Important changes in the regulations governing receipts and expenditures of party committees, enacted in the summer of 1940, make a study of the financing of the presidential election of that year particularly interesting and significant. “Hatch Act II,” designed primarily to extend to certain state and local employees limitations upon political activities already imposed upon federal office-holders by “Hatch Act I,” introduced a number of radical changes in the rules governing the collection of campaign funds.

The results which are likely to flow from any political change are extremely difficult to predict. It would have been impossible a generation ago to foresee that the gradual shift, in democratic as well as totalitarian states, of the political center of gravity from the legislature to the executive would create a new instrument of political power. That instrument is official publicity, or, more bluntly, governmental propaganda. It is suggested here that the tremendous growth in the publicity activities of modern governments is a direct consequence of the continued absorption by the executive of a larger degree of legislative initiative and power. Indeed, it seems highly probable that the development of the administrative bureaucracy as a source of policy and law will result, if it has not already done so, in making propaganda an indispensable instrument of government, with profound implications for traditional democratic processes.

“We are under a Constitution,” said Charles Evans Hughes when he was governor of New York, “but the Constitution is what the judges say it is …” Several theories of jurisprudence have arisen which attempt to take into account this personal element in the judicial interpretation and making of law. The so-called “realistic” school has argued that law is simply the behavior of the judge, that law is secreted by judges as pearls are secreted by oysters. A less extreme position was taken by the late Justice Holmes, who said: “What I mean by law is nothing more or less than the prediction of what a court will do.” While these views go rather far in eliminating any idea of law as a “normative, conceptual system of rules,” no one doubts that many judicial determinations are made on some basis other than the application of settled rules to the facts, or that justices of the United States Supreme Court, in deciding controversial cases involving important issues of public policy, are influenced by biases and philosophies of government, by “inarticulate major premises,” which to a large degree predetermine the position they will take on a given question. Private attitudes, in other words, become public law.

The sine die adjournment of Congress on January 3 brought down the curtain on the longest and one of the most hectic and unique sessions in American history. As early as January 3, 1940, when the session began, the leaders of the House and Senate were looking forward to a program involving much controversy. But it is doubtful whether anyone anticipated a session drawn out over 367 days, during which $19,069,548,775 would be appropriated and 941 laws enacted. Many important bills were pending on the Senate and House calendars on the opening day, and measures on trade treaties, labor, agriculture, taxation, and debt limitation were certain to arise. Many congressmen rightly guessed that much defense legislation would be enacted. Around the Capitol during the opening weeks of the session, nevertheless, there was much sentiment for a more nearly balanced budget and for a curtailment of national expenditures. Barrages of criticism were thrown up against a continuation of the extensive executive powers previously conferred on the President, and particularly urging removal of certain governmental regulations on individuals or businesses. Pleas were made for a return to “congressional government.” And many members urged an early adjournment in order that representatives and senators might go home for campaign purposes.

In the titanic struggle for leadership in Europe, Great Britain is resisting the most formidable challenge to her supremacy. For centuries, her principal foreign policy was to prevent any establishment of hegemony over the entire European continent. After the first World War, British statesmen, however, were convinced “that they could no longer bear the burden of regulating world affairs alone. They urged a League of Nations…. But national sovereignties were no more prepared to collaborate in a democratic world organization than they had been to submit to British domination. Thus, instead of the League of Nations succeeding to the British imperial hegemony, the world fell into anarchy in a new struggle of several states, each striving to become the dominant Power.”

Only since 1939 have political scientists, as such, had much chance to gain entrance into the permanent federal civil service. This opportunity came as the result of two well-timed phenomena: (1) the demand of a number of federal agencies for young men and women educated in certain branches of political science, and (2) the United States Civil Service Commission's announcement of the Junior Professional Assistant examination, which included an optional called “Junior Administrative Technician.” This combination of happy circumstances, however, did not solve all the problems of the young political scientist or clarify all the requirements for federal employment; so, at the 1939 meeting of the American Political Science Association a committee was appointed to study the question.

This study is concerned with certain phases of the operation of the power of the courts to declare legislative enactments unconstitutional. It is concerned with the exercise of this power rather than with the rules governing or applicable to the exercise of the power itself. For this reason, it might be thought of as a fact-study in the field of unconstitutional legislation. This does not mean that the rules and principles of law applicable to the subject are ignored, but it means that they are assumed as a background against which the study is to be placed.

