These books of Dr. Pohl and of Dr. Hirschmann in many respects are supplementary. The latter affords a convenient review of recent opinion on prize law in a comparatively few pages and shows wide study.

GEO. G. WILSON.

Traité de droit international privé. By J. Westlake. Translation of the 5th Edition (1912), by Paul Goulé; Préface by A. de Lapradelle. Paris: Librairie de la société du Recueil Sirey. 1914. pp. xii, 560. This translation is one of the Bibliothèque Étrangère of private international law produced under the direction of Professor de Lapradelle of the faculty of law of the University of Paris.

The famous original treatise was first published 56 years ago by Dr. Westlake in 1858, when its learned author was but thirty years of age, and was the cornerstone of his great reputation. A second edition was published in 1880, a third in 1890, a fourth in 1905 and the last, from which the translation is made, in 1912. The lamented death of the learned author occurred April 14, 1913. Dr. Westlake, one of the ripest and clearest writers in both Public and Private International Law, sought mainly in this work to derive his principles from English precedents, and has stated that when he looked abroad "it has almost always been in Europe and not to America" adding "The jurisprudence of the United States in private international law is rich, but it is too like our own to serve my purpose with students, while the practitioner will find its results embodied in the American treatises. It would have required the leisure hours of years to examine the United States decisions as carefully as I have here examined the English ones, and with less care it would have been absurd to compete with their native exponents.' This I quote from the preface of his second edition. The translation omits all Dr. Westlake's several prefaces, which is somewhat to be regretted, as they were explanatory of his system, his purpose and scrupulously gave credit to those who had assisted him.

However, the very interesting and illuminating "Preface" contributed to this translation by Professor de Lapradelle covers seven pages and briefly reviews the long life and many distinguished services of Dr. Westlake and expands into a convincing appreciation of the views he has advanced and advocated.

Professor de Lapradelle shows that when this work first appeared, Savigny was known in Germany, Foelix in France and Story in the United States, but that the science of private international law was

not then honored as today. That the English courts tended to follow Story who, notwithstanding his acquaintance with practice and the breadth of his learning, was an imperfect guide in respect to principles. He shows that the old doctrine of Voet was brought from the Netherlands into Great Britain by Scotch advocates who habitually studied law in Holland, and imposed the doctrines of territoriality mitigated by comity. That the land laws of England were so special that great confusion would have been produced by the recognition of foreign laws. He shows the Wills Act of 1861 had not yet declared valid in England the testament made by a foreigner in conformity with the law of the place of its execution.

He finds Westlake's mind too large to agree to this insular conception of private international law based on doctrine and legal technique from which analysis, observation and reason were banished. That he initiated Englishmen in the luminous expositions of Savigny but did not forget that he was a practitioner writing for other practitioners, English like himself. That he was not, like other disciples of Bentham, a philosopher to whom the technicalities of law are foreign, but an English lawyer formed in Lincoln's Inn, learned as a continental professor, but versed in insular law and a member of the English bar. He shows that after twenty-two years of seeming failure to influence jurisprudence, during which, when his work was quoted in court, a judge had asked "When did he live?" by the end of the nineteenth century no English court could decide a question of conflict of law without first consulting him.

He attributes many famous decisions turning on the law of the domicil rather than of the place of the act, to his influence on English courts, citing Udny v. Udny, 1869, Sottomayer v. de Barros, 1877, Cooper v. Cooper, 1888, and Huntly v. Gaskell, 1906. He shows that Westlake in his first edition held the principle that capacity to alienate immovables depends on the law of the place of their situation, though he had no precedent. In 1909, in Bank of Africa, Limited, v. Cohen, the courts so decided.

He finds Westlake's mind more open to the theories of Continental law than any in England.

It is certainly fit that a work of the scope thus indicated should be made available to readers on the Continent of Europe and to the many there who are conversant with French but not with English. It is not the first time Westlake has been thus honored. Nineteen years ago his

studies in the principles of international law were translated into French by the eminent scholar, E. Nys, and published at Brussels.

Westlake was a leading spirit in founding in 1869 La Revue de Droit International and, in 1873, the Institute of International Law, of which he was president in 1895 and became honorary president in 1900. He took an active and important part in many Continental meetings and conferences. Moreover, he extended to foreign scholars a most kindly, delightful and constant hospitality, ably assisted by Mrs. Westlake, at his London home, River House, on the Chelsea Embankment, and at his country house near St. Ives in his native Cornwall. The writer recalls with gratitude days of pleasure under his roof and long walks over the hillsides yellow with broom and purple with heather in which, even near the close of life, Dr. Westlake turned with unchanging zeal and undiminished power to the discussion of the principles of international law as he clearly saw and ardently advocated them. He must be regarded as a most potent and useful factor in assimilating English and Continental views and practice. Services of that sort have far more than local or temporary value. The translation of his work into the French tongue aids in that very purpose and the service of Dr. Goulé and the highly appreciative and discriminating preface of Professor de Lapradelle deserve the thanks of those who, like the writer, believe that uniformity of law is one of the important contributions to good will and the maintenance of good relations between nations.

