¹ See Wheeler-Bennett, John W., The Disarmament Deadlock (London, 1934)Google Scholar, passim; also J., , “Arms Manufacturers and the Public”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 12, p. 642 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Congressional Record, 1934, p. 9095Google Scholar.

³ Id., pp. 3688–3689.

⁴ Id., pp. 6476–6477 and 6896.

⁵ Munitions Industry; Hearings Before the Special Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry, United Slates Senate, 1934–1936, Parts 1–35.

⁶ See Scroggs, William O., “The American and British Munitions Investigations”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 15, p. 324 (January, 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ Query: Was it only a coincidence that the French were at almost the same time taking action along the same lines? See infra, pp. 285–286.

⁸ Judging from reports concerning the operation of the U. S. Naval Aircraft Factory, the only government agency engaged in building airplanes in this country, such fears are not fully substantiated. As an illustration, it is reported that parachutes costing from $200 to $225 when bought from private plants are being built by the NAF at a cost of only $100. The maximum personnel under normal conditions is 1,875 workers, although this could be expanded to 8,000 or 10,000 without much difficulty. In size and efficiency, the NAF compares favorably with the leading private manufacturing plants in the country. See Davies, Lawrence E., “Navy Builds Own Plants”, N. Y. Times, May 8, 1938Google Scholar.

⁹ Tobin, Harold and Buell, R. L., “Can War Profits be Eliminated?”, Foreign Policy Reports, Vol. 13, No. 2 (April 1, 1937), p. 28Google Scholar.

¹⁰ For full discussion of the measure in the Chamber of Deputies, see Journal Officiel, 1936, pp. 1930–45, 1986–2001, and 2604–5Google Scholar. It was passed by a vote of 487 against 68. For the ensuing discussion in the Senate, see id., pp. 743, 1099–1115, and 1118–27. It was approved without a record vote. For other decrees, etc., mentioned hereinafter, see either id., pp. 8674–5, 8834, 8888–9, 8967–9, and 11813–4, or Sirey, Recueil, Lois., etc., 1936, Vol. 36, NS, pp. 406–7, 436–7, 455–6, and 462–4Google Scholar. See also Morillot, André, Coroze, Paul, and Morand, Emmanuel, La Nationalisation des Usines de Guerre, Supplément au Bulletin Quotidien (Paris, 1937)Google Scholar—a sketchy analysis of the organic law.

¹¹ As reiterated a century later by the U. S. Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Bradley, in Butchers' Union Slaughter-House and Live-Stock Landing Company v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, 111 U.S. 746 (1884) at p. 762: “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence …. This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”

¹² The law of 1791 has repeatedly been amended and supplemented. Under decrees of November 13, 1873, and July 12, 1876, as amended, a Special Consultative Committee for Powders was organized and a Service des Poudres et Salpêtres was instituted for their exploitation under the Department of War, Sixth Division. A law of March 8, 1875, as supplemented by Art. 33 of the law of finance of April 29, 1926, established “un monopole d'état absolu, sans aucune dérogation.” See an interesting study by Simon, Eugéne, Le Monopole des Poudres et la Dynamite en France (Paris, 1933)Google Scholar.

¹³ To exploit an enterprise en régie, an act of Parliament in most cases is necessary. This creates a legal monopoly, the so-called monopole de droit, under which the state openly engages in the exclusive production and distribution of a particular commodity. Further on régies, see this writer's “Ownership, Management, and Regulation of Electric Undertakings in France”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 305–307 (March, 1938)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ This new form of the people's government was aptly described as “A government of the Workers, by the Intellectuals, for the Bourgeoisie [which] Keeps the French Republic from the Fascist Earth,” in “Background of War: IV, Le Front Populaire”, Fortune, Vol. 15, p. 82 (June, 1937)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ SenatorLémery, Henry, Journal Officiel, August 7, 1936, p. 1108Google Scholar.

¹⁶ How true this is, and how phenomenal this complete transformation of the social strata in France, was succinctly described in a contemporaneous study as follows: “France has entered the World War an industrialized middle-class nation of many property-owners, many woolen stockings, many billions of hoarded gold francs, and many small family businesses. The great trusts, which are the natural product of free capitalism, were numerous and powerful, but not so powerful as they were to become…. France emerged from the war a nation of trusts and big business monopolies ruled by a financial oligarchy heading up in the Banque de France…. By the middle of 1922, $7,500,000,000 had been spent by the government to rebuild these plants [of the devastated areas] and restore the 13,000 ravaged square miles … the money was found by sales of bonds and by borrowings from the Banque de France … [the] consequence was the entrenchment in power of the great corporations which were in a position to take advantage of the boom.” Fortune, loc. cit., p. 83.

¹⁷ DeputyFernand-Laurent, , Journal Officiel, 1936, p. 1930Google Scholar.

¹⁸ See DeWilde, John C., “The New Deal in France”, Foreign Policy Reports, Vol. 13, p. 144 (September 1, 1937)Google Scholar; also Le Populaire, “Organe central du Parti Socialiste”, which published a list of the nationalized factories on June 4, 1937, at p. 4Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Bernier, Paul, “Rapport de la Commission des Finances (Defense Nationale)”, Chambre des Députés, July 7, 1937, pp. 121–123Google Scholar.

²⁰ Journal Officiel, 1936, p. 1103Google Scholar.

²¹ Id., pp. 1103–4.

²² “France and War”, Business Week, July 18, 1936, p. 40Google Scholar. See also Werth, Alexander, Which Way France? (New York, 1937)Google Scholar, reporting an interview with the then (circa November, 1936) Minister of Air, M. Pierre Cot, at pp. 348–351.

²³ Infra, p. 287.

²⁴ It is interesting to note that many of these decrees had not the slightest connection with the defense of the franc. Thus a reform in the law regarding maternal authority was brought about by such a decree issued on October 30, 1935. The explanation must be found in the fact that the then government of Laval availed itself of the “special powers” to issue decrees which, though not regulating the monetary system, were considered urgent enough to justify the procedure. It should be noted, however, that once such decrees are submitted to, and ratified by, Parliament, their irregularity, if any, ceases. See a note by Jéze, Gaston, “Le contrô1e juridictionnel des décrets-Iois”, Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique, Vol. 54, pp. 501–505 (1937)Google Scholar; also an amusing account in Peel, George, The Economic Policy of France (London, 1937), pp. 188 ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ This provision has been supplemented by the decree of August 25, 1936. See Aubert, Jean-Bernard, Les Sociétés d'Economie Mixte (Paris, 1937), pp. 182–192Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Jèze, Gaston, “Le régime juridique des entreprises de fabrication ou de vente de matériels d'armament”, Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politigue, Vol. 54, pp. 469–470 (1937)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Rives, Paul, “Rapport de la Commission des Finances (Air Defense)”, Chambre des Députés, July 7, 1937, pp. 9, 86Google Scholar.

²⁸ Journal Officiel, 1938, p. 44Google Scholar. Stone, William T. and Fisher, Helen, “The Rising Tide of Armament”, Foreign Policy Reports, Vol. 12, pp. 286, 292 (Feb. 15, 1937)Google Scholar.

²⁹ N. Y. Times, May 12, 1938.

³⁰ Ibid., November 15, 16, 17, and 23, 1938; also The Times (London), Dec. 29, 1938, p. 8Google Scholar.

³¹ Supra, p. 281.

³² As a former premier, Edouard Herriot, once knowingly commented, “the Frenchman is a creature who finds it hard to do easy things, and easy to do difficult things.” “The Future of French Democracy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 12, p. 609 (1934)Google Scholar.