upon his return where he had been, and he replied that he had been "out to see the Mammoth Cave-and it did!"

so.

Mr. Bowles was a most inspiring person, and his newspaper was one of the earliest schools of journalism in the country. It is related of him that a young fellow who had applied for a position asked him what his pay would be, and Bowles turned on him with "Sir, you are asking me to pay you to educate you! I am willing to educate you, but not to pay for the privilege of doing This incident, however, occurred years ago. Among the well-known graduates of The Republican are Talcott Williams, Professor Emeritus of the Pulitzer School of Journalism in New York; Hon. George Harvey, editor of THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW; the late Herbert L. Bridgman, publisher of The Brooklyn Standard-Union, and the heads of the departments of journalism in Northwestern University, and the Universities of Iowa, Minnesota, and a multitude of others. Solomon B. Griffin, who was engaged upon The Republican from 1872 until 1919, and who for forty years was managing editor, had much to do with the shaping of the policy of the paper, and proved himself one of the great men in New England newspaper work.

On January 16, 1878, Samuel Bowles, the second, died at the age of fifty-two, and was succeeded by his son, the third Samuel Bowles, to whom Mr. Hooker fittingly dedicates his interesting book. He founded The Sunday Republican, and made many other changes, devoting his whole life to the newspaper of which he had been put in charge. He was born in 1851 and died in 1915, lamented by a multitude of admirers and friends.

The Republican is now conducted by Richard Hooker, editor and president of the Corporation, and Sherman Hoar Bowles, general manager, both grandchildren of the second Samuel Bowles, Sherman Bowles being a son of the third Samuel Bowles, and Mr. Hooker, a nephew.

CHARLES HOPKINS CLARK.

ASPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AS IT PROTECTS PRIVATE RIGHTS. By Frederic Jesup Stimson, LL.D. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

RECENT CHANGES IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY. By John W. Burgess, LL.D. New York: Columbia University Press.

FEDERAL CENTRALIZATION. By Walter Thompson, Ph.D. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

AMERICAN STATE GOVERNMENT. By John Mabry Mathews, Ph.D. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

CHILD LABOR AND THE CONSTITUTION. By Raymond G. Fuller; with an Introduction by John H. Finley. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. NON-VOTING. By Charles Edward Merriam and Harold Foote Gosnell. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press.

AMERICA'S INTEREST IN WORLD PEACE. By Irving Fisher. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE. By Alejandro Alvarez. New York: Oxford University Press.

A HISTORY OF POLITICAL THEORIES. By Students of the late William Archibald Dunning, LL.D., Edited by Charles Edward Merriam, LL.D., and Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. New York: The Macmillan Company.

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY. By C. S. Leavenworth, M.A. New Haven: Yale University Press.

There was doubtless only too much truth, in a certain sense, in the recent remark of Governor Silzer, of New Jersey, that "Americans of today are not much concerned about the Constitution of the United States". Attention of a kind there doubtless is; paid by those who would deform the Constitution under the guise of amendment, or annul it altogether. Such hostility has this year attained an unprecedented degree and extent. In former years issues were raised over interpretation of specific clauses and provisions; by Josiah Quincy, by John C. Calhoun, by Robert Y. Hayne, and others. But it was reserved for the present year to see scores of resolutions for amendments introduced in Congress in a single session, and a nation-wide movement organized and led by two Senators of the United States for an amendment specifically designed to invalidate the entire Constitution. In the midst of such hostility, favorable attention, for intelligent and efficient support and vindication of the Constitution, has been regrettably lacking. The majority of its friends have contented themselves with passive support, while some, through lack of information or

discretion, have actually given aid and comfort to the enemy. Even so fine and high an authority as Mr. John W. Davis permitted political exigencies to betray him into making the slighting remark that the Fathers "fixed it so that the kickers could rule".

