Sir Thomas is not an unqualified admirer of democratic government.

The break-up of the three greatest instances of empire may result in eventual federation of all three as a League of Nations for defence against the reaction which may be in course of evolution in countries which have hitherto been the home of political freedom, for seldom if ever in history has victory been of advantage to popular liberties. This union for selfpreservation against external neo-aggressive tendencies may present material features of great importance for the future of democracy throughout the world (p. 252).

This horoscope presents a possibility worth careful thought. Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, confederated for the preservation of a democratic world, would certainly bring a strong force into world-politics.

Attention is drawn to the differences between the French and English editions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, for League the French having substituted Société, a more inclusive term.

SIMEON E. BALDWIN.

The Making of the Reparation and Economic Sections of the Treaty. By Bernard M. Baruch. New York and London: Harper & Bros., 1920, pp. 353. This book is of particular interest as furnishing information not hitherto made public regarding the negotiations of the reparation and economic sections of the Peace Treaty. Mr. Baruch in a note preface to the volume states that he alone is "responsible for the statements made in this volume," but in view of the position he occupied at the Peace Conference as Economic Adviser to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, and member of the Economic Drafting Committee, of the Reparation Commission, of the Economic Commission and of the Supreme Economic Council, and the fact that, as he himself states, he has confined himself in this book to a discussion of only those matters with which he was "directly concerned in the making of the treaty," his book is of historic value.

The negotiations concerning the reparation clauses and the economic clauses are dealt with separately, and the provisions of the treaty itself dealing with these matters are included in the volume, which also contains an addenda comprising the addresses made on behalf of the American, French and British delegates on the principles of reparation. The addresses of these delegates are particularly enlightening as to the divergent views held by several of the governments regarding the principles of law and equity to be applied in assessing the reparation demanded from Germany.

It appears that the American delegates contended that reparation should be based strictly upon the so-called contractual obligations imposed upon Germany through President Wilson's pre-armistice negotiations, as approved by the Allied Powers, in addition to the obligations arising by operation of law for admittedly illegal acts.

The obligations imposed by the pre-armistice negotiations were that invaded territories must be restored as well as evacuated and made free, and that Germany must make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population

of the Allies and to their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and from the air.

The British contended that inasmuch as Germany's invasion of Belgium was an illegal act because in violation of the Belgian Treaty of Neutrality, the necessary result of which was to involve the other Powers in the war, Germany was under obligation to make compensation for all the consequences of that illegal act, including the entire war costs incurred, not only by Belgium, but by all the Allied and Associated Powers as well.

In support of the British contention that Germany should bear the entire war costs, the French delegation advanced the additional argument that the armistice agreement of November 11th superseded the pre-armistice agreement, and they were at liberty to enlarge the terms of that agreement for the reason that "Germany surrendered on November 11th because she was conquered, and not because she found acceptable and equitable the conditions of President Wilson and of the Associated Powers.'

The question was referred for settlement to the Supreme Council, and it was finally decided that the only direct war expenditures of the governments which should be included (except in the case of Belgium, which is to receive compensation for its entire war losses), were their expenses for pensions and separation allowances. The principle governing the decision of the Supreme Council in drawing this seemingly illogical distinction between the entire costs of the war and the cost only of pensions and separation allowances is not disclosed. The practical result of the decision, Mr. Baruch estimates, was to increase the amount of indemnity to be apportioned to Great Britain approximately from 19% to 40% of the total amount Germany can be made to pay, and it is pointed out that unless the amount which can be collected from Germany exceeds the wildest dreams of what she will be able to pay, the nations whose territories were occupied and devastated will receive considerably less than if the restitution Germany is called upon to make excluded all direct war expenses of the governments, which the United States delegates contended would have been more in accordance with hitherto accepted international law principles. There seems to have been no disagreement, however, among the respective delegations as to the necessity for enforcing respect for international law by exacting from Germany penalties sufficiently heavy to deter any nation in future from violating the international obligations imposed upon it by treaty or by the accepted law of nations. The provisions of the treaty imposing these penalties deal with political questions, commercial and industrial subjects from the standpoint of international relations, and private rights in various aspects, and they involve technical and difficult questions of domestic law, of international law, and of international practices. Mr. Baruch's comments on these provisions and his explanation of conflicting views and interests which had to be harmonized in order to reach an agreement, are valuable contributions to a proper understanding of the meaning and purpose of the treaty.

