BOOK REVIEWS

THE MEXICAN MIND. By Wallace Thompson. Little, Brown Index. and Company, Boston, 1922. Pp. I-XII, 1-303. $2.50 net.

Mr. Thompson has sought to reveal to the thought of the United States the working of the minds of the Mexican people. He believes the study and understanding of the Mexican mind must precede understanding of and co-operation with the Mexican people, not to consider the effectuation of the undoubted widespread altruistic impulse in the American people to play the part of a beneficent brother to the weary men and women across the Rio Grande.

"The generous welcome which the critics and the public accorded The People of Mexico' (an earlier volume from his pen) brought forth but one serious criticism," Le writes, "and that was of failure to delineate a solution for the difficulties that were described. And yet there has always been but one solution--the education of the Mexican mass. All else is but subterfuge and momentary relief. The details of that educational solution which I have now set forth in this book required, for their understanding, an exposition of Mexican character. Here, then, is that exposition.”

A large contract; but Mr. Thompson approaches it with zeal and sympathy, and withal with modesty. His study in the psychology of the Mexican people is a faithful and informative work, tracing the creation of the fact, as it is found today in Mexico, from the early mingling of races, on down through the many obscure stages. And he has escaped pedantry. His book is replete with swift, flashing, revealing pictures of the incidents of Mexican life; and the reader will lay it down at the end with something like a sense of having lived with the Mexicans, plus the benefit of an intelligent and sincere man trying his best from day to day to explain the inner meaning of the things seen and heard.

THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, By Edmund A. Walsh, S. J., Ph. D. The Macmillan Co., New York. Pp. 1-299. Appendix.

Dr. Walsh, of the School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University, has here assembled a number of lectures that were delivered before his classes and the public in the winter of 1920-1921. Realizing the new place in international affairs the newly imposed leadership -- of the United States, he sought to bring to his students the best authorities for a survey of the history of international relations.

And the same generosity that gave the public the benefit at the time of the delivery of the lectures now leads to publication in this volume of those believed likely to be of permanent value. The list of lecturers whose work appears in the volume is sufficient testimony of its worth and of its right to a place on the shelves of knowledge-seeking people. These lecturers are Stephen P. Duggan, Michael I. Rostovtseff, Carlton J. H. Hayes, James Brown Scott. James Lawrence Laughlin, John Bassett Moore, Esteban Gil Borges, Leo S. Rowe, Paul S. Reinsch, and Edwin M. Borchard.

RUSSI'S FOREIGN RELATIONS DURING THE LAST HALF CENTURY. By Baron S. A. Korff, D. C. L. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1922. I'p. 1-217. Index.

The

This is a book of ten chapters, each chapter the substance of a lecture given by Dr. Korff before the Institute of Politics at Williams College during the summer of 1921. lectures cover the period of the last half century and deal with the relations between Russia and the following: France, England. China, Japan, Austria-Hungary, the Balkan States, Germany, and Sweden. The ninth chapter is in the nature of a conclusion. The tenth and last, dealing interestingly with secret diplomacy, has no legitimate place in the book. Baron Korff was at one time Professor of Russian Law and History at the University of Helsingfors, Finland, and at the Women's University, Petrograd. He is now Professor of Political Science in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. The main thesis of the book is indisputable, namely, that little can be understood of the modern tangle of European affairs without a familiarity with Russia's foreign relations. If one is interested

to know the mysteries of modern politics in Europe, this clear, succinct, and informed series of papers will be of genuine service. There is nothing truer in modern contemporary international politics than, as the author says, "that without Russia there is no peace in Europe, and that the progress of civilization depends very much on the return of the great Slay nation to normal life and international intercourse." THE BRITISH YEAR BOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1920-21. Published by the Joint Committee of Heury Frowde and Hodder & Stoughton, 17 Warwick Square, E. C. 4, London. I-VIII, 1-292. THE BRITISH YEAR BOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1921-22. Henry Frowde and Hodder & Stoughton, London. IVIII, 1-272.

