makes it clear that efficiency is not a thing of gold braid, and that the service rendered bears no necessary or reasonable relation to the rank of the diplomat. The head of the procession; a seat at the right or the left may be more enjoyable; it may be embarrassing to wait until ambassador so-and-so has had his audience and conveyed to the secretary of state the assurance of his high official and personal esteem. But the brain is the thing that counts. When Dr. Franklin, braidless and giltless, was presented at the French Court it does not appear that the interests of his country suffered because he was not an ambassador. And when mothers in the street held their children in their arms that they might catch a sight of the man in homespun, it did not occur to anyone to question his rank. It is doubtful if Charles Francis Adams could have prevented the sailing of the Alabama had he been accredited personally to her majesty instead of to her government, nor is it to be supposed that James Russell Lowell would have represented more clearly, and therefore more truly, the intelligence of the republic and the desire of the enlightened for friendship with the mother country, if he had been in name what he was in fact, an ambassador. The service wants men; not apologies for men. Increased rank will never make up for the absence of brain power. But money and brains do not necessarily go together and so it happens that the poor man of ability cannot accept a position which seemingly requires an expenditure of many times his salary. If, therefore, our diplomats are to entertain and cater to the stomach as is the rule of today, we must select only men of means or increase the salaries of our diplomatic representatives, so that they can meet the demands of the service from the official salary. This is adequately pointed out by Mr. Foster, and members of Congress could read his pages with no little profit.

Mr. Foster points out in the first two chapters of his book, the usefulness of the service and the need of efficiency in the service. And it is the reviewer's opinion that these two chapters would justify of themselves the existence of this interesting and valuable book. The balance of the work may be grouped as follows: Diplomats-their appointment, reception, termination, duties and immunities (pp. 34-215); the consular service (pp. 216-242); treaties-their negotiation, ratification, interpretation and termination (pp. 243-311). These chapters are interesting and replete with accurate information. Their mastery is easy and is essential to the well-informed citizen. The chapter on arbitration and its procedure (pp. 330-358) is timely and outlines a record of peace and justice which will rebound to the lasting credit of our country. The final chapter on international claims (pp. 359-381) is of great

interest, and there will be not a few who will consider it the most distinct and valuable contribution in the book. The layman knows little of the subject and there are few articles or treaties to which he can turn for information. This chapter supplies the reader with the essential knowledge and it does it well and within small compass.

The work is the outcome of practical experience, it is pleasingly written and is interspersed with passages of amusing and happy incident. It is also timely, and a careful reading of the Practice of Diplomacy from cover to cover leads to the conclusion and the hope that it will inevitably find its way to the general reader, for whose instruction and pleasure it has been specially written.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

The Aliens Act and the Right of Asylum. By N. W. Sibley, B.A., LL.M., Trin. H. Camb, Barrister-at-Law of Lincoln's Inn, and Alfred Elias, LL.B., Victoria University, Barrister-at-Law of Gray's Inn. London: William Clowes and Sons, Limited. pp. xi, 161. 1906.

This little book is a model comment upon the aliens act, 1905 (5 Edw. VII., C. 13) and in the brief compass of a trifle over one hundred and fifty pages, gives the historical setting and analysis of the act as well as a valuable appendix upon the right of asylum in the law of England.

Perhaps the best way to give an idea of the scope of this little book will be to give the table of contents: Part I, pp. 1-17, deals with international law on the admission of aliens, the droit du Renovi and the right of asylum; part II, pp. 18-30, outlines the comparative jurisprudence on the prohibition against access of alien immigrants, on the removal of aliens and the right of asylum; part III, pp. 31-82, the status of alienage; the history of legislation in Great Britain on the subject of the admission, expulsion, residence of aliens; an analysis of the aliens act; a table of punishments and penalties under the aliens act.

Appendix I, pp. 83-124, gives the text of the act and the rules and orders made under the act; Appendix II, pp. 125–137, is an admirable section on the right of asylum in the law of England, and Appendix III, pp. 138-144, is made up of statistics from parliamentary papers on alien immigration for the last decade into the United Kingdom. A detailed and highly serviceable index, pp. 145-161, places the little book completely at the disposal of reader and student.

The text is carefully written and in it the immigration acts of the United States are considered and approved, and a brief survey is given of the subject in continental law.

The principles of international law involved are presented clearly and in brief form and the leading authorities are freely cited. The various English cases on the subject are discussed and at least one American case is cited. One passage is quoted:

It is probably the most important feature of the aliens act, the severest act on the subject of alien immigration, in many respects, that has found a place on the statute book for eighty years, that it should contain the most comprehensive declaration of the right of asylum that is to be found in the whole range of municipal legislation, not merely in the history of this country [Great Britain], but throughout the civilized world.

The section of the act referred to (s. 1 sub-s. (3) says:

In the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country, solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offense of a political character, or persecution, involving danger of imprisonment or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means, or the probability of his becoming a charge on the states.

