statement of August 9, in which he renounced mediation.' He added also a report of a recent conversation with Castlereagh who again asserted that the two warring nations must settle their differences directly. About a week later Lieven notified Romanzoff that he did not submit the note because it was not in harmony with the wishes of the Emperor, as expressed in his letter of August 9. This message was received on October 25 and was another heavy blow to the Chancellor. After a few days he penned a note to Alexander expressing grief that His Majesty had taken such an important step without notifying his minister.2

The Emperor must have felt the justice of the complaint, and it undoubtedly influenced his reply to Lieven, written at Frankfort on November 26. Lieven was told that His Majesty did not approve of his stand, and that there were no contradictions such as he mentioned. The Emperor was willing that the two powers should negotiate directly at London, but this was impossible because the Americans had no credentials authorizing them to negotiate in that way. In order, then, to bring this useless shedding of blood to an end, the renewal of the offer was made. It was Lieven's duty to present the note; and if he had not done so already he must do it at once.3 This reprimand failed to frighten the Russian minister at London. again refused to do as he was told; and, on December 27, he appealed to the Emperor to reconsider his position. He insisted that there was even less reason now than before for renewing the offer, inasmuch as in the interval the English Foreign Office had addressed itself to the American Department of State with a view of opening direct negotiations. So far as known this was Lieven's last word on the subject. About the time that the above-mentioned letter reached the headquarters at Freyburg, Castlereagh was having conferences with Alexander at the same place.5

1 Archives Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Londres," 1813, no. 396.

Ibid., " Ministère," 1813, no. 205.

Ibid., "Londres," 1813, no. 513.

Ibid., no. 463.

He

Ibid., no. 527. Letter from Nesselrode to Lieven, addressed from Freyburg, January 9, 1814, states that Castlereagh had arrived.

Towards the

Romanzoff's troubles were by no means over. end of October Lord Walpole arrived at St. Petersburg as Great Britain's representative. He at once opened a campaign of slander against the Chancellor for the purpose of discrediting him with the Americans.' The English minister and consul asserted publicly and privately that the Emperor had assured Lord Cathcart that he had withdrawn the offer of mediation, and that he had requested Romanzoff to tell this fact to the Americans so that they might treat directly with England,3 When Gallatin heard this story he went, on the evening of November 2, to the Chancellor to ask for its confirmation.* Romanzoff assured him that it was all news to him, and promised to communicate at once with the Emperor in order to learn the true state of affairs. Early next morning he addressed a letter to Alexander pleading with him for definite instructions as to what he should do and say. He had hardly finished writing when Walpole was announced. The Englishman was in fighting mood. He objected to the article in the Conservateur Imperial in which the subject of mediation was still mentioned in connection with the reception accorded to the American envoys by the Empresses. In thinly veiled language he charged the Chancellor with bad faith and with standing in the way of peace. Romanzoff sat there hearing himself abused without being able to make any other defence than that which he had offered to Gallatin. Whether his explanations were believed or not, he was equally disgraced and humiliated. This was not all. On the following day Harris, the American consul, called on him in behalf of the American envoys. He described their embarrassing situation and in conclusion asked Romanzoff why he concealed from them the truth that the Emperor would no longer act as mediator. There was little or

1 Archives Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Ministère," 1813, no. 214. See also Memoirs and Writings of Adams, Diary of James Gallatin, Papers and Letters of Bayard.

Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. ii, pp. 552, 591.

Ibid.

Archives Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "Ministère," 1813, no. 206.

nothing he could say or do, denounced as he was by all, and trusted by none.' He was particularly hurt by the seeming lack of respect shown to the American mission by the Emperor. Bayard and Gallatin were hurt at this and were ready to leave Russia as soon as they should hear from Alexander, but even this courtesy was denied them. Romanzoff finally wrote a strong letter to the Emperor imploring him to take some stand. But it was all in vain. The Chancellor felt so ashamed and disgraced that about January 1, 1814, he moved out of the Hotel of Foreign Affairs into his own palace and, soon after the departure of the American plenipotentiaries, he severed all official connection with his government.

On January 12, Gallatin asked for a passport to go to the Emperor, but this request could not be granted with the authorization from headquarters. Bayard and Gallatin then concluded to leave the country without waiting to hear from Alexander. Officially Romanzoff disapproved of their action, but in private conversation he justified this move.3 About January 26 the American mission departed from St. Petersburg.

