belligerent there is the danger that justice may not always be meted out under such circumstances. It has been proposed therefore by some authorities that such offenders should be tried by international tribunals or by courts composed of judges representing neutral countries. But whatever the form or the procedure the desirability of bringing such offenders to the bar and of punishing the guilty is incontestible. If it were always practicable and were followed more generally, there would be fewer atrocities and violations of the law in the wars of the future.

Reconstruction of International Law. It was to be expected also that the termination of the war would be followed by much discussion of the problem of the reconstruction of international law and the reorganization of international relations. Dr. J. de Louter, professor of international law in the University of Utrecht, in an article entitled La Crise du Droit International, published in the Revue Générale de Droit International Public for January-February, 1919, points out that the existing body of international law, although by no means destroyed as some have contended, and the old organization of international relations, have been shown to be adequate neither to prevent war nor to curb its violence when it has once been unchained. International law, he says, is now passing through a period of evolution analogous to a pathological crisis, and its foundations and content must be reformed. The view must be adopted that war is not a product of law, but an attack upon law; and while the right of war as such cannot be abolished, the procedure of conducting it may be more effectively regulated; and he raises the question whether the benefit of the rules should not be limited to powers which are defenders of the law and refused to those who are aggressors, on the theory that the latter are violators of the law and should not be permitted to invoke its provisions. In this connection, he suggests that the customary division of international law into the law of peace and the law of war is superannuated and illfounded. Peace and not war is now the normal condition of society, and a division of the law of nations analogous to the divisions of municipal law should take the place of the old division.

The conceptions of law and war are mutually exclusive; a law of war is an artificial and contradictory conception and the international law of the future should be based on the idea of the evolution and perfection of the law of peace rather than of war. The new international law must, he thinks, continue to recognize the sovereignty of states. The view advocated by some authorities that the existing sovereignty

of states must be replaced by an authority above them; that legislative, executive and judicial organs together with an international police force should be set over states, Dr. de Louter emphatically rejects. National sovereignty, he argues, is not an obstacle but an indispensable instrument in the progress of international law. The establishment of a super-state and the absorption by it of the existing states would mean the destruction of international law. The difficulty, he thinks, is not in the sovereignty of states, but rather in the false conception of what constitutes sovereignty and in the abuse of it. Sovereignty is the supreme power of the state over all persons and things within its jurisdiction; it is not the power of a state to determine its own standards of international conduct and to pursue policies that are subversive of its rights and interests of other states. It is therefore no surrender of sovereignty for a state to agree to arbitrate its controversies with other states, or submit them to a board of conciliation or to an international court.

Regarding the content and scope of the new international law Dr. de Louter very properly remarks that it must not be limited to general rules of conduct, but must embrace the larger domain of international commerce, communication, finance, instruments of exchange, public health and the like. This will involve no innovation in principle since, as an examination of recent treaties will show, these matters are already dealt with to a large extent in individual conventions.

Among the bases on which the international law of the future should be founded are justice, that is to say, the maintenance of a juridical order among independent states; respect for the principle of nationality; nonrecognition of the right of conquest or cession without the express consent of the inhabitants of the territory affected; liberty of commerce (trade must be internationalized and protective tariffs and other trade restrictions ought to be abolished); freedom of the seas (which was destroyed during the late war by unlawful blockades, institution of war zones, the extension of the doctrine of contraband and the like); and the abolition of secret treaties.

Finally, some form of sanction for international law must be found and guaranties more solid and effective must be provided; though he does not tell us what they shall be or how they may be enforced.

The necessity of a new and reformed body of international law is dwelt upon by Professor T. S. Woolsey in an article entitled "Reconstruction and International Law" in the American Journal of International Law for April, 1919. This need, he points out, will be impera

tive in case an international court should be created as a part of the general scheme of international reorganization. The new law should, so far as possible, be embodied in a code which may be expected to grow and develop through application and interpretation by the international tribunal.

University of Illinois.

J. W. GARNER.

NEWS AND NOTES

PERSONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

EDITED BY FREDERIC A. OGG

University of Wisconsin

Jesse Macy, for many years professor of political science at Grinnell College, Iowa, and president of the American Political Science Association in 1916, died early in November, 1919. A pioneer in the United States in the systematic study and teaching of politics in a small institution in a new agricultural community, he gained a national and international reputation in his field.

Born in 1842, in Henry County, Indiana, of a Quaker, abolitionist family, he took an active part in the hospital service of the Union army during the Civil War, and in 1870 was graduated from Iowa (now Grinnell) College. A year later he was appointed principal of the academy at this institution; in 1883 he became acting professor of history and political science in the college; and two years later he was appointed professor of political science (probably the first in this subject), a position which he held until retired as professor emeritus in

1912.

Aside from several small books, dealing mainly with local institutions in Iowa, his works are: The English Constitution (1897), Political Parties in the United States, 1841-61 (1900), Party Organization and Machinery (1904), and (with J. W. Gannaway) Comparative Free Government (1915). Among his shorter articles may be noted his presidential address before the American Political Science Association, on "The Scientific Spirit in Politics," published in this REVIEW for February, 1917.

He made frequent visits to England and the continent of Europe, where he formed personal relations with leading students and men in public life. In 1913, he lectured at a number of French provincial universities on the Harvard Foundation.

Dr. David P. Barrows, professor of political science at the University of California, was on December 2 elected to the presidency of that institution and took office immediately. President Barrows studied at the universities of California, Columbia, and Chicago, receiving his doctor's degree in anthropology at the last-named institution. He went to the Philippines with the Taft Commission, and was successively director of city schools in Manila, chief of the bureau of nonChristian tribes, and director of the bureau of education of the islands. He returned to the University of California in 1910, and has since been professor of education, professor of political science, and dean of the faculties. During the war he served as major and lieutenant colonel with the expeditionary forces in Siberia.

Dr. L. S. Rowe, of the University of Pennsylvania, who has been for the past two years assistant secretary of the treasury, has been appointed chief of the division of Latin-American affairs in the department of state and has been granted leave of absence for an additional year.

Dr. Cyrus F. Wicker has been appointed assistant professor of political science at Pennsylvania and is giving Dr. Rowe's courses during the current year. Dr. Wicker was graduated at Yale and received the degree of D.C.L. at Oxford, where he studied as a Rhodes scholar. In recent years he has been engaged in diplomatic service in Central and South America.

Professor Edgar Dawson, of Hunter College, New York City, has been given leave of absence for the year 1920 to study the teaching of government in secondary schools. He will welcome correspondence with those who are interested in the subject, suggestions as to points. which should be covered, or information as to successful experiments now being made in the field. He hopes to publish the results of the year's work in the spring of 1921.

Mr. Herbert Adams Gibbons, whose New Map of Asia was published recently by the Century Company, has been chosen by Princeton University to resume the Spencer Trask lectures which were interrupted by the war. He began his work there on November 12, speaking on "What Confronts France."