The great war developed many new weapons—the submarine, the aeroplane, the long range gun, the tank, the deadly gas; but one of the most novel and deadly was the propaganda—the psychological working on the war will of the enemy. It was developed first and effectually used by the Central Powers against France, England, the United States, and with terrible results in Russia and Italy. But the Allies were not far behind, and by the close of the war had caught up with their foes and probably surpassed them. In the summer of 1918, the German press complained of the relative weakness of their propaganda, and declared the enemy's pen and propaganda were worse than his sword.

After the work of the Committee on Public Information, under Mr. George Creel, had been under way for a number of months in the United States, it was deemed advisable to establish branch offices of the committee in many European countries for the purpose of explaining the war aims and preparations of our country. Such offices were established in England, France, Italy, and eventually in some thirty-two foreign countries, in charge of Mr. Will Irwin and later of Mr. Edward Lisson. For the purpose of organizing the work in Italy, the writer was sent over by the committee, arriving in Rome about March, 1918, and returning in October.

The League of Nations covenant is designed to “promote international coöperation and to achieve international peace and security.” To accomplish the first it provides organs of conference and recommendation and coördinates the numerous international unions already existing with some new ones. To accomplish the second, the members of the league covenant to refrain from acting or to act in a specified manner, in specified circumstances. “Scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations” is emphasized; thus in relation to the treaty of peace of which it is a part, the covenant is comparable to the various forms of oaths, hostages, and guaranties of previous peace treaties.

No intention of modifying international law is expressed. On the contrary “the understandings of international law” are to be firmly established “as the actual rules of conduct among governments.” In fact, however, the character of law is dependent upon the character of its sanction. Law and organization are interdependent, and the covenant when put in operation will modify international law, though less in its specific rules than in certain assumptions upon which they have heretofore been supposed to rest.

Within recent years there has been a tendency to give more careful attention to the technique of legislation. In the past proposed laws have often been prepared by legislators who knew what they wanted, but were not able to express their wishes in scientifically constructed form. It is desirable of course that representatives of the people should determine legislative policy; and yet it is not counter to any intelligent principle of democracy that the drafting of bills should be done by experts who can put in brief though adequate phrases the essence of what the technically unskilled representative may want. It should be their task to use political machinery intelligently, and to warn the overzealous advocate against using it in a vain attempt to achieve an end which mayhap cannot be secured through political machinery at all. It is right that the people, through democratic channels of popular assemblies, should determine what they want; but it is no less proper that use should be made of those with special training to formulate ways and means.

Some states have already established legislative reference bureaus which do the work of bill drafting. The individual legislator goes to the bureau with a general outline of a law he has in mind. The bureau renders expert advice on the subject matter of the bill, if such advice is wanted, and proceeds to draft a measure embracing the subject in hand. The staff connected with the bureau should be prepared to offer advice as to the constitutionality of the proposed law, to cite precedents in other states if such can be found, and to express an opinion as to the probable attitude of the courts when interpreting it. Information should be at hand regarding the experience of other states, or indeed other countries, with similar legislation.

Constitutional objections to many of the provisions of the civil service laws have been raised in several of the jurisdictions in which such legislation has been enacted. In addition to the national government there are today ten states which have provided for the application of the merit system to the appointment of all or a portion of the administrative officers and employees. These ten states with the dates of the adoption of the law are as follows: New York, 1883; Massachusetts, 1884; Wisconsin, 1905; New Jersey, 1908; Illinois, 1911; Colorado, 1912; Ohio, California and Connecticut, 1913; and Kansas, 1915. In Illinois and Colorado the employees in the state institutions had been under the merit system for several years prior to the adoption of the general civil service laws.

In four of these jurisdictions—California, Colorado, Connecticut and Kansas—there have been no cases involving the constitutionality of civil service legislation. In Colorado there have been at least two bitter controversies in the courts as to the interpretation of the law but in neither case did the parties who fought the law contend that it was unconstitutional. The question of the legality of the adoption of the Colorado law has also been before the courts; but the constitutionality of the provisions of the law has not been attacked. In New Jersey the only case of importance touching the matter of constitutionality is that of the Attorney-General v. McGuinness, but here the decision dealt entirely with the constitutionality of one of the methods prescribed for extending the operation of the law to municipalities.

United States v. Hill by a vote of seven to two sustained the so-called Reed Amendment by which Congress prohibited the introduction of liquor into any state which forbade the sale or manufacture of liquor within its borders. West Virginia, though interdicting manufacture and sale, allowed any person to bring into the state for personal use a quart of liquor each month. Since Mr. Hill did only what West Virginia sanctioned, Mr Justice McReynolds for himself and Mr. Justice Clarke insisted that “the Reed Amendment in no proper sense regulates interstate commerce, but is a direct intermeddling with the state's internal affairs.” He inquired rhetorically: “If Congress may deny liquor to those who live in a state simply because its manufacture is not permitted there, why may not this be done for any suggested reason, e.g. because the roads are bad or men are hanged for murder or coals are dug. Where is the limit?” For the majority Mr. Justice Day answered that the control of Congress over interstate commerce is not limited by state laws and that “the policy of Congress acting independently of the states may induce legislation without reference to the particular policy or law of any given state.”

The provisional government of the Czechoslovak Republic at Prague was established by virtue of the law of November 13, 1918, on the provisional constitution. Its antecedents may be of some interest to students of constitutional history. The Czechoslovak statesmen take the ground that the ancient Bohemian state never ceased to exist, as is proved by the thrice-made offer of Francis Joseph, as well as the similar offer of ex-Emperor Charles, to be crowned king of Bohemia. They also point out that the Czech nation never recognized the constitution of 1867 which made possible the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich.

Denmark enacted new election laws May 10, 1915. The first election of members of the lower house of the national legislature held under them, April 22, 1918, is of special interest; for the laws attempt in a unique way to remedy the inequalities in representation common under the singlemember district plan.

Of great importance in the reconstruction program of the United Kingdom is the new ministry of health authorized by act of Parliament on June 3. At first sight it would seem that the local government board has merely changed its name. But this is not the whole truth. The new ministry is to become the one authority in all matters of health, taking over such duties from the home office with reference to factories and workshops, and from the education department, in regard to children at school. It will also assume, in England, the responsibilities of the national insurance commissioners under the legislation of 1911.