« ПретходнаНастави »
and commerce was made. The peculiar character of the Republic made it necessary for Holland to determine her attitude towards those typically South American conceptions known as the Drago and Calvo Doctrines, which find in Venezuela a champion, owing to the occasionally disturbed internal conditions.
The lack of treaties made it possible for Venezuela to resort to numerous and far-reaching instances of retorsion directed against the commerce of Curaçao, to which in 1908 the Netherlands retaliated.
The peculiar international relations with Venezuela led further to collective diplomatic proceedings on the part of the Powers, including the Netherlands, and to naval measures on the Dutch side, of a nature as is not usual towards other states. In case measures of a coercive nature were taken against Venezuela, the application of the Monroe Doctrine complicated the situation, and had to be taken into consideration.
On the other hand, to balance these proceedings against Venezuela, mention must be made of Netherland measures taken exclusively in the interests of the Republic: i.e., the expulsion of aliens from Curaçao at the request of the government of the other country, and the suppression, on a wider scale than would be strictly necessary, of the traffic in war materials.
E. N. VAN KLEFFENS.
Vom Eingreifen Amerikas bis zum Zusammenbruch. By Karl Helfferich.
Berlin: Ullstein & Co., 1919. pp. 658.
This is the third and last volume of the author's work entitled Der Weltkrieg, and covers the period after the decision to wage unrestricted submarine war. In view of the author's position as Minister of the Exchequer during the war, and his almost constant employment in political negotiations, it is not surprising that instead of a general presentation of world events with a due regard to proportion, we have before us rather a detailed and fairly connected narrative of German parliamentary crises and internal conditions as influenced incidentally by the external situation. Even from this limited standpoint, however, the book is instructively corroborative that “dieser Wilson" (page 360) did not err in his estimate of the autocratic power of the military caste who unmade Chancellors (page 126, von Bethmann) and named their successors (page 131, Michaelis) and decided other larger internal political questions. They met their defeat as parliamentary masters on July 19, 1917, when the Reichstag, over their protest (pages 128-130) adopted the peace resolution. To this act, and particularly to the “monstrous” conduct of Erzberger in proposing it, the author attributes the repulse of the Pope's efforts for peace in the summer of 1917 by the Allies and their will to fight on, because they now inferred that “the Central Powers were face to face with internal collapse” (page 580). "The seed sown in July, 1917, brought its fateful crop in November, 1918” (page 153). This sentence contains the thesis of the book.
Whilst it is free of open rancor towards Germany's “pitiless foes," it is a book of a German for Germans—some Germans. It closes with a quotation from Treitschke.
GEORGE C. BUTTE.
Etudes sur l'Occupation Allemande en Belgique. By Albert Henry. Brus
sels: J. Lebègue & Co. pp. 464.
L'Euvre du Comité National de Secours et d'Alimentation pendant la
Guerre. By Albert Henry. Brussels : J. Lebègue & Co. pp. 361.
Referring to the books above described, Cardinal Mercier, who writes a preface for the second volume, informs us that the author was SecretaryGeneral of the Comité National de secours et d'alimentation during the recent war and wrote the first-named volume as a witness and the second as an informed agent, courageous and tenacious in the service of an undertaking which saved the lives of the Belgian people and powerfully contributed to sustain its morale.
The first volume, relating to the German occupation in Belgium, opens with a spirited review of the conduct of the Germans and certain Flemish associates sympathetic with them in furthering the cause of Germany. This is followed by a history of the deportation of Belgian workmen to Germany, including a narrative of the protestations and interventions of neutral Powers with relation thereto. The condition of Belgian agriculture during the war is discussed, and the work closes with a history of the National Committee.
The second volume above referred to covers the work of the National Committee, and includes a glance at the historical situation of Belgium before the formation of the committee, then describing the difficulties of the committee's problem; its Belgian organizers; the assistance of neutrals; the struggles with the enemy, and the work of American Commission for Relief. The problems connected with the importation and distribution of supplies and the work of manufacturing under the supervision of the National Committee are dealt with at large. The details of the granting of relief to those in various positions, as, for instance, out-ofwork families of those in the army, children, those discharged from the hospitals, etc., receive detailed attention. The general policy of the committee is also discussed at large.
With our point of view, we appreciate the tribute paid to the American Commission for its labors and the frank recognition of the value of the work of Mr. Hoover and Mr. Brand Whitlock. The personal picture given of Mr. Hoover is not without its interest. The writer says:
Mr. Hoover possesses in a high degree the theatrical art, and he loves to look beyond the end sought so as to be sure of reaching it. Each time that he arrived in Belgium during the occupation, the Germans feared bombs of which, according to Monsieur Francqui, he always had his pockets full. How many times these bombs constrained them to yield upon points to which they had theretofore offered an irreducible resistance! Notwithstanding the coldness of his demeanor, which accentuates his truly American phlegm, Mr. Hoover, according to those who know him intimately, has a heart of gold.
Cardinal Mercier speaks of Brand Whitlock as a man of exquisite sensibility, personified uprightness, and an intelligence open to the most elevated problems of the moral conscience, displaying toward Belgium a profound sympathy and a constant desire to render aid.
The volumes, which may be considered complementary to each other, offer interesting and valuable views of the Belgian situation during the war.
JACKSON H. RALSTON.
eleven pages.cut son of “The sea legal turn,
Collected Legal Papers. By Oliver Wendell Holmes. New York: Har
court, Brace & Howe. 1920.
The collection has been made by Mr. Harold J. Laski, to whom Mr. Justice Holmes, in a brief but characteristic preface, expresses “thanks for gathering these little fragments of my fleece that I have left upon the hedges of life.”
