published them in book form with considerable additions. As revised and enlarged they have not only taken a permanent place in international law, but may properly be considered classics. The publication of Professor Holland's Letters to the Times Upon War and Neutrality suggests comparison with the letters of Historicus, and notwithstanding their brevity and casual origin, they stand the test. Professor Holland's letters were regarded at the time of their publication as contributions to international law. As such they were quoted by writers on international law, and in the Second Hague Peace Conference Professor Holland's letters to the Times dealing with the destruction of neutral prizes were cited as "the opinion of one of the most celebrated contemporary writers on international law" (Deuxieme Conférence International de la Paix, Actes et Documents, Vol. 3, pp. 992-993, 1048); and two of the letters, dated respectively August 17th and August 30th, 1904, were presented by the German delegation as the authoritative statement on the subject and as such are printed in the proceedings of the Conference (Ibid., pp. 1171, 1172). Professor Holland was therefore well-advised to reprint his various letters to the Times and to furnish them with an adequate commentary. A careful reading of these letters shows them to have permanent value, for they not only state within the narrowest compass the international law at the time of writing, but indicate at one and the same time the tendency and line of future development, and it must be a source of gratification to Professor Holland to see that his various suggestions and predictions have been justified by the action of international conferences. By way of a concrete example, the series of letters on the naval bombardment of open coast towns, pages 73-85, may be selected, for Professor Holland's views on this subject have not merely been adopted by the Institute of International Law, but substantially incorporated in the Hague convention of 1907 respecting bombardments by naval forces in time of war. JAMES BROWN SCOTT. Diplomatic Memoirs. By John W. Foster, author of "A Century of American Diplomacy," "American Diplomacy in the Orient," "The Practice of Diplomacy," etc. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1909. 2 Vols. Illustrations. General Foster has at least five separate careers, any one of which would have rounded out the life and satisfied the ambition of an ordinary man. His service in the field during the Civil War was distinctly creditable to him as a man and a soldier and of value to the country. His rich and varied experience in practical diplomacy in Mexico, Russia and Spain was equally valuable to the countries to which he was accredited as well as to the United States which he had the honor to represent. As legal adviser to China after its disastrous war with Japan and his active participation in negotiating the terms of peace of Shimonoseki, he rendered inestimable service to China and enhanced the prestige of the United States in the Far East. As Secretary of State at the close of President Harrison's administration he cleared off the arrears of business, having, as he says with just pride, acted upon every pending question before the Department ripe for settlement. As an international lawyer he has an enviable reputation, for he has appeared as agent of the United States in the Bering Sea Arbitration and in the Alaskan Boundary case. In addition he has pressed to a successful conclusion various claims against the United States placed in his hands, and he has been at all times a safe and trusted counselor of various foreign legations at Washington. Finally, and as a mere incident in a busy career, he has won no little recognition as a writer on subjects connected with international law and diplomacy. His "Century of American Diplomacy" (1900), his "American Diplomacy in the Orient" (1903), his "Arbitration and the Hague Court" (1904), his "Practice of Diplomacy" (1907) are standard books, and his “Diplomatic Memoirs," published in the present year, will undoubtedly enhance a reputation already high. It should be mentioned in passing, as an indication of General Foster's modesty, that he does not refer to his literary career, although he refers in one instance for details to his "American Diplomacy in the Orient." General Foster has entitled the work under review Diplomatic Memoirs, and has therefore excluded from his long and busy career episodes which would have been interesting to a wide circle of readers. For example, he barely mentions his career before 1872 when he was appointed American Minister to Mexico, and dismisses his early career with a few paragraphs on his ancestry, his education, his career in the army (Vol. 1, p. 9) and his experience in Indiana politics. General Foster was appointed to the diplomatic service without any special qualifications, but like so many others selected from private life, he amply and immediately justified the choice. As the result of a lifetime's experience, General Foster is convinced that the diplomatic service should be recognized so as to be made a regular career and expresses his conviction in the following measured language: I am a strong advocate for the establishment of a regular career for the diplomatic service of the United States; I would have all Secretaries of Legation enter the service through a competitive examination; continue in office during good behavior; and, as they should prove worthy, have them promoted to Ministers. But I doubt whether the time will ever come when our Government will think it wise to confine the appointment of Ministers and Ambassadors entirely to promotions from the posts of Secretary. It has never been so in the Governments of Europe where the regular diplomatic career has long been an established system. Many of their most useful and distinguished diplomats have been those who have entered the service through a competitive examination. but who were appointed from other branches of the public service or from private life. (Vol. I, pp. 12, 13.) The Executive Order of President Taft, issued upon the recommendation of Secretary Knox (see Editorial Comment, p. 173, and Supplement, p. 99) is a confirmation of the soundness of General Foster's views. As Minister to Mexico (1873-1880), General Foster had the great advantage of seeing our sister republic pass through the critical stage of revolution to assume an honored and respected place among the family of nations under the firm hand of General Diaz. He describes from the standpoint of an observer conditions as he found them (pp. 15–149); he appreciates the participants in the great struggle and sums up the result of Mexican activity in the following passage: