men. International law has no such aid, and no such fetters. It preserves its elasticity at the cost of precision (p. 79).

Mr. Roxburgh draws a distinction between international law and universal international law. The latter is the natural and almost necessary result of the former, but it is not identical with it. The Declaration of Paris may now fairly be deemed a part of international law, but the refusal to accede to it for so many years by the United States and Spain made it something less than universal. Spain's final adhesion has hastened the end, and it is not probable that the United States will much longer isolate herself from the civilized world in claiming the right to reintroduce privateering (pp. 92-94). The situation would have been the same had the sole nonassenting Power been, not the United States, but the weakest of independent nations (p. 103).

Westlake's theory of "Imperfect Rights" Mr. Roxburgh rejects (p. 99). A right, conditioned or unconditioned, must, as to a stranger to a contract (within the limits of the condition if any), be absolute, or it is nothing.

The author would put in a class by themselves, as "International Settlements," treaties between the leading Powers, intended to be of binding force upon or in favor of the whole "International Community." If the nonsignatory Powers abide by such a treaty, and come to believe that it is so binding on them by international law, then it is so binding upon them and is international law (p. 82). The cause of its being such is the effect of considering it such; though this may have no better foundation than a mistake of what constitutes a legal obligation. Here again the notion of the unity of the Family of Nations is invoked to support the doctrine for which the author contends (p. 84).

International rivers form a natural subject for its application. "The widespread conviction that today free navigation is postulated by an universal international rule is strong evidence that where free navigation is already enjoyed, it is enjoyed of right apart from treaty" (p. 88).

International servitudes are briefly discussed, and their character as, if anything, being rights in rem, sharply distinguished from rights. by contract, though these be real rights (p. 106). International leases the author regards, when either party subsequently is at war with a third state, as amounting, for the purposes of the war, to a transfer of sovereignty to the lessee (p. 110).

The book is clearly thought out and well arranged. There is little of repetition, and the author confines himself closely to his immediate subject. He has, however, some favorite turns of expression which he makes pets of. Anson, in his Law of Contracts, quotes from the year books the phrase that "the devil himself knows not the thought of men." The quaintness of this statement makes the author repeat it twice, with a solemn reference each time to his authority for it (pp. 48, 79). So he reiterates half a dozen times the maxim of modernized Roman law, Pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt, but makes no reference to the more definite statement of the nec nocent rule in the Digest, II, 14; de pactis, 1, 27. § 4.

SIMEON E. BALDWIN.

War in Disguise; or the Frauds of the Neutral Flags. By James Stephen. 1805. Reprinted from the third edition. Edited by Sir Francis Piggott, with an introduction by John Leyland. London: University of London Press. 1917. pp. xxxiv, 215. 6s. net.

It does not often happen that a book of permanent value, written by one of the prominent lawyers of the day and which passes through three editions at home and two editions abroad within five months of publication, is so completely lost sight of by succeeding generations as has been the case with James Stephen's War in Disguise. When Sir Francis Piggott undertook the present publication of it, so rare had copies of the third English edition become that it was impossible to obtain one for the use of the printer, and it was necessary to photograph the copy in the British Museum.

The interest of the present generation in the personal history of James Stephen is enhanced by the fact that he is the ancestor of Edward and Albert Venn Dicey and of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, and the brother-in-law of Wilberforce, in whose agitation against the slave trade he bore an active part. His interest in that subject had been aroused by his experience as a practitioner at the Bar of the West Indies, where he also had opportunity to witness the use made of neutral flags as a means of covering contraband trade. When he took up his residence in London as a practitioner before the Prize Court, he could speak of the Rule of 1756 and of the doctrine of continuous voyage with a full knowledge of the commercial transactions which brought that rule and doctrine into existence. He was largely re

sponsible for the Orders in Council of 1807, and the pamphlet now reprinted, which issued from the press on the day that Trafalgar was fought, was a defense of the principles upon which the policy of the British Government toward neutral trade with the enemy was based. The influence of the work upon English thought and policy was thus stated by Lord Brougham: "It is impossible to speak too highly of this work, or to deny its signal success in making the nation for a time thoroughly believe in the justice and efficacy of his Order in Council."

In his thoughtful introduction to the present edition, Sir Francis Piggott points out that one of the great merits of Stephen's pamphlet was his clear exposition of the principle upon which belligerent interference with neutral trade, whether by blockading the enemy or by the capturing of contraband, is based. There is no particular magic in the term "blockade," or even "effective blockade," or in the term "contraband." These are simply two examples of the principle that a belligerent is justified in preventing a neutral from rendering any assistance to his enemy. If the neutral devises means of assisting the enemy which are not covered by the long-established rules of blockade and contraband, it must be expected that the belligerent will prove equally inventive in devising means to counteract such assistance. The present war has furnished many examples of this.

