One does not speak of the rights of American trade unions glibly or in off-hand fashion. Unlike the English policy of defining the rights of labor by legislative enactment, our legislatures, both federal and state, have been particularly slow to make such definition. Such predicability as the labor law has thus far assumed has been largely the work of the courts. Here, in other words, we discover the rights of trade unions in the opinions of the courts; in England, we have been accustomed to look to the statute-book rather than to judicial opinions. Comparatively, English labor law has at least enjoyed the merit of being reasonably predicable. The acts of 1859, 1871, 1875, 1906, and 1913 were all designed either to make the existing law more definite or to overturn a judicial interpretation of the law adverse to labor. Thus, by the year 1927 the law was rather definite. The statutes contained statements of what labor could or could not do. A reading of the recent Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act of July 29, 1927, raises the question whether this legislation marks a change in the English policy of fixing the rights of labor by legislative definition.

The immediate occasion for the recent act was the general strike of May, 1926. Introduced and rushed through Parliament by the present Conservative government, this measure failed to receive the preliminary study and consideration that preceded the introduction of the acts of 1871 and 1906.

The voters of the Saorstat Eireann went to the polls on September 15 to elect a new Dail. This was the fourth election under the P.R. system and the second election of the year. Despite the importance of the issues involved and the strenuous efforts of the two larger parties, the total poll was only 35,000 votes greater than in the previous June. But a total poll of 1,180,000 votes is a good record for the Free State, even though on a percentage basis it does not appear large. The present inefficient state of the register makes a percentage comparison somewhat misleading.

To the student of political institutions the election was interesting because of its bearing on several important matters: proportional representation, the development of the party system, political education, and parliamentary government. Not the least of these was proportional representation. There has been much discussion of P.R. in the Free State, and the Cumann na nGaedheal, or government party, made a promise in the election campaign to modify or abolish the system if returned to office. It remains to be seen whether this pledge can be carried out. But in the meantime it is interesting to point out how the system appears to have operated in the most recent election.

Some of the English newspapers undoubtedly exaggerated the evils of the system, the Sunday Express even saying that “one consequence of the election will be the abandonment of an experiment which distorts rather than expresses the opinion of the voters.”

The German national public officer—a term which covers public employees of every rank, from watchmen and gate-keepers to the chancellor, and in every type of occupation, from engineering to diplomacy, from teaching to service on the bench of the highest courts—has a very special status, governed in part by the constitution, in part by the Law of Officers, and in part by many other statutes, such as a law fixing salaries. This status involves many rights and privileges, and on the other hand, many duties and restrictions. The oath of office required of all national officers consists of a pledge to be faithful to the constitution, obedient to the laws, and conscientious in the performance of official duties. The law requires every officer to conduct himself at all times, even in his private capacity, in such a way as to merit the respect due to his office. Misconduct is liable to the “ordinary” penalties of reprimand, warning, and money fine, or, after due hearing, to the “disciplinary” penalties of suspension and dismissal. The criminal code takes cognizance of certain specified crimes and misdemeanors in office, such as the improper bringing about of arrests and prosecutions, and the falsification of official records. Naturally, the officer is also liable when he commits any other type of crime or misdemeanor.

The rights and privileges of public officers are very substantial. National officers are appointed, as a rule, for life; unless any appointment is specified as being revocable, it is per se a life appointment, involving protection against arbitrary dismissal or suspension.

The charter group was again successful in the November elections in Cincinnati and retained the six seats won in the first contest, while the Republican organization lost one seat to an Independent candidate. Seven of the nine councilmen were reёlected to office. The victory of the charter ticket was due in large measure to public approval of the unusual accomplishments of the last two years, and in part to the political sagacity of the leaders throughout the series of campaigns. The election of 1924, which resulted in the adoption of the council-manager form of government with a council chosen by proportional representation, and the election of two years ago which “kept the charter in the hands of its friends,” have been described in the pages of this journal. It was appreciated that the real test of the reform movement would come at the election of 1927 when the charter party would be on the defensive. This test has now been met.

Cincinnati was fortunate in the character of the men who composed the first council under the new system. They employed a manager with administrative ability, a charm of manner which quickly ingratiated him with the people, and a personality which complemented the personal qualities of the councilmen themselves. These men elected by the people did not refuse leadership, and the mayor especially has become a dominant force in the community. The combination of Mayor Seasongood and Manager Sherrill is an unusual one. The former is a leader of reform; the latter, the man to carry out the policies which the representatives determine upon. Consequently, the manager himself never became a campaign issue. Both groups pledged him support. As the mayor said of him, “He personifies the people's own desire for good government.”

At the present time, there is an extensive literature dealing with the structure and functions of the eighteen German state governments. For most of the states, one finds collections of laws and regulations, commentaries and manuals, state hand-books, statistical year-books, legal and administrative journals, together with other more or less fugitive publications. But among all this material, there are almost no comparative studies in state law, politics, and administration.

It may be worth while to suggest briefly a number of helps for the comparative study of German state government. Of the treatises on public law, the only one which deals exclusively with the states is Julius Hatschek's Ausserpreussisches Landesstaatsrecht (Berlin, 1926). This volume discusses and compares the governments of all the German states except Prussia and Waldeck. The constitutions of ten of the more important states are printed as appendices, but the usefulness of the book is lessened by the complete omission of an index. Otto Meissner's Das Staatsrecht des Reichs und seiner Länder (2nd ed., Berlin, 1923) devotes considerable space to the states and is provided with a good index. It is now, however, somewhat out of date. Walter Jellinek's Verfassung und Verwaltung des Reichs und der Länder (Leipzig, 1925) is of little value for the purpose now under consideration, as it contains only thirteen pages on the states. Fritz Stier-Somlo's Deutsches Reichs-und Landesstaatsrecht (Vol. I, Berlin, 1924) is, of course, recognized as a standard work, but thus far only one volume has appeared. The second volume, dealing with the states, is not yet forthcoming.

No one of the many changes in the English constitution during the World War is more interesting than the establishment of the cabinet secretariat. The device came into being under the stress of war-time conditions, as a result of the complexity of the problems to be dealt with, and of the need for centralizing the activities of the government. Its retention after many other features of the war administration have proved only transitory is an example of the permanence that war-time institutions sometimes acquire.

Before the war no minutes of cabinet meetings were kept. The only record of cabinet decisions was contained in the letter which the prime minister wrote with his own hand to the sovereign, reporting only those decisions which he thought should be brought to the sovereign's attention. A copy of each letter was kept for reference by the prime minister. Since it was considered bad form to take notes in cabinet meetings, individual members had to depend upon memory when proceeding to apply cabinet decisions in their own departments. Such procedure was unbusinesslike, and was one of the factors that rendered the cabinet system cumbrous and inefficient in the conduct of a great war. The War Cabinet needed an agency to prepare information for its consideration, to keep an accurate record of the many and vitally important decisions it made, and to transmit those decisions to the departments charged with ultimately carrying them into effect. Under such circumstances, the cabinet secretariat came into existence.