It would be presumptuous to discuss the French of Dr. Goulé. The translation seems faithful. The index of the English edition, covering 35 pages, is necessarily rewritten and rearranged under different letters in the translation and appears as "Table Analytique." The tables of contents and of decisions cited are retained but are shifted from the beginning to the end of the volume in the translation.

CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY.

Les Conventions Internationales relatives à la compétence judiciaire et à l'Exécution des jugements. Paris: A. Pillet. 1913. pp. x, 401.

In the present volume the eminent Professor of the Faculty of Law of Paris treats of four international conventions now in force relating to the jurisdiction of courts, and to the enforcement of foreign judgments: The Franco-Italian treaty of March 24, 1760; the Franco-Baden treaty of April 16, 1846; the Franco-Swiss treaty of June 15, 1869; and the Franco-Belgian treaty of July 8, 1899. The object of the author in this

work is professedly a practical one and no attempt is made to establish a general theory with respect to the subject-matter in hand. Although the work appeals therefore primarily to the legal profession of the countries concerned, it contains also a lesson of great importance to all interested in the subject of private international law, which should serve as a warning to those who believe in international agreements as a panacea for the removal of all difficulties in the application of laws between the nations of the world. In view of the limited scope of the treaties and the extremely favorable conditions attending their conclusion, it would seem that their object should have been attainable with comparative ease. Concluded between countries whose private law rests substantially on the Code Napoléon, and whose basic principles in the conflict of laws governing the subject-matter under consideration are identical, Professor Pillet nevertheless has to admit that these treaties have not come up to the expectation entertained at the time of their making. "Instead of inaugurating among the peoples the reign of law,” the learned author says, "we have ended by encumbering the archives of our courts with innumerable briefs. What better example of this fact could be cited than the treaty of 1869 concerning which, on many points, after forty years of constant application, we still ask what is its meaning, or again the treaty of 1899, which the very day after it went into effect showed enormous discordances and gave rise to controversies without end." Notwithstanding the disappointing result of these treaties, the illustrious professor does not suggest an abandonment of the attempt to reach an agreement in the conflict of laws by international conventions; he merely wishes to insist upon the fact that all progress in this direction will, in the nature of things, be very slow and be brought about only if the contracting parties have the same thoughts and intentions and succeed in expressing them in clearer and more concise language.

Viewed from the standpoint from which this work was written, it is admirably done. Under each treaty the author considers in detail its scope, both as to subject-matter and as to the persons who can invoke the treaty, and its relation to the common law of the countries concerned. The principles upon which the treaties are based and the qualifications and exceptions thereto are set forth with great clearness. In conformity with the practical aim in view, the author discusses under each treaty the adjudications by the courts of the contracting countries. Each decision is submitted to a critical examination which invariably

throws a flood of light upon the problem involved. Nor does Professor Pillet confine himself to a consideration of the questions actually raised or suggested by the adjudicated cases. On every hand he makes inquiries concerning the application of the ordinary rules of private international law with a view of determining whether an extensive interpretation should be given to the rule laid down in the treaty, or a limitation should be placed upon its apparent scope. The text of the treaties, the protocole drawn up by the plenipotentiaries who signed the FrancoSwiss treaty, and the message of the Federal Council of Switzerland to the High Federal Assembly concerning the Franco-Swiss treaty, are found in an appendix.

On account of the fundamental differences existing in the Continental and Anglo-American law with respect to the subject-matter of the treaties, little need be said concerning the actual content and nature of the problems raised by them. A general statement concerning the Franco-Swiss and the Franco-Belgian treaties, which are by far the most important ones of the treaties under discussion, must suffice. Both in the matter of jurisdiction and in the enforcement of foreign judgments they maintain the characteristic Continental point of view. The jurisdiction of the courts in personal causes of action is not left to the accident where personal service is made, but is fixed by law (domicile of the defendant, lex loci contractus, etc.). Personal service or submission to the jurisdiction of the court, on the other hand, is not insisted upon; it is sufficient if the defendant was duly cited before the court so as to have had an opportunity to defend the action.

In the enforcement of foreign judgments also radically different notions exist in the two systems of law. Under our law foreign judgments (including those of sister States) are never enforceable as such. Execution will issue only with respect to domestic judgments. Hence the necessity of a new suit and judgment based upon the foreign judgment before execution will lie. On the Continent a judgment constitutes no new cause of action. Foreign judgments, if enforceable at all, are enforceable as such. Execution, however, will issue only after an exequatur has been obtained from the proper tribunal. The conditions upon which a foreign judgment will be declared executory differ widely. The French courts, for example, will, in the absence of treaty, re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment before granting the exequatur. See Cassation, June 28, 1881 (Sirey, 1882, 1, 33); Cass. Feb. 9, 1892 (Sirey, 1892, 1, 201); Cass. Dec. 9, 1903 (Dalloz, 1906, 1, 354). Such re