The year that is about to close marks the hundredth anniversary of the independence of many of the republics of the American continent. The long struggle which began in 1808, and which did not reach full fruition until the beginning of the third decade of the nineteenth century, possesses all the characteristics of a great epic; marked by a degree of devotion to the ideals of liberty and independence which will ever constitute the great heritage of the people of this continent.

Within these last twelve months we have also seen the republican system of government fully organized in some of the older monarchies of Europe and in the new and independent states established by the Treaty of Versailles. The period that has elapsed is much too short to permit of any adequate estimate of the permanence of the political systems that have been established, or of the manner of their operation. On the other hand, the development of democracy in the republics of America has extended over a period sufficiently long to make possible an inventory of its strength and weakness and some formulation of the requisites for further progress.

Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, prefixed to the French Constitution of 1791, reads as follows: “Every society in which a guarantee of rights is not assured nor a separation of powers determined does not have a constitution.” Without question the men of 1789 had come under the influence of Montesquieu as well as of John Locke. It is true that a separation of powers is to be found in the Two Treatises of Government; but that doctrine is set out in bolder relief and more sharply defined by Montesquieu than by Locke. However, the men of 1789 took only one half the teachings of Montesquieu; the other half they rejected. The exclusive, oligarchical, tyrannical spirit of the corporations of the ancient régime, the abuse of the principle of aristocracy—privileges without services, as Taine puts it—the growth of the spirit of equality as a result of the industrial revolution, all set men stoutly against a “corporative” (in contrast with a pulverized) structure of society. Rousseau, Turgot and the Physiocrats demanded a leveling of hierarchized society: the mountains must be brought low, the valleys filled up and a highway made for the plain man to walk thereon. It was only with the Restoration that the value of an aristocratic element—from Montesquieu's point of view a corporative element—came into prominence. It was widely discussed during that period, and Montesquieu was the authority of the day.

The work of the court last term is chiefly notable for its amplification of certain important results of the preceding term. Thus, the final objection to the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment was refuted; the last great question touching the meaning of the word “income” in the Sixteenth Amendment was answered; the emergency powers of government in war time were brought into contact with more usual sources of public authority—this in the rent law cases; and some minor phases of the problem of freedom of speech and press were disposed of. However, in two cases, both of much interest to the political scientist, somewhat novel questions of national power were raised; and in neither was a certainly final solution offered. Questions of state power were again of decidedly subordinate significance and interest.

Beginning on March 4, 1921, the Republican party, for the first time in ten years, was in complete control of the executive and both branches of Congress. Entirely apart from the issues of party politics, its régime promised to be interesting. Campaign pledges had been made that legislation would be speedily passed relieving the country of the ill effects of what President Harding called “war's involvements;” economy and efficiency were to be secured; more business in government and less government in business were among the promises, and the reorganization of the administration, long talked of, was to be achieved. There were, moreover, two significant possibilities from the standpoint of party government. During the campaign, Mr. Harding said that “government is a simple thing,” and that, if he was elected President, Congress would be allowed to play its proper part under the Constitution.