The present arrangements for the government of the colonial territories taken from Germany and Turkey in the World War, arrangements which may collectively be described as the system of mandates under the League of Nations, may work well or they may work badly. They may persist into an indefinite future, they may come to an abrupt termination and leave nothing of their own kind in their place, or, most probable of all, they may be progressively modified in one way or another with the passage of time and changes of circumstances. But, whatever happens hereafter, the present system is now an accomplished fact, and will necessarily be taken as the basis for any action in the future. The apparent inclination of at least one great power to insist upon all its rights in former German and Turkish territories now under mandate to other powers, and the firmness of the latter in defending their position under the mandate system, indicate, further, that the present system has already created rights, interests, and claims on one side and another which will call for constant consideration and regulation as time goes on.

Important changes in the direction and conduct of British foreign policy have been taking place before our very eyes. The long traditions and the omnipotence of Downing Street in diplomatic affairs have received a challenge; for today the self-governing dominions and India are taking a new part in British foreign policy and are requiring for themselves a larger share in decisions of imperial importance. Not content with such claim to partnership in foreign affairs Canada has received the right to separate diplomatic representation at Washington; and soon we may welcome a Canadian minister, who at the British embassy will rank second only to the ambassador himself. Furthermore in view of recent events as to Ireland it is by no means impossible that, as the Irish Free State takes up its new position as a dominion, an Irish minister from Dublin may present his legal credentials at our department of state. India also has a new government in the making; and as she travels toward dominion status her importance in foreign affairs is growing year by year.

Our government maintains a large and expensive foreign service. The business interests of the country recognize the value of adequate representation abroad and support vigorously measures intended to improve and expand this field. For the fiscal year 1922–23 Congress has increased the appropriations for this branch of the public service while cutting down almost all domestic expenditures.

Our service in the foreign field has only one rival in its completeness and effectiveness, and that naturally is Great Britain's. Before the war comparison was often made with Germany, France, Japan and other nations, and critics could point to individual excellencies in all of these; but they in turn were generous in praise of our service and generally accorded it first rank, especially on its promotional side. The one outstanding weakness of this service at the present time is its lack of unity, resulting in duplicate activities, rivalries, uncertainties to those using the service and needless expense to the taxpayers.

The central point of interest in the work of the court the past term is supplied by the large attention given to the question of the rights and duties of labor under the law. The problem is approached repeatedly, both from the side of the state's police power and that of national power, and in the field of statutory as well as that of constitutional construction. Important results were also reached in interpretation of the “commerce” clause, both in its aspect as a source of national power and in its aspect—because of the doctrine of the exclusiveness of the power of Congress—as a restriction on the states; but especially in the latter aspect. However, the most interesting single decision of the term for students of constitutional theory and of government was one dealing with the national power of taxation.

The “Economic and Social History of the World War,” sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and edited by Professor J. T. Shotwell, of Columbia University, is planned to contain several volumes which will be of interest to students of foreign and comparative government. A. B. Keith's War Government of the British Dominions has already appeared and was reviewed in this journal last November. Among other volumes having a direct political bearing may be mentioned: W. G. S. Adams, The War Government of Great Britain; E. M. H. Lloyd, The Mechanism of Certain State Controls [in Great Britain]; G. D. H. Cole, The British Labor Unions; A. Shadwell, Liquor Control in War Time; R. Picard, Syndicalism in France during the War; M. Hauser, Problems of Regionalism [in France]; A. Bernard, Economic and Social History of French Northern Africa; M. Delahache, Alsace-Lorraine; A. Girault, Economic and Social History of the French Colonies; J. Redlich, War Government in Austria-Hungary; Count A. Apponyi, The Effects of the War upon Government Administration and Public Opinion in Hungary; and H. Pirenne, Belgium and the World War. Numerous monographs remain to be arranged for, notably on Germany, Russia, and the Balkan states.

On June 11 of this year three amendments to the Swiss federal constitution, proposed by initiative, were voted upon. The most important was one regarding naturalization. By Article 44, section 2, of the constitution of 1874, this subject was left to federal legislation. The proposed amendment attempted to place the more essential details of the process of naturalization in the constitution. Consent of the Bundesrat to the grant of communal and cantonal citizenship was to be given only in case the foreigner during the fifteen years prior to his application had lived at least twelve years in Switzerland, including the two years immediately preceding his application.

To the student of comparative constitutional law the new Prussian constitution of November 30, 1920, is of scarcely less interest than that of the reconstituted German Empire itself. In sharp contrast to American state constitutions, the instrument is of moderate length, about four thousand words, and is limited to the bare outlines of a frame-work of government. All doctrinaire elements are lacking. There is even no bill of rights.

The constitution of the Far Eastern Republic, promulgated April 17, 1921, contains ten articles, divided into 184 clauses. There is no preamble. Article I, among other general provisions, sets forth that “The Far Eastern Republic is established as a democratic republic.” Article II names the component parts and the boundary lines of the state and undertakes to maintain the rights and obligations formerly Russian within that territory. The subject of Article III is “Citizens and their Rights.” Included in the latter are equality before the law; freedom of conscience and speech; habeas corpus; inviolability of person, house, and correspondence; and non-liability to arrest without warrant unless taken in the act.