In addition to expounding the treaty provisions, Mr. Baruch also calls attention to several subsidiary agreements or understandings reached by the Allies among themselves outside of the treaty, which were intended to establish their

respective interests and participation in the spoils of war. For instance, Mr. Baruch states that the Allied and Associated Powers adopted the general principle that they would share in Germany's reparation payments in proportion to their allowed claims, except that they agreed to give to Belgium a priority in certain payments to permit its immediate restoration. He also states that they adopted the further principle of joint and several liability as between Germany and Austria-Hungary. The purpose in adopting these principles was that "all of the assets of the enemy states should be pooled into one fund, and that all of the Allied and Associated States should share in this fund in proportion to their approved claims.

Another subsidiary agreement entered into by the Allied and Associated Powers related to the disposition of the German ships. As to these ships the French proposal was "to allocate to the Allied and Associated Powers in proportion to their respective war losses, and to place in a pool for that purpose, all ships which on August 1, 1914, flew the German flag. This would have resulted in the pooling of all ships condemned by prize court (chiefly British) and ships seized in the Western Hemisphere (chiefly by the United States and Brazil)."

The British proposed "the pooling of all ships which on the date of the coming into force of the treaty were entitled to fly the German flag. This, in the British opinion, would have pooled ships seized by the United States, Brazil, Cuba, etc., without prize court decisions, and would have left undisturbed the title to ships which had been passed through the [British] prize court."

The American delegates proposed that "title to all German ships seized during the war should be confirmed in the captor nation, and that only the remaining German ships be placed in the pool."

Mr. Baruch states that "President Wilson declined to accede to any proposition that would involve the surrender by the United States of ships which had been taken over by act of Congress," and the "problem was finally solved by agreeing to place all the belligerents on an equality. The right was recognized to retain seized German tonnage upon the condition that payment be made for reparation account up to the fair value of the ships retained in excess of those apportioned to replace war losses."

So far as concerns the United States, all of these agreements, like the treaty itself, must be understood as requiring the advice and consent of the Senate before ratification.

The reparation and economic clauses of the treaty deal with matters which vitally affect the whole world, as they furnish the terms upon which Germany makes restitution and resumes commercial relations with the other nations which have ratified the treaty. Therefore, until such time as the official records of the Peace Conference are made public, Mr. Baruch's book will be of special value to all interested in learning the inside history of the economic and reparation provisions of the treaty and the conflicting interests of the various countries which were harmonized in the drawing of those provisions.

Mr. Baruch treats the subject in an absolutely dispassionate manner, making full allowance for human frailties, and offers as an excuse for much of the

criticism which has been aimed at the treaty that it "was made in the still smoldering furnace of human passion," and he explains that

It is a fundamental mistake to assume that the treaty ends where it really begins. The signing of the document on June 28, 1919 at Versailles, did not complete its history; it really began it. The measure of its worth lies in the processes of its execution and the spirit in which it is carried out by all the parties to the contract. . . . In the Reparation Commission there was created a flexible instrument qualified to help effectuate a just and proper peace, if that desire and purpose be really present. When the world more fully and humanely understands and measures the problems in question they can be soberly and wisely resolved.

CHANDLER P. ANDERSON.

The Italian Emigration of Our Times. By Dr. Robert F. Foerster. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1919. pp. xv, 556. Price $2.50.

Among the great fields of migration today Italy, no doubt, easily ranks first. From 1869, when a hundred thousand emigrants were recorded, the number has gradually increased until, in the years just before the World War, 179 out of every thousand inhabitants were leaving Italy annually.

