Page images

penheim, of the University of Cambridge, England, to be written by well known English authorities and including disquisitions upon private international law, diplomatic history, international conventions and third states, and the laws and procedure of diplomatic practice. It is fortunate that the war, though it postponed the other volumes of the series, did not deter the author from completing and the editor from publishing this really valuable work on the last named topic by so skilful and undoubted a scholar as Sir Ernest Satow has long been known to be. A career of nearly a half-century in the consular and diplomatic services of Great Britain, from his beginning as a student interpreter and later Japanese secretary of legation amid the stirring scenes following the opening of Japan to the world, through his rise to consul-general and minister resident at the capitals of Siam and Uruguay and to envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary successively in Morocco, Japan, and China, to his appointment as second delegate of Great Britain to the Second Hague Peace Conference, has given Sir Ernest a ripe experience born of contact with many races and peoples and in all grades of that branch of the public service which he here so ably discusses. A student of language and institutions and a prolific writer of scholarly articles to learned publications of the Far East, his taste and mind are admirably adapted to the research and compilation, and literary requirements, necessary to produce a comprehensive and at the same time interesting manual on diplomatic procedure. This subject appears to a public outside of the service itself and of students of international relations a rather dull and prosaic business, overcrowded with a minutia of detail and conducted by a rather worthless class of élite and polished gentlemen who cost the government a great deal but render very little service to it worth while. Had works of this kind been accessible to and perused by some of our Congressmen and newspaper editors and correspondents from the eighteen-sixties down, perhaps our State Department and our foreign service might have fared better in the financial and other support accorded it than has been the fact in our history. The immensely enlarged international duties and privileges of the United States of late years, and particularly since its government has put its whole moral and physical weight behind the upholding of established international law and right, and the expansion of its doctrines of international justice and good behavior, demand a large welcome by our reading public of all works, such as this, in the English language, which make accessible and simple to the uninformed layman, as well as to the student, matters hitherto technical and buried in manuals in a foreign tongue beyond the ken or interest of the generality. If any part of our government machinery deserves not only due but enlarged support and expansion by Congress when we shall have come to a time of peace, it is certainly the efficient and overworked Department of State of the United States, and we believe our legislators will recognize from the services it and its agents have rendered to the entire world in this war the justice of any demand for their favor.

The first volume of the work under review treats in twenty-four chapters of the formal organization, procedure, rules of courtesy, precedence, titles, honors, et cetera, belonging to states, sovereigns and their direct representatives in international relations; to the language and forms of diplomatic intercourse, credentials and full powers; the appointment, acceptance and dismissal of diplomatic agents, their immunities and duties as regards their own state and the state to which they are accredited, and their relation to third states; the diplomatic body and its rules; the right of legation; and it also includes wholesome and sagacious counsel to diplomatists.

In the second volume, which contains nine chapters, an epilogue, three appendixes and a rather extensive index, the author considers the various kinds of international meetings, such as the more important congresses and conferences between states; and international transactions, like treaties and other compacts such as conventions, acte final, declaration, protocol, procès-verbal, exchange of notes, réversales, compromis d'arbitrage, modus vivendi, ratification, adhesion, accession, et cetera, and the larger diplomatic processes of good offices, mediation and arbitration. He has appended some sixteen pages of bibliography of useful works in the language of their first printing, with some intelligent discussion of the leading works in international law and diplomacy designed to be of service to junior members of the diplomatic service.

Though one hesitates to criticize in any respect so welcome and valuable an addition to the meager literature in English on this subject, the volumes are open to a very serious objection from the viewpoint of the general reader and the undergraduate student who may not have an extensive linguistic equipment. The author unfortunately offers no translation or paraphrase to somewhat extensive quotations of illustrative matter not only in French, which might easily be excused in a work on diplomacy, but also in German, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. In a work which will be chiefly used by English and American readers it would seem better, if there was any need to include a note or a document in its original language, to preserve any nice distinction of meaning, that a translation should have been given by the author, who could thus present the exact conception intended to be conveyed by the writer of the document. In the large majority of these cases, however, the discussion in English is sufficiently lucid and connected to enable the reader to minimize the loss of any matter which he may have difficulty in accurately translating for himself, but this will probably not relieve him of some sense of irritation for the needless pains he has been put to. Perhaps, also, in some places, more historical and reminiscent matter has been introduced than is strictly necessary in a technical work; but to many this feature will add to the interest of the volumes as it is often of the nature of “case" material. For any work of this scope, however, to give a “chapter" of only a brief section less than a single page to the great subject of arbitration, particularly in this modern era of the expansion of the modes of diplomacy and the growth of doctrines of conciliation and arbitral procedure dispensing with the need for diplomacy, seems inexplicable except on the grounds of a very strict and narrow concept of diplomacy and its definition. Something could have been included to show the relation of arbitration to the old conservative and technical modes of international action in strict diplomacy without at all entering upon a discussion of the details and methods of arbitral procedure in action.