The state and county governments in the Tennessee Valley area, particularly in Tennessee, completed 1940 with one of their most pressing financial problems solved or well on the way to solution. The threatened loss of taxes to governmental units, resulting from the program of public ownership of power and the purchase by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the municipalities of the properties of private electrical power companies, had been serious to many counties facing bankruptcy, curtailment of services, or exorbitant taxes. Besides the financial effects, the situation strikingly demonstrated the need for reforms in local government, mainly the consolidation of counties and the introduction of better budgeting and accounting practices. Moreover, the problem has also been significant because of certain issues resulting from the venture into public ownership. Should proprietary agencies of the national government engaged in competition with private business and acquiring existing taxable facilities be responsible for the taxes thereby displaced and replace them as a matter of policy? Are proprietary functions of the national government subject to state and local taxing authority? These issues have demanded widespread consideration not only in the Tennessee Valley area but also in other sections where public power programs are being tried on a large scale. A bill was introduced into Congress on September 30, 1940, to provide for payments to governmental units affected by displacement of taxes arising from the Bonneville Power Project, and a more recent bill applies to the proposed Arkansas Valley Authority Project. The passage of the Norris-Sparkman amendment by Congress in June, 1940, whereby payments in lieu of taxes are being made by the T.V.A., has answered these questions and relieved the pressing financial aspects of the situation. The tax replacement provision has now been in operation more than six months, and an analysis of the period affords an interesting insight into its effects on the various governments concerned.

All judicial officers in the state of Minnesota, including the chief justice and six associate justices of the supreme court and fifty judges in the district courts, are required to be nominated and elected without partisan designation. Judicial nominations and elections were made nonpartisan by the election law of 1912. During a quarter of a century, the nonpartisan ballot has given Minnesota the services of an exceptionally well qualified bench, and sentiment is practically unanimous in favor of continuing this method of selecting judges.

Once elevated to the bench, a Minnesota judge has a good chance of continuing in that capacity as long as he wishes to serve. Supreme court justices have been regularly reelected; so that their tenure has been, for all practical purposes, the same as that of federal judges. Three of the present members of the supreme court have been elected once, two have been elected twice, one three times, and one four times. With one exception, the supreme court justices since 1912 have retired from office by resignation or death.

Of the eighty-four district court judges who have served since 1912, only four have been defeated at the polls when seeking reelection. At the present time, thirty-six of the state's fifty district court judges have been elected two or more times, and twenty-three have been elected three or more times.

What is undoubtedly the most thorough and comprehensive study ever made of Federal administrative procedure was completed with the submission to the Attorney General, in a letter dated January 22, 1941, of the final report of the Committee named. In its investigation and report, the Committee confined its attention to those Federal agencies that substantially affect private interests by their powers of rule-making and adjudication. To the study of their procedures, it assigned a staff of lawyer-investigators, which produced 27 mimeographed monographs, 13 of which have been printed as Sen. Doc. No. 186, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. In its interim report of January 31, 1940, the Committee thus described the methods being employed in the preparation of these monographic studies: “They have involved extended interviews with officials and employees of the agencies involved, with members of the public affected, and with attorneys who have represented clients before these agencies. Members of the Committee's staff have attended numerous hearings and other administrative proceedings as observers, and have closely examined the files of the agencies to discover the methods utilized in disposing of matters arising under the various statutes and regulations. Upon the completion of these investigations, the staff has prepared for the study of the Committee a preliminary report upon each agency, discussing in detail its administrative procedures. The report has been given to the officers of the affected agency for their consideration and comment. Thereafter, the full Committee has met with the agency's officers to discuss with them the facts and problems disclosed by the report.” (Final Report, pp. 254–255). The Committee held public hearings in June and July, 1940. In Chapter IX of its final report, it presents recommendations concerning a number of the individual agencies studied; and in Appendices B through M, it summarizes data collected on significant topics.

The Problem. One of the most important government personnel problems at the present time is the increasing difficulty of securing high grade new employees for government jobs, and of retaining experienced civil servants in the face of higher salary and wage schedules in private industry. Ordinarily this would not be a particularly sore spot, because of certain advantages of government employment which might offset lower pay. However, at the present time, and especially in defense agencies such as the War and Navy Departments, it is necessary that the best available personnel be secured for key positions so that our defense preparations may be completed as expeditiously as possible.

On April 7, 1941, while the Axis Powers were invading Yugoslavia, Ante Pavelik, the well-known Croat terrorist, broadcast from Italy an appeal to the Croats to secede from the Serbs and to support Germany and Italy. Three days later, when the German troops entered Zagreb, Sladko Kvaternik, another Croat leader, proclaimed there an independent Croat state, and on April 12, a national committee declared Pavelik, who was still abroad, head of the new state. The following day he entered Zagreb, and two days afterwards he took effective power, receiving the title of Poglavnik, the Croat equivalent of Führer or Duce. Immediately upon his telegraphic request of April 15, Germany and Italy granted recognition of Croatia, subject to their joint determination of the new state boundaries. Pavelik at once dissolved the old political parties and on April 17 formed the first Croat government, in which he became president of the council of ministers and minister of foreign affairs; Kvaternik, his substitute and supreme commander of the armed forces; and a Dr. Kulenovich, vice-president of the council. An upper council of the Croat state was designated to function with the government.

