So controversial is the subject of thai address–“Reflections on the ‘World Revolution’ of 1940”–that a few words of justification in in order. You may be assured that it was not chosen without considerable thought and trepidation. To begin with, I made a study of the addresses of my thirty-four predecessors, as presented in the pages of the American Political Science Review. Without exception, these papers impressed me as wise, scholarly, finely stated, and cogently argued. Occasionally they were lightened by the lambent play of humor. On the other hand, several of them wen decidedly dry–a quality lees refreshing in discourses than in wines. Many of my predecessors dealt penetratingly and profoundly with topics taken from the fields of specialisation wherein they were masters, often the greatest of American masters. Others discussed broadly and philosophically the nature of political science, its relations to the social sciences in general, or the problems encountered in teaching this science.

Of course so brief a summary cannot do justice to the almost infinite variety of materials presented by past presidents of our Association. There was, however, one type of subject which as a rule they avoided—that of contemporary, controversial political affairs. Even during the years of the First World War and immediately thereafter, this proved to be the case with only one or two exceptions. No doubt the motive which prompted most of my predecessors to avoid issues of the day was a sound one.

The conservative of today hardly knows what to conserve. His bargain with destiny seems broken, and instead of consciousness of achievement and contentment with what is, he is more likely to be filled with a sense of frustration. This frustration is an uncertain quantity with which to deal, since it is characteristically explosive and negative. Under its guidance, conservatism may become a driving force to suppress the inconsequential; it may be a force that is forgetful at the same time of fundamental changes that will undermine a way of political existence. The conservative is happiest when he is unconscious of politics, when the essential propositions of social organisation do not have to be defended. But the weakness of conservatism appears in not knowing always what are the fundamental propositions supporting its manner of living, and in inability to judge the consequences of political and economic mutation. Conservatism, however, is at least that body of social thought which does not have to be defended.

Conflict, struggle, and protest must be conscious and filled with a sense of purpose. In conflict, there is always the conscious defense of what is presumed to be an interest, and there is an attack on what others deem to be their interest. Likewise, radicalism can never be unconscious or merely habitual, for it is a protest against something that is. But it must not be forgotten that in no state of society have all interests reached an equilibrium which permits of complete coöperation and no struggle. In this sense, conservatism represents a functional value in existence, since the stability of a conservative society is a situation in which the conflict of interests and wills is muted and restricted.

Law, we are accustomed to say, comprises two elements. It is a body of obligatory rules of conduct, but it differs from other obligatory rules, such as moral precepts or the rules of a game, in that it is enforced by the state. On the one hand, law exists as a conceptual system of normative rules; on the other, it dwelis as well in the realm of brute fact, where it is something that is “done” or enforced by the state. But here surely is a snake swallowing its own tail, for the state which concretises law on the level of actuality is itself a creature of the realm of ideality: the state is meaningless except as a legal concept.

What is needed is a treatment of law which will equate the actual practice of government with the conceptual system of rules that are obligatory, not merely upon citizens, but upon government as well. There seem to be good a priori reasons for believing that this cannot be done, and for believing, furthermore, that no definition of law in terms of either of the elements alone will be satisfactory.

The American writers loosely grouped as “realistic” have made a thoroughgoing effort to solve the problem by omitting the normative element. With individual variations, these authors have argued that law is simply the behavior of the judge. Since the judge is a man, the law which he makes is a by-product of his personal existence, secreted, perhaps, as a result of a bad breakfast, as a pearl is secreted by an oyster. It is meaningless to talk of law as obligatory, or law as rule. Law is occurrence, on the simple level of fact, and it is not to be discussed in terms of obligation or validity, ideas which are the product of folklore or father-fixation.

The Contest for a National Syatem of Home-Mortgage Finance. Since 1932, the federal government has undertaken new responsibilities in regard to housing and home finance which involve a public investment of more than four billion dollars, contingent liabilities for the security of a private investment of three billion dollars, and the creation of a set of administrative structures that cover the entire nation. Yet, despite the magnitude of this public effort, no new “system” of housing has resulted. It is precisely the striking lack of coherence in the government's program that gives a hint of the variety of forces now competing for control and for advantage in this field.

Not until 1937, after a stormy period of improvisation, was the first workable formula of public housing agreed upon. Surely it is clear that the nation was not preoccupied throughout the depression years with the cause of those most in need of proper dwellings. By 1937 there had already been enacted the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, the Home Owner's Loan Act, and the National Housing Act, all of which dealt with some aspect of housing and none of which made any serious approach to slum of clearance or housing for the masses.

Whereas the depression brought no essentially new crisis for the ill-housed, it did represent a critical time for home tenure. Home ownership in this country has always been extensive, and ownership is usually not achieved without contracting some amount of mortgage debt.

All judicial officers in the state of Minnesota, including the chief justice and six associate justices of the supreme court and fifty judges in the district courts, are required to be nominated and elected without partisan designation. Judicial nominations and elections were made nonpartisan by the election law of 1912. During a quarter of a century, the nonpartisan ballot has given Minnesota the services of an exceptionally well qualified bench, and sentiment is practically unanimous in favor of continuing this method of selecting judges.

Once elevated to the bench, a Minnesota judge has a good chance of continuing in that capacity as long as he wishes to serve. Supreme court justices have been regularly reelected; so that their tenure has been, for all practical purposes, the same as that of federal judges. Three of the present members of the supreme court have been elected once, two have been elected twice, one three times, and one four times. With one exception, the supreme court justices since 1912 have retired from office by resignation or death.