Sir Ernest is by no means a pessimist, though his work has been done during a war in which Germany has made such serious but foolish attempts to destroy the whole fabric of international rights and procedure. With a faith based on experience and knowledge, he sees the expansion of international law from the local thing that it was at the time of the Thirty Years' War, and since in its limitation to the so-called “Christian” nations of Europe, to all embracing rules of international conduct for all the states of the world, the recognized “public law of the civilized universe," as he puts it. He did not foresee the part that America was to take in internationalism by the application of both its diplomatic and military force, but he realizes the beneficial influence and prominence of diplomacy in creating this system, and the enlarged importance of the function of the diplomatist, whose office at home and abroad is in American theory and practice, and as he conceives it, "to promote the welfare and happiness of other nations as well as his own, and to keep the honor of his country άσπιλος και αμώμητος."

The make-up and the mechanical execution of the work by the publishers is all that could be desired.


The President's Control of Foreign Relations. By Edward S. Corwin, Ph.D. Princeton : University Press. 1917.

pp. vi, 216. $1.50.

This volume is a collection of historical incidents and discussions bearing on the powers of the President in the conduct of foreign relations, about three-fourths of the text being made up of quotations. There is a brief introduction in which the author quotes the sections of the Constitution pertinent to the subject. He points out that, although these grants of power do not by any means cover the whole field, the power of the national government in the control of foreign relations is both plenary and exclusive. This plenary control is, however, shared by three branches of the government: Congress, the President and the Senate.

The body of the book is divided into three parts. Part I is devoted to the controversy on the relative powers of the President and Congress that took place early in our history between “Pacificus” (Hamilton) and “Helvidius” (Madison). Hamilton held that the conduct of foreign relations was in its nature an executive function, and that the possession by Congress of the power to declare war, and similar powers, did not diminish the discretion of the President in the exercise of the powers constitutionally belonging to him. Madison was inclined to underrate the claims of the executive power' and to give greater prominence to the war powers of Congress. A somewhat similar debate between Senator Bacon of Georgia and Senator Spooner of Wisconsin took place early in 1906 as the result of Roosevelt's interpretation of the treaty-making power in the negotiation of the “agreement” with the Dominican Republic, and this debate is reproduced at length in Part III.

In Part II the author discusses the general scope of “executive power,” and the conflicts arising from the possession of concurrent powers by different departments of the government. While the President may make treaties “with the advice and consent of the Senate," it lies entirely within his discretion whether he will ask or accept that advice during the period of negotiation, and even after the Senate has given its advice in the form of an amendment the President is free to ratify it or not as he pleases. Again, while Congress has the constitutional power to declare war, the President takes the initiative in formulating diplomatic policies and he may commit the country to a policy which will lead inevitably to war, although no President has ever gone this far without satisfying himself that he would be sustained by public opinion.

The author holds that, in the words of Jefferson, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is executive altogether,” but that Congress is not to be prejudiced constitutionally in the exercise of its powers by what the Executive has already done in the exercise of his. “Judicially enforceable constitutional limitations," he says, “do not, generally speaking, obtain in the field of the diplomatic powers of the Government. The result is that the construction of these powers has fallen principally to those who wield them, and so has not erred on the side of strictness; and furthermore, that as between the organs of government sharing these powers, that organ which possesses unity and is capable of acting with greatest expedition, secrecy and fullest knowledge-in short, with greatest efficiency -has obtained the major participation. Nor can it be reasonably doubted that these results have proved beneficial. At the same time, they counsel the maintenance in full vigor of the political check on a power so little susceptible of legal control.”

On page 80 the author makes a serious slip in stating that the resolution of 1898 demanding the withdrawal of Spain from Cuba recognized the so-called Republic of Cuba. The minority report of the Senate Committee did, it is true, favor this, and their recommendation was embodied in the Senate resolution, but the House resolution merely declared that the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent." The Senate finally gave way and the House resolution prevailed.

In discussing the Senate's share in the exercise of the treatymaking power, the author fails to note the interesting fact that in

« PreviousContinue »