!

nations is a thing in which all are interested even in those disputes where their rights are not directly involved, and a task which can be accomplished only by the constant coöperation of all the nations.

It is here that the weakness of such a position becomes apparent. For the object to be served in the maintenance of the authority of the league in its non-legal actions, or in the maintenance of the authority of any international organization in such actions, is the maintenance of the idea of international authority in general, as opposed to nationalistic anarchy, and this idea of international authority is the only foundation which can give to the law of nations itself that authority which it must have if it is to command respect. The idea of individual national consent to each and all of the rules of international law is too fragmentary and insecure a foundation to support a really binding and effective system of law. By undermining the general idea of international authority as embodied in the league and in denying it their backing, our statesmen and political leaders have helped to undermine the foundations for that system of international law in the name of which they have opposed the league.

Of more immediate effect in turning the course of opinion in the United States against the giving of guaranties of territorial integrity through the league or any international organization, perhaps, has been the fact that that question has been presented in an unfortunate way by those charged with the task of securing the consent of the American people. The supporters of the league have allowed the question to be discussed as one of giving protection to this nation or that nation, rather than to all nationals, or, rather, to that one of all the nations which happens to need to be protected at the time. Now it may not seem to be a great improvement upon the first form of the question, from the point of view of one who is interested in the reduction of the obligation involved, to talk of guaranteeing all nations instead of one. In reality it constitutes a considerable reduction, for it converts an obligation to act on behalf of one nation, and for the benefit of one nation, into an obligation to act on behalf of, and for the protection of, the interest of all the nations, the community of nations as a whole, including ourselves, in the secure enjoyment of independence and territorial integrity. What is really involved is a participation in a general guaranty of general international law and order, and this aspect of the matter has not been sufficiently stressed in inviting the American people to join in the guaranty of the league. The politicians have been allowed to distort the issue of sanctions and guaranties in relation to international

organization until it is going to be a difficult thing to get the matter clear again in the public mind.

To what conclusion must we come after a review of the circumstances? It seems that we must agree that the problem of sanctions is not so simple as that of merely organizing an international army and navy for use in enforcing the decrees of the league or some other international organization, but that it ramifies into the questions of international jurisdiction and the nature and basis of international law proper; that the smaller nations present relatively little difficulty in the settlement of the problem; that among the great powers the United States stands as the greatest opponent to the creation of sanctions and guaranties; and that this is due in part to an attitude natural to all the great powers, but in part also to a curious perversion of thought for which the legalists among us are primarily responsible, as well as to a distortion of the issue which the ineptness of the advocates of international guaranties has allowed the politicians to create and perpetuate. Other great powers are about ready to give and take guaranties and sanctions; this is not so much because they feel that they, individually, need such guaranties directly, but because they do feel that they need the condition of stability and respect for international authority which can be created only in this way. They are not, moreover, manifesting any great anxiety concerning any loss to their sovereignty and independence by such. action. When the issue is properly presented to the people of the United States they will take the same attitude.

University of Wisconsin.

PITMAN B. POTTER.

NEWS AND NOTES

PERSONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

EDITED BY FREDERIC A. OGG

University of Wisconsin

The chairman of the program committee of the American Political Science Association for 1922 is Professor Robert J. Crane of the University of Michigan.

Reprints of "The Study of Civics," which appeared in the February issue of the REVIEW, may be had by applying to the secretary of the American Political Science Association, Madison, Wisconsin. This document comprises the report of a committee on instruction in political science of which Professor William B. Munro, of Harvard University, is chairman.

A list of doctoral dissertations in political science now in preparation, supplementary to the list published in the REVIEW in February, 1920, will be printed in this department in the August issue.

Professor Edwin M. Borchard, of Yale University, is giving the courses at Columbia University ordinarily given by Professor John Bassett Moore, now sitting as a member of the Court of International Justice at The Hague. The arrangement will continue next year.

Dr. Charles A. Beard will deliver a series of lectures at Dartmouth College on the Guernsey C. Moore foundation. The lectures will deal with social, economic, and political conditions in Europe.

Professor W. W. Willoughby, of Johns Hopkins University, has been granted leave of absence for the first semester of next year in order to enable him to visit South Africa and India. Professor Willoughby served as technical expert to the Chinese delegation during the Washington Conference and is publishing through the Johns Hopkins Press a semi-official report entitled China at the Conference.

Baron Sergius A. Korff, professor of political science at Georgetown University, delivered in April a series of lectures at Northwestern University on the Norman Waite Harris foundation. The lectures dealt with the general subject of autocracy and revolution in Russia.

Professor S. Gale Lowrie, of the University of Cincinnati, has been granted leave of absence for next year and will spend the year in China.

Professor Henry Jones Ford is on leave of absence from Princeton University and is completing his volume on representative government. He expects to spend next year in Italy.

Among summer session appointments in political science are: Professor W. J. Shepard, of Ohio State University, at the University of Minnesota; Professor F. W. Coker, also of Ohio State, at Leland Stanford University; Professors P. B. Potter, of the University of Wisconsin, and R. T. Crane, of the University of Michigan, at the University of Chicago; Professor C. E. Merriam, of the University of Chicago, at Columbia University; and Professor T. H. Reed, of the University of California, at the University of Michigan.

Mr. E. E. Witte, secretary of the Wisconsin industrial commission, has been appointed to the directorship of the Wisconsin legislative reference library, in succession to the late Dr. Charles McCarthy.

Dr. Leo S. Rowe, president of the American Political Science Association in 1921, has been granted the honorary degree of doctor of laws by the University of Cuzco, Peru.

Professor W. B. Munro, of Harvard University, is on leave of absence during the second half-year and is spending some time in California.

Mr. R. N. Richardson, professor of history and government in Simmons College (Texas), is on leave of absence while completing his graduate work at the University of Texas.

Mr. Frederick D. Bramhall has been obliged to discontinue his work at the University of Chicago on account of a breakdown in health. His present address is Sun Mount Sanitorium, Sante Fé, New Mexico.

Mr. George C. Sikes, secretary of the Chicago Bureau of Public Efficiency, is giving Mr. Bramhall's course in municipal government at Chicago.

Professor Leonard D. White, of the University of Chicago, has recently completed for the National Research Council a survey of the scientific research activities of the various bureaus and agencies of the state of Illinois.

Professor Albert H. Washburn, of Dartmouth College, has been appointed minister to Austria and left about the first of April to take up his work. Professor Washburn was at one time a member of the consulate at Magdeburg, Germany. As a member of a New York City law firm, he has specialized in customs cases, and he is now president of the Customs Bar Association.

Professor David Lattimore, of Pei Yang University, Tientsin, China, has joined the Dartmouth faculty to give courses in Far Eastern civilization. He has been an instructor in various Chinese colleges since 1901 and an expert adviser to various government commissions in China.

Mrs. Frank Fearing, formerly instructor in political science at Vassar College, is acting as instructor at Stanford University during the spring quarter.

Professor Charles E. Merriam, of the University of Chicago, recently delivered an address at the University of Wisconsin, under the auspices of the department of political science, on the needs and problems of research in political science.

Professor Harold S. Quigley, who has spent the year teaching in one of the Chinese colleges, will resume his work at the University of Minnesota in September.

Professor O. Douglas Weeks, of Morningside College, will return to the University of Wisconsin next year to complete his graduate work.