recall, and other new institutional forms of democracy, a breaking down of constitutional barriers the effect of which is leading us away from the path of true progress.

In emphasizing the necessity of "constitutionalizing "civil liberty as a means of protecting it against the infringements of the legislature and the executive, Professor Burgess has undoubtedly laid down a principle of political science which is generally sound; yet one can hardly avoid the feeling that he attaches an undue importance to formal constitutional prescriptions and to the separation of constituent and legislative powers. It is manifestly quite impossible to obtain from the study of mere constitutional texts any adequate idea of the civil liberty actually enjoyed in any country. It is idle to argue, for example, that because the constitution of France contains no bill of rights there are no guarantees of civil liberty in that country. One cannot help feeling, Professor Burgess says, that the French statesmen are not disposed to give the liberty of the individual a place in their constitutional law.

But,

as every one knows, most of the French constitutions since 1789 have in fact contained elaborate declarations of rights, and the reason why the present constitution contains no such declaration is because it was not considered necessary to repeat it. Most of the French publicists today hold that the "principles of '89" are in fact a part of the public law of France and that the legislature cannot infringe upon them without violating the constitution. (Cf., for example, Duguit, Droit Constitutionnel, volume ii, pages 6, 13; and Coumoul, Le Pouvoir Judiciaire, page 229).

On the other hand, the constitution of Prussia contains various declarations in favor of liberty of speech, press, assembly etc. ; but, as is well known, this liberty is actually far less in Prussia than in France. Great Britain has no written constitution, the organization of state and government are confounded, the legislature is omnipotent; yet to argue that civil liberty is less protected in England than in Spain and Portugal where the sovereign power is organized "back of and independent "' of the government, is to regard only forms and to ignore the real facts. It seems to the reviewer, therefore, that the rigid application of the tests which Professor Burgess adopts for determining the problem must often lead to the most unsatisfactory results in practice. It is very much like the old-fashioned classification of governments as monarchies, aristocracies and democracies, which puts governments as widely different in fact as England and Persia in the same class, and governments like France and the United States, which have little in common, in another class. Moreover, it may be seriously doubted whether the

grounds upon which Professor Burgess attacks the sixteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States are well-founded. In fact, the amendment added nothing to the power of Congress in respect to the taxation of incomes. That power was already practically unlimited. The amendment merely changes the mode of procedure by dispensing with the necessity of apportionment. Furthermore, Congress has always had an unlimited power in respect to the taxation of imposts, duties and excises, subject only to the rule of uniformity-a rule which imposes no limits as to the amount which may be levied. In respect to these forms of taxation, Congress is entirely free to "take what it will and in any way it will," provided only that the rate is uniform; yet Professor Burgess sees no danger in the existence of such a power and he does not propose to limit it by constitutional amendment. Finally, if space permitted, it seems to the reviewer that it would not be difficult to show that the recent adoption of the various democratic "nostrums,' such as the initiative, referendum and recall, is not incompatible with the doctrine of liberty, although many of us will agree with the author that some of them are of questionable expediency for other reasons. JAMES W. GARNER.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

Growth of American State Constitutions from 1776 to the End of the Year 1914. By JAMES QUAYLE DEALEY. Boston, Ginn and Company, 1915.-viii, 308 pp.

This comparative study of state constitutions is the fourth published version of material originally printed by Professor Dealey seventeen years ago, and since then on three successive occasions revised and expanded. There is no better way of accomplishing pioneer research than to print and invite criticism, then to print again; and the greatest service a critic can render to the tentative product is-with full realization of the author's difficulties-to speak his mind very frankly. In the opinion of the present reviewer Professor Dealey needs to correct certain radical defects in his manner of treatment before he can regard his work as completed.

The volume is in three parts, dealing with the past, the present and the future of state constitutions. The first criticism that suggests itself, points of detail aside, concerns the arrangement of the first or historical portion. The successive instruments and their principal amendments are taken up mainly in a chronological order, modified to some extent by geographical considerations and by a distinction between old states. and new. Much thought seems to have been expended upon this order,

which is logical and effective so long as attention is focused upon the mere fact, or upon the mere method, of change. When, however, the reader finds interpolated-sometimes after a group of states, often in connection with a single state-a statement of the principal provisions which were at this time adopted, his attention is strained and fatigued by the constant shift from one topic to another. Thus on page 102 we read that Connecticut, since 1886, has introduced plurality elections, increased the size of its senate, and placed a time-limit on the sessions of its assembly. On the next page, Vermont, in 1913, strengthens the governor's veto power, introduces November elections and January sessions, and places restrictions upon special and local legislation. This is the method of the medieval chronicle, not of the digested history. If these dreary catalogues must be preserved intact, they should at least be relegated to footnotes. A better solution, however, would seem to be to take these unrelated details out of their historical setting and redistribute them by order of topics.

