"Hereafter no territory on this continent shall be regarded as subject to transfer to a European power." In 1904 Roosevelt added "our assumption of responsibility for the good behavior of Latin America," the exercise of an international police power. In this was revealed emphatically the rôle we essayed in the new century. Senator Lodge in 1912 proposed the next corollary, "When any harbor or other place in the American continents is so situated that the occupation thereof for naval or military porposes might threaten the continuation of safety of the United States, the government of the United States could not see, without grave concern, the possession of such harbor or other place by any corporation or association which has such relations to another government not American as to give that government practical power of control for naval or military purposes." President Wilson, with an enlargement to include special "concessions," accepted this new corollary and his action was effective. He also added a corollary to the effect that we will recognize only governments founded on justice and law. Of this Dr. Fish concludes, "President Wilson's attitude of non-recognition is by all odds the most aggressive turn that has ever been given to our Spanish-American policy, as it involves practical intervention in the domestic affairs of these republics."

Dr. Fish writes in his concluding chapter: "The one deliberate purpose which our diplomacy has completely failed to bring about has been that of winning the sympathy and acquiring the leadership of Spanish America. The reason is obvious; not the sentiment of Pan-Americanism, but the deep-seated nationalistic conception of the United States' dominance, has primarily moved us. From the day in 1794 when Wayne rode around the British fort at the rapids of the Maumee and dared its commander to fire, we have, with the exception of brief periods after the first abdication of Napoleon and during the Civil War, been the dominant American power. In 1823 we announced the fact to the world, and at the same time first became generally conscious of ourselves. Every corollary added. to the Monroe Doctrine has been a renewed assertion of the fact, and has presented an added means of maintaining it.

"Dominance is not a policy, but a talent: the responsibility

is for its use. Our employment of our position has rested upon a feeling that long antedated it; that even antedated our ancestors' migration to America. . . . In America we were dominant; by conferring our activities to America we could be dominant wherever we were active. It is this single and fundamental idea that has impressed itself on the American mind, and has become the touchstone by which public opinion judges all diplomatic questions."

Of the twenty-eight presidents of the United States all except eight have had to deal with matters of major diplomatic importance. Of the twenty facing this necessity none, save Polk, were elected with such an exigency distinctively in mind. None save John Adams may be said to have achieved diplomatic distinction as President. Many, notably Tyler and McKinley, have relied greatly upon their secretaries of state. Yet no secretary of state, unless it be John Hay, has won a lasting recognition. Since the beginning of the Great War we have heard repeatedly that our diplomacy is a by-word among European nations; also that Wilson's task has been unprecedented. The weight of the second statement seems less overwhelming when we read of Lincoln's task in its diplomatic aspects, including Seward, or when we turn back to the problems of Madison, Jefferson, and the elder Adams. As to our diplomatic service it will do the skeptical American good to read of the results obtained by our commissioners at Paris in 1781 and at Ghent in 1814, and of the individual victories won by Benjamin Franklin and by John Hay. In this day when leadership of the first order seems at a premium this characterization of Hay is heartening: "His knowledge of international law, of historical tendencies, and of men was in its combination unsurpassed in his day. He possessed such an Americanism as can exist only when based on a complete knowledge of American development."

The reader will find in this volume "what has happened," but let him beware of the mistake that history repeats itself. Some years ago James Harvey Robinson wrote of history as a guide, "not because the past would furnish precedents of conduct, but because our conduct would be based upon a perfect knowledge of existing conditions founded upon perfect knowledge of the

"

past. This book gives us background. We must look elsewhere for an analysis of present conditions, and, fortunately, we need not look in vain. EDGAR E. ROBINSON.

ECONOMIC ORigins of Jeffersonian DeMOCRACY. By Charles A. Beard. New York: The Macmillan Company. Pp. ix+474, $2.50.

This volume is in a sense a continuation of one of the author's earlier works, Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. In the first book Professor Beard attempts to establish the thesis that the Federal Constitution was the outcome of "a struggle between capitalistic and agrarian interests." In the present book he attempts to establish the thesis that capitalistic and agrarian interests determined the alignment of political parties into the Federalist and Republican groups during the period immediately following the adoption of the Constitution. The Federalist party was made up of the security-holding capitalists, manufacturers, shippers, and merchants who constituted substantially the same group which advocated the adoption of the Constitution. The Republican party was made up of the debtburdened agrarian classes who had so bitterly opposed the adoption of the Constitution. In the cleavage of economic interests between the capitalistic and agrarian classes the author finds the fundamental cause of the formation of the Federalist and Republican parties during the beginning years of our national life.