These two volumes are the beginning of a periodical in the interest of international law. The editor of the first volume is Cyril M. Picciotto, and the editorial committee are: Sir Erle Richards, Prof. A. Pearce Higgins, Sir John MacDonnell, Sir Cecil Hurst, and E. A. Whittuck. The second yolume appears under the joint editorship of Sir Cecil Hurst, Prof. A. Pearce Higgins, and E. A. Whittuck, in cooperation with the British Institute of International Affairs. The work thus begun is an evidence that British jurisconsults are not unmindful of the vital elements in international law. The war and discussions of international questions have made it imperative that international law shall be re-examined. Well-informed and careful contributions to the science of international law are needed now as never before. The aim of the editors is to apply the fruits of research to the problems of the day by printing in this convenient form worthy contributions to the science of international law. So, in the first volume we have such articles as "The British Prize Courts and the War." by Sir Erle Richards: "Sovereignty and the League of Nations." by Sir Geoffrey Butler; "The Neutrality of Brazil," and "The Legal Administration of Palestine under the British Military Occupation"; also biographical articles about Professor Oppenheim, Heinrich Lammasch, Dr. T. J. Lawrence, and Dr. Pitt Cobbett. In this first volume there are also a list of international agreements for 1919-20, 32 pages of biography, and cases dealing with international law decided by the English courts during the year 1919. In the second volume Dr. B. C. J. Loder and Sir H. Erle Richards have articles on the Permanent Court of International Justice and its jurisdiction. Dr. Andrew Eric Jackson has a "Digest of Cases,” and there are other articles covering “Submarine Cables and International Law," "The Effect of War on Treaties,” “Prize Court Procedure,” “Protectorates and Mandates," "The Work of the League of Nations," etc. The editors appeal for subscribers, as the work appears independently. Their appeal should meet with a generous response.

THE EVOLUTION OF WORLD PEACE. Essays arranged and edited by F. S. Marvin. Oxford University Press, London. 1921. Pp. 1-191.

Here we have eleven lectures by ten different persons delivered at the fourth of the Unity Schools held at Woodbrooke in August, 1920. The aim seems to have been to present something of an historical introduction to the League of Nations. Prof. Arnold Toynbee tells of "Alexander and Hellenism," but we seek in vain for any analysis relating directly or indirectly to the League of Nations. The same thing is true of Sir Paul Vinogradoff's lecture on "The Work of Rome," a rather scholastic and undigested mass of irrelevant material. H. W. C. Davis discourses on "Innocent the Third and the Medieval Church," and concludes: "It is possible and it is much to be desired that in time a code of international morality will be enforced by the weight of the public opinion of the civilized world." Mr. G. N. Clark has twenty-five pages on "Grotius and International Law." Mr. G. P. Gooch deals with "The French Revolution as a World Force"; Prof. C. R. Beazley with "The Congress of Vienna." and Frederick Whelen with "The League of Nations in Being." The weakest and least helpful of the lectures is "An Apology for a World Utopia," by H. G. Wells. The book would have been better had this utterance by our rapidly changing international-universalist been omitted.

I. To institute Conferences of Nations, to meet at stated intervals, in continuation of the first two conferences of The Hague; and

To facilitate the labors of such conferences; to invite accredited institutions devoted to the study of international law, to prepare projects for the consideration of governments, in advance of submission to the conferences; in order

To restate and amend, reconcile and clarify, extend and advance, the rules of international law, which are indispensable to the permanent establishment and the successful administration of justice between and among nations.

II. To convoke, as soon as practicable, a conference for the advancement of international law; to provide for its organization outside of the domination of any one nation or any limited group of nations; to which conference every nation recognizing, accepting, and applying international law in its relations with other nations shall be invited and in which all shall participate upon a footing of equality.