If chronology is to be subordinated to the topical order, however, some rather incisive analysis of the subject matter is required. And this brings us to our second criticism. It is not easy to discover upon what principle the author has selected, out of a multitude of topics, those which are worthy of specific mention in his first part. He goes into details such as those just quoted, yet he omits-to give only one illustration-such a highly significant fact as the activity of Mississippi in 1832 and of New York in 1846, in inaugurating the mid-century movement for the popular election of higher administrative and judicial officers. In his second part, dealing with existing constitutional provisions, he pursues a topical order; and in his third part, devoted to trend and future development, he does the same. But he pursues one order of topics in part two and quite another order in part three. When one looks up "short ballot" in the very imperfect index, and discovers that it is correlated, in the first reference, with Australian, Massachusetts and non-partisan ballots, one secures further evidence of how much remains to be done in the sifting and ordering of material.

A third general defect of this volume is its style, and in particular its over-insistence upon detail. The reviewer may speak with the better grace on this point from having sinned in a similar way himself. He appreciates the conscientious effort which results in a passage such as this, referring to the higher judges (page 175):

'Three states still retain a

44

good behavior'' tenure, but all others fix a

'Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island.

definite term. A long tenure is favored by four other states:' the remaining states vary from two years (Vermont) to twelve, twenty-two favoring the six-year term; eight and twelve are the periods next favored.

It is a rhetorical triumph to force a mass of scattered items into sentences which (with the aid of footnotes) actually parse; but, seriously, is the triumph worth while? On page 51 we find: "It would be tedious and unnecessary to enumerate in any detail the substance of these new and revised constitutions. . . . The mass of detail would prove confusing and the advantages gained from it if set forth are not obvious." It would have been better if the author had applied this principle more widely, leaving out much that is unsystematically minute, and expressing in tabular form whatever readily lends itself to this treatment. An entire page (184) of numerical details in regard to the state legislatures would be vastly more effective if put into the form of a table rather than of a running narrative.

A few minor slips have been noted. The statement that New Jersey's original constitution was never amended (page 28) ignores the Declaratory Act of 1807, which was certainly an amendment in substance. On page 88 the author seems to say that Colorado had woman suffrage as early as 1876. The discussion of the New York provision regarding senatorial apportionment (page 200) overlooks the real point of this ingeniously worded rule, safeguarding the smaller counties in their existing number of senators. The footnote on page 194, crediting to Oklahoma a provision which originated in New York, betrays the fact that in at least a portion of his work the author has relied upon Professor Stimson rather than upon the original documents. In the main, however, the text does not lend itself to detailed criticism. Statements such as these on pages 135 and 136 that "in eighteen constitutions the oath ends with the sentence 'So help me God' (Vermont and Connecticut use the second person)," and "the constitutions of Virginia and Oklahoma are the only ones to mention the Young Men's Christian Association," look as though they were substantially correct. In any case they may be allowed to pass unchallenged.

These defects in Professor Dealey's volume are the better worth noting, because, in despite of them, he has produced a valuable work, which will have, or should have, a wide circulation. Statutory lawand as Professor Dodd has pointed out in a recent number of the QUARTERLY, no well-defined line between statutes and American state

Pennsylvania, twenty-one years; Maryland and Virginia, fifteen; New York, fourteen years.

constitutions can any longer be drawn-has long been a neglected field in our universities. It does not lend itself readily to the generalizations which the political scientist affects; while the lawyer has been apt to regard it as an unfortunate excrescence upon our common-law system. It is part of the growing actuality of our modern education that we are beginning to take this matter seriously. Professor Dealey has designed a pioneer work upon a comprehensive plan. In chapters i and ii, for instance, which deal with the relations of state constitutions to the union and the admission of new states; in chapter ix, which contains a convenient classification of existing instruments into four groups and touches upon their external form; in his full bibliographies, finally, he has brought together, in small compass, material which will be of the greatest assistance to the future worker. If he himself has not yet completed the work, or done as much in it as it is to be hoped he still will do, that is because he has courageously departed from the beaten track. Others will be helped by him in this respect more than he has been helped by others.

NEW YORK CITY.

ALFRED Z. REED.

The British Empire. By SIR CHARLES LUCAS. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1915.-ix, 250 pp.

On nearly the last page of The British Empire Sir Charles Lucas describes the method and spirit in which he would like to see the history of the Empire taught in the schools and colleges of Great Britain and the oversea dominions. He would like to see this history taught without minimising any of the wrongdoings of the past or the present, without attempting to deny that sordid motives have had play as well as higher aims; but always

with due insistence that it is contrary alike to reason and to the facts of history to represent the acquisition by England of an overseas empire as an artificial process, the product of a line of self-seeking men, solely intent on personal advantage, and not, as it actually has been, a natural and national growth, necessary to England for the defence of England, congenial to Englishmen as the kind of work for which their character and their training have adapted them, and incumbent on England as the part which has been assigned to this particular land and people in the evolution of the world.

This is the spirit which obviously actuated Sir Charles Lucas in writing this short history of the oversea possessions of England, of the Domin