public law. The administrative questions are especially well treated. The influence of Dr. Gneist, to whom the book is dedicated, is quite evident; and the work bears to Prussia somewhat the same relation which Dr. Gneist's works bear to England. It is, all in all, one of the best works we have on Prussian public law, especially on Prussian administrative law. The historical part of it is just full enough to give the reader a comprehension of Prussian development: and many questions hitherto very unsatisfactorily treated are discussed with precision and thoroughness. Especially to be mentioned are the discussion of the responsibility of Prussian ministers and the description of the reform of local government since 1808, which is the most important of the internal movements in Prussia in this century. It should be added that throughout the entire work Mr. Bornhak displays a strong conserva

tive bias.

F. J. G.

Traité de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieux. Tome second. Par E. LAFERRIÈRE, vice-president du Conseil d'État. Paris, Berger-Levrault et Cie.-675 PP.

The first volume of this great work was noticed in the POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, volume ii, page 709; the volume under consideration is the second and last. The first volume had greater interest to the foreign reader, on account of the fact that it was devoted to the general exposition of the judicial control over the administration and to a comparison of the different methods of forming this control in different countries. The second is of especial value to the French lawyer and political student, because it is devoted to a detailed description of the powers of control possessed by the various French administrative courts over the acts of French administrative officers. But it must not be supposed that this work, because it treats of essentially French law, is not of value or interest to the general student of administration. It is unquestionably the best work in existence on the subject of which it treats, and no one who is interested in administrative studies can afford to be without it. Probably the most interesting questions discussed are the judicial control over the acts of the administration relative to direct taxes and elections, and that power possessed by the Council of State (which is altogether peculiar to French law) to quash any act of any administrative authority on the ground that such authority has violated the law or exceeded its powers. The simple matter of the direct taxes gives rise every year to more than 300,000 appeals to the administrative courts-appeals not only against the illegality of the tax or the non-observance of the necessary legal forms, but also against the decision by the administration as to the value of property for the pur

poses of taxation. The purpose of the French legislation has been to grant to the individual taxpayer the widest possible freedom of appeal to the administrative courts. The costs of such appeal are reduced to a minimum, and all the steps in the procedure are so arranged as to lead to a speedy decision, and to furnish the appellant with few occasions for complaint. The same consideration of the interests of the individual is shown in the further right which the law grants him, to appeal to the active administrative officers for a reduction of (or complete exemption from) taxation for a given year on the ground of losses caused by the elements or by some other cause outside of human control, such as pestilence, drought, or by some visitation like the phylloxera. Such a power in the administration is hardly known at all in other systems of administrative law.

The same wide freedom of appeal is characteristic also of the matter of elections. Whereas with us it is practically only an opposing candidate who can call the decisions of returning officers into question, in France not only the candidates but also the officers of the administration or any elector may bring the matter before the administrative courts.

Again the power of the Council of State to annul the act of any administrative authority on the ground of violation of the law or excess of powers has been most liberally construed by the decisions of that body; indeed it may be said that this power has been developed through these decisions. The Council of State may annul an objectionable decision, not only on the ground of the incompetence of the authority making it, but also because such authority has used its power for a purpose not intended by the law. When it is considered that this power may be made use of, on the direct appeal of the individual, to annul an ordinance as well as an individual order, it will be seen that the judicial control over the administration possessed by the French administrative courts is infinitely wider and more complete than that possessed by our own courts over our administration. M. Laferrière can with perfect propriety claim that "it would be difficult to cite the instance of a state besides France where the control over the legality of the acts of the administration is so extended, where the means of appeal against abuse of power and mistakes of law by the administration are so numerous."

All those matters, interesting in themselves, are treated by M. Laferrière with that precision of thought, that logic in method and that charm of style which are so characteristic of the French mind. The reader cannot fail to rise from a perusal of La juridiction administrative with a sense of admiration for the French administrative genius and of gratitude to the man who has presented this important subject in such a masterly manner. F. J. G.

La mer territoriale au point de vue théorique et pratique. Par JOSEPH IMBART LATOUR, docteur en droit, avocat à la Cour d'Appel de Paris. Paris, A. Durand et Pedone-Lauriel, 1889.—380 pp.

There is a widespread impression that when we have stated that the jurisdiction of a nation over waters adjacent to its coasts extends to a distance of three marine miles from the shore, and, in the case of waters inter fauces terrae, to the same distance from a line drawn from headland to headland, we have laid down an absolute rule which is firmly embedded in the principles of international law. This impression has been confirmed in the United States by the discussions of the Canadian fisheries question, in which the conventional phrase "three marine. miles from the coasts, creeks, bays and harbors" has become familiar language. But, in reality, there is no rule open to greater exception and more likely to be the subject of modification in the future than that by which it is sought to confine the exercise of jurisdictional acts to a marine belt of three miles. Perels, in his great work on the admiralty, justifies the doctrine of the territoriality of adjacent waters on the three following grounds: (1) The security of a maritime state requires the possession of its marginal waters; (2) The surveillance of ships which enter those waters, whether passing through or stopping there, is demanded in order to guarantee the efficient police and the development of the political, commercial and financial interests of the bordering state; (3) The enjoyment of the possession of territorial waters serves to sustain the existence of the population on the coast. The mere statement of these grounds is sufficient to show that the distance to which a state may exercise jurisdictional acts over its marginal waters cannot be limited by an absolute rule of so narrow proportions as that of the three-mile belt.