III. To establish an Administrative Council, to be composed of the diplomatic representatives accredited to the government of the State in which the conference for the advancement of international law convenes; which representatives shall, in addition to their ordinary functions as diplomatic agents, represent the common interests of the nations during the interval between successive conferences; and to provide that

The president of the Administrative Council shall, according to diplomatic usage, be the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country in which the conference convenes; An advisory committee shall be appointed by the Administrative Council from among its members, which shall meet at short, regular, and stated periods;

The chairman of the advisory committee shall be elected by its members;

The advisory committee shall report the result of its labors to the Administrative Council;

The members of the Administrative Council, having considered the report of the advisory committee, shall transmit their findings or recommendations to their respective governments, together with their collective or individual opinions, and that they shall act thereafter upon such findings and recommendations only in accordance with instructions from the governments which they represent.

IV. To authorize the Administrative Council to appoint, outside its own members, an executive committee or secretary's office to perform such duties as the conference for the advancement of international law, or the nations shall from time to time prescribe; and to provide that

The executive committee or secretary's office shall be under the supervision of the Administrative Council;

The executive committee or secretary's office shall report to the Administrative Council at stated periods.

V. To empower the Administrative Council to appoint other committees for the performance of such duties as the nations in their wisdom or discretion shall find it desirable to impose.

VI. To furnish technical advisers to assist the Administrative Council, the advisory committee, or other committees appointed by the council, in the performance of their respective duties, whenever the appointment of such technical advisers may be necessary or desirable, with the understanding that the request for the appointment of such experts may be made by the conference for the advancement of international law or by the Administrative Council.

VII. To employ good offices, mediation, and friendly composition wherever feasible and practicable, in their own disputes, and to urge their employment wherever feasible and practicable, in disputes between other nations.

VIII. To organize a Commission of Inquiry of limited membership, which may be enlarged by the nations in dispute, to which commission they may refer, for investigation and report, their differences of an international character, unless they are otherwise bound to submit them to arbitration or to other form of peaceful settlement; and To pledge their good faith to abstain from any act of force against one another pending the investigation of the commission and, the receipt of its report; and

To reserve the right to act on the report as their respective interests may seem to them to demand; and

To provide that the Commission of Inquiry shall submit its report to the nations in controversy for their action, and to the Administrative Council for its information.

IX. To create a Council of Conciliation of limited membership, with power on behalf of the nations in dispute to add to its members, to consider and to report upon such questions of a non-justiciable character, the settlement whereof is not otherwise prescribed, which shall from time to time be submitted to the Council of Conciliation, either by the powers in dispute or by the Administrative Council; and to provide that

The Council of Conciliation shall transmit its proposals to the nations in dispute, for such action as they may deem advisable, and to the Council of Administration for its information.

X. To arbitrate differences of an international character not otherwise provided for, and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, to submit them to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, in order that they may be adjusted upon a basis of respect for law, with the understanding that disputes of a justiciable nature may likewise be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration when the parties in controversy prefer to have their differences settled by judges of their own choice, appointed for the occasion.

XI. To set up an international court of justice with obligatory jurisdiction, to which, upon the failure of diplomacy to adjust their disputes of a justiciable nature, all States shall have direct access-a court whose decisions shall bind the litigating States, and, eventually, all parties to its creation, and to which the States in controversy may submit, by special agreement, disputes beyond the scope of obligatory jurisdiction.

XII. To enlarge from time to time the obligatory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice by framing rules of law in the conferences for the advancement of international law, to be applied by the court for the decision of questions which fall either beyond its present obligatory jurisdiction or which nations have not hitherto submitted to judicial decision.

XIII. To apply inwardly international law as a rule of law for the decision of all questions involving its principles, and outwardly to apply international law to all questions arising between and among all nations, so far as they involve the Law of Nations.

XIV. To furnish their citizens or subjects adequate instruction in their international obligations and duties, as well as in their rights and prerogatives;

To take all necessary steps to render such instruction effective; and thus

To create that "international mind" and enlightened public opinion which shall persuade in the future, where force has failed to compel in the past, the observance of those standards of honor, morality, and justice which obtain between and among individuals, bringing in their train law and order, through which, and through which alone, peace between nations may become practicable, attainable. and desirable.

