more weight were it not for the further fact that they were so thoroughly believed. It may be that people emigrate to better themselves, and do not necessarily go to the colonies of their own home country. It is true that France had a declining birth-rate, and that emigration from Germany in later years was relatively slow. Nevertheless, these ideas regarding the advantages of colonial expansion were prevalent.

The fields of expansion were chiefly in Asia and Africa, and only a few need be referred to. Great Britain's interests in South Africa resulted in the Boer War; the conflicting interests of the French and the British in Egypt almost precipitated a conflict between their respective countries at the time of the Fashoda incident. England, France, Germany and Spain almost came to a clash over Morocco. In Asia, Japan dominated over China in war during the nineties, and fought against Russia successfully ten years later. England and Russia barely avoided a conflict by their agreement over Persia in 1907, war being averted only because of their mutual distrust of Germany. The Near East, which was the center of so much rivalry, was the spot where the conflict of interests finally precipitated the Great War.

CHANGES SINCE THE WAR

What change has come during and since the war? Are there grounds for feeling that the difficulties now are largely eliminated, or is the conflict apparently continuing? The recital of a few facts may help to answer the question.

That the countries of the world are ready to handle their tariff problems in a more conciliatory manner does not seem clear. In the earlier years of the war there occurred a number of incidents of significance. Pan-German

writers, under the leadership of such men as Rohrbach and Naumann, presented to their countrymen daring schemes of organization designed to make of Germany, Austria, Turkey and the Balkan States a powerful union. This union was to be bound together by a system of preferential tariffs in opposition to the rest of the world. On the Allied side came the Paris Economic Conference of June, 1916, at which were passed resolutions never formally approved by the countries represented, but which reflected the ideas of powerful groups within each of them. These resolutions brought a quick reaction in Germany, the leaders of that country declaring that the Paris Economic Conference confirmed all that they had been saying about the hostile intent of the Allies toward German economic life.

Among the committees appointed by the British Government to analyze and report on British policy following the war was the Committee on Industrial and Commercial Policy After the War, under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh. While the report of this committee was by no means clear-cut in favor of either free trade or protection, it emphasizes the latter view sufficiently to mark it as a change from the British outlook of the later nineteenth century. Paralleling these activities came the attempts of the British through Orders in Council to place restraints on the importation of goods into that country.

A few words of explanation may make clear the underlying reasons for the change in the British attitude. When England accepted free trade as her guiding principle in the middle of the nineteenth century, she was dominant in the industrial world. She had passed through the Industrial Revolution earlier than had the other European countries, and had quickly

gained a position of undoubted leadership. It was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century that this was seriously challenged. By that time the rapid growth of Germany and the United States had weakened her position in many directions. She began to feel the effects of their competition, not only in her foreign markets, but also at home, where American and German goods began to be sold. As a reaction from this, there came a revival of protectionist ideas about 1900, the movement being led by Joseph Chamberlain. Partly because the English people did not approve the abandonment of free trade, and partly because Mr. Chamberlain was associated in the minds of many with the conflict in South Africa, he lost, and resigned from office in 1903. The growth of a strong national feeling during the war and the present prospect of the dumping of German goods on British markets has given another stimulus to the "tariff reform" movement. It is not possible at this time to predict in any way the outcome.

In France patriotic feeling has run high, and along with it has been the conviction that the industrial interests of northern France prostrated by the war must be given an opportunity to recover. Attempts at restricting imports have, however, been accompanied by a great increase in the cost of living, which has jeopardized the position of the French Government. Whenever imports have been allowed to enter freely, French exchange has fallen so abruptly in the world's markets as to create problems of a still different character. In the United States there have, for somewhat similar reasons, appeared revivals of tariff discussions. The return of the Republicans to power under the leadership of men who are avowed believers in a high tariff, and the introduction of legislation

designed to furnish protection to the farmers and other interests who are suffering from falling prices, illustrate the tendency referred to.

THE NEW CONCESSIONS

Turning from the revival of tariff agitation to the struggle for concessions, we find a renewal of the old methods. Rival groups seek the favor of successive governments in Mexico; the British are declared to be seeking the privilege of building railroads in Persia; a world-wide scramble for oil is under way and an American financier returns from Russia with the story of enormous concessions from the government of that country. Concession-seeking seems not to have subsided, but to be as vigorous as ever. Perhaps it is no longer so dangerous, but already reports are numerous regarding differences of opinion among rival groups.

But how about peaceful penetration and spheres of influence? If we turn to the old places of controversy where adjustments have not clearly been made, what do we discover? Fifteen years ago Russia and Japan were at war because of their differences in eastern Siberia. Today, Japan is retaining control over a large section of former Russian territory in this very region, and only a confirmed optimist would take the view that another clash will not result.

In 1907, war between Great Britain and Russia was narrowly averted because of their differences in Persia, an adjustment finally being reached by the establishment of a sphere of influence in Persia for each of the two countries, these spheres including the larger and richer parts of that unhappy land. What is the situation there today? The war was hardly over and the Peace Treaty not yet completed before England negotiated a new

treaty with Persia. Like all such treaties there is nothing sinister in its terms, but it closely resembles previous agreements that were but preludes to complete economic and political control. At present writing the Persian parliament has not ratified this treaty, although it was signed nearly two years ago. In the meantime, the historic conflict in this region between the Russians and the British is continuing.

