done, practically without comment, is to present them simply as raw material with the critical analysis still to be performed. It would seem that in digesting the remarkably rich collections in this work, two questions might be held in mind: what principles of international law guided the conquerer in the administration of acquired territory; and then, what effect, if any, did the legislation made during such occupations, have on the common law governing the ordinary life of the conquered territory. Perhaps, in dealing with this first question, which seems to have been the only one that concerns M. Lameire, the author has been too modest in estimating his own results, even though he has been over-generous in the help he has given the reader in connecting his lucid preface with the abundance of documents that follow. For the study of the second his wide collations have a positive value which still remains undeveloped.

In the documents themselves and in the translations of them, there are frequent errors of palæography and of language, which the author can easily remedy with a little more care in reading. For example, on pages 119-120 we find: "la science peut avoir beaucoup d'avantages pour le bon ordre": "la di loro specienza (sic) ha per essere di vantaggio al buon ordine." The correction to sperienza is apparent. On page 60, for "la impotenza per conjure le carichi ordinati" read, of course, conpire. On page 140, for "disposti a darvene quelle riprove che con li atti continuati del nro atlacto (sic) alla nra corona read rather vro attacto. On page 106: bosinate means uproar." On page 63 circolari insinuatorie, (translated "circulaires pleines d'insinuations ") is simply a formula of Italian legal language: insinu"to command," "" to request."

are means

66

M. Lameire succeeds in isolating some interesting and important notions in the legal consciousness of the eighteenth century. The generals of that time recognized a nice distinction between displacement of territorial superiority and displacement of sovereignty. The former is a temporary situation, incident to the fortunes of war; territorial superiority gave the conquering army the right to take such measures as would ensure its own support for the moment in the territory occupied ; any legislation going beyond the maintenance of the troops belonged to the sovereign power, even though that power was not present de facto. In determining the actual sovereign entity, a great complexity of considerations had to be weighed. A conquering power acting as an ally (auxiliary) of some other power, while it might enjoy territorial superiority, recognized the sovereignty of the power in whose interest the war was waged over the territory for which the war was waged.

In

France, occupying the Milanese for Sardinia, yielded the sovereignty to Sardinia; in any other imperial territory, occupied incidentally, France was herself sovereign. But Sardinia was not entirely a free agent. some respects she is vassal to the Empire; no act of the vassal can affect the sovereignty of the Empire, even though the war be against the Empire itself. Conversely the same fact of vassalage prevents change of sovereignty when the Empire conquers from Sardinia: in theory the Empire is acting simply within its own territory. There is always change of sovereignty when an independent power conquers from another independent power or the vassal of another independent power. But it is not always so simple as this. Spain is an independent power, but the Spanish king has pretensions to the imperial throne. If Spain conquers from Sardinia, is the vassalage of Sardinia to the Empire altered, or do those pretensions serve to maintain the vassalage? If the dependent campagna of a commune is occupied, while the commune remains free, is it a question of territorial superiority or of change of sovereignty? Or if the commune is occupied, what about the administration of the unoccupied campagna ?

It is not surprising that M. Lameire should find numerous cases where the generals, instead of disentangling all these subtleties of the feudal system, took a more direct course by appealing" to justice and reason." In fact, the frequency of this method early in the eighteenth century shows, according, to M. Lameire, a widespread prevalence of rationalistic theories of government commonly attributed to the influence of Rousseau, and Rousseau in consequence "turns out a much smaller figure." This treatment of Rousseau may seem to some rather "cavalier." That criticism has long had Rousseau's influence a little out of perspective is quite true; it is now certain that he actually invented only an insignificant portion of his views. However, the occasional appeal to reason in legal matters, as shown by M. Lameire, or the lumbering anticipations of his social theories by the American Jesuits, as shown by M. Chinard, only demonstrate that Rousseau, instead of being the erratic genius, was rather the effective mouthpiece of a tendency of his age. What he may seem to lose in originality, he surely regains in social significance.

In its present form, M. Lameire's volume is of direct service to students of Italian local history, less so to the jurists and economists to whom it is dedicated. It is not without its value to laborers in quite a different field, the field of private life, manners and customs.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

ARTHUR LIVINGSTON.

Henry Demarest Lloyd, 1847-1903, A Biography. By CARO

LLOYD. Two volumes.

New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912.

xviii, 308; ix, 390.

The world knows men who take a side because of motives that no gold can overbalance. The wealth of simple vision required by them is an oft-told tale. Mr. Lloyd's great good fortune does not consist solely in having seen the issue or in having fought for it. It consists partly in having had a younger sister with vision enough to tell his story with sympathy and without the sickly gush or prudish sentimentality which spoils the tale.

Mr. Lloyd was not a man to amble calmly along the well-paved highway towards a goal long since seen and chosen. By preference he looked upon the ever-changing visage of present things, searching for the hope in them, and endeavoring to cure the evil in them with a purging flux of light. For this reason as well as others he took a searchlight, turned it upon those whom he called the "cannibals of competition" and kept it there. It was not always an easy task; but he knew something of economics, something of life, and could see what the Standard Oil Company and its fellows were leading to before others knew they existed; and he had the courage to tell what they meant.

