In its 1933 report, President Hoover's Committee on Recent Social Trends suggested that there might in time emerge a “National Advisory Council” to consider fundamental questions of the social, economic, and governmental order, in their interrelation and in the light of the trends and possibilities of modern science. This would involve neither “economic planning” nor “governmental planning” primarily, but a comprehensive consideration of all the social factors involved in the formation of national policy.

In July, 1933, the National Planning Board was set up by Administrator Ickes as a part of the Public Works Administration of that time. The membership consisted of Frederic A. Delano, chairman; Wesley C. Mitchell (chairman of President Hoover's Committee above mentioned); and Charles E. Merriam (vice-chairman of the same committee).

In 1934, this agency was made a presidential board by executive order and was composed of the Secretary of the Interior as chairman, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, the Federal Emergency Relief Administrator, and the three members of the old Board. An Advisory Committee consisting of Messrs. Delano, Mitchell, and Merriam were placed in active charge of the work.

The future of local government in the United States is likely to depend in no inconsiderable degree upon the extent to which the local units make a vital contribution toward winning the present war and solving the problems arising therefrom. It is therefore of special significance that many of the developments occurring in county and township government during 1943 were related directly or indirectly to the war and postwar problems. At the same time, progress continued along various lines which had become well established prior to the war. Public interest in rural local government was evidenced both by the large amount of state legislation enacted with reference thereto and by local action taken under legislative authority. Developments during the year will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional forms of government; (6) intergovernmental relations; and (7) research and experimentation.

New Areas. State legislatures continued to enact statutes establishing or authorizing the establishment of local ad hoc authorities for various purposes. Wyoming established each organized county of the state as a predatory animal district, under the control of a district board, for the purpose of paying bounties for the killing of animals that prey upon domestic livestock, poultry, and wild game. General laws authorized the organization of weed-control districts in South Dakota, public library districts in Illinois, cemetery districts in Montana, and county water authorities in California. Georgia's constitution was amended to empower the governing authorities of Bibb county to establish and administer, within the county and outside the city of Macon, special districts for sanitation purposes, garbage removal and disposal, fire prevention, police protection, drainage, road building and improvement, and any other public services and facilities customarily afforded by municipalities of the state.

All the plans for future world organization, whether they envisage a world government or are limited to providing agencies for better collaboration between the peoples of the world, are built around two main conceptions—a small council and a larger assembly. But the different plans disagree widely upon the powers and the make-up of these bodies. The purpose of the present article is to analyze the difficulties relating to the structure of the larger body, the assembly, and to outline a tentative method for surmounting them.

The structure of the different international organizations existing in the past was based on two principles: equality of representation and unanimity. That meant, first of all, that in the assemblies of nations the United States of America (population, 131 million) and Luxemburg (population, 300 thousand) had the right of equal representation. For instance, in the Conferences of the International Labor Organization, both countries have been equally entitled to appoint four delegates. Secondly, when an international assembly has tried to arrive at a Decision, not only the largest but also the smallest country could block such a Decision by casting a negative vote. While sometimes a little country has been forcibly persuaded to abandon its opposition, in many instances small countries have been able to frustrate the efforts of international assemblies and conferences otherwise unanimous.

One of the most crucial and controversial questions in the field of international criminal justice is that of whether “superior command” is a good defense in a war-crime trial. The answer is of cardinal importance, since trials of war criminals may prove entirely useless if accused persons are permitted simply to pass on the responsibility for their acts to their superiors. The line would lead straight to the omnipotent leader, who might choose to escape prosecution altogether by putting an end to his life. Opinions of writers on the subject are divided, and so are court decisions, war manuals, and legislative provisions. While the American and British war manuals, backed by Oppenheim's authority, recognize “superior command” as a full defense, Anglo-American practice, expressed in numerous decisions and supported by many authorities, refuses to ascribe to it any exculpating effect. Some theories recognize “superior command” as a defense to a limited extent only, dependent upon whether the subordinate actually knew, or had reasonable grounds for knowing, that a given command contemplated a punishable, or at least an illegal, action.

What has not been tried up to now, and what seems a worth-while undertaking, is to analyze the general conception of war crimes and to try to reach a solution of the indicated problem out of a clearer understanding of that conception.