In the “battle of committees” which has raged over the foreign policy of the United States in recent months, the committees which have played the most active and most publicized rôles have been such propaganda groups as the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, the America First Committee, and the No Foreign War Committee. Such groups have left untouched an important task: careful, sober research into the problems which the organization of peace presents to the American people. This latter task, however, has not been wholly neglected. A Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, initiated by Professor James T. Shotwell of Columbia University in the fall of 1939, has undertaken at least a part of the task. Its methods of functioning, its work, and its objectives are of current interest to political scientists, and the present note is intended to call attention to the more important features of the Commission's work.

In reporting to the French people on th e state of affairs in France on June 25, 1940, Premier Marshal Philippe Pétain said: “It is toward the future that. … we turn our efforts. A new order commences.” A new order in France has begun, indeed, even though the character of the French political, economic, and social institutions of the future is not yet subject to definitive determination. With large portions of her territory occupied by German and Italian troops and with all of France at the mercy of her conquerors, the Vichy government has been unable to act with that independence essential to the exercise of full sovereign power. Because of this subjugation to countries still at war, the future of France is inextricably bound up with the outcome of the present conflict. Nevertheless, the “restoration of all that is sound in French life” is well under way, according to Marshal Petain. This task has been undertake n by a government composed in a large measure of persons who have never enjoyed a wide popular following. For years, criticisms of French democratic political institutions and the practices which surrounded them were not inconsiderable and, although handicapped by the necessity of looking both to Wiesbaden and to the German authorities in Paris, the critics who repeatedly sought to discredit the parliamentary system are now having their innings. Under the normal operation of the French political system, the Pétain cabinets could not have come into power, because it is extremely doubtful whether they could have received the support of a parliamentary majority.

Writing in the October Atlantic Monthly, Paul P. Cram insists that “the task of our teachers at the present moment is one of the most terrible responsibilities in modern times.” In less troubled eras, some of us would probably reply that teachers have little influence over college students, who are more interested in sex, football, and liquor than in democracy and war and peace. But Bismarck declared that the German history professor had more to do with winning the Franco-Prussian war than any other group in the Fatherland with the exception of the German High Command. And the fate of France demonstrates with terrible clarity the misfortune that may befall a nation if its people are mentally unprepared to meet existing emergencies.

Procedure is the most difficult and the least satisfactory part of the law. It is the delay, expense, and uncertainty of litigation that has always aroused popular complaint; and these are mostly matters of procedure.

Our substantive law, regulating rights and duties, is intricate enough, but on the whole it has been worked out by the courts and laid down in statutes in a way which seems to meet the general needs of society. The principles of property law, contracts, torts, trusts, agency, partnership, corporations, negotiable instruments, sales, and of all the other titles in the substantive field, are quite acceptable to the public. But when the machinery of the courts is invoked to administer these principles, interminable trouble results. Process must be issued and served to bring persons and property under the jurisdiction of the court, the parties must file their claims and defenses, objections must be heard and amendments made, evidence must be collected by various devices.

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.

Advisory Committee on Fire Fighting and Prevention. Appointed by the Director of State and Local Coöperation of the National Defense Advisory Commission on December 5, 1940, to study the problem of fire prevention in the defense program, to provide for development of methods and training, and to disseminate information.

The Judicial Council and Its Objectives. My assignment is to implement Professor Sunderland's brilliant primer on judicial councils by a more specific presentation utilizing the experiences of the New York State Judicial Council. Of the three elements that enter into a consideration of the judicial branch of government, the first—the substantive law, the law of rights and duties—is not within the province of the judicial council either in New York or elsewhere. The second element—the machinery of justice—is the principal field of the judicial council. If the council does its work well in that field, attention cannot fail to be focused upon the third and most important element—also part of a judicial council's problems—the judicial personnel.

The electoral system of Britain provides students of representative government and observers of voting behavior with a large and valuable field of investigation. The Mother of Parliaments has been elected on a democratic basis since 1918, and the constituency pattern which was rearranged after the first World War has continued down to the present time. The party picture too, although constantly changing, has not been altered fundamentally during the period. We have therefore an interesting and satisfactory span of time between the two world wars in which to examine the various aspects of British electoral institutions and behavior.

The epochal Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations represents the first comprehensive investigation of the governmental system of Canada since Confederation in 1867. Not only does the survey reflect the unique features and problems of the Canadian federation, but it also constitutes an outstanding addition to the general literature on federalism.