Monopoly is an old story today; we have it, and we are considering what we will do with it. Social workers, politicians, monopolists and competitors converse at length on the subject. Mr. Lloyd started that conversation twenty-five or more years ago. It was in the days when it was still considered a smart American trick to devastate a forest or to bribe a governor, provided some one made a million thereby.

In Chicago's anarchist troubles of 1887 Henry Lloyd first showed of what he was made; and in return he saw his most "respectable" friends desert him, his father-in-law turn on him, and many whom he had loved and admired cut him. He, though a lawyer, had the temerity to suggest that Joseph E. Gary should not have asked so many questions from the bench when trying the anarchists (1, 86), and that men should not be hanged when the bailiff had owned to selecting the jury which tried them (I, 94). The men were hanged, nevertheless, and at first Mr. Lloyd had little else but a bitter experience of friendlessness to contemplate. His real fiber then showed itself, for

he wasted little time in regrets or self-commiseration. Instead he saw in the whole story the birth of a new conscience regarding the ills of the" under dog." A "new emancipation will overspread the earth. It will conquer not by the blows it gives but by those it takes," he said

(I, 109). And in definitely throwing himself into the struggle between capital and labor, he summed up his position in this way: "In all issues the principle of but one side can be right. The working man is often wrong, but his is always the right side" (I, 109).

The story of the railroad and Pullman strikes of 1892-93 almost chases the story of the anarchists off the stage, and it in turn is succeeded by the story of Wealth Against Commonwealth. This work was

the first to set forth in detail the tactics employed in forming a monopoly, and the monopoly concerned was the ever-present Standard Oil Company. The company was not pleased; the reason why is made sufficiently clear in the chapter describing Mr. Lloyd's efforts not only to present the evidence fairly, but so fairly that it should be beyond the reach of criticism as well of as libel law.

The ten years which follow are described in ample detail; an appendix containing interesting documents is added; there is likewise a bibliography and an index. The volumes as a whole have two notable points. They are interesting and often exciting because they stick to the facts of a life that was concerned with fast-moving but far from ephemeral realities. They are cheering, because they plainly and perhaps not unconsciously refute an important maxim. The yellow press may have the weight of experience on its side when it hotly maintains that dollars will do anything; no doubt many people can hear money, even when it does not talk. None the less these volumes have the salutary moral that everything depends upon whom the dollars have to do with, and to whom the money speaks.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

F. A. DEWEY.

Reminiscences. By RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. Toronto, William Briggs, 1912.-xiv; 405 pp.

This volume of Sir Richard Cartwright's Reminiscences, which made its appearance just about the time of the death of the veteran Canadian statesman, is written in the form of short interviews with a reporter. There is neither plan nor framework to the book, and there is not even an index to serve as a guide to its contents. The fiftyeight interviews are arranged in a rough chronological order; but the form of the book, or rather its formlessness, occasions much repetition, frequent anticipations of events and a lack of exactitude. To find it of use, the reader must have a considerable knowledge of Canadian history; but to the student of Canadian politics, notwithstanding the

defects of the book, the Reminiscences are of great value. The period covered extends from 1863, when Cartwright was first elected to the Parliament of the United Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as the leader of the Liberal party, became premier with the support of a large majority in the House of Commons. On the later history of Canada, on the government of the Dominion by the Liberals from 1896 to 1911, Sir Richard Cartwright is in general silent, although he scores the protective policy of his own party almost as severely as that of the Macdonald government. He brings out also the enormous expansion of Canada since 1900-an expansion which he attributes largely to the adoption of wiser policies in the Northwest.

Much of the value of the book lies in the interpretations which Sir Richard Cartwright is able to give of the events of Canadian history, and also in the expression of his matured opinions concerning political principles and policies. Sir Richard Cartwright was one of the best read and best informed of Canadian politicians. His public career extended over fifty years. He had the advantage of seeing policies tried out in a new country and of watching their effect over long periods of time. He began political life as an independent member of Parliament, became a strong Liberal and free-trader, and lived to see his party adopt the protective policy which had been initiated in 1879 by Sir John A. Macdonald and the Conservatives. At the end of his long life he records his detestation of the "hopeful experiment" of making the country rich by the "simple expedient of increasing our taxes and dividing the proceeds more or less unequally between the Dominion Treasury and a small number of manufacturers." This policy, he adds, has continued in great measure from that day to this, with only one important modification, in the shape of the British preference. To this policy and to the unwise land policy of the Macdonald government, Cartwright attributes the fact that while the United States with its vast area of internal free trade was making progress by leaps and bounds, Canada remained stagnant, not even being able to hold her own natural increase and steadily losing the best of her people and the pick of her immigrants to the greater country to the south of her. Again and again in the Reminiscences Sir Richard Cartwright returns to this subject of Canada's loss of population. In "Interview Number Seventeen he remarks:

The people we lost were the very choicest part of our population. They were largely men in the prime of life, and included an immense percentage of the most intelligent and adventurous of our people. There is every