The spirit of this pronouncement, as wise as it is humane, is respectfully called to the attention of law makers and administrative officers, lest we debar unawares a Romilly or deport a Carl Schurz.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

Report of French-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission Under Protocol of 1902. Prepared by Jackson H. Ralston, umpire of the late ItalianVenezuelan Mixed Claims Commission, assisted by W. T. S. Doyle. Washington: Government Printing Office. pp. xii, 471. 1906.

This volume is supplementary, or, at least, complimentary, to Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, issued under the same editorship. The convention of 1902 between France and Venezuela provided for the adjustment by way of arbitration, first, of all claims arising by reason of insurrectionary events in Venezuela in the year 1892, and, second, all other claims arising out of events prior to May 23, 1899, when the insurrection headed by General Castro broke out. Later claims were settled by arbitration under the protocol of 1903, as reported in Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903. Work under the prior protocol was not completed until the summer of 1905; hence the delay in the appearance of the present volume.

This publication contains the opinions of the French and Venezuelan arbitrators and of Honorable Frank Plumley, of Vermont, the umpire, including as well opinions affecting claims arranged directly between the arbitrators, together with a systematic table of cases and authorities

cited, and index. The cases now reported-eight in number-touch a number of interesting questions, including the responsibility of a government to foreigners for avoidable loss in military operations; the right to take jurisdiction when the claimant is only informally present; the freedom of the respondent nation from responsibility when the laws governing her courts relating to the matter in dispute were the product of civilization and have been reasonably executed; responsibility of governments for failure to punish officers who had injured foreigners; the determination of conflict of laws relative to citizenship by the place of domicile; rules of interpretation of treaties; effect of a previous award as res judicata; want of responsibility for damages not direct and approximate; effect of marriage upon citizenship of claimant; responsibility for losses accruing from unjustifiable refusal to permit the transfer of a franchise; liability of a government for damages to railroad property used by the government or by successful revolutionary forces.

The claimants demanded, in round numbers, $8,100,000 and recovered $668,000.

In connnection with Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, this work will prove a useful addition to the law of international claims as laid down by arbitral tribunals.

The Legislative History of Naturalization in the United States from the Revolutionary War to 1861. By Frank George Franklin, Ph.D., Professor of History and Political Science in the University of the Pacific. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 12mo, pp. 308. 1906.

The subjects treated are of the Revolutionary period, the convention of 1787, the various acts of Congress up to the Civil War, expatriation and the native American movement.

The treatment is clear and accurate, and, so far as it goes, the book is all that could be desired. It was written before the report of the naturalization commission was presented to Congress in December, 1905, but published after the report, so Dr. Franklin and the commission did not profit by each other's labors which was an unfortunate circumstance for both, for they covered in part the same field. The subject is, however, one of continuous interest and Dr. Franklin's book will prove a valuable addition to its permanent literature.

Dr. Franklin shows that late in 1776 the Continental Congress required soldiers at enlistment in the American army to take an oath "to be true to the United States of America and to serve them honestly and faithfully;" later it required from all civil officers an oath acknowledging

the independence of the United States and denying allegiance to the British king. Before this it had declared that "all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies and deriving protection from the laws of the same" owed allegiance to such laws and were "members of such colony," and this the author correctly considers to have been definition of citizenship.

In the constitutional convention we find an effort on Madison's part in the Virginia plan to recognize a new citizenship which was vigorously contested but finally accomplished. Nevertheless, when the first act of naturalization was proposed in 1790 many members of Congress thought the matter ought to be left completely in the hands of the states and the law finally passed left it at the mercy of state courts. There, the reviewer way add, it remained until the passage of the act of June 29, 1906, gave the federal government for the first time effective control over the naturalization courts.

About 1833 there began to be agitation against the admission of more immigrants to the United States and the party of native Americans began to form. We had the "know-nothings" with us, however, from the very beginning and we have them now.

One of the most interesting chapters in the book is that on expatriation, for the efforts to pass a law on that subject have commonly been overlooked.

The bibliography which Dr. Franklin gives is only partial. He omits, for example, such well-known works as Morse's Treatise on Citizenship and Naturalization and Van Dyne on Citizenship.

International Law: A Treatise. By David J. Brewer, Associate Justice United States Supreme Court and Charles Henry Butler, United States Supreme Court Reporter. Reproduced from the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure. New York City: The American Law Book. Company. pp. 62. 1906.

The publishers of the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure have thought so highly of this little treatise that they have issued it in separate form. The names of the authors guarantee the text and the text reflects credit on the learned authors. Good wine needs no bush.

The chief characteristic of this brochure is the wealth of adjudged cases cited by the authors to support the text. In this respect the little treatise is sui generis.

Strange as it may seem this outline of international law far exceeds any treatise in its elaborate consideration of claims of citizens against foreign states (pp. 38-60). A deal of information is crowded into