In 1934, the Soviet Union rounded out the first great cycle in its development. The fruition of the Five-Year Plan, the general collectivization of agriculture, the entry of the Soviet Union into the councils of the nations of the world—these and many other successes of the Communist régime were evidences of great achievement. Peace and order and economic progress had been attained at home; the stability of the government had been clearly demonstrated, and friends had been made abroad. The social and economic structure of the country had been completely transformed, and the Socialist community was now a going concern.

It is proposed in this article to consider the Draft Conventions adopted by the International Labor Conference at its Nineteenth Session primarily with a view to illustrating the nature of the contribution which the Conference is making to international legislation and the manner in which problems which have some general bearing upon the development of international law and organization arise for consideration in connection with International Labor Conventions. It is unnecessary for this purpose to recapitulate the composition, powers, and procedure of the International Labor Conference, or to review that part of the activities of its Nineteenth Session which did not lead to the immediate adoption of Draft Conventions. It is therefore necessary to warn the reader that this article is not an attempt to give him a general impression of the Conference. It does not attempt to review the general discussions of social policy based upon the director's report. It does not describe the Unemployment (Young Persons) Recommendation, 1935, an important pronouncement which is one of the most valuable results of the Conference, but which, being a Recommendation, is intended “to be submitted to the Members for consideration with a view to effect being given to it by national legislation or otherwise,” and is therefore incapable of becoming by ratification the source of international obligations. This article, further, gives no account of the preliminary discussions which will probably lead to the adoption of Draft Conventions in future years; nor does it review the work of the Conference in supervising the application of existing Conventions. Its scope is limited strictly to a discussion of the five Draft Conventions actually adopted at the Nineteenth Session, i.e., the Forty-Hour Week Convention, 1935; the Reduction of Hours of Work (Glass-Bottle Works) Convention, 1935; the Maintenance of Migrants' Pension Rights Convention, 1935; the Underground Work (Women) Convention, 1935; and the Hours of Work (Coal Mines) Convention (Revised), 1935. Certain of these instruments raise far-reaching questions of economic and social policy; but discussion of such questions would not be appropriate in what is intended as a legal commentary.

It is axiomatic that some supreme courts are more influential than others. A dictum by one judge may carry more weight than a decision by another. Anyone who has studied the opinions of our highest courts is constantly assigning values to them, and the combination of these impressions may determine the relative standing of these tribunals for that individual. That this process of appreciation or depreciation is usually unconscious, and frequently irrational, does not make the prestige which results from it any less real or less potent a factor.

As in previous lists, mention is here made only of units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order under general authority vested in him.

Board of Survey and Maps. This board, which is composed entirely of representatives of government agencies, was originally created by Executive Order No. 3206 of December 30, 1919. Various changes in membership have been made by subsequent orders. Executive Order No. 7262 of January 4, 1936, again defines its membership, which consists of representatives of 24 agencies.

On December 23, 1921, the Swiss Federal Council received a note from the French Embassy to the effect that the Council of the League of Nations had entrusted the French government with the transportation of the international troops called to supervise the plebiscite to be held in the contested area between Poland and Lithuania. It had been decided, the note stated, to transport the Belgian, British, and Spanish troops through Switzerland, and France now requested the Swiss government to grant them free passage. Although the contingents were not to participate in war, but only to watch over a plebiscite to be held under the auspices of the League, the Swiss government refused the permission sought. At the time of the plebiscite in the Saar territory, the Federal Council took a similar attitude. It refused to permit Italian troops to pass through Swiss territory on their way to the Saar Valley.

Without question, the most important legislation passed in 1935 by the British Parliament was the Government of India Act which received the royal assent on August 2, 1935. This statute has numerous claims to careful study by political scientists. On a purely quantitative scale, the Act has two obvious grounds for distinction. It will serve for some years as the fundamental law for one-fifth of the world's population; and it will operate—if all goes well—over the entire subcontinent of India. In the second place, though one hesitates to offer this as a recommendation, the new statute is by all odds the most enormous constitution in the world. In comparison with its bulk, the most notoriously extensive American constitutions (e.g., those of Oklahoma and California) pale into insignificance. The Government of India Act of 1935 contains 478 sections occupying exactly 300 pages, together with a further 130 pages of schedules. But perhaps it should be explained that the new act really contains two constitutions: one for India (210 pages plus schedules) and one for Burma (90 pages plus schedules).