In these circumstances all serious and intelligent writings on the Constitution in its various phases are to be welcomed, as calculated to arouse and engage that thoughtful attention which the fundamental law merits from every worthy citizen, and which, if given, should infallibly enlist for the Constitution resolute support against the open or insidious attacks that are being made upon it. Particularly commendable is such a work as that of Mr. F. J. Stimson on The American Constitution as It Protects Private Rights, because it is precisely that aspect of the Constitution which is most readily understandable by the average lay citizen, and which most strongly appeals to his interest. The proverbial Man in the Street may be at a loss to understand just why the Senate should and the House of Representatives should not be associated with the President in treaty-making power. But he instantly understands the value of a guarantee against the taking of his property without compensation, or against being compelled to testify against himself, or being arbitrarily arrested without warrant. It is, moreover, for the breaking down of the Constitution's protection of private rights that the chief of the present campaigns against that instrument-directed by Mr. La Follette-is intended. Mr. Stimson, whom we affectionately remember as "J. S., of Dale", has a felicitous combination of the novelist's gift of popular interest and the trained jurist's power of logical and convincing presentation. The result is what we may call, in hackneyed phrase, a human interest exposition of the Constitution, showing how closely and vitally it concerns every individual citizen. If I were asked to name the one single book about the Constitution which it was most desirable for every American citizen to read, and the general reading of which would be most advantageous to the maintenance of the American system of government, I should have little hesitation in naming this volume of Mr. Stimson's.

To the more contemplative student, who has regard for the mutations of time in governmental affairs, Professor Burgess's

little treatise on Recent Changes in American Constitutional Theory may be commended, for its various sound and valuable suggestions and warnings, and in spite of its occasional aberrations of judgment. Nothing could be finer, more pertinent and timely, or more valuable, than his arraignment of the evil tendencies, toward centralization of power, involved in the last few Amendments to the Constitution, and in the extraordinary special legislation of the World War, and his exposure of the un-American and indeed anti-American features of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Thus, speaking of the demand, which still persists, that we shall subordinate, somehow and in some degree at least, the constitutional independence of the United States to a world association of nations, he says:

This thing cannot be legally effected otherwise than by an Amendment to our present Constitution. This should be kept distinctly in mind from the outset by every citizen of the Country. It cannot be done by a treaty in the ordinary way. A treaty between the United States Government and any foreign Power, or all foreign Powers, cannot change or modify the Constitution of the United States in the slightest particular.

Equally to the point is his scathing rebuke of the glib prattlers about "isolation" and "exclusiveness":

Nobody seems to recognize what an affront it is to our own Country to even hint that we have heretofore preserved ourselves in selfish isolation from the world or have ever failed to discharge our duty to humanity. We have always taken our part in the economic, commercial, educational and charitable affairs of the world, and often at the forefront. Our isolation has consisted

simply in not interfering with the internal political or governmental affairs of other countries and not allowing them to interfere in ours. This is not isolation in any proper sense of the word. It is simply the recognition of national political independence, and the right of every people to fashion their political government in their own way.

Those are golden words, and it is a pity that their pure metal should be subjected to the juxtaposition of such a bit of dross as the intemperate denunciation of our policy in Panama as “one of the most unqualified and arrogant violations of international law known to the modern history of man".

Closely akin to and correlated with the efforts to destroy the Constitution's guarantees of individual rights is the tendency toward infringement upon the rights of the States and the centrali

zation of power in the Federal Government; a subject treated with exquisite lucidity and "sweet reasonableness" and with the convincing force which proceeds from those fine qualities, in Dr. Thompson's Federal Centralization. Two generations ago the extreme pretensions of Calhoun and his followers, and the strenuous reaction against them, cast unmerited odium upon the phrase "State Rights". I can recall the time when, throughout the major part of this country, for a man to avow himself a believer in State Rights was to brand himself as little better than a traitor to the Nation. From that state of mind we have happily recovered, and we are or should be able to remember that State Rights existed before National Sovereignty was born, and to realize that our whole system of government rests upon three kinds of rights -the rights of the individual, the rights of the States, and the rights of the Nation-and that to trespass upon any one of them is as evil and as mischievous as to trespass upon either of the others. It was largely to safeguard the integrity of these three kinds of rights or perhaps I should say, also, powers-that the Constitution was made, and its treatment of them is most significant, varying strikingly among them. Thus: The powers of the people are unlimited; they may do whatever they please. The powers of the States are limited only by explicit prohibitions; they may do anything that is not expressly forbidden. The powers of the Federal Government are limited by the bounds of special grants; it may do nothing beyond what it is expressly authorized to do. Dr. Thompson discusses, in encyclopædic scope, the exercise of Federal power in commerce, police, postal service, transportation, health, morals, education, prohibition, labor, and what not else; all with philosophic breadth of vision and judicial impartiality of spirit, and with a monumental multiplicity of citations of authorities; making a treatise of unsurpassed value to all who have concern for the essential principle of the republic as expressed in the motto of Illinois: State Sovereignty; National Union.

A fine companion volume to Dr. Thompson's work is that of Dr. Mathews on American State Government. The former tells of the tendencies toward Federal infringement upon State Sovereignty. The latter tells what State Sovereignty is, and what it