The last note on the subject of mediation found in the archives is from Romanzoff to the Emperor, dated June 19, 1814. The Chancellor tells how deeply hurt he is that he did not have more of His Majesty's confidence in this negotiation, and that the American mission, inspired by a feeling of high respect and confidence in His Imperial Majesty, should have been so neglected.

Alexander was undoubtedly guilty of the charge made by Romanzoff. Yet there is something to be said in his defense. It should be remembered that at the time when the American

1 Archives Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Ministère," 1813, no. 214.

2 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. ii, pp. 553, 571-572, 579.

3 Levett Harris to Bayard, Saint Petersburg, 5/17 January, 1814. Annual Report American Historical Association, 1913. Papers of James A. Bayard; vol. ii, pp. 253, 254.

Archives Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"Ministère," 1814, no. 4. "Je regrette je la confesse à Votre Majesté que dans cette occasion je n'aye pas eu plus de part à Sa Confiance et que Cette Mission extraordinaire qui constatoit un si bel élan de respect et de confiance de la part d'une Republique envers Votre Majesté Imperiale, aye eté negligée si completement."

envoys were in the Russian capital, the Emperor was many" miles away leading the hosts of Europe against Napoleon. There were so many graver problems that he had no time for this one. His manner of handling this diplomatic question was, however, quite in keeping with his usual method-one policy for his ministers and another for himself. Alexander was not the cause of the failure of the mission. His offer to mediate was much to his credit and was not in vain; for it undoubtedly hastened the final negotiations. If England persisted in refusing there was nothing more for him to do. The attitude of Great Britain may have been, in some small degree, influenced by the eager desire of America for peace and by the President's hasty appointment of commissioners. This was a mistake and was so recognized at the time and since. Romanzoff may have used bad judgment in renewing the offer, but his motives were honorable. He had in mind the dignity of Russia and the obligation to the United States. The stories circulated about him by Lord Walpole are false in every particular, for which Alexander's double-faced method was largely to blame. The documents in the archives prove conclusively that Romanzoff was truthful, frank, and honest with the American commissioners. That he was a friend of America and appreciated its problems, our envoys knew, but even they did not realize how earnestly he worked in their country's behalf and how much he endured in their nation's cause.

STATE COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON.

F. A. GOLDER.

THE CREAM OF WHEAT CASE

HE fact that the control of the resale price by the manufacturer necessarily involves price fixing is probably

TH

the explanation of the decision of the Supreme Court that such control is an undue restraint of trade. The arbitrary fixing of prices has been associated so frequently with restraints of trade and monopolies that the courts naturally look askance at the practice.

The fact that price-fixing is frequently held illegal, however, does not necessarily mean that it is illegal per se; nor has it ever been so decided. There may be legitimate as well as illegitimate price fixing, and the question is open to determination on the merits of each case. The decision in the Dr. Miles Medical Company case conflicts with numerous and respectable authorities and has been criticised vigorously on the ground that it represents a case of legitimate price-fixing erroneously classed as illegal.

In considering a doubtful question it is frequently helpful to approach it from several entirely different angles. A case has recently arisen in which the right of a manufacturer to control the resale price of his goods is presented from an entirely new point of view and one which throws much light on the question of whether such control is in fact an undue restraint of trade. This is the case of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company v. The Cream of Wheat Company,3 now awaiting trial in the federal court for the southern district of New York.

Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373.

The following are the leading authorities contra: Elliman and Sons Co. v. Carrington and Son, 2 Chancery Div. 275; National Phonograph Co. v. Edison Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co., 1908, 1 Chancery Div. 335; Walsh v. Dwight, 58 N. Y. S. 91; Grant v. Hall and Lyon Co., 179 Mass. 588; Commonwealth v. Grinstead, 111 Ky. 203; Grogan v. Chaffee (California), 105 Pac. 745; Ghirardelli v. Hunsicker, 164 Cal. 355; Fisher Flouring Mills Co. v. Swanson, 76 Wash. 649.

3227 Fed. 46 (C. C. A.), and 224 Fed. 566. The case has been heard on the motion for a temporary injunction in both the district court and circuit court of ap peals. The motion in both instances being denied, the case has gone back to the district court for trial.