VOL. 84

ADVOCATE OF PEACE

Edited by ARTHUR DEERIN CALL

Published since 1834 by

THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY

(1815-1828)

Suite 612-614 Colorado Building, Washington, D. C. (Cable address, "Ampax, Washington") PUBLISHED MONTHLY, EXCEPT SEPTEMBER

Sent free to all members of the American Peace Society. Separate Subscription Price, $2.00 a year. Single copies, twenty cents each.

Entered as Second-Class Matter, June 1, 1911, at the Post-Office at Washington, D. C., under the act of July 16, 1894. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3. 1917, authorized August 10, 1918.

It being impracticable to express in these columns the divergent views of the thousands of members of the American Peace Society, full responsibility for the utterances of this magazine is assumed by the Editor.

THIS SOCIETY

N OUR LAST NUMBER we were forced to remind our

I readers that if the American Peace Society was to get the $15,000 under the terms of the offer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it would be necessary for the friends of the American Peace Society to come forward with approximately $5,000 before June 30, 1922. We are able now to report that the amount remaining to be raised is $2,100.

UR PAMPHLET, “THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF O 1787,” has been called for by some 20,000 persons. Only a lack of funds keeps us from supplying a potential demand running into the hundreds of thousands. Every dollar subscribed for this purpose will be doubled by the terms of the Carnegie Endowment's offer.

HE NINETY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING

OF THE

THE CONFERENCE AT GENOA

No. 5

HE FACTS we get of the Genoa Conference are far

Tfrom encouraging. The center of the picture is

Russia. France and Belgium have financial interests in Russia, and on a large scale. Other nations have similar interests in Russia; but in 1920 the French credit in Russia amounted to over thirteen billion francs, of which about ten billions were loaned by private citizens. In France there is no faith that the Soviet Government intends to respect these obligations. The situation existing between Belgium and Russia is relatively as serious. Naturally both France and Belgium are concerned that neither they nor their citizens shall lose their property in Russia. They are standing together in their insistence upon their rights. It had been proposed at Genoa that Soviet Russia should return or restore the private property of the French, Belgians, and other foreigners or failing that, compensate all foreign interests for loss or damage caused by confiscation or sequestration in Russia; but that, in case of disagreement as to the amount of compensation, the former owner can submit the matter in dispute to a mixed arbitration tribunal. If the tribunal decides that the

compensation offered by the Soviet is just, the plaintiff must accept the reward; but if not, he must be satisfied to receive from the Soviet Government "the right to enjoy his property under conditions at least as favorable for him in everything concerning its use and its free disposition as existed when in previous possession." The Belgian complaint is that such an arrangement underestimates the importance of restitution and overemphasizes compensation. It would mean simply that Belgians would be permitted to lease property which in fact belongs to them. This proposed adjustment is founded in the claim of the Russians that any other arrangement would mean the overthrow of the communist principle of State ownership. While French interests in the petroleum fields do not equal those of certain other States, the French-owned properties in Russia, particu

ciety's headquarters Friday, May 26, at 10 a. m.

The annual dinner of the American Peace Society will be held at Rauscher's, Washington, D. C., in the evening at 7.30 o'clock.

Members of the American Peace Society wishing to attend this dinner should notify this office on or before the 22d of May. The dinner will cost approximately five dollars a plate.

Belgium's property rights in Russia amount to three billion francs, gold. Both Belgium and France take the position that they are standing simply for the rights of property, communism or no communism.

In the meantime opinion in certain quarters is, as is the fashion, quite hostile to France. This is illustrated. by James Henry Thomas' warning to France, speaking at a labor demonstration at Derby, England, May 9,

when he declared that, with the possibility of war almost as threatening today as in August, 1914, "if France is determined to follow a warlike policy she must proceed by herself, for the people of Great Britain. are sick of war and are not going to be parties to it." The Genoa Conference was advertised as an attempt to come to terms with Russia, to bring Germany back into the European fold, and to set up a "Four-power Pact" for the nations of Europe. None of these things None of these things has been accomplished or seems capable of accomplishment. Russia's demand for recognition and a government loan, the French demands, the Belgian demands, the German-Russian Treaty, the miasmatic aftermaths of the Treaty of Versailles, are apparently still too much. for European brains and character.

