Obrázky stránek

by presidents and secretaries of state of the United States, the opinions of the attorneys-general, and the decisions of federal and state courts.

Passing from the title page to the preface, the enormous labor and value of the Digest become apparent at once. The act of Congress of February 20, 1897, under which the work was undertaken, provided for revising, reindexing and otherwise completing and perfecting by the aid of such documents as may be useful the second edition of the Digest of the International Law of the United States.

The framers of the act evidently had in mind a thorough revision of the Digest of the International Law of the United States, prepared and published in 1886, by the late Dr. Francis Wharton, solicitor for the Department of State. As Professor Moore had largely aided Dr. Wharton in the preparation of this work, it was but natural that Professor Moore should be selected to prepare the new edition, and his thorough familiarity both with the subject and the subject matter would have made the preparation of a new edition comparatively simple. But Professor Moore, alive to the excellencies of Dr. Wharton's work, was no less aware of its deficiencies and he wisely determined to prepare a wholly new work in which the Digest of Dr. Wharton should be merged. For, as Professor Moore says, a mere revision must have been both inadequate and incongruous, and a revision, with supplementary sections, could hardly have been more satisfactory. The result of this momentous and generous decision is the monumental work which is at once a digest and treatise on international law as intrepreted, understood and applied by the United States.

In the execution of the plan, Professor Moore states that he has had two points of capital importance in mind. To quote his exact words:

One is that mere extracts from state papers or judicial decisions cannot be safely relied on as guides to the law. They may be positively misleading. Especially is this true of state papers, in which arguments are often contentiously put forth which by no means represent the eventual view of the government in whose behalf they were employed. Instead, therefore, of merely quoting extracts from particular documents, it has been my aim to give the history of the cases in which they were issued, and, by showing what was finally done, to disclose the opinion that in the end prevailed.

The second capital point concerned the proper treatment to be accorded to manuscript documents, in order to avoid giving brief glosses which convey no intimation of the question under consideration but to follow and, wherever practicable, quote the text, and to give besides enough of the facts to render the application apparent. * * * The documents were first found, read and marked by myself personally, the figures of reference were then

[ocr errors]

taken by my copyists, and these figures have all been verified and omissions supplied in the proof.

This personal examination of the manuscript records of the Department of State began with the earliest document on record and the systematic and minute gleaning ended with the date of July 1, 1901. But this statement is not quite accurate, for the learned author has drawn upon manuscript sources since that date, relating to specific topics. The printed documents were consulted and drawn upon until the Digest went to press.

The mere statement of the plan and manner of its execution shows even to the casual reader that he has here a colossal enterprise, which embraces within its covers an analysis and presentation of the foreign policy of the United States from its independence until the present day.

It remains to be seen in how far the Digest corresponds to the plan and whether its execution is as admirable as the conception.

To say that the reviewer has read every page of this monumental undertaking would be to prejudice the review in advance; for digests are not easy reading and the volumes of this work are not of a kind to slip into the pocket for a ride in the cars or a trip into the country. The reviewer has, however, examined carefully every volume and at times this examination has been pushed, by the necessities of official study, into minute details, with the invariable result that in no single instance has an inaccuracy of statement been discovered, although a few trifling misprints have occasionally met the eye. The literature on the subject has constantly been given by Professor Moore; the foreign relations, the opinious of attorneys-general; the decisions of courts; the opinions of secretaries of state and of American and foreign publicists, and the views of learned societies of international law have been found in their appropriate places. The impression borne in upon the reviewer, and which he means to convey, is that this monumental work of Professor Moore makes a reference to the volumes of Foreign Relations and to the sources quoted unnecessary in the vast majority of cases. The work is in the severest sense of the word a digest and treatise, and it is as accurate as it is full and detailed. It is a godsend to the man of affairs and it is a sure and safe guide to the student of international law.