When Diaz assumed control of affairs, the financial situation of the country could hardly have been more desperate. No interest on its public debt had been paid for many years. Its bonds had no value at home or abroad, and were not quoted in the money-market of a single city of the world. But the financial improvement which Diaz inaugurated soon began to create confidence among foreign capitalists, and the rapidly growing revenues finally enabled Señor Limantour, the able Secretary of Finance, to reëstablish the Government credit. The foreign indebtedness of every character, whose legitimacy could be shown, was funded, first into gold bonds at six per cent, afterwards at five per cent, and later at four per cent, until the credit of Mexico became equal to that of some of the first Powers of Europe and much above that of any other of the Latin-American Republics. (Vol. I, p. 114.) The success, however, of the Diaz régime has not blinded General Foster to the dangers of the system, as is evident from the following appreciation and criticism of the Mexican President: During those years the country has enjoyed unparalleled prosperity, and it was natural that the inhabitants who had been so greatly benefited by his administration should wish to continue him in power. But I regard it as mistaken statesmanship to have so long yielded to their desire. In reviewing the history of Mexico and the other independent Spanish-American States we have seen that the chief cause of their frequent revolutions has been the effort to change their presidents. The transfer of the administration by the peaceful and constitutional methods has proved in many instances a failure. This has been the case particularly in Mexico. It would have been a wise and patriotic act for General Diaz to have retired from the Presidency at the end of his second term, leaving the prohibitive clause of the Constitution in force. He would then have been in a position to guarantee a peaceful election of a successor and a continuance of the good order and prosperity which he had established. The people also might have had an opportunity to test their ability to conduct a government by means of a free and untrammeled exercise of the electoral franchise, a condition as yet unknown in Mexico. The benevolent autocracy under his administration has resulted in great prosperity for the country, but it has done little to educate the masses of the people in their duties under a republican government. (Vol. I, pp. 106, 107.) His first mission to Russia (1880-1881) was of short duration, but he was brought into intimate contact with the resident diplomats at the Russian court and was present at the assassination and burial of Alexander II. His chapters on Diplomats and the Russian Court (pages 150-162), Russian Affairs, Political and Social (pages 163-180), the Assassination of Alexander II (pages 181-197), Russia under Alexander III (pages 198-215), his second mission to Russia in 1897 in relation to the Fur Seal controversy (pages 216-238), are marked by a keen observation, justness and breadth of view, and his comments upon the Czars, the court and ruling classes are as sagacious as they are interesting. General Foster resigned from the diplomatic service in 1881 to take up the practice of international law at Washington, but he was persuaded by President Arthur to accept the mission to Spain (18831885), and he later visited Spain in 1891 in connection with reciprocity treaties. His familiarity with Spanish, obtained by a long residence in Mexico, his understanding of the Spanish life and character, have enabled him to give a singularly vivid and sympathetic account of modern Spain, and it is perhaps not too much to say that the chapters devoted to Spain (pages 239-333) are the most interesting of this singularly attractive book. The reviewer calls especial attention to the chapter on Statesmen and Diplomatists at Madrid (pages 261-275) in which General Foster gives an admirable sketch of Canovás, Sagasta and Castelar, and the curious and impressive Spanish ceremonial of "Holy Week" (pages 314-328). The second volume contains many matters of great importance written by one who played no small part in them, such as the Reciprocity Negotiations (pages 1-19), the Bering Sea Arbitration (pages 20-50), the Alaskan Boundary Settlement (pages 191-210), the Annexation of Hawaii (pages 166–175), Canadian Affairs (pages 176-190), the Second Hague Peace Conference, at which General Foster represented China and of which he gives valuable and interesting chapters on its organization and results (pages 211-241). The most interesting chapters in this volume are undoubtedly those devoted to "Presidents under whom I served" (pages 242-258) and the "Secretaries of State" (pages 259-280). The most valuable portion of the work undoubtedly is the series of chapters dealing with China and Japan (pages 90-165), in which General Foster, with modesty and reserve, describes the course of the negotiations which put an end to the unfortunate war between China and Japan, and sets forth as only a participant could the issues in the balance and the means by which peace, honorable to both nations, was secured. These chapters are not merely interesting, well written and carefully balanced, but they are a distinct contribution to the history and diplomacy of the Far East. They show not merely the resourcefulness of General Foster, but they show him possessed of that balance and solidity of judgment which are the characteristics of true greatness. It would be interesting to quote from the chapters on the Presidents and Secretaries of State, for in these General Foster has expressed, apparently without reserve, his opinions of the Presidents and Secretaries with whom he came into contact. It is feared that the relatives of some of the deceased will wish that General Foster had maintained more of the reserve so usually characteristic of diplomacy, but the student of public affairs will be glad that General Foster has preferred the truth as he sees it. As Secretary of State he considers Seward entitled to grateful remembrance. "Judged by his achievements and his despatches, he must be regarded as the first Secretary during the last half century." (Vol. II, p. 259.) He considers Hamilton Fish as competent but not brilliant, William M. Evarts as a brilliant lawyer out of place in the Department, and among recent Secretaries regards the late John Hay as the most gentle, lovable and broad-minded in character and as having rendered the greatest services to his country. Mr. James G. Blaine is frequently mentioned, always with respect, and while General Foster appreciates his brilliancy and dash, he is not blind to his faults, which were many and serious. |