“Almost no other art requires such high moral qualifications as statistical comparison.” Dr. Arnold Brecht, then Ministerialdirektor in Prussia's state administration, thus prefaced, about three years ago, his Carnegie