Caith made by wae Onbtenta perista, that it is a man of je intemational law in every ease overmales munitipal law" (p.9). On the contrary, he would view them as separate branches of the tree of law; one derived from international enstons and agreementa; the other from local customs and statutes: so that the municipal law of a country cannot be judicially extended to include anything * 1794, 3 Bart, 1478. * 1965, 2 K. B., 71, established by international law, which has not been at least tacitly adopted by such municipal law (p. 10). He deduces from our rule that an Act of Congress can repeal a treaty provision, the corollary that international law and municipal law are with us of equal force (p. 122). Is this true of the States? Can a State legislature assume to repeal a principle of international law? And when Congress abrogates a treaty provision, does it thereby detract from the authority of international law? It has simply broken a bargain and made a precedent which may be of importance in future modifications or definitions of that law. It is worth remembering that the Federal Court of Prize Appeals, as early as 1781, held that the municipal laws of a country cannot change the law of nations so as to bind the subjects of another nation.3 Reference is made to the fact that after Jay's treaty removing the disabilities of aliens as to holding real estate, England had to pass a statute in confirmation. The United States did not. "This difference might seem to imply that the rule of international law requiring that treaties shall be observed was incorporated in the law of the United States though not with that of England. But it is not so. The difference is merely that the Executive possesses in the United States a power of making law by treaty not paralleled in England" (pp. 60, 116). But the President of the United States simply initiates treaties. They have no legal force whatever until ratified by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He stands here just where, according to Maitland, the King of England stands (p. 62). Whether international law be binding in England, or not, on national legislatures, treaties are on prize courts, and a very recent decision of the Court of Appeal is cited accepting that position as to the Hague Convention of 1907 on the laws and customs of land warfare (pp. 73, 125). Sir William Scott is frankly criticised for his well-known statement, in the case of the Fox, in 1811, that a British prize court is bound to administer the law of nations, and bound equally to enforce Orders in Council, because they are presumed to conform to that law. It is challenged as "erecting a violent presumption" of harmony by "a pure legal fiction" (p. 35). The proper rule for a prize court in case of such a conflict, in Mr. Picciotto's view, would seem to be that there is no power inherent in the royal prerogative to legislate for it, so as to debar it from executing the precepts of international law as to prize 3 Miller v. The Resolution, 2 Dall., 1, 4. ara ver or Prament p. 7. and to Partiament, 30 te nur nit e 14. to to his point, he seems er in westrain he neang f Lrshall's onservation. in Murray haring Reber hat in het of ingress an never be eondred in "rate jentmi nga yo feet extra ommerce, further than a vertented or the awations, is inderstood in his country" Tis a pained te rreeding tatement of the Chief esties in the same sentence, hat men in Act ought never to be confried to molate the aw of anions i any other possible constriction In regard to a British Crter in Comci affeeting he mies of decision ʼn prze sea, the author goes on farther han o say that, being only in steruse of a mora premgarve. I would seem as such to have a Seid parower than that if an Act of Partiament p. 47. The went of Parliament a game is practically necessary to semure the enforcement of my reary n he orinary courts pp. 94, a 107 125. The author recognizes three fisions of international law.—that which „8 assented to by ail nations. That which is assented to by an imJomant Jape of them, and that which has been assented to by a small number only 1d. It may well be questioned whether the second and third classes are inherently aw at all. They seem rather law in *ne making. SIMEON E. BALDWIN. Diplomatic Protection of Obama Airut: or the Law of International Come By Edwin M. Borthard. New York. The Banks Law Polishing Company. 1915 pp. xxvii. 988. Aa tut few books have been heretofore written upon the subject matter covered by the work under review, it is but scanty praise to say frat this is the best of them. In standard.zng any American book on any branch of international law, one instinctively tums to the incomparable works of Mr. John Fassett Moore, the Digest of International Law and the History of International Arbitrations,-which constitute at once the most elaborate and able treatises which America has produced upon international law and also the original sources of a great bulk of material, the actual 42 Cranch, 118. original papers of which are beyond the reach of the ordinary private citizen. However, Mr. Moore, in his Digest, covered the entire field of international law and he would have been unscientific and would have gone beyond the purpose and scope of his work, had he attempted to deal with the minutiae of international claims. In his International Arbitrations, Mr. Moore evidently aimed not so much at preparing a general treatise on international claims, as at producing a work that should make available the otherwise inaccessible records of international arbitrations, particularly those to which the United States has been a party. Of necessity this purpose so limited the scope of the work as to put out of view a consideration of the diplomatic adjustment and settlement of claims save as these matters might be incidental to particular cases which were ultimately arbitrated. There have moreover been a number of important arbitrations since the work was prepared. The report of Mr. Lawrence "The Law of Claims Against Governments, including the mode of adjusting them and the procedure adopted in their investigation" contains material that is valuable, but it was written with a particular purpose in mind, and it is no more than the usual government document,-a heterogeneous, unclassified mass of material. Mr. Ralston has given us a comparatively small but well conceived and written Résumé (as he terms it) of International Arbitral Law and Procedure, but this obviously deals with only one phase of international claims. Our present author has undertaken the larger and more ambitious task of covering the whole field of international claims. In his work and that of Mr. Ralston, is to be found certainly the greater part of the law and existing precedents and authorities relating to this particular branch of the law of nations. The two works are more or less complementary, the one to the other. The most cursory examination of the work under review demonstrates the immense amount of labor which its author performed in its preparation, and even a partial reading of the text brings the assurance that the matter has been carefully and thoughtfully treated. The work is divided into four parts and each part is separately and independently divided into chapters. Part I deals with the "Relation Between State and Citizen, Between State and Alien, and Between State and State," and the various chapters thereunder are "The Alien"; "Municipal Responsibility of the State"; "International Responsi |