On October 14, 1935, the Conservative party, which had been in power in Canada since the general election of July, 1930, was resoundingly defeated. The Conservatives had carried 137 seats in 1930. In 1935 their numbers were reduced to 40. The 93 Liberal seats of 1930 were increased in 1935 to 179—a majority of 113 in a house of 245. Such a majority is without precedent in Canadian history. Even the Unionist government in the war election of 1917 received only 153 seats to the opposition's 82. The Liberal sweep was almost Dominion-wide. The Liberals carried all but one of the 26 constituencies in the three Maritime Provinces, 60 of the 65 Quebec constituencies, 56 out of 82 in Ontario (more than they have obtained in that province in any election since 1874), 14 out of 17 in Manitoba, 16 out of 21 in Saskatchewan, 7 out of 16 in British Columbia. Only in Alberta did they suffer a crushing defeat. There, only one Liberal was returned; 15 of the remaining 16 seats were carried by the new Social Credit party; the other seat went to the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. R. B. Bennett.

In the approaching national election, one of the paramount issues seems to be the problem of adjusting our governmental structure to permit the consideration of economic and social questions by political agencies of appropriate size. The powers of government should be as broad as the problems with which they must deal. But this truth is equally applicable to affairs which, traditionally, have been of municipal concern. The area of the city's influence has been widening and the centrifugal forces have had too great speed and volume to permit solution by the earlier method of enlarging city boundaries to encompass urban areas.

The recent national election in Great Britain offers another opportunity to study the methods and practices by which British political parties carry on their campaigns. One of the most interesting of these aspects of British politics is the character of the propaganda activities in which the parties engage—activities which present some contrasts to those with which Americans are familiar. In the United States, the regularity of elections accustoms the public to recurrent outbursts of noisy, high-pressure propaganda followed after elections by a silence almost unbroken by official party utterances. The parties of the United States are compelled to manufacture their campaigns out of whatever materials are at hand, seeking to whip up public sentiment without caring very much whether it rests upon sound convictions as to public policy or upon prejudice and passion. Party activities and strategy are determined almost exclusively by one cardinal principle—the effect upon the number of votes which the party can secure.

While it is quite true that French political life is characterized by its individualism, a question arises as to the degree of vacillation and cohesiveness evidenced by the various political groupings. With a view to answering this query, an analysis is herein undertaken of the vote behavior in the Chamber of Deputies during the year 1930.

The story of 1930 tells of the uncertain rule and fall of Tardieu and his cabinet. The Chamber with which he dealt had been elected during the period of the Poincaré coalition cabinet, which was supported by Right-Center forces and the Radical Socialists. The Radical Socialists withdrew their support in the fall of 1928, and Poincaré had to remake his cabinet with Right-Center support. In the fall of 1929, ill health forced Poincaré to resign, and, after others failed, Tardieu formed a cabinet with a majority support. Like Poincaré's 1929 cabinet, it was maintained by Right-Center forces.

The summer school, it is generally conceded, is an American invention. It was at Chautauqua, New York, beginning in 1873, that the essential elements of a summer school were first combined in one institution. Originally a Methodist camp meeting, the “Chautauqua” became an assembly for serious educational effort and for refreshing the intellectual interests of its members. But the recreational needs of the thousands of people who each summer flocked to Chautauqua were not forgotten, and organized recreational facilities were from the first an integral part of the movement. Thus the summer school, with its central idea of study in a vacational atmosphere, was born and started on a career during the course of which it has profoundly affected other institutions, such as churches, universities, agencies for adult education, and political parties.

For many years, the organized Bar has sought to guide the process of judicial selection. Its greatest activity has been in metropolitan communities where the choice is nominally by vote of the people. Such participation by a quasi-public group in a democratic procedure raises several pertinent questions. For example, what effect will it probably have on methods of selection now in force? Is such activity likely to become an accepted feature of our political life? Is such participation to be regarded as in the public interest? Is it a specific corrective that the body politic has developed to counterbalance too much democracy in judicial selection?

To shed some light on these and related questions, the writer (as a graduate student at the University of Chicago) made a study of judicial selection in Chicago from 1870 to 1933, particular attention being given to the rôle of the Chicago Bar Association in the process.

Revolutions shift power not only from one economic class to another, but also from one governmental level to another. Not only is there a new deal between industrialists and laborers, between financiers and merchants, between those in the higher and those in the lower income brackets, but the centers of strength also shift from one region to another and from one governmental authority to another; and there is a new balance of power between the province and the nation, between the city and the state.

The Estonian constitution of 1920, which was valid until January 24, 1934, was characterized by the lack of an independent head of the state and by the supremacy of the legislature over the other branches of government. Proving unworkable, it was superseded by the constitution of 1933, which, backed by the Estonian Nazis, was adopted by the popular referendum of October 14–16 of that year.