Students of centralized purchasing give Texas the credit for being the pioneer state in the movement. With the creation of the office of purchasing agent for the eleemosynary institutions in 1899, centralized purchasing in state government is said to have had its beginning. Purchasing organization in Texas remained unchanged until 1919, when, following an investigation into all departments by a legislative committee, a number of departments, including that of the state purchasing agent, were consolidated into a state board of control.

This board is composed of three members appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate, for a term of six years, one member being appointed every two years. Each member receives $5,000 a year. A division of purchasing is one of six divisions under the board, others being (1) public printing, (2) auditing, (3) design, construction, and maintenance, (4) estimates and appropriations, and (5) eleemosynary institutions. The board is authorized to appoint a chief of the purchasing division, whose qualifications are prescribed by law. But since its organization in 1920, no chief of the purchasing division has been appointed, a member of the board taking direct charge of this division. In addition to the board member, four other people are engaged in the work of this division, including an assistant purchasing agent. No increase in personnel has occurred since the organization of the board. Responsibility is vested in the board for purchasing all supplies used by the departments and institutions of the state, including furniture and fixtures, and all other things except strictly perishable goods, technical instruments, and books.

Constitutionalism, in Austria, is not a new slogan. It was a phrase to conjure with during the entire lifetime of Francis Joseph, though in practice the whole history of the country down to the revolution of 1918 was its virtual negation. Only in the latter days of the monarchy, when the scepter passed from the hands of Francis Joseph to the inexperienced young emperor Karl, was a modicum of popular expression allowed to supplant the personal autocracy of the sovereign. The old Austria passed out of existence in 1918 without the successful implantation of a régime of liberal legality in any of its parts.

The young Austrian Republic, coming into existence in the hour of the Empire's dissolution, thus inherited a legacy of unconstitutional government, and only the solidity of socialist and clerical party organization, bred of the stress and strain of clashing conceptions of the social order, gave support to the government in the days when social revolution swept almost to the doors of Vienna. It was under such circumstances that Austria entered, in 1918, upon the way of constitutionalism and sought, through her provisional instruments of government, to avoid the autocratic excesses of the past and avert the impending perils of a proletarian dictatorship.

In a series of revolutionary pronouncements and decisions of her provisional assembly, she discarded, under socialist leadership, the arbitrary régime attendant on the monarchy, and, establishing a unitary democratic republic with far-reaching local self-government as a stepping-stone toward union with Germany, inaugurated a régime of unquestioned parliamentary supremacy, strict ministerial responsibility, virtual executive impotence, and extensive socialization.

In 1923 the first state judicial council in this country was established in Ohio. The Massachusetts act providing for such a council was introduced earlier and formed the basis for the Ohio law, but it was not adopted until 1924. The judicial council provided for by the Ohio law was composed of the chief justice of the supreme court, two associate justices, the chief justice of the court of appeal, one common pleas judge, one municipal court judge, and three lawyers.

The council was charged with the duty of making a continuous study of the organization, rules, methods of procedure, and practice of the judicial system of Ohio, as well as the work accomplished and results produced by that system and its various parts. The results of this continuous study were to be reported biennially to the legislature, with such recommendations for the modification of existing conditions as the council might see fit to make. The council was authorized also to submit suggestions for the consideration of the judges of the several courts with regard to rules, practice, and procedure.

To accomplish its purposes, the council was authorized to hold public hearings, administer oaths, and require the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and documents. A witness giving false testimony, or failing to appear when duly summoned, was made subject to the same penalties to which a witness before a court is subject. The clerks of the various courts and other officials are required to submit to the council such reports as the council may prescribe.

It is difficult to compare popular participation in Swiss elections with that of any other democratic country in Europe. The smallness of the country, the rugged nature of the land, the diversity of languages, the strength of the traditions of local self-government, the variety of political institutions, and the multiplicity of elections make Switzerland a unique place for political experiments. The composition of the Swiss electorate is very similar to that of the French. Every Swiss male citizen, twenty-one years of age or over, is allowed to vote, unless excluded by the laws of the canton in which he resides. However, the duties of the French and Swiss electors are far from being alike. In France the electors vote every four years for the deputies, while in Switzerland there are elections on federal questions every year, to say nothing of the cantonal and municipal elections. The elections to the lower house of the Swiss national legislature, the National Council, are held every three years. These elections do not have the same importance as English or French legislative elections, because the Swiss constitution limits the powers of the national legislators. Furthermore, the Swiss plural executive system detracts from the dramatic quality of the National Council elections. The executive is not responsible to the lower house as in countries having the parliamentary form of government. Making allowance for the fact that some of the cantons have compulsory voting, one might expect to find a lower record for participation in elections to the Swiss National Council than in elections to the French Chamber of Deputies, the latter body having undivided national power and, in addition, control over the executive.

A characteristic post-war institutional development has been the appearance, under one guise or another, of instrumentalities for the representation of functional or economic interests. There is scarcely a nation in Europe that has not in some fashion taken cognizance of social and economic groups by their recognition through definite legal agencies. Witness the Italian lower house, with representation based upon Fascist corporations; and note the Consiglio Superiore dell' Economia, the German Reichswirtschaftsrat, and the Conseil National Économique of France. These bodies are too well known to warrant comment. Czechoslovakia, however, has an agency for expert economic counsel and guidance that challenges comparison and invites examination. Her Advisory Board for Economic Questions is noteworthy as one of the most carefully contrived of institutions for the representation of interests and classes. This board, together with the bodies just mentioned, demonstrates the working compromises that have been made with parliamentarism in view of the ever-increasing technical complexities of the present day “public-service state.”

Functional representation is recognized in varying forms in a large number of countries. The mere extent of this development is significant of the change in attitude that is taking place toward the state. The concept has been acknowledged in word, if not in action, in the constitutions of Yugoslavia, Poland, and Danzig. By decree or statute, the principle has been accepted in Spain, Turkey, Mexico, and Japan. Estonia, Latvia, and Luxembourg must likewise be added. There has been agitation in Norway for an economic council. Plans have been considered toward this end in Greece, Austria, Rumania, and Portugal.

The third conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations met at Kyoto, Japan, from October 28 to November 9, 1929. Previous conferences had been held in 1925 and 1927 at Honolulu. It has been decided to hold the fourth conference in 1931 in China.

The Kyoto conference was the largest thus far held by the Institute. In all, 218 persons participated. Most of these were representatives selected by the seven national councils. The Japanese, with 48, had the largest group. The United States, with 45, came second, followed by China with 31, Canada with 29, Great Britain with 15, Australia with 11, and New Zealand with 6. In addition, there were subgroups of eight Filipinos and seven Koreans. Eight members of the Institute's Honolulu secretariat attended, as did observers from Soviet Russia, France, Netherlands, Mexico, the League of Nations, and the International Labor Office. The members were not in any case official delegates of governments. The national councils are voluntary, self-constituted, and self-perpetuating bodies, and in most cases they selected individuals to attend the conference with a view to the representation of numerous interests. The result was that frequently the closest affiliations of members cross-sectioned the national groups. For example, labor leaders from Great Britain (Malcolm MacDonald), Japan (Bunji Suzuki), Canada (Tom Moore), and the United States (Paul Scharrenburg) were often seen together. Each of the groups had women members, of whom there were 33 in all. The 72 university men constituted the largest professional interest, followed by bankers and business men (44), journalists (18), religious workers (17), and smaller numbers of members of parliaments, ex-government officials, social workers, lawyers, labor leaders, and physicians.