« AnteriorContinuar »
interest by all interested in the many new views of society and government now being developed.
GORDON E. SHERMAN.
International Waterways. By Paul Morgan Ogilvie, M.A. New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. pp. 424.
The author sees a closer connection between the freedom of navigation on the high seas and the principles of law relating to international rivers than will perhaps be generally admitted. But even if his view is extreme, he has at least helped clear thinking by showing that as commerce in its relations to modern society is a vital necessity (p. 8), the legal aspects of that commerce should be viewed as a whole and not piecemeal or according to some arbitrary classification of subject matter.
After some general discussion of the importance and development of water-borne commerce, there is a chapter on the institution of maritime law which is almost unrelated to the rest of the work. The connection which the author assumes between the early codes and "the unrestrained navigation of the sea" (p. 29) cannot fairly be said to exist, either historically or logically.
The historical sketch of sovereignty and freedom of the seas is on the whole an admirable summary, although not all of its conclusions will be accepted. The author does not sufficiently explain the British policy of the nineteenth century (p. 106) and his statement as to the liberality of the British view is far too sweeping. See, for example, President Grant's message of December 5, 1870, in Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. VII, pp. 102-105.
In his consideration of limitations on the use of the sea during war, the author assumes an exactness of legal right before the outbreak of the World War (p. 133), which did not exist, and The Hague Conventions and the Declaration of London are not even mentioned. The author says, “the laws of maritime warfare represent a virtual compromise between the irreconcilable interests of neutrals and belligerents” (p. 134), whereas the failure to agree upon the Declaration of London, aside from any consideration of events since 1914, is alone sufficient to show that no such compromise had been reached even nominally.
Mr. Ogilvie would date the principle of freedom of navigation in inland waterways from the Congress of Vienna (1815) or from the declaration made by the Allied Sovereigns in Paris in 1814. But the declaration of the Congress of Vienna was not “unequivocal" as the author supposes (p. 151). The language was not that used in 1814, as is carefully pointed out by Westlake who says, indeed, “The wording seems to have been skilfully chosen in order to mask a retreat, intended by some members of the congress, to the ground of condominium.” (International Law, Part I, p. 150.)
Nor will international lawyers agree that claims to jurisdiction over such bays as the Chesapeake can be summarily dismissed as "extravagant” (p. 133). The whole question of marginal waters is one of much greater complexity than is realized and is probably not to be settled by any hard and fast rules—the geographers have pointed out that one coast line may be very different in character from another and that most remarkable results follow in various parts of the world from a line drawn regularly three (or even, as suggested, six) sea miles from the coast. No one would agree, for example, that naval battles could or should be fought off the inhabited coasts of neutrals at any such arbitrary limit of distance.
In mentioning the importance to Switzerland of the development of the Rhine, it should be pointed out that the Swiss right was first recognized at the Conference of Paris, where representatives of Switzerland were heard. See Articles 355 and 359 of the Treaty of Versailles.
But while we may not always agree with Mr. Ogilvie, his knowledge of his subject and his clear style make his study one which is to be welcomed.
It is difficult to speak too highly of Part II of Mr. Ogilvie's work, "A Reference Manual to the Treaties, Conventions, Laws and Other Fundamental Acts Governing the International Use of Inland Waterways." Only those who have endeavored to study any particular international river question in detail can well appreciate the learning and industry which have gathered together this compendium of information. A work such as this, which has not been done before, and which is so well done that it will not have to be done again, is a real contribution to legal literature, for which the author will be thanked by every other worker or student in his field. The arrangement of the material is admirable and convenient and after careful checking with the material regarding waterways available at the Conference of Paris, it appears to the reviewer that the Manual of Mr. Ogilvie is substantially complete.
The whole work is thoroughly indexed and contains a bibliography.
Mr. Ogilvie promises a subsequent treatise on “International Rights on Inland Navigable Waterways” which all the readers of his present work will await with interest.
DAVID HUNTER MILLER.
Report on the Foreign Service. New York: National Civil Service
Reform League. pp. 322 (no index).
The diplomatic and consular officers of the United States will have an enormously increased burden of responsibility in consequence of the World War. Consequently, the National Civil Service Reform League has held it to be desirable to gather a mass of facts on the subject of the needs of the foreign service and has made certain recommendations for its improvement. Chief of these recommendations are: (1) for an improvement of the entrance examination for the foreign service and placing the appointments more strictly upon a merit basis; (2) for the purchase of embassies, legations and consulates; (3) for an increase of salary in all the branches of the service at home and abroad; and (4) for the extension of the merit system of promotion to the selection of ministers. The special committee which made the investigation for the League comprised Ellery C. Stowell, chairman, Richard H. Dana and George T. Keyes, ex-officio members, Ogden H. Hammond and Ansley Wilcox, all competent men, the chairman especially being an accomplished student of international affairs.