Since the beginning of the present war there have been many illfounded statements as to the new situations which have arisen, and which will necessitate the re-formulation of the rules of international law. An examination, however, of the principles involved will show that the difference between the legal questions arising in the present war and those in previous wars are more superficial than real. The prize decisions made during the past three years by Sir Samuel Evans and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council follow very closely the lines laid down by Lord Stowell, and a reader of Stephen's pamphlet might easily believe that his statements with regard to the commercial policy of the enemy and the attitude of the United States as a neutral applied to the first years of the present conflict.

Sir Francis Piggott has rendered an excellent service by the republication of this pamphlet, which he has made easy to use by his notes and by his excellent introduction. The short study contributed by John Leyland entitled "1805" helps to visualize the situation in which the pamphlet was written.

LAWRENCE B. EVANS.

Die Völkerrechtliche Stellung des Papstes und die Friedenskonferenzen. By Dr. Joseph Müller. N. Y.: Benziger Bros. 1916. pp. xvi, 235.

As a result of considerable experience, we have learned to be somewhat wary of German books on historical, political, or religious subjects which profess to be written in an objektive or impartial spirit and with an eye single to wissentshaftliche interests.

The book under review is no exception to this rather general rule. Like most German works of this sort, it purports to be an impartial, scientific study and is furnished with all the familiar paraphernalia of German erudition in the way of footnotes, bibliography, and an appendix containing much documentary material (very useful, if not too carefully selected for the author's purpose).

Die Völkerrechtliche Stellung des Papstes is really a plea (an argument if one wished to dignify it by that name) in favor of the restoration of temporal power to the Pope and of the participation (or rather leadership) of His Holiness in the establishment and maintenance of peace in a war-weary world. It seems that the temporal power is essential to the exercise of the Pope's spiritual functions, being necessary in order that he may act independently of other princes, Powers, or potentates.

A considerable section of the work is devoted to an account of the relations between the Vatican and the Quirinal, especially in connection with the events of 1870. But the most remarkable part of the book is perhaps that which exposes the reasons why the temporal power of the Pope should be restored and His Holiness called upon to mediate a peace between the warring nations. These are to be found mainly in his lack of partisanship, his moral authority throughout the world, and a policy of neutrality in the midst of Teutonic horrors and excesses which is hard to reconcile with the high moral aims claimed for him. Then, too, was he not complimented in the German Reichstag for securing an exchange of prisoners; was the Papal delegate not well received in Tokyo; did His Holiness not promise to restore to the Belgians the library destroyed at Louvain; has not even the Mohammedan press praised him; have not Latin-American States on occasion chosen him as arbitrator of their disputes; and did not the AustroHungarian Ambassador declare in 1877 that his government was dissatisfied with the Law of Guarantees of 1870?

Surely such evidences of popularity and esteem should not pass

unrewarded. Have not the misguided Socialists and the wicked Free Masons failed in their misdirected efforts to establish international peace? Why not try Pope Benedict?

AMOS S. HERSHEY.

L'Italia e l'Austria in Guerra. By Professor Enrico Catellani. Firenze: G. Barbèra. 1917. pp. 136. Lire, 2.50.

Professor Catellani's pamphlet was published, so the author states in the preface, to combat the common impression that in their methods of waging war the Austrians are less barbarous than their allies. It differs from most of the many recent pamphlets on "atrocities" in that scholarly and conservative reasoning is combined with simple and popular style. The clarity of thought, the simplicity of grammatical construction, and the absence of the labored style often found in Italian legal discussions makes this pamphlet easy reading even for those who read ordinary Italian only with difficulty.

The principal topics taken up by Professor Catellani are Italy's justification for the declaration of war upon Austria, methods and instrumentalities for waging war, the treatment of prisoners and wounded, the government of occupied territory, and reprisals. There is practically no discussion of legal principles, the author confining his work to the relation of breaches of unquestioned laws and customs of war and of the conventions of The Hague. Many of the acts related would have caused mental shock to readers four years ago; at the present time they would not arouse particular interest, since they are not in kind different from those related of the Germans time and again in our newspapers and periodicals. The evidence is merely cumulative. There is the same use of gas, the same use of expanding and explosive bullets, the same unnecessary bombardment of hospitals and undefended cities, the same destruction of merchant ships by submarines without warning, the same use of noncombatants as shields against attack, the same simulated surrender, the same ill treatment of wounded, the same refusal of quarter, the same levies and requisitions upon territory temporarily occupied, and the same sack and pillage. The author further complains of the needless killing of the wounded and the killing of unarmed prisoners after the acceptance of their surrender and the close of the combat.

Professor Catellani's pamphlet is now particularly timely in view of