mentary problem Grotius contends that prima facie the sea is open to all people whomsoever and for the purpose of commerce with all people whomsoever. As the headings of two of the chapters put the matter: "Jure gentium quibusvis od quosvis liberam esse navigationem" and "Jure gentium inter quosvis liberam esse mercaturam." Those two chapters (I and VIII) contain passages capable of use to-day, and so does the preliminary address "Ad principes populosque liberos orbis Christiani.” The other parts are of more temporary interest, as they deal with the details of a controversy between the Portuguese and the Dutch on Dutch rights of commerce with the East Indies. Yet even these more specialized passages are worthy of being examined as specimens of Grotius' method, especially as his more famous treatise De Jure Belli ac Pacis is so voluminous as to discourage even the few who care to read old books. The Mare Liberum, though short, gives adequate knowledge of the use which Grotius made of ethical reasoning and of quotations from the Bible, the Greek and Latin classics, and the literature of the Middle Ages.

Grotius' Latin is impressive, and no translation can take its place; but, like all modern Latinists, Grotius was compelled to use words seldom or never found in the classics, and hence the parallel English version is welcome.

The introduction by Dr. Scott gives the historical background for the dissertation, and explains that half a century ago the dissertation was discovered to be a revision of the then unpublished treatise De Jure Prædæ, and that, according to some experts, both this short dissertation and that larger treatise may have owed their existence to some employment of Grotius by the Dutch East India Company.

EUGENE WAMBAUGH.

The Law of Contraband of War. By H. Reason Pyke. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. 1915. pp. xl, 314.

It is seldom that a book which is timely-especially if it be a law book-is thoroughly and carefully prepared. Mr. Pyke's study of the law of contraband is an exception. Of its timeliness there can be no question. There is no other branch of international law which upon the outbreak of war becomes of such general interest to the commercial states of the world, whether belligerent or neutral, as does the law of contraband. The exercise by belligerents of rights over neutral property

which are conceded to them by international law impresses upon neutrals the fact that no nation lives to itself alone and that the commerce of states which are not parties to a war may be seriously affected thereby. It is in connection with the subject of contraband also that the most serious diplomatic controversies between belligerent and neutral states are likely to arise since the interests of the two groups are in direct conflict. There has been no important war in the last three centuries in which complaint has not been made that the belligerent in the exercise of his right to prevent supplies of war material from reaching his enemy was infringing the rights of neutrals. Mr. Pyke states in bold language the principle which governs the attitude of belligerents. "As long as war exists between the great Powers, neutral interests must continue to be subordinated to the exigencies of the belligerents." This is unpalatable doctrine to a neutral, but it is the doctrine to which every maritime neutral, when belligerent, has appealed.

The comprehensiveness of Mr. Pyke's study is apparent from his table of contents. After showing that the idea of contraband is as old as the wars of the Greeks and Romans, and then tracing the development of its principles down to our own day, he discusses the position of neutral governments with respect to contraband and the relation of the neutral individual to contraband trade, the dependence of contraband upon destination, the doctrine of continuous voyage, the means by which belligerents may interfere with the carriage of contraband, the penalty for engaging in its carriage, the treatment of contraband in the Declaration of London and the principles followed in the course of the Great War. Appended to the text are several important documents, the Declaration of London with the General Report of the Drafting Committee, the Orders in Council adopting the Declaration, the Contraband Proclamations of the British Government, the Circular of the American Department of State as to Neutrality and Trade in Contraband, and the Order in Council framing Reprisals against Germany. A feature of the book of particular value is the bibliography, which occupies eighteen closely printed pages and is probably the most complete bibliography of the subject in the English language.

In so small a book-there are only 255 pages of text-the author is justified in imposing severe limitations upon himself. He confines his work in the main to a statement of what the law is without attempting to indicate what the law ought to be. In his discussions of the origin and development of existing rules, however, he frequently indicates the

1

line of future development. His chapter on continuous voyage, for instance, was written, as stated in the preface, before Sir Samuel Evans' famous judgment in The Kim, L. R. [1915] p. 215; 1 but it is plain that that case was decided as Mr. Pyke thinks that it should have been, and in that opinion the present writer begs to concur. In his treatment of the relation of prize courts to municipal law, which is an accurate statement of the law as it existed at the time of writing, there is nothing to foreshadow the opinion of the Privy Council in the case of The Zamora, L. R. [1916], 2 A. C. 77.2 Mr. Pyke seems to think that the American Government was over-scrupulous as to its neutral obligations in forbidding the exportation of submarines in sections. This is one of the few instances in which he betrays the fact that he is writing from the standpoint of a subject of a belligerent country. The letter quoted on page 73 and said to be a reply to a protest from France in 1796 was a reply made to the British Minister in 1793. See Moore, Digest, VII, 955. The references to Moore and Taylor in note 1 on page 73 are erroneous. But these are small blemishes in a thoroughly commendable treatment of a difficult and important subject.