The Committee says that, hereafter, the extension of our commerce will depend very greatly upon the coöperation of the Government with the individual and the consequent assistance of the Government's agents abroad. It emphasizes the responsibility of these agents in preserving our peaceful relations with foreign Powers and the importance of attracting to the service some of the able young men who now enter law and railroad offices. While reprobating a few of the diplomatic appointments which have been made in recent years, the Committee registers its approval of the manner in which President Wilson and the State Department have resisted the pressure of the spoilsmen to injure the service. The Committee finds that in the Consular Service, especially, appointments and promotions have been fairly administered and that the Honorable Wilbur F. Carr has been sustained in his high-minded and efficient direction. “We now have a Consular Service," says the report, “which is placed on what is substantially a merit basis, and we have a half loaf in the diplomatic branch.”
Pursuing the recommendations which have already been noted, the Committee thinks the age limit for admission to the foreign service should be reduced to thirty years, that the examinations should be open to every citizen of the United States and not by designation of the President or on recommendation of Senators or Representatives, and that examinations should be held at places convenient to applicants. Appointments, too, should not be distributed among the States in proportion to their inhabitants, but should be freely given to the most competent.
Concerning the salaries and allowances, the Committee shows that the French Ambassador at London receives $7,722 per annum as his personal salary, and $27,799 for entertainments; the French Ambassador at Washington has the same salary and $19,691 for entertainments; the embassy buildings are owned by the French Government. The British Ambassador at Paris receives a salary of $55,932 and the British Ambassador at Washington $48,665. The embassies are owned by the Government, but there appears to be no entertainment fund. The United States, on the other hand, pays its highest ranking Ambassadors $17,500 per annum, makes no entertainment allowance and does not own its embassies in any European capital. The salaries of the higher grade of American Consuls, the Committee finds, are lower than those paid by other governments.
With reference to the extension of the promotion system to the principal officers in the diplomatic service, the Committee shows that the French Minister at Berlin when the war broke out, had had a previous diplomatic experience of ten years, and the British Ambassador of thirty-nine years; at London, the French Ambassador had had a previous experience of sixteen years, and the British Ambassador at Paris twenty-two years. Other illustrations on this point are given. Commentary is made upon the coincidence of diplomatic appointments and heavy contributions to political campaign funds by the gentlemen chosen to represent this country abroad.
The Committee recommends that consuls be permitted to transfer, on occasion, to the diplomatic service, wisely arguing that once the right of transfer is recognized the prestige of the consular service will rise to the level of the diplomatic service. An improved system of transfer from the State Department staff to the diplomatic and consular service is urged and the need of increasing the salaries which are now paid in the State Department. A table gives the purchasing power of the salaries of 1918 compared with those of 1898. It appears that to make his salary of 1918 equal in value to the salary paid in 1898, the Secretary of State, who now receives $12,000 per annum, should have $22,230, and the Second and Third Assistants who now receive $4,500, should have $9,726.50. Several interesting appendices relate to political appointments, citing the famous Van Allen case in 1893 and the more recent case of James M. Sullivan, Minister to the Dominican Republic, and the recommendations for improvement of the service made by officers of the department and diplomatic and consular officers.
Nobody who reads this review will deny that most of the recommendations of the League are sound. Embassies and legation buildings, generally, and some consulates should belong to the nation whose representatives occupy them, and the nation should pay for the maintenance of the buildings. The problem of salaries disappears as soon as this is done. There is no good reason why there should not be greater use of the promotion system in the diplomatic service. Interchange between the diplomatic and consular services would be a happy solution of the anomalous condition under which consuls enjoy less prestige than diplomats.
Some of the League's recommendations are directed to the Executive, which regulates entrance examinations and can arrange them to suit itself, may extend the promotions in the diplomatic service, and, probably, might prescribe an interchange of diplomatic and consular officers. With salaries, allowances and the purchase of residences abroad, of course, Congress alone can deal. The question of political contributions and diplomatic offices as a reward to those who have made them is the most serious of all the problems. It can only be partly solved by the Government's ownership of the embassies and legations, for diplomatic service with foreign residence and social prestige will always be attractive to a certain class of rich men.
It is a hard thing, too, to say how the best class of young men can be attracted to the foreign service in view of the many avenues to