Throughout the political issues of the day there appeared this fundamental division between the capitalistic Federalists and the agrarian Republicans. The Federalists were in favor of the funding of the national debt, the assumption of the state debts, the establishment of a national bank, taxation, and other features of Hamilton's economic and fiscal policies, and the Republicans were opposed to an economic system which yielded them no material advantage. The same cleavage of capitalistic and agrarian interests also appears in the discussion of the Jay treaty and the attitude toward building a stronger navy. The meaning of agrarian Republicanism (Jeffersonian Democracy) is thus summed up in the author's words: "Jeffersonian Democracy simply meant the possession of the federal government by the agrarian masses led by an aristocracy of slave-owning planters,

and the theoretical repudiation of the right to use the Government for the benefit of any capitalistic group, fiscal, banking, or manufacturing."

Many will not agree with Professor Beard's fundamental thesis that the formation of the political parties of the time grew out of the conflict of economic interests. But the array of supporting evidence is strong and the method of presentation is convincing. The importance of economic facts as fundamental elements in historical development warrants more consideration than those facts have actually received. Accumulating material tends to fulfil the prophecy that "American history will shortly be rewritten along economic lines." In this volume the author has contributed to the fulfilment of that prophecy in an able and scholarly way. JAMES G. STevens.

THE WEALTH and Income of the People of the UnitED STATES. By Willford J. King. New York: The Macmillan Company. $1.50.

This is the second volume of the new series of the Citizen's Library of Economics, Politics, and Sociology, edited by Professor Richard T. Ely, of the University of Wisconsin. In addition to presenting some figures, tables, and statistics, taken mainly from the census, two theses seem to be maintained: namely, that the government of the United States should by legislative enactments, undertake to bring about a redistribution of wealth and income among its citizens; and, likewise, that it should stop, or at least greatly reduce, immigration.

The author at the very outset erroneously identifies public wealth with government property (p. 7). Again, he seems not to realize that after all it is not the wealth of individuals which would be redistributed but, actually, capital.

It is especially hazardous to maintain that the present distribution of capital is the result of legislative enactment, and that therefore equality may be established in the same manner by act of legislature (p. 102). Moreover, the author himself proves that at the close of a period during which many attempts were made to raise men's wages by such artificial means, wages actually declined on account of the artificial restrictions thrown around them (p. 201). HUBERT H. S. AIMES.

THE NORTH Americans of YESTERDAY. By Frederick S. Dellenbaugh. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. $4.00.

The value of the work of this distinguished author is attested by the fact that the publishers now present the fourth printing. Mr. Dellenbaugh's personal experience among the people of whom he writes has been extensive and his acquaintance with their monuments is thorough. The work contains more than three hundred and fifty illustrations and is, upon the whole, a beautiful example of the book-maker's art. In the Appendix a list is given of the principal stocks or families, the tribes and subtribes, of Indians from Central America to the Arctic ocean.

Passing over the introductory chapters, we note the adoption of the term "Amerind" to describe the aboriginal inhabitants of the continent. Its use will constantly remind the reader that he is dealing with a distinctive race and culture having a common origin. The term is a better one than "Redskin," but it will hardly displace "Indian" in popular usage. Full discussion of the phenomena connected with the higher European and the lower Amerind cultures lies beyond the scope of the task which Mr. Dellenbaugh has set for himself, belonging rather to the field of the sociologist. What will be the fate of the 265,000 Amerinds now living in the United States may be subject for speculation, but the future of Central America and of Mexico. would seem to belong to the native races.

The work is fully abreast of the times, no important contributions to the subject-matter having been made since the book first went to press. The energies of the ethnographers are now being bent toward the unravelling of the text of the Maya writings.

Mr. Dellenbaugh's study of the North American Indian is cast over the frame-work of the theory of the ethnic unity of this race, and it is from this point of view, in a scientific sense, that the greatest importance is to be attached to his work. His argument is fully set forth in the concluding chapter of the book, and it is briefly as follows: At some remote period of the earth's history the Amerinds were cut off from the rest of the world by changes in land areas and levels, and by the subsequent descent of the ice-cap they were crowded into the southern part of the