The usefulness of the Digest as a whole is greatly enhanced by the elaborate index which occupies the first hundred and sixty-four pages of the eighth volume, which is, in the language of Professor Moore, "indexical.” By means of the admirable fullness and detail of this index, the entire work is placed at the disposal of the student. Its omission would have been a serious fault; its execution renders it a matter of a few moments to find any topic in the Digest. The list of cases cited (pp. 165–215) follows the general index and this too is serviceable inasmuch as the reference is given to the original report as well as to the page of the Digest. The balance of the volume, consisting of an alphabetical list of documents (pp. 217–453), likewise justifies its existence and simplifies reference to the work as a whole.

Professor Moore was required by the terms of the act of Congress to produce a digest of the international law of the United States. This he has done, but in the doing calls attention to the inaccuracy of the title; for there is, strictly speaking, no international law of the United States, distinct and separate from the international law of the civilized world. As Professor Moore says:

The phrase is itself a misnomer and conveys an implication which the government of the United States has always been the first to repel, for it has ever been the position of the United States that international law is a body of rules common to all civilized nations, equally binding upon all, and impartially governing their mutual intercourse.

Or to adopt the weighty and measured language of Cicero:

Neque erit alia lex Romæ, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia post hac; sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis contenebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et imperator omnium Deus.



The Practice of Diplomacy as Illustrated in the Foreign Relations of the

United States. By John W. Foster, author of A Century of American Diplomacy; American Diplomacy in the Orient, etc. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. pp. [x] 401. 1906.

A worldly maxim informs us that wine improves with age, which may or may not be true, but it is a fact that the present fruit of Mr. Foster's labors is a confirmation of the maxim and a distinct credit to his vintage.

Mr. Foster's various volumes are, as it were, an afterthought and in a way the result of a happy accident. After a generation spent in the diplomatic service, and after rounding out a distinguished career as secretary of state in President Harrison's cabinet, Mr. Foster became professor of diplomacy in the George Washington University. Instead of becoming ascetic with age, as has frequently happened, Mr. Foster has become academic and literary, and the books which he has written in the past few years are the direct outcome of his professorate.

The first fruit of his academic activity was the well known Century of American Diplomacy-a brief review of the foreign relations of the


United States, 1776-1876. Of the merits of this work, which won instant favor with the reading public, this is not the place to speak. But it is well to call attention to this admirable and in many ways charming book because the distinguished author has prepared the Practice of Diplomacy “as a companion volume and complement” of a Century of American Diplomacy. The intervening volume, American Diplomacy in the Orient, was the result of personal and professional interest in the affairs of the Far East.

In order to estimate a book and its value as a book it is necessary to discover the intent of the writer and then to see in how far and with what success the author has executed that intent. In the brief preface to the book under consideration, Mr. Foster states that the present work is intended primarily to set forth the part taken by American Diplomatists in the elevation and purification of diplomacy; and, secondarily, to give in popular form, through such a narrative, the rules and procedure of diplomatic intercourse. While it is prepared for the general reader, numerous citations of authorities are given to enable the student to pursue his investigations by an examination of the original sources of information.

Mr. Foster expressly disclaims any intention to make the work a manual of diplomatic procedure. The purpose of the distinguished author is therefore popular rather than scientific, and his aim is to give the general reader an outline of the practice of diplomacy rather than to present a detailed treatise. The work is emphatically a work of vulgarization and as such a distinct success.

There is an idea prevalent that the diplomatic service is not what it used to be. This is so, for the service is distinctly better and more respectable than ever before. But this is not exactly what is meant, for the critic really means that steam and electricity have rendered the diplomat useless other than as a diner-out. In this latter capacity, it cannot be denied that he performs onerous as well as representative duties and that he thus brings his country, as it were, into our very homes, and therefore in close and intimate relations with our people, or at least with some of them. But the critic of the diplomatic corps forgets that the duty of the diplomat is not solely with the foreign office of the home country or indeed with the Department of State in Washington. He represents in a real and vital sense the interests of his fellow-countrymen in distress who need disinterested advice and competent guidance. The diplomat of today is not so independent as he was a century ago; but he is really a more useful being. Mr. Foster performs no small service in making this clear to the general reader.

In the second chapter, Mr. Foster deals with the rank of diplomats and

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

« PředchozíPokračovat »