any rate if the majority represents states having more than a majority of the population of the country. In advocating approval of treaties by a majority of the Senate, Mr. Mathews has companionship, but that a majority of the population should be potential through Senators is a novel idea. The reviewer thinks that such an important law as a treaty, limiting, as all important treaties do, the sovereignty of the nation, should have general acceptance. A bare majority of one body of the legislature should not have unchecked power over national rights. Ours is not a government of the unchecked will of the majority. As for counting a majority of the population through representation in the Senate, the effect of doing so would be to destroy the foundations of the Senate. What would happen if the Senators from the same populous state took opposite sides on the question of approving a treaty? The subject is too large to be pursued here, however, and it is only fair to say that Mr. Mathews shows little interest in his own suggestion, as he says nothing in support of it. It plays no part in the development of his book.
. The power of the President looms large on every page. In some fifty instances he has landed armed forces on foreign soil to protect American interests, acting under his own authority as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and under general international right without specific congressional authority. This part of the book would have been stronger without the quotation from Mr. Taft.
Mr. Taft says: “In practice the use of the naval marines for such a purpose has become so common that their landing is treated as a mere local police measure, whereas if troops of the regular army are used for such a purpose it seems to take on the color of an act of war". Troops were landed in China in the Boxer troubles and in Mexico to coerce Huerta, and more recently in Russia (to mention only a few instances), and we insisted that the acts were not acts of war. Marines and blue jackets are armed forces as well as soldiers, and Mr. Mathews himself makes no such distinction as Mr. Taft implies.
The chapter on the agreement-making power recites numerous international agreements which have been made by the Executive alone. When they are the result of specific authority of law they are unobjectionable; but when they are initiated on the President's authority they raise suspicion, for they may be secret and they tend to diminish the Senate's rightful authority. However, we must remember that international agreements made by one Executive may be set aside by his successor; consequently, they lack certainty and stability and foreign governments would not be apt to accept them in important matters in lieu of binding treaties.
The book closes with an account of the modes of declaring war and making peace. Congress thus far has never declared war except upon the recommendation of the President. By inference, the power to declare peace resides in the same place with the power to declare war. The President negotiates the treaty of peace, but before the treaty is completed Congress may declare that a state of peace exists. Mr. Mathews narrates the proceedings of Congress in April, 1917, when war was declared on Germany, Mr. Wilson's message of April 2 recounted our grievances against Germany and added certain other objects for which we should fight-notably “To make the world safe for democracy”. Congress, however, placed the justification for war simply upon Germany's repeated acts of war against the Government and people of the United States.
This is a good book, well conceived, well executed, and serving a useful purpose. It will soon pass into general use among students of our foreign affairs.
Manual of Collections of Treaties and of Collections relating to Treaties. By
Denys Peter Myers, A.B. Printed at the expense of the Richard Manning Hodges Fund. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922.
pp. xlvii, 685. $7.50.
This book is the second in a series of bibliographies printed by the Harvard University Press, the first having been on the languages, history, etc., of Slavic Europe by Robert Joseph Kirmer, Ph.D. The preface, contents and a few other lesser portions are printed in French as well as English, but the titles are in all languages and few of the books and periodicals have been .
translated. Mr. Myers' arrangement is: General Collections, Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern, collections by states, collections by subject matter, collections by international administration and as an appendix The Publication of Treaties. Upwards of 3408 separate titles are cited.
The purpose of the book is to place a list of books and articles relating to his subject before the student of international agreements. The basis of Mr. Myers' work is the lists of Martens, Garden, Martitz and Clunet which he has brought together and added to. The book is not a list of treaties but of books about treaties and which contain treaties.
The painstaking industry and exhaustive research of the compiler reflect great credit upon him and it is apparent that the book will be very useful. It takes its place among the essential works.
The Fiscal and Diplomatic Freedom of the British Oversea Dominions. By
Edward Porritt. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1922. pp. xvi, 492. (Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of Economics and History.) $4.00.
