Perhaps no country has ever constructed so elaborate and complicated a mechanism for correlating the political and economic requirements of its rulers as has Germany under Hitler. Under no other political system has the organization of all classes been pushed so close to its ultimate limit. Every conceivable aspect of life in the Third Reich has been closely scrutinized for its value to National Socialism and subjected to some form of official control. Because of the continual state of crisis in which the régime finds itself, both at home and abroad, this control has been expanded to an extent undreamed of in pre-Hitler Germany. To make it effective, there has been constructed a labyrinth of bureaus, agencies, and supervisory offices that is confusing and often incomprehensible to the foreign observer.

The task of rationalizing this complex system and justifying the tremendous exercise of authority it requires has been indeed a trying one for the German speculative genius. Seeming contradictions arising from the practical political necessities faced by National Socialism have not made it any easier. For example, the propaganda value of portraying the Third Reich as a bulwark against soviet tyranny has made necessary a complicated explanation of the difference between Russian “regimentation” and German “organization.”

It has been said that the concept of “formal perfection is in itself a thing so impressive, so fascinating, so pleasing, that it tends to camouflage a defect of content and then to deceive by a kind of agreeable dazzling of the mind.” Apparently John Fiske was basking in the light of this concept when he characterized federal government as “the sublime conception of a nation in which every citizen lives under two complete and well-rounded systems of law … moving one within the other, noiselessly and without friction.” Surely, only a childlike faith in the efficacy of mere mechanics controlled by written constitutions could have closed his ears to the clatter arising even then within our American federal system. The concept of federalism may be a lofty one; its practice seems often to be on a more mundane plane.

The election returns of November, 1936, seemed to portray a democracy strongly united behind a leader and a program of action. It appeared that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal platform had been endorsed by nearly every interest and section in the United States, and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress selected to enact into law those principles for which he “had just begun to fight.” Within six months, however, that unity started to disintegrate. Congress began to dissect carefully the program which the President proclaimed to be both beneficial for the entire country and politically prudent for the political party which he headed.

A survey of the state legislation on public utilities for the period 1936-38 reveals the continuation of certain trends which were pointed out in the article published by the author in this REVIEW in June, 1936.

The period under consideration in the present article (1936–38) witnessed a marked extension of the exercise of regulatory functions by the Federal Government, and at the same time a notable strengthening of the powers and an increase in activities of the public utilities commissions in several states.

The readjustment of areas and services in the local government of Maine is proceeding most rapidly through the process of deorganization in towns which cannot support the cost of local services. An act of the legislature in 1937 provides that whenever the organization of any town or plantation has been terminated, the powers, duties, and obligations relating to the affairs of the town or plantation shall be vested in the state tax assessor, until such time as the town or plantation is reorganized. A town or plantation in Maine at present comes into existence through incorporation by special act of the legislature and ceases to exist through the surrender of the corporate charter by special legislative enactment.

Neglected by foreign critics of the Fascist régime and taken for granted by the Italian people, the bureaucracy of Italy has been eclipsed by more spectacular institutions. This “core of modern government” has been concealed by a black-shirted periphery embossed with some corporative theories. From this center, some studies of more than the mere structural features of Fascist Italy might well begin. In any case, the “peculiar Anglo-Saxon pastime of making foreign personnel studies,” as an Italian civil servant recently observed, will admit of a consideration of certain of the functional elements of the Italian bureaucracy—the hierarchical and career aspects.