Of the eighty-four district court judges who have served since 1912, only four have been defeated at the polls when seeking reelection. At the present time, thirty-six of the state's fifty district court judges have been elected two or more times, and twenty-three have been elected three or more times.

The civil service scene in Michigan has changed so rapidly in the last few years that it has been difficult for persons in other areas to keep abreast of developments. Thus, while in 1936 Michigan knew little of merit in public employment, 1937 found her in the vanguard of the reform movement. In that year, the recommendations of a study commission were embodied in a comprehensive civil service system by a Democratic administration. The year 1939 brought an almost complete reversal of policy with the passage of a Republican “ripper” act. Today another development is in the process of maturing. A civil service amendment to the state constitution was adopted in the November election of 1940.

It is not the purpose of this article to review the details of the history of Michigan's civil service movement, for this has been done elsewhere. Suffice it to say that Michigan's experience with spoils politics was neither better nor worse than that of other jurisdictions; the recommendations of the Civil Service Study Commission, of which Dr. James K. Pollock was chairman, are now well known; the excellence of the state's merit system under William Brownrigg has also been generally recognised.

However, three developments remain to be discussed: first, the contents of the “ripper” legislation; second, the effects of that legislation upon the present personnel situation; third, the proposed constitutional amendment.

Changes between July 16 and November 15, 1940. As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorised by law or established by the President by executive order or Reorganisation plans under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.

Adminiarator of Export Control. Authorised by Executive Order 8567 of October 15, 1940, and Administrative Regulation of the same date to administer the provisions of the act of October 10, 1940 (Public 829, 76th Congress), authorising the President to requisition for national defense any equipment, supplies, etc., the exportation of which has been denied under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the act approved July 2, 1940 (Public 703, 76th Congress).

Advisory Committee on Selective Service. Appointed by the President September 21, 1940, to coördinate plans for selective service. No formal order was issued, the creation of the Committee being indicated by letters to the individual members.

Advisory Committee to Encourags Travel in the United States. Authorised to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior by Public 755, approved July 19, 1940. I t will consist of one representative each from the Departments of State, Agriculture, and Commerce, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aëronautics Authority, and the United States Maritime Commission, to be designated by the Beveral departments or agencies, and not exceeding six representatives “of the various sections of the nation, including transportation and accommodation agencies,” to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and to serve at his pleasure. The members of the Committee receive no compensation, but are reimbursed for expenses in attending meetings.

In reporting to the French people on th e state of affairs in France on June 25, 1940, Premier Marshal Philippe Pétain said: “It is toward the future that. … we turn our efforts. A new order commences.” A new order in France has begun, indeed, even though the character of the French political, economic, and social institutions of the future is not yet subject to definitive determination. With large portions of her territory occupied by German and Italian troops and with all of France at the mercy of her conquerors, the Vichy government has been unable to act with that independence essential to the exercise of full sovereign power. Because of this subjugation to countries still at war, the future of France is inextricably bound up with the outcome of the present conflict. Nevertheless, the “restoration of all that is sound in French life” is well under way, according to Marshal Petain. This task has been undertake n by a government composed in a large measure of persons who have never enjoyed a wide popular following. For years, criticisms of French democratic political institutions and the practices which surrounded them were not inconsiderable and, although handicapped by the necessity of looking both to Wiesbaden and to the German authorities in Paris, the critics who repeatedly sought to discredit the parliamentary system are now having their innings. Under the normal operation of the French political system, the Pétain cabinets could not have come into power, because it is extremely doubtful whether they could have received the support of a parliamentary majority.

The epochal Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations represents the first comprehensive investigation of the governmental system of Canada since Confederation in 1867. Not only does the survey reflect the unique features and problems of the Canadian federation, but it also constitutes an outstanding addition to the general literature on federalism.

The Commission was appointed in August, 1937, to make a “re-examination of the economic and financial basis of Confederation and of the distribution of legislative powers in the light of the economic and social developments of the last seventy years.” In making its inquiry, the Coimmission established a research staff, directed by Alex Skelton, of the Research Department of the Bank of Canada, to make detailed studies of various aspects of the federal problem. The Commission was able to draw to its service outstanding Canadian scholars and experts in the fields of economics, political science, public finance, constitutional law, and history. The Commission, however, did not rely solely on its research staff.

With the tense international situation as an ominous background, the regular quadrennial parliamentary elections for the lower house were held in Sweden in September, 1940. Four years ago, the autumn of 1936 witnessed spirited and warmly contested parliamentary elections in both Sweden and Norway. Because Norway's constitution was amended in 1937 to provide for quadrennial rather than triennial elections, the autumn of 1940 would—save for the German invasion of the Norwegian democracy—have seen nation-wide parliamentary elections in both countries of the Scandinavian peninsula. With Sweden as the only Scandinavian nation remaining free and independent, it has been interesting to note what effect, if any, the tremendous pressures from the surrounding totalitarian states has had on democratic processes in the Swedish state.

Over a year ago, the Swedish cabinet was reorganised into a National Cabinet with all leading political parties represented. As the time for the elections approached, some of the minority parties expressed willingness to postpone the contest, even to the extent of ignoring the constitutional provision for quadrennial elections. The remarkable expression of confidence by the smaller parties in the largest party—the Social Democrats—was countered by an equally remarkable stand taken by the leader of the Social Democrats, Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, who insisted that the democratic processes of a popular election should be continued. The prime minister's view was accepted by all parties, since it was felt by all leaders that in such a time of stress it would be an indication of democratic strength for the parliament to go to the people. All were agreed also that the parties which would, in normal times, be in opposition should continue as vital going concerns.