« ПретходнаНастави »
cellent account of the events leading up and subsequent to the breaking off of relations between Peru and Germany. The history, fully documented, of the destruction of the Lorton (a Peruvian vessel), is set forth, as well as the exchange of correspondence between the representatives of Peru and of Germany with relation thereto. The work deserves, therefore, as indicated, the careful attention of the student and historian.
From another point this volume can, to advantage, be studied by those who are interested in Latin-American forms of courtesy, and who wish to submit themselves to them. Such a one will note the exchange of compliments or courtesies passing between Peru and other South, as well as Central, American countries, as well as between their cities, upon the breaking of relations and afterward upon the signing of the armistice. The emphasis placed upon the exchange of courtesies on these occasions between the various members of the diplomatic corps and the public officials of Lima will not be unnoticed. All of these matters suggest an attitude of mind with which we are relatively unfamiliar, but which is to be penetrated and understood if we are to meet our friends of the South upon their own ground.
JACKSON H. RALSTON.
Mein Kriegs-Tagebuch. Vol. I. Das erste Kriegsjahr. By Alfred
H. Fried. Zurich: Max Rascher Verlag. 1918. pp. xxiv, 472.
The author informs us that in August, 1914, he was in the midst of the preparatory labors for the Twenty-First World Peace Congress, which was to have convened in his home city, Vienna, one month later. The outbreak of war was to him, as to so many others, a bolt out of a clear sky. Although long familiar with the conditions making a European conflagration imminent, he could not bring himself to a belief in the actuality. He thus found himself unfit for other work and sought solace in this diary of his daily impressions.
The present volume takes us only through the first year of the war. The author recalls the warnings published in prior years in his peace organ, the Friedens-Warte, and frankly admits that he overrated the elements making for peace. His first analysis of causes leads him to the question of Alsace-Lorraine, and he even ventures a possible solution. He had long maintained that a good understanding between France and Germany was the key to peace in Europe. Later, when the exchange of correspondence between the capitals of Europe begins to appear in the daily press, he alters his opinions on the causes of the war and reaches the conclusion that the Central Empires saw a favorable moment for establishing a technical superiority in arms and at the same time found the Russian military party only too willing to play the game. While these premises are reasonable enough, we fail to understand how they lead him to the conclusion that it is thus a "preventive war.".
Even in the first month, he correctly foresees the intervention of the United States if the war is to continue for any great length of time. He never gives up the hope of a settlement through American mediation, and proposes to the late Edwin Mead, whom he sees in Leipsic, that the nations of North and South America should jointly offer mediation through the instrumentality of the Pan-American Union.
Although parts of the diary seem to have been published in Berlin shortly after they were written, he adopts from the beginning a distinctly critical tone in discussing the attempted justifications of the German and Austrian press. He does not hesitate to point out crucial omissions in the documentary evidence produced relating to Belgium. He condemns unqualifiedly the sinking of the Lusitania. On the other hand, he criticizes, upon legal and moral grounds, the assumption by Great Britain of the right to treat captured submarine crews other than as prisoners of war.
By the Spring of 1915, after removing to Switzerland, he has become convinced of the utter hypocrisy of the governments of the Central Powers. The results of his observations lead him to advocate the elimination of the traditions of feudalism in international relations, the democratization of government, "the internationalization of disputes,” and such changes in the policies of all states as shall harmonize with the needs of international organization.
The material with which he deals is often journalistic, yet he maintains a philosophic point of view. No one will fail to respect the author's impartiality, nor his reverent yearning for the coming of a better day. He is truly a Jeremiah, lamenting the false ideals by which his people have been led to their doom.
ARTHUR K. KUHN.
The Conflict of Laws Relating to Bills and Notes. By Ernest H.
Lorenzen, Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence in the School of Law, Yale University, New Haven: Yale University Press. 1919. pp. 337. $5.00.
The author has rendered a valuable service in collating and sharply contrasting many of the important differences existing under the various judicial systems relating to bills and notes. The three principles of these systems he designates as the French, the German, and the Anglo-American.
The “French" group comprises the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hayti, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Serbia, Turkey, Uruguay.
The “German" group comprises Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela.
So inconvenient have these discrepancies proved in international intercourse that the matter has been deemed worthy of international legislation, and a Uniform Law of Bills and Notes was adopted in 1912 by a conference held at The Hague, which, however, has never been actually ratified even by the Powers signatory thereto.