LAWRENCE B. EVANS.

America's Foreign Relations. By Willis Fletcher Johnson. New York: The Century Company. 1916. 2 vols. pp. xii, 551, vii, 485. $6.00. Several years ago there appeared two volumes treating the general field of American diplomatic history, both by experts in diplomacy and international law. There were still needed an authoritative volume suitable for a college text and a more popular treatise for the general reader. The first need was partially met by a recent book, designed to be "comprehensive and balanced-a condensation of ascertained conclusions," by a college professor trained in the teaching of American history. The second need is largely met by the two copious volumes before us, prepared primarily for the average lay citizen by a welltrained veteran newspaper editorial writer, who is also well known as the author of A Century of Expansion and Four Centuries of the Panama Canal.

Through observations of a lifetime largely given to the study of foreign relations, Mr. Johnson is persuaded that this most important

1 Printed in this JOURNAL, October, 1915 (Vol. 9), p. 979.

2 Ibid., April, 1916 (Vol. 10), p. 422.

field of American history is most neglected and most misunderstood. He writes to meet the need for a wider knowledge of the origin and development of American international relationships and principles of foreign policy. His chief aim is to direct the "self-centered and circumscribed" American people from an "excess of adulatory introspection sometimes smug and sometimes highfaluting self-complacency and lack of appreciative perspective" in viewing world affairs, to cure them of their "bigoted parochial egotism," and to inspire them with a more adequate and accurate conception of their true relations with other nations. He shows in perspective the relation of America to the world, indicating permanent American policies.

The dominant quality of the narrative is the vivid interest which it awakens and sustains in the reader. It is agreeable in style. It gives illuminating views of political conditions which explain or affect diplomatic relations; and, while visualizing in perspective the larger affairs, it does not lose the outlines of individual characters and ambitions. It is also written with the spirit of candor and impartiality. Its facts are not diluted with mere sentiment. And yet, the author may interpolate his judgment. Occasionally he is somewhat extravagant, as when he states that we owe to Frederick the Great the principle that "free ships make free goods." (Vol. I, p. 23.)

The materials of each chapter are usually well organized. Minor events are grouped as subordinate factors of larger events or movements. The arrangement is topical and logical rather than chronological. In a few instances, the location of minor topics could have been improved and occasionally the connection is not clear. Several important topics or phases have been slighted. In the decade from 1850 to 1860 more than a short paragraph might properly have been given to Mexican relations, and other Latin American relations deserve more mention.

Of the twenty chapters in Volume I, the first five treat the beginnings to 1783, the second five cover the period from 1783 to 1815, the third five trace the chief topics in the period extending approximately to 1850, and the last five are devoted approximately to the decade closing in 1860, including Isthmian interests, early Eastern relations, the opening of Japan, early relations with Hawaii, and some cases of vigorous selfassertion. Volume II begins with Chapters XXI and XXII on the Civil War, and closes with Chapters XXXV and XXXVI on the settlements and unsettlements of the twentieth century, and war and peace and arbitration. Especially valuable is Chapter XXIX on "Latin

American neighbors," treating principally the settlement of disputes arising from claims, and mediation and arbitration in various controversies.

The author emphasizes the "prenatal influences" resulting from the fundamental fact that the United States was the "offspring of Great Britain," and the additional significant fact that colonial development was coincident with European international intrigues and rivalriesthat America was "founded and Anglicised because of European complications."

In treating the beginning of American policies under the weak Confederation, he states that the only chief good achievement in foreign relations was the adoption (in Franklin's treaty with Prussia) of the high and advanced principle of neutrality in naval warfare-which later became established as an important precedent.

In considering the organization of an efficient department of foreign affairs and the establishment of principles of diplomatic intercourse under the Constitution, to begin anew under "troublous conditions" the task of cultivating foreign relationships, he gives the chief credit to Jay, Hamilton and Washington. For leadership in seeking a better plan of central government which could avert foreign dangers and solve foreign problems, and for his later judicial decision that international law is a part of the common law of nations, he gives great credit to Jay who knew by experience the disastrous inefficiency of the conduct of foreign affairs under the incompetent Confederation. For impressing upon the State Department the two later triumphant principles of continental territorial expansion and international arbitration (or adjudication) he gives credit to Hamilton. The greater credit, however, he gives to Washington, who read the entire record of foreign transactions of the Confederation, who was in a notable degree his own Secretary of State, who had extraordinary vision and judgment in viewing the great movements of the world, and who had a sound common sense in diplomacy which enabled him to keep the young republic "free from the tail of the French diplomatic kite" and to lay the foundation of our foreign policy and practice on the principle of keeping disengaged from European policies and wars.

To Jefferson he gives credit for one "great landmark of American diplomacy," the statement in 1790 that "we should contemplate a change of neighbors with extreme uneasiness" and that "a balance of power on our borders is not less desirable to us than a balance of power