As 1937 brings into sharp focus the New Deal critique of the judiciary, the phrase “economic predilection” becomes a slogan rather than a subtle juristic evaluation. The famed dictum of Justice Holmes that there is an inarticulate major premise upon which major constitutional issues are decided was necessarily made an issue in government by an Administration whose program is primarily economic. An Administration dedicated to war as governmental policy might similarly inveigh against “pacifistic propensity” in the judiciary. In the midst of the heat and controversy as to whether the integrity of the judiciary is impaired by a charge that judges adjudicate constitutional issues upon the basis of “economic predilection,” it seems desirable to inquire into the possibility of formulating a disciplined judicial economics, to the end that there may be a realistic, tempered instrument for solving the major judicial questions of our time. The more sensitive jurists have expatiated upon the intuitive and subconscious aspects of judicial decision, but beyond stating that such factors exist they have, on the whole, continued to articulate their judicial reasonings in conventional legalistic form. Legal tradition is usually successful in throwing the balance in favor of the seeming where the seeming and the actual are in conflict. What exceptions there have been have been of inestimable benefit to the law. They have brought wisdom, beauty, and strength to an ancient, oft-times sadly thread-bare, technique. An example is the approach to law exemplified by the method of Mr. Brandeis both as advocate and justice.

Under terms of the Treaty of 1921 between Great Britain and Ireland, it was agreed that: “Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.” The status of the Irish Free State was further defined by this language: “Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.” The Imperial Government gave this treaty the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of March 31, 1922. To implement the treaty, Dáil Eireann, sitting as a constituent assembly, enacted a constitution for the Irish Free State in 1922. This constitution declared: “The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Eireann) is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.” It was given the force of law by the Imperial Government in the Irish Free State Constitution Act of December 5, 1922.

Congress adjourned on August 21 without enacting any part of the program for administrative reorganization and management of the federal government recommended by the President's Committee on Administrative Management, and endorsed by the President in a message to Congress on January 12. The program was sidetracked until late in the session by the court reform proposal. While no action was taken, all of the major recommendations of the Committee have been incorporated in bills which have been reported out for passage in both houses, and two bills were passed by the House. The other bills are on the calendar for consideration at the next session, and will not have to go through the original committee stage again. Presumably these measures will receive early attention when Congress meets, and it seems probable that a large part of the program will become law.

Political scientists in this country have for many years been concerned with the problem of preparing young persons for public service careers. Considerable thought and discussion were devoted to the subject at numerous conferences and conventions in years before the entry of the United States into the World War, and some progress was made toward adapting university curricula to such principles as were evolved. The revival of a fresh interest in the matter evidently dates from around 1930, one of the major signs having been the Conference on University Training for the National Service held at the University of Minnesota in 1931. Since that time, the problem has received constantly increasing attention at meetings of the American Political Science Association, the Civil Service Assembly, the National Municipal League, the National League of Women Voters, and special groups such as that sponsored at Princeton, New Jersey, in 1935 by the Public Administration Clearing House.

Prior to the National Revolution of 1933, one of the foremost postulates guiding the conduct of German civil servants was that of political neutrality. The permanent public personnel—national, state, and local—was to consider itself, in the apt formulation of the Weimar constitution, “servants of the whole people, not of a party.” Although imprudent legislative and executive measures taken during the republican era weakened rather than strengthened the principle of neutrality, it was effectively upheld by the disciplinary courts. Indirectly, the professional tenet of non-partisanship facilitated German bureaucracy's identification with a broadly conceived constitutionalism. At a time when the National Socialist vote had become the largest in national elections, organizers for the new creed still made least headway among the government personnel. Statistics published in 1936 disclose the fact that less than four per cent of all civil servants joined the national Socialist party before Hitler's rise to the chancellorship. As the incoming Reich cabinet was not slow to recognize the “impossibility” of large-scale displacements, it resorted to transitional regulations in order to weed out overtly heterogeneous elements.

Quite generally recognized is the fact that rural local government in the United States has failed to keep pace with the improvements in governmental organization and procedure which have been made in the national, state, and municipal fields. In 1917, the county was referred to as the “dark continent” of American politics—an appellation which might have been applied with equal propriety to the rural subdivisions of counties known as towns or townships. Today, after two decades, it must be admitted that rural government still lags in its rate of progress; yet it is not the unexplored jungle of twenty years ago. In several states, comprehensive surveys have been made with a view to reorganization, and during the past few years the depression has served to stimulate local-government consciousness where previously little interest was displayed in local affairs. In increasing numbers, attempts are being made, in some instances through constitutional amendment but more often by statutory enactment, to render our local areas, organization, and functions more adequate to present-day needs. Various extra-legal developments are taking place also. It is the purpose of this article to summarize the more significant developments in the field of county and township government during the years 1935 and 1936. While not all of these developments, when measured by principles of sound public administration, can be said to be in the direction of progress, a definite trend in that direction is clearly discernible.

Study of the governmental and party leaders of Italy may contribute to our understanding of the Fascist state, whether we are concerned with public law, comparative government, or comparative politics. The application of the rules of law by any public law agency is affected by the characteristics of those who constitute the agency. Agencies of comparable legal authority exercise their discretion differently when they are differently related to the social context in which they operate. Whatever affects the relative strength of the groups with which an agency is affiliated affects the relative strength of the agency. Hence it is important to ascertain the class, skill, personality, and attitude characteristics of officials in relation to the composition of the community as a whole.

Notwithstanding the vital importance of the cabinet, it has been one of the anomalies of British government that this institution has heretofore been unknown to English constitutional law. Writers have said correctly that “neither Parliament nor the courts have provided for the cabinet and the prime minister. The whole system of cabinet government is founded not on laws but on practices …” However, this view can no longer be held. In the session of Parliament concluded recently, an act was passed which laid down new principles pertaining to the executive. The cabinet, the prime minister, and the ministers of the crown have at last been recognized by statute and have been given a status in British constitutional law.

In the administration of public affairs in Great Britain, several government departments have found it convenient to divide the country into varying numbers of regional districts, each covering a group of counties. These districts vary a good deal in number and in area for the different departments, though in some cases a similar area is used by more than one department. The largest area is Scotland, with an extensive organization of public administration under the Secretary of State for Scotland, and its own judicial system, while other departments also have branch headquarters for Scotland. Northern Ireland forms another important region, with a large degree of autonomy, under a separate parliament; while, as in the case of Scotland, several departments of the United Kingdom have branch headquarters in Belfast. Wales is also a distinct district for several departments.

Hostilities now in progress in the Far East may produce significant changes in the status of foreign concessions and settlements in China. It may be useful, therefore, to classify these areas and to survey their status prior to the present “undeclared war.” Among the several privileges gained by Great Britain, the United States, and France in their treaties with China in 1842–44 was the right of foreign residence in the five ports opened to trade by these treaties: Amoy, Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai. Arrangements for the residence of foreigners and their families in these ports were to be made by the consular officials and the local Chinese authorities acting “in concert together.” These arrangements resulted in the delimitation of areas for foreign residence, generally called “settlements,” which grew into municipalities exempt from Chinese jurisdiction and completely under foreign control. As more ports were opened for trade by the various treaties negotiated after 1844, certain nations requested exclusive areas in many of them. Such areas were generally called “concessions.”