There are twenty-eight papers and addresses, starting with one on “Early English Equity” which appeared in the Law Quarterly Review of London in 1885, and ending with one on “Natural Law," which was printed in the Harvard Law Review in 1918. The papers are brief, they average about eleven pages each. They are written with autocratic assurance, as becomes the brilliant son of “The Autocrat." They have, as might be expected, quite as much a literary as a legal turn, and by no means avoid paradox. There is a light touch, unusual and exotic erudition and somewhat of philosophy. None of the topics strictly belong to international law, and it is not a branch with which Mr. Justice Holmes has been especially identified, as he has been with comparative law.
Perhaps the two papers which are most interesting to the international lawyer, simply because of their topics, are those on Montesquieu (1900) and John Marshall (1901). The former appeared as an introduction to a reprint of the Esprit des Lois in 1900. In Montesquieu, Justice Holmes finds a congenial spirit, for, as he says, “Montesquieu was a man of the world and a man of Esprit,” and he places him “in the canonical succession of the high priests of thought." He quotes with full appreciation Montesquieu's saying that the society of women spoils our morals and forms our taste, and again that “he never had a sorrow which an hour's reading would not dispel.” Montesquieu was an international wit, scholar and critic, as his Lettres Persanes evidence no less than his Esprit des Lois. He was internationally accepted, and he noticed with pleasure that the sale of wine from his vineyards was increased in England by the publication of his great work. Justice Holmes says of him:
He was a precursor of political economy. He was the precursor of Burke when Burke seems a hundred years ahead of his time. The Frenchmen tell us that he was a precursor of Rousseau. He was an authority for the writers of the Federalist. He influenced and, to a great extent, started scientific theory in its study of societies, and he hardly less influenced practice in legislation, from Russia to the United States. His book had a dazzling success at the moment, and since then probably has done as much to remodel the world as any product of the eighteenth century, which burned so many forests and sowed so many fields . . . and this was the work of a lonely scholar sitting in a library.
This is high praise when we remember that the French Revolution, the Revolution of the Thirteen Colonies, the Constitution of the United States, Rousseau, Voltaire, Goethe, Burke, Pitt, Fox, Adam Smith, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Marshall, all were products of the eighteenth century. However, considerable kindly latitude is allowed to a preface and to a grave-stone.
It is for us to remember that the Esprit des Lois is a work often cited by the great writers on international law, at least in the past. Thus our own classic in international law, Wheaton, writes “Montesquieu, in his Esprit des Lois, says that every nation has a law of nations-even the Iroquois, who eat their prisoners, have one. They send and receive ambassadors; they know the laws of war and peace; the evil is, that their law of nations is not founded upon true principles,”—which may be admitted, even if we are progressing toward the same principles.
Sir Robert Phillimore quotes him in his compendious Commentaries on International Law no less than thirteen times, Calvo twice, Taylor twice, etc. As precedents and authorities have increased, writers on international law quote Homer and Theocritus, Virgil and Horace less often than in former generations and they likewise pass over the Esprit des Lois.
Montesquieu found general causes, moral or physical, for the grandeur and decadence of nations, and was among the earlier observers and recorders of such causes. Every one has been his follower, and later writers have had much more exact and abundant facts but none have excelled in wit.
The paper on John Marshall is simply Mr. Justice Holmes's remarks from the bench on February 4, 1901. That was the hundredth anniversary of the day on which Marshall took his seat as Chief Justice. It was kept by concerted action as “John Marshall Day” all over the country, a fine
lesson in respect for great minds and patriotic service. The five pages which Mr. Justice Holmes prints are his observations in answer to a motion that the court adjourn.
He expressed a wish, which is often apparent in his utterances, “to see things and people judged by more cosmopolitan standards," saying very finely “A man is bound to be parochial in his practice—to give his life, and if necessary his death, for the place where he has his roots. But his thinking should be cosmopolitan and detached. He should be able to criti. cise what he reveres and loves." He doubts whether “Marshall's work proved more than a strong intellect, a good style, personal ascendency in his court, courage, justice and the convictions of his party."
Perhaps, if Mr. Beveridge's vivifying life of the great Chief Justice with its four volumes of splendid vindication, had then been published and had made plain the long unfaltering labors and achievement of Marshall and the vast effect of those labors on the development of our government, the estimate might have been more wholly generous, and the words of diminution might have been stricken out; but before he closed and declared “the court will now adjourn," Justice Holmes spoke some words of great breadth of view, justice and significance. He said:
The setting aside of this day in honor of a great judge may stand to a Virginian for the glory of his glorious State; to a patriot for the fact that time has been on Marshall's side, and that the theory for which Hamilton argued, and he decided, and Webster spoke, and Grant fought, and Lincoln died, is now our cornerstone. To the more abstract but farther reaching contemplation of the lawyer, it stands for the rise of a new body of jurisprudence, by which guiding principles are raised above the reach of statute and state, and judges are entrusted with a solemn and hitherto unheard-of authority and duty.
The little volume of collected legal papers could have come from no American jurist except Justice Holmes. They will do quite as much with the bar to maintain his intellectual reputation as his official opinions, and they will do far more with the public.
CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY.
A New Principle of International Law. By A. M. M. Montijn, LL.D.
The Hague: Belinfante Brothers. 1919. pp. 56.
This pamphlet, devoted to the cause of lasting peace, is an appeal to a new arbiter and servant of man, science, and to a new science, AnthropoGeography. The author reviews the various projects and programs, from the time of ancient Greece down through Roosevelt to the very present moment, for the prevention of war, only to find them all futile “so long as the states persist in the principle of their unlimited sovereignty ... there can be no question of even the slightest possible organization amongst them."