In the Near East Great Britain has assumed rights in Mesopotamia in a manner that has brought vigorous protests from the United States. France, Italy and Great Britain have signed an agreement clearly marking out spheres of influence for the first two in Asiatic Turkey. Great Britain's sphere is not defined in this treaty, but many have inferred that it includes all of Turkey not specifically assigned to France and Italy. Old rivalries and jealousies are in evidence, the chief change seeming to be the disappearance of Germany and the appearance of the United States.

ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES

By

But what of the attitude of the United States toward other questions than that of oil in Mesopotamia? By the passage of the Webb-Pomerene Act we declared our intention to participate vigorously in a struggle for world trade, and then endeavored to carry the idea more fully into effect with the Edge Act. Having built a great fleet of merchant vessels to meet a world need, we now propose to use that fleet to further our own interests. Agitation for more restricted immigration, insistence upon higher tariffs and even the suggestion that American vessels be exempted from. paying tolls when going through the Panama Canal, are among the measures being urged.

To recite these movements and to indicate their nationalistic tone is not

sweepingly to condemn them. Nevertheless as urged they are contradictory and dangerous, and are being pressed with a vigor that indicates we have now joined the other leading powers of the world in a struggle that may well be more intense and more destructive than the one culminating in 1914.

Reasons for the renewal of these struggles are not hard to find. For the most part they are the same as in the past, differing chiefly in their greater intensity. Raw materials are more needed than ever before, the necessity for markets is imperative, and foodstuffs must be secured.

NEW FORCES

Two influences are somewhat new. Prices fell abruptly in 1920 and are still on their way down. With depression upon us, with unemployment acute, the struggle will probably become more bitter than ever. Falling prices accentuate the difficulty.

The second new influence is the greater importance of the governmental rôle. In the past the contest was largely between individuals, corporations and groups of one country and those of another. As time passed governments interested themselves more and more, giving aid to their nationals directly and indirectly. Yet it was only in Germany that the part of the government was highly developed. In that country economic life was closely unified. Combinations were encouraged, manufacturers united their efforts to develop export trade, the banks coöperated in every possible way, and above all the government approved and actively assisted. Under its leadership and control the entire economic life of the country was organized and directed to the advancement of Germany in world affairs. Today the other countries of the world are organizing in a similar manner.

The contest is on a larger scale and whole countries are organized. The struggle is less between individuals and groups of different countries, but between nations.

Such an analysis is a discouraging one, but fortunately there are grounds for a more optimistic view. International movements are growing in importance. The League of Nations comes first to mind, but it is only one

of many. There are numerous organizations and movements of international scope and influence. Consortiums of capitalists, international labor organizations, shipping conferences and agreements are illustrations that can not be multiplied nor analyzed within the limits of this article. Fortunately, they are operating to offset the dangers that have been treated more fully. It is a race against time.

REVIEWS

FOSDICK, RAYMOND B.

American Police Systems. Pp. x, 408. Price, $2.00. New York: The Century Company, 1920.

This book contrasts American and European police and the problems of American and European police. The author finds that the problem in America is more difficult than that in European countries because of the heterogeneity of our population. The history and development of America's police force are discussed. One chapter is devoted to the present form of police control, another to the special problems of police control such as responsible leadership, etc., and others, to removal of police heads, effect of commission government on the police force and the result of the city manager plan. The author quarrels with the commission plan of government and states that the city manager plan has not been in effect long enough to appraise its results.

The major portion of the book is taken up with discussion of the organization of the police department and problems as to the Commissioner or Director of Police, the duties of the Chief of Police, the problems of the rank and file, organization of the detective force and a chapter on crime prevention as part of the functions of the Police Department.

The author's conclusion is that our achievement in the field of police systems is sordid and unworthy. Many of his conclusions are too general to flow from his facts. Witness the following:

Nowhere in the world is there so great an anxiety to place the moral regulation of social affairs in the hands of the police, and nowhere are the police so incapable of carrying out such regulation. Our concern, moreover, is for externals, for results that are formal and apparent rather than essential. We are less anxious about preventing a man from doing wrong to others than in preventing him from doing what we consider harm to himself.

CLYDE L. KING.

University of Pennsylvania.

WOOFTER, THOMAS JACKSON. Negro Migration. Pp. 195. Price, $1.50 (paper); $2.25 (cloth). New York: W. D. Gray, 1920.

I am permitted only a few lines in which to call attention to one of the best studies of Negro life in the rural districts of the South that I have seen. The author, a southern man, now field agent of the Phelps-Stokes Fund, is well-equipped. While he has followed statistical methods, he has given descriptive interpretations, and his work is easy to read. After describing the breakdown of the agricultural régime of slavery and the immediate readjustments made necessary by freedom, he considers the present agricultural opportunity. Here one finds an excellent account of the tenant system, its advantages and dangers. He then takes up the movements of population and finds that "on the whole, there is no cause for pessimism." Prior to 1910, the movement was largely from one rural district to another; lately, industrial centers have been the magnet. Sanitation, schools, protection from violence and injustice in the courts he considers the chief problems to be handled by the state governments. He sees certain evils in present practices, i.e., in the fee system to local officials: he recognizes the results of neglected childhood; he deplores the exclusion by the press of most topics relating to the Negro and the presentation of crime or humorous incidents as characteristic of the race, for he feels that democracy is being tested in the "task of working out a program under which two races may live side by side without conflict." A good bibliography is appended.

CARL KELSEY.

University of Pennsylvania.

NOTES

KELLOR, FRANCES. Immigration and the Future. Pp. xv, 276. Price, $2.50. New York: George H. Doran Co., 1920.

So much has been published on the question of immigration that it is not easy to