s."

The Civil War came in spite of the fact that the Convention that framed the
Constitution negatived the proposition to confer on the Federal Government
the authority to exert the force of the Union against a delinquent State.
It was, therefore, a mere act of coercing a section preparing for
self-defense. Reconstruction is treated very much in the same way. The laws
under which it was effected were unjust, the men who executed them were
harsh, and the weaker section had to pay the price.

The book cannot be classed as scientific work. The topics discussed are not
proportionately treated, the style is rendered dull by the incorporation of
undigested material, and the emphasis is placed on the political and legal
phases of history at the expense of the social and economic. In it we find
very little that is new. It merely presents the well-known political theory
of the Old South. The chief value of the work consists in its being an
expression of the opinion of a distinguished man who participated in many
of the events narrated.

J. O. BURKE.

_The Constitutional Doctrines of Justice Harlan._ By Floyd Barzilia Clark,
Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science in Pennsylvania State
College. Series XXXIII, No. 4, Johns Hopkins University Studies in
Historical and Political Science under the direction of the Department of
History, Political Economy, and Political Science. The Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, 1915.

This work is a legal treatise consisting of a scholarly discussion of the
doctrines advanced by Justice Harlan during his service as a member of the
Supreme Court of the United States. The book opens with a brief biography
of the jurist, emphasizing the important events of his career to furnish a
basis for the study of his theories. The author then takes up such topics
as the "Suability of States," the "Impairment of the Obligation Contracts,"
"Due Process of Law," "Interstate and Foreign Commerce," "Equal Protection
of the Laws," the "Jurisdiction of Courts," "Miscellaneous Topics," and
"Judicial Legislation."

The author finds that in the treatment of these important legal questions
Harlan measures up to the standard of an able jurist. Replying to those who
have charged him with emphasizing too greatly the letter of the law, the
writer says that such a contention is based on ignorance or prejudice. "No
one who so interpreted the Eleventh Amendment," says the author, "as to
maintain that a suit aga