The civil service scene in Michigan has changed so rapidly in the last few years that it has been difficult for persons in other areas to keep abreast of developments. Thus, while in 1936 Michigan knew little of merit in public employment, 1937 found her in the vanguard of the reform movement. In that year, the recommendations of a study commission were embodied in a comprehensive civil service system by a Democratic administration. The year 1939 brought an almost complete reversal of policy with the passage of a Republican “ripper” act. Today another development is in the process of maturing. A civil service amendment to the state constitution was adopted in the November election of 1940.

It is not the purpose of this article to review the details of the history of Michigan's civil service movement, for this has been done elsewhere. Suffice it to say that Michigan's experience with spoils politics was neither better nor worse than that of other jurisdictions; the recommendations of the Civil Service Study Commission, of which Dr. James K. Pollock was chairman, are now well known; the excellence of the state's merit system under William Brownrigg has also been generally recognised.

However, three developments remain to be discussed: first, the contents of the “ripper” legislation; second, the effects of that legislation upon the present personnel situation; third, the proposed constitutional amendment.

After two years of effort, the Committee on State Government of the National Municipal League has completed its work on the new fourth edition of the Model State Constitution. This constitution was originally published in 1921, and revisions were made in 1928 and 1933. The form of the constitution has been improved, and the text itself subjected to a thoroughgoing revision, resulting in many important changes. Whereas the third edition had ninety-eight sections, the new one has 116 sections grouped under thirteen articles, dealing respectively with the bill of rights, suffrage and elections, the legislature, initiative and referendum, the executive, the judiciary, finance, local government, the civil service, public welfare, intergovernmental relations, constitutional revision, and the schedule. The explanatory comments have been thoroughly revised and rewritten.

On April 7, 1939, the Italian news agency, Stefani, announced officially that Italian troops had landed in Albania. Having overcome some resistance, they entered Tirana, the capital, the following day and then rapidly completed the occupation of the country. An attempt at legal justification followed this military action. The Italian press announced that after the landing of troops an Albanian provisional committee, quickly formed, convoked an Assembly composed of delegates from all Albanian provinces. On April 12, 1939, this Assembly, having vested itself with full powers, declared the decadence of the preceding régime and offered the crown of Albania to the king of Italy. The Italian law of April 16, 1939, n. 580, declared that the king of Italy, having accepted the crown of Albania, assumed for himself and for his successors the title of King of Italy and Albania, Emperor of Ethiopia. Then followed a series of measures legally entrusting Italy with full control over Albania.

International law has assumed that states are independent and free to vary their national cultures and institutions at will. It permits them to organize their domestic economy, culture, opinion, and polity in a totalitarian way if they see fit. In fact, however, international law developed among states which had many cultural characteristics in common. It was originally the law governing the relations of the Christian states of Europe, all with a tradition reaching back into medieval Christendom and classical antiquity, and united by practices of maritime trade, and by commercial, religious, and educational institutions. The potential totalitarianism which the law allowed was not in fact realized because of moral and practical inhibitions. Governments wished to observe the universal mores, and even if they had not, they lacked the technical, administrative, and political means which modern despots have utilized so effectively to override these mores in the interests of concentrated power.

It is possible to distinguish in the federal administrative agencies, collectively known as “the bureaucracy,” a separate branch of government distinct alike from the executive and from the legislature. It is equally possible to argue that the administrative agencies, because they are the organs through which the law becomes effective and because they are at least nominally under presidential control, are parts of the executive establishment; or that through congressional control over appropriations they are extensions of the legislature. To the extent that the bureaucracy does in fact share all of these characteristics, it becomes the instrument through which the close fusion of executive and legislative functions required by the complex nature of modern government may be brought about under a constitution committed to the eighteenth-century doctrine of separation of powers.

As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order or reorganization plans under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.

Changes between July 16 and November 15, 1940. As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorised by law or established by the President by executive order or Reorganisation plans under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.

Adminiarator of Export Control. Authorised by Executive Order 8567 of October 15, 1940, and Administrative Regulation of the same date to administer the provisions of the act of October 10, 1940 (Public 829, 76th Congress), authorising the President to requisition for national defense any equipment, supplies, etc., the exportation of which has been denied under the provisions of Sec. 6 of the act approved July 2, 1940 (Public 703, 76th Congress).

Advisory Committee on Selective Service. Appointed by the President September 21, 1940, to coördinate plans for selective service. No formal order was issued, the creation of the Committee being indicated by letters to the individual members.

Advisory Committee to Encourags Travel in the United States. Authorised to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior by Public 755, approved July 19, 1940. I t will consist of one representative each from the Departments of State, Agriculture, and Commerce, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aëronautics Authority, and the United States Maritime Commission, to be designated by the Beveral departments or agencies, and not exceeding six representatives “of the various sections of the nation, including transportation and accommodation agencies,” to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and to serve at his pleasure. The members of the Committee receive no compensation, but are reimbursed for expenses in attending meetings.