inst the officer of a State in his official
capacity was not a suit against a State could have held to the strict
letter of the law." The author further contends that this criticism of the
jurist arises from the fact that he did not believe in equivocation.

The interpretation of the laws relating to the Negro, the point on which he
dissented from the majority of the members of the court, should have been
given more prominence in this discussion. The discriminations against the
Negroes are treated in connection with the chapters on "Interstate and
Foreign Commerce" and "Equal Protection of the Laws." The Fourteenth
Amendment is treated along with such miscellaneous topics as "Direct
Taxation," "Copyrights," "Insular Cases," "Interstate Comity," and "Labor
Legislation." Stating Justice Harlan's theory as to the position the Negro
should occupy in this country, however, the author writes very frankly.
Harlan, he thought, believed that they should occupy the position that
historically they were intended to occupy by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments. He believed that the law should be interpreted as it was meant
and not as the court thought expedient and wise. "Though it may be true
that his relation to the negro in political matters may have made him more
violent in his dissents, any one who will look fairly at the question must
conclude that his doctrine was legally correct. And as time passes, and as
both classes become better educated and broader in their views, it may be
said that the tendency of the court is likely to be to interpret the laws
largely as he thought they should have been interpreted, that is, as
historically they were meant."

C. B. WALTER.

_Reconstruction in Georgia, Economic, Social, Political, 1865--1872._ By
C. Mildred Thompson, Ph.D. Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, 1915.
Pp. 418.

The appearance of C. M. Thompson's Reconstruction in Georgia arouses further
interest in the study of that period which has been attracting the
attention of various investigators in the leading universities of the
United States. These writers fall into different groups. Coming to the
defense of a section shamed with crime, some have endeavored to justify the
deeds of those who resorted to all sorts of schemes to rid the country of
the "extravagant and corrupt Reconstruction governments." Lately, however,
the tendency has been to get away from this position. Yet among these
writers we still find var