The Commission was appointed in August, 1937, to make a “re-examination of the economic and financial basis of Confederation and of the distribution of legislative powers in the light of the economic and social developments of the last seventy years.” In making its inquiry, the Coimmission established a research staff, directed by Alex Skelton, of the Research Department of the Bank of Canada, to make detailed studies of various aspects of the federal problem. The Commission was able to draw to its service outstanding Canadian scholars and experts in the fields of economics, political science, public finance, constitutional law, and history. The Commission, however, did not rely solely on its research staff.

In the summer of 1939, President Charles G. Haines set up this committee and instructed it to study broadly the contribution which political scientists are making to government, their relations with public officials, and how these relations might be made closer and more effective. The problem assigned to the committee is one of great importance to the future of political science. The challenge to political scientists to make an effective contribution to the improvement of government processes and institutions was never so real and so great as it is today. The preservation of democratic institutions, in the long run, will depend in large measure upon scientific study and research, and intelligent, imaginative, and constructive consideration of governmental problems. If political scientists are not making their full contribution to the development and improvement of government—and we believe they are not—it is time to stop and take stock, and to set about purposefully to attune political science to the needs of modern society. We are not unmindful of the very great contribution which all social sciences may make, but we believe that the responsibility of the political scientist is especially great.

After fifty years of experimentation in constitutional government, Japan finds herself today on the threshold of a new era of revolutionary changes. For the greater part of the past half-century, the Japanese political system functioned well. But in recent years many Western features have been found rather awkward and ill-fitting, if not actually obstructive. For some time now, the nation has been discarding many of the foreign trappings which once served so well, but are no longer worth preserving. This casting-off process has been gaining momentum steadily since 1933 and was greatly accelerated by the voluntary liquidation of political parties in July and August, 1940. Thus, a political renovation of a scope heretofore unknown is now in full swing with a new national structure rapidly taking form to meet the dynamic changes in all phases of the Empire's national life.

The origin of the English committee of the whole has evoked much conjecture from historian and political scientist alike, but no conscientious scholar has as yet found the subject worthy of exhaustive study. A scrutiny of the parliamentary sources for the period by the present writer shows, however, what the difficulties are. The meagreness of the records, especially for the sessions of 1604 and 1610, render a thorough examination of the problem almost impossible. In Professor Notestein's The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons, we find the best treatment of the committee of the whole house. But the discussion is short and fails to satisfy the more curious student of parliamentary procedure. Professor Notestein tells us that, about 1607, “there appeared, rather accidentally, the Committee of the Whole House, a Committee at its beginnings so little different from the ‘General Committee’ of late Elizabethan days that its appearance excited little comment…. By 1610 it was becoming customary to refer many matters to it; by 1614 the House went into such a Committee on the least occasion; by 1621 there were four several Committees of the Whole House, which met on different afternoons, and the House went often into Committee in the afternoon about any matter in hand.” All this is undoubtedly true, but that authority is unable to assign any definite reason for the development of this practice and spends most of his time discussing the effects, which are undoubtedly more important to the historian. The problem of origins remains, however, unanswered.

With the tense international situation as an ominous background, the regular quadrennial parliamentary elections for the lower house were held in Sweden in September, 1940. Four years ago, the autumn of 1936 witnessed spirited and warmly contested parliamentary elections in both Sweden and Norway. Because Norway's constitution was amended in 1937 to provide for quadrennial rather than triennial elections, the autumn of 1940 would—save for the German invasion of the Norwegian democracy—have seen nation-wide parliamentary elections in both countries of the Scandinavian peninsula. With Sweden as the only Scandinavian nation remaining free and independent, it has been interesting to note what effect, if any, the tremendous pressures from the surrounding totalitarian states has had on democratic processes in the Swedish state.

Over a year ago, the Swedish cabinet was reorganised into a National Cabinet with all leading political parties represented. As the time for the elections approached, some of the minority parties expressed willingness to postpone the contest, even to the extent of ignoring the constitutional provision for quadrennial elections. The remarkable expression of confidence by the smaller parties in the largest party—the Social Democrats—was countered by an equally remarkable stand taken by the leader of the Social Democrats, Prime Minister Per Albin Hansson, who insisted that the democratic processes of a popular election should be continued. The prime minister's view was accepted by all parties, since it was felt by all leaders that in such a time of stress it would be an indication of democratic strength for the parliament to go to the people. All were agreed also that the parties which would, in normal times, be in opposition should continue as vital going concerns.