Among the recent works in which this interesting matter has been discussed, the most comprehensive and instructive is that which forms the subject of the present review. This work, which is of value from a practical as well as from a theoretical point of view, was awarded the Bordin prize in 1888 by the French Academy of Moral and Political Science. It is divided into three parts. In the first part, the author discusses the right of the state over the territorial seas, its justification and philosophical origin, and its extent. In this relation, he treats of the subject of ports, harbors and roads, gulfs and bays, interior seas and those which communicate by a narrow outlet with the ocean. In the second part, he reviews each of the rights which are recognized as belonging to a state in its territorial waters, such as the right of fishery, of the coasting trade, of police jurisdiction, and of the regulation of ceremonial observances. In the third and last part, he discusses the

peculiar conditions created by a state of war; treating in this relation the subjects of neutrality, blockade and the law of prize. He defines the territorial sea as the sea adjacent to the coasts, over which the bordering nation may from the shore employ its armed force, and thus exercise the power which is necessary to defend its territory and coasts, assure the safety of its inhabitants and guard its fiscal and commercial interests. In following out his discussion, however, the author observes a distinction (which seems necessary and proper) between the exercise by a nation of its protective power and the claim of exclusive possession. Thus it may be held that a nation is entitled in self-defence to forbid the commission of dangerous and destructive acts within such extent of sea as may be necessary for the protection of its coasts from injury. The reason originally given for the three-mile rule was that it measured the range of cannon-shot, and thus afforded an ample guaranty both for security and for protection. It is obvious that the rule is insufficient for that purpose to-day. In 1864, when the Kearsarge appeared off Cherbourg, France, in the pursuit of the Alabama, which was then lying in that harbor, the French minister of Foreign Affairs, when it became apparent that an engagement between the vessels would take place, informed Mr. Dayton, the minister of the United States, that a fight on or about the distance of three miles from the coast, in which case the coast would be within the destructive range of the guns, would be offensive to the dignity of France and could not be permitted. Special rules are sometimes claimed for the protection of the revenues. Thus the Revised Statutes of the United States (section 2760) authorize the officers of revenue cutters to "go on board all vessels which arrive within the United States or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound for the United States "; to examine their papers and manifests; and to "remain on board of such vessels until they arrive at the port or place of their destination."

sea.

On the other hand, no general disposition has been manifested in recent years to restrict the right of all nations to take fish in the open The three-mile rule, which defines the exclusive right of fishery on the Canadian coasts under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1818, is found embodied in a convention made in 1882 between Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands for the regulation of the fisheries in the North Sea. The same rule was adopted in conventions between France and Great Britain in 1839 and 1843 for the regulation of the fisheries in the Channel. It is also found in a law passed by the French legislature in 1885 for the exclusion of foreigners from fishing in the territorial waters of France and Algiers.

J. B. MOORE.

RECORD OF POLITICAL EVENTS.

[From May I to November 1, 1889.]

DOMESTIC.

THE ADMINISTRATION. — The administration of President Harrison thus far has given great satisfaction to the members of his own party, but his political opponents have criticized severely what they claim to be his failure to carry out the pledges made by him in reference to removals and appointments to office. The event causing the greatest stir during the last six months has been the virtual removal of the commissioner of pensions, James Tanner, and the circumstances connected herewith. Mr. Tanner is a prominent and active member of the Grand Army of the Republic, and he was disposed to be extremely liberal in his pension policy. In addition he talked with imprudent freedom in regard to his plans for the conduct of his office and the general policy of the administration toward the soldiers. Among other things, he rerated a large number of pensioners, increasing the amount of their pensions without clear warrant of law and, in a considerable number of cases, paying them large amounts of arrears on the basis of the new rate. One of the most conspicuous cases was that of Senator Manderson, of Nebraska, to whom $4300 of arrears was thus declared to be due. A considerable number of officials connected with the pension bureau were among those rerated. The secretary of the Interior, Mr. Noble, did not approve of Commissioner Tanner's methods and early in September a crisis was reached, when the President had to choose between accepting Mr. Noble's resignation and compelling Mr. Tanner to resign. Mr. Tanner's enforced resignation was finally offered and accepted on September 11. Subsequently the reratings were rescinded. The office of commissioner of pensions was filled on October 19 by the appointment of General Green B. Raum, of Illinois, who made a fine record in the army and served acceptably at the head of the internalrevenue bureau.-The other principal appointments which have been made are the following: Minister to Germany, William Walter Phelps, of New Jersey; minister to Denmark, Clark E. Carr, of Illinois; minister to Turkey, Solomon Hirsch, of Oregon; minister to Rumania, Servia, and Greece, A. Louden Snowden, of Pennsylvania; minister to the Argentine Republic, John R. C. Pitkin, of Louisiana; minister to Paraguay and Uruguay, George Money, of Tennessee; minister to Bolivia, Thomas H. Anderson, of Ohio; minister to Hayti, Frederick Douglass, of the District of Columbia; minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, of Maine; civil-service commissioners, Theodore Roosevelt, of New York, and Hugh S. Thompson, of South Carolina; public printer, Frank W. Palmer, of Illinois; chief of the bureau of engraving and printing, William M. Meredith, of Illinois; member of the interstate-commerce commission, Wheelock G. Veazey, of Vermont; superin