Co-ordination. Inasmuch as it deals with diplomatic freedom only in connection with fiscal affairs (p.10), this book falls short of the promise of its title. Within the more limited scope, its principal value is (1) that it is a creditable attempt to compare, contrast, and, as it were, co-ordinate political development in various of the Dominions, instead of, as is usual, tracing the unrelated history of only one of them; and (2) that the author's familiarity with British political history has enabled him to point to the influences which, from time to time in London, aided or retarded the expansion of colonial freedom. Works confined to Canada, by omitting references to the Australian Act of 1850, its modification in 1873, and its repeal in 1895, leave us uninformed as to British policy with regard to differential rates of customs duties in colonial tariffs, while, on the other hand, the Australian books tell us little of the struggle for responsible government and the acquisition of freedom with regard to protective duties. The Colonial Office attitude with reference to bounties and bonuses, too, is one that must be studied not in a single colony but in various of them. And the changing influences of the ever-changing Colonial Secretaries must be noted as the stories develop. In these respects Mr. Porritt's book, if not altogether unique, has special value.
On the other hand, the author has paid little attention to analysis or orderly arrangement. Freedom to enact tariffs is a part of general legislative freedom. Its history cannot be altogether separated from the whole of which it is a part, nor indeed from the story of the acquisition by the colonies of responsible government. This the author recognized, but he has had little success in coping with the difficulties which it raises.
Responsible Government. If the struggle for responsible government (an executive responsible to the House of Commons instead of to the Gover
nors) had been successfully terminated before the efforts to obtain tariff and treaty freedom commenced, the author might well have introduced his special subject by so saying, and by giving us the dates of the end of the one and the beginning of the other. But the date-relations are confused, and the year of the conclusion of the earlier contest is very variously stated.
On p. 61 (see also p. 234) it is said (when referring to the British North American provinces) that “Complete success attended the movement for responsible government in 1849. The question was settled when Parliament at Westminster in this year voted down resolutions" &c. This statement is contradicted at p. 93, where it is said that these decades (1846-1873) "were the decades in which the North American provinces were struggling for responsible government." It is contradicted also by the assertion on p. 111 tbat 1841-1859 was in Upper and Lower Canada "the period during which the contests for responsible government and for fiscal freedom were going on." Again, on p. 223 it is said that "the real contest for responsible government began . in 1841. The struggle was over and complete success achieved
in 1854.” At still another place (p. 222) it is said that the movement for responsible government "began in Lower and Upper Canada in 1828,” whereas in Lower Canada the movement was not for responsible government but for an elective Legislative Council. On p. 250 it is said that responsible government was conceded to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in 1848, to Prince Edward Island in 1853, and to Newfoundland in 1855; while at p. 268 it is said that "responsible government was established in New South Wales in 1850 and in Victoria and South Australia in 1854."
There can be little objection to fixing 1849 as the end of the struggle for responsible government, although, if a specific year must be mentioned, 1847--the year of Elgin's arrival in Canada as Governor-might be preferable. But the action of the British Parliament in 1849 to which the author refers had no relation to responsible government. The question there was not whether a Governor should follow the advice of his ministry, but whether a statute of the Canadian Parliament should be disallowed by interposition of the Crown. Had the author adhered to the 1849 date, and had he recognized that the struggle for fiscal freedom commenced (substantially) after that year, he would have been saved much of the confusion of Part IV of his book (pp. 213-281), entitled “Responsible Government and Fiscal and Diplomatic Freedom.” Of responsible government he need have said little.
Fiscal Freedom. Free trade, as preached by Cobden and Bright, being as much an evangel as an economic principle, British governments, while releasing the colonies from the restrictions of the commercial system and the navigation laws, were unwilling to agree that any of the impediments of the old system should be introduced there either protection or preferences, either bounties or bonuses.