The whole difficulty revolves around Russia. The whole difficulty in Russia revolves around property. The whole difficulty with property consists in the fact that Russia has abolished private property, including the private and public property of non-Russians. Both France and Belgium are opposed to any general European peace treaty until Russia recognizes the sanctity of their property. That is sanity.

Under the circumstances, the talk of a non-aggression compact is futile. Why hope to reach an understanding with Russia? Why try to settle problems relating to frontiers? The Russian oil fields, the Russo-German Treaty, the plans for an international consortium for the exploitation of Russia-these are all nuts difficult to crack. Until Russia is reformed, they cannot be cracked.

Lloyd-George, fighting for his political life, is, it appears, destined to fail in his attempt to play the rôle of Charles Evans Hughes in the conferencé. He is not up to the job, mentally or morally. Advices from abroad lead us to believe that he has been inexcusably misled, or that he is still a party to the familiar European game of catch-as-catch-can. Indirections, kaleidoscopic policies, will fail, as undoubtedly they ought. Temporizing with the Soviet régime, to the undoing of the conference and to the serious injury of the world, is not the way to a stabilized Europe. It is not the business of selfrespecting nations to flirt with or to make love to the group of self-appointed destroyers of Russia. The streak of flabby insincerity in the basic plans for the conference has been apparent from the outset. No one at Genoa seems able to lead, and leadership is indispensable at Genoa. A correspondent writes to us out of Europe as follows:

"If there is any one man who is more responsible than any other for European retardation and the miserable conditions following the Armistice, that man is LloydGeorge. Poincaré is absolutely right. And, if there is

to be serious trouble later, it will again be France who uses her army to protect the world, other parts of which have to bicker and delay and hitch and back and fill.

"America came in when she saw herself seriously threatened, slipped out without much injury, has now the world's wealth, and thinks she is fairly secure. She is not. The Pacific question on one coast is not disposed of with any real guarantee of permanence. Led their best to open the gates to Bolshevism, and if that by Lloyd-George, various forces in Europe are doing flood once gets really loose, there isn't a finer forcing garden anywhere in the world for it than America. It is not 'Russia' at Genoa; it is 'Bolsheviks'; and that fact should not be forgotten. Those waves can readily wash across the Atlantic.

"Remember German disaffection in America during the war; there was quite a bit of it. Remember present American industrial difficulties and unemployment. There is, indeed, a substantial area of soil quite ready for the destructive policy loved by the Bolsheviks."

Our own view is that the United States need fear nothing from the Communists, but the references to the British Prime Minister in this letter are interesting.

Mr. Lloyd-George seems to think that a loan to the Soviet Government may be desirable; but he hides behind the statement that the thing is quite impossible, not because he thinks such a thing undesirable, but "because the parliaments of the various countries able to make such a loan would not approve it." That is not brave language. It is cowardly talk. Neither does it serve any purpose to tell the Bolsheviki at Genoa that if they will "restore the confidence of the world, Russia can get all the money she needs." That, too, is just shifty business. There can be no "confidence" in an irresponsible Russia.

We cannot go forward by going backward. Even Lloyd-George cannot play on both sides of the fence at one and the same time. When he declares in the Cannes resolution that Russia has a right to have any property régime the Russians like, he is on one side of the fence; when he says in the same instrument that if Russia is to get outside help she must restore or compensate for the investments private capital has made in that land, he is playing on the other side of the fence; for Russia cannot do both of these things. The Bolsheviki cannot both recognize and refuse to recognize the private ownership of property, even if they agree to do so, as Lloyd-George proposes.

The stage at Genoa was arranged for the purpose of opening up a Soviet-ruined Russia to the end that a hungry Europe might get something to eat. The play is a failure. Whiffling policies have turned Genoa into a publicity bureau for the most discredited group of political bunglers of modern times, with the result that these shysters are arrogantly demanding not only recognition, but enormous loans from the nations of Europe.