Problems in the Law of Contracts [review-book]

J. B. W.
1916 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. BOOK REVIEWS BOOK REVIEWS lichkeit of the German account, it will bear favorable comparison with it as to scope and general treatment, and it is decidedly more suggestive. The author is not one of those who regard the Monroe Doctrine as an "obsolete shibboleth." In earlier essays Professor HART has written much about the doctrine and in this book are amplified the principles which he had formerly sketched. The foundation is the "Doctrine of the Two Spheres," American and European. The declaration of I823 was based upon a set of conditions which were transitory, it is true, but they gave rise to a "Doctrine of Permanent Interest" which has taken protean shapes-Polk Doctrine, Grant Doctrine, B,laine Doctrine, Olney Doctrine. Each differed from the Monroe-Adams declaration, but each having a common ifactor based upon the original idea, became effective because linked with a doctrine of permanent interest to the United States. It has no doubt been unevenly applied, but "it is simply a re-statement of a time-hallowed European and Asiatic principle." This statement recalls the association, made by the late Charles Francis ADAMS, of the Monroe Doctrine and Mommsen's Law. One conclusion deserves to be quoted: "Briefly put, the Monroe Doctrine is a formula which expresses a fact, not a policy. The fact is inherent in the political geography of the Americas and in the conditions of modern warfare. Even so peaceful a country as the United States, whiich desires no war and is bound to suffer heavily from any war in which she engages, whether victorious or defeated, may not Ihave the choice. Peace can be maintained only by convincing Germany and Japan, which are the two powers most likely to be moved' by an ambition to possess American territory. But the United States will defend her interests even though they seem at first only indirectly affected. If we are not prepared to take that Iground, the Monroe
doi:10.2307/1276715 fatcat:da7wbclkgbf6theqzq43q2gvmy