Federalism in North America by Herbert Arthur Smith (review)

REVIEWS OF BOOKS 359 speeches of her public men". From this point of view, Dr. Locke has chosen his materials with real discrimination. PartiesandParty Leaders. By ANSON DANIELMORSE. With an introduction by DWIGHTWHITNEY MORROW. Boston: Marshall Jones Company. 1923. ($2.50.) SOMEof hispupilsand admirershave publishedunder this title a collection of the essaysand papersof the late ProfessorMorse of Amherst College. Most of thesepapershave to do with the history of political parties in Great Britain and the United States; and it is worthy of note that in this field Professor Morsewasoneof the pioneers. Though in somecases written many yearsago,they may still be read by students of political science with great interestand benefit. But the chiefreason for calling attention to them is the fact that there are includedin the volume two brief papers affecting the commercial relations between Canada and the United States. Thesepapersare entitled "Commercial Union with Canada" and "The Commercial Relations of American Countries" They are a frank discussion,from an American point of view, of Canada's"ultimate destiny", and it isinterestingto knowthat ProfessorMorse came to regard the political union of Canada with the United States asno longerlikely, although he was a strongadvocate of commercialunion. "The fact is," he says, "that nature and history have made the Canadians and ourselveseconomicallyone people; and the loss which the denial of this fact entails Canada is less able to bear than we." Anyone who is interestedin learning what a profound and suggestive studentof Americanpoliticalconditions thoughtof the future relations of Canada and the United States will not regret a perusal of ProfessorMorse'spages. W. S. WALLACE; Federalism in North America.By HERBERT ARTHUR SMITH.Boston: The Chipman Law PublishingCo. 1923. Pp. v, 328. THIS volumeis the outcomeof experiencein lecturing to law studentsin McGill University. If the essayscontained in it form, even substantially , ProfessorSmith's lectures,we must say at once that his students are to be congratulated. They are admirable examples of essayand of lecture alike. Technical elaborations,ponderousarguments , piled-up evidencesare remarkableby their absence. On the otherhand,Professor Smith'ssuccessful treatmentof hissubjectisonly renderedpossiblebecauseof the width of his knowledgeand of the securitywhichthat gives. He is not in the leastcontentto re-hashthe generallyknownmaterial,eitherasan exercise in literatureor aslordly 360 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW condescension to the law student. Did spacepermit, it wouldbepossible to point out hiswideknowledgeof Americanand Canadianconstitutional law and histhoughtful appreciationof subtletiesand of difficulties,which provide him with solid foundations for a comparative study of "the broad principlesupon which the institutions rest" of North American federalism. In admirablechaptershe dealsfrom this anglewith the federal idea, the executiveand judicial powers,external relations,the state and its citizens. Appendices contain the constitutionof the United Statesand the British North America Acts, 1867-1015. These chapters form a first-class introductionto the subject,andwe knowof nobookwhichwe would put more gladly than ProfessorSmith's into the hands of a beginner -indeed into thoseof many a pedantic expert. The root of the matter is here. It is interesting,too, to note, as the bookdevelops,the blendingof lawyer and political thinker. Mr. Smith beginswith the strict letter. Here andthereintheearlierpart wenotelegalism strugglingfor a moment with realism, until finally Mr. Smith concludeswith a very interesting political study of Canada'sforeign relationsand of the problemsof the Commonwealth and with a statement of the very heart of all government --intelligence, simplicity, and a constantreactionof forms to the national life. There is one criticism which we should like to make. We would have welcomed a much fuller discussionof the Dominion's power to disallow provincial Acts, especially for groundsof inequity and bad principlesand not asultra vires. The strict adherenceto the law in this connection is going to open an old sore. No province that is selfrespectingwill surrenderits sovereigntyundersections 02 and 03 of the B.N.A. Act, 1867, at the arbitrary dictation of the federal ministerof Justice. In addition, Nova Scotia is acting in a manner which may become very dangerous. It requested the federal government to disallow oneAct, and it informedthe federalgovernmentthat it wasquite willing to concurin the disallowance of another. Both theseActs were government measures. We may well ask, where does provincial responsiblegovernment come in? Is this the newest Canadian contribution to the scienceof politics? Nor does the matter rest there. In connectionwith the...