Why this great departure? The answer is simple. The effects upon agriculture of deforestation,-which has gone hand in hand with the abolition of feudalism and the secularization of ecclesiastical lands; lack of education of the great mass of people,-in the provinces in the south, from which most of the emigrants come, as many as three out of four above the age of six years being unable to read or write; the scourge of malaria, and the results of absenteeism and the agrarian contracts (the evils of which are now reported to have been materially decreased by legislation enacted since this book was published), are the reasons given by Dr. Foerster for a production that is greatly insufficient to sustain the large and rapidly increasing population.

The author has followed the Italian emigrants into the various states to which they have gone in Europe, Africa and America, with the purpose of determining whether the economic benefits that have come to these states and to the emigrants themselves compensate for the loss that Italy has suffered as a state by the world-wide dispersion of such a large part of her race. His answer is in the negative, and he concludes that only by remedying conditions so that Italians may remain at home will Italy be able to continue her notable contribution to civilization.

Dr. Foerster has divided Italian emigration into three periods: the first, until the year 1895, in which period emigration was deplored; the second, from 1895-1908, when emigration was deemed necessary on account of the economic problems which faced the country; and the third, from the year 1908 to the present time, in which period it was considered that on account of the benefits to the state, emigration should be cherished and enlarged under proper direction. When this last idea developed, the Italian Government began providing assistance for the emigrants in foreign lands by establishing legal bureaus for their protection, and in case of death under circumstances establishing liability to see that indemnity was paid and forwarded to their heirs in Italy. These

bureaus have been under the direction of the consuls, who, for the most part, have been capable and efficient and anxious to serve their countrymen.

The author, however, feels that Italian emigration, even though it has brought certain economic advantages, has been a distinct evil. His suggestion is that rather than seek to help the emigrant after he reaches the foreign land, the work should start at home. Certainly the state should provide an adequate system of schools throughout the land. Reclamation of the land under the direction of forestry experts and engineers would go far toward providing a livelihood for a greater per cent. of the population.

Many may disagree with the author's statement that Italy's work in helping the emigrants abroad, rather than at home, has been prompted by imperialistic motives. The part that she played in the World War would hardly seem to justify such a conclusion. All, however, will agree with the suggestion-and it is with this part of the work that the student of international relations is concerned that at this time, when we are seeking to establish national rights and obligations and to lessen the causes for international misunderstanding, we cannot afford to overlook the great problems of emigration. The time is ripe for instituting international conferences to advise concerning matters of emigration. The topics suggested for consideration are: (1) the adoption of standards of fitness for emigrants; (2) the distribution of fit emigrants; (3) the question of citizenship and means of avoiding the disturbing problems of dual citizenship; and (4) the protection of emigrants. Such a plan merits earnest consideration. May it not also be suggested that in the meantime the United States should take steps which would at least remedy certain unfortunate situations in respect to emigration and would help to remove those causes of ill feeling that have on occasions existed between the two countries in cases of alleged treaty violations.

There have been several misunderstandings between the two nations on account of the failure of local or State authorities in many parts of the United States to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of acts of mob violence. If legislation were enacted giving Federal courts jurisdiction in such cases, our government would then be in a position to fulfill the guaranty of the Italian treaty in respect to the protection of Italian subjects and their property. Further treaty provisions giving consular officers full rights of representation of absent or deceased countrymen would also aid materially in securing a better international understanding and coöperation.

The author points out that on account of local laws we have sometimes discriminated against non-resident alien heirs, and cites the Maiorano case,1 where a widow, on account of her non-residence, was not permitted to recover an indemnity for the death of her husband who was killed while employed on an American railroad. He fails to note, however, that the United States by ratifying the treaty of February 25, 1913, endeavored to correct this situation.

On account of the position of America and the regard in which she is held, it would seem eminently proper at this time of international readjustment to consider our own duty in providing for new treaties, and to be eager to coöperate in the work of an international convention, such as has been suggested.

1 Maiorano v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 213 U. S. 268.