This proposed Uniform Law our author contrasts with the English Bills of Exchange Act and the American Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act.
If the book contained no more than its excellent presentation of the many sharp contrasts between the Hague Law and the AngloAmerican Laws, it would make a valuable contribution. But this part of the work is merely preliminary to a painstaking analysis and discussion of the differences of opinion prevalent among the various groups before mentioned upon the particular topic of the Conflict of Laws as applied to bills and notes, with pertinent suggestions as to how and to what extent these differences may and ought to be reconciled in the interests of uniformity and the convenience of international commerce.
The book is not light reading, nor intended to be. It is a careful study of a concrete condition which, if not thoroughly worked out, might seriously obstruct international trade, Mr. Lorenzen is to be congratulated on a constructive bit of work which should be of distinct value in helping us to reach sound conclusions upon many of the problems he has discussed.
RALEIGH C. MINOR.
nisin prepareho the Universite public opi
War Book of the University of Wisconsin. By Members of the
Faculty. Madison : University of Wisconsin. 1918. pp. 266.
During the academic year 1917-18 the faculty of the University of Wisconsin prepared a series of articles on the war which were published separately by the University and widely circulated. These articles did much at the time to unite public opinion in Wisconsin and elsewhere in support of the war; and as there has been a continued demand since their first publication, a committee of the faculty has collected the original issues and arranged them in a single volume. In its present form the book traces the steps by which the United States was transformed in less than three years from a peaceful nation to a democracy in arms fighting for its very existence. It is divided into five parts, dealing with the following questions: (1) responsibility for the war; (2) Germany's methods of warfare; (3) the nature and causes of the German militaristic spirit; (4) America's entrance into the war, and finally (5) the fundamental issues of the war.
Since the original articles were published as war pamphlets to influence public opinion in favor of the war, the book in its present form should be judged in the light of its original purpose. The reader, therefore, will regard it not as a presentation of both sides of a great issue, but rather as the plea of advocates who justly felt that their own countrymen had been deceived by foreign propagandists and were not fully alive to the real issues involved. This does not mean that the chapters comprising the volume are not, in general, presented in a fair, painstaking and critical spirit. In fact, the great majority of the papers bear evidence of careful study, a comprehensive grasp of the issues raised, and they are generally well written. As war documents go, it would be difficult to find a clearer or juster statement of our cause. But, as with all war publications, its value is limited by its purpose; and since that purpose is to state the case against Germany, we need not be surprised to find an occasional slip which blurs the facts or at least fails to present a complete statement of the case. For example, on page 20, we read, “In her White Book Germany states positively that she assured Austria that any action which that country might consider it necessary to take toward Servia would meet her approval." This needs qualification. What Germany, according to the document mentioned, actually did say was that she would support Austria in “any action she (Austria) considered necessary to put an end to the movement in Serbia directed against the integrity of the monarchy.” Germany claimed “to be guided in her action only by her duties as an ally.”
Again, on page 173, discussing Treitschke's political theories, we read, “Have they (States) any moral obligations to each other? Treitschke answers distinctively in the negative." It would be interesting to know where Treitschke makes any such statement. No reference is given, but no one can read his “Politics” and come to any such conclusion. It would be difficult to find a modern writer on politics who preaches morality within a state and between states more insistently. He is indeed the apostle of force and power, but he does not advocate the Machiavellian theory of power as the author assumes. In the last chapter of his “Politics" he specifically denies Machiavelli's view of the state: “A state which went upon the theory of despising faith and loyalty would be constantly threatened by enemies and would consequently be unable to fulfil its purpose of being physical power.” While agreeing with Machiavelli that the state is power, Treitschke does not fail to note “the deep immorality of much else in his political teaching.” The following quotations are taken from Balfour's edition of Treitschke and fairly represent Treitschke's views on this point: “It is at once clear that as a great institution for the education of the human race, the state must necessarily be subject to the moral law” (1:89). “We must then admit the validity of the moral law in relation to the state and that it cannot be correct to speak absolutely of collisions between the two" (1:92). “Thus the state cannot disregard with impunity the law to which its moral being is subject" (1:98). “Wisdom is not merely an intellectual, but a moral virtue in the statesman who is responsible for the fate of millions" (1:98).
I call attention to these facts, not so much to criticise the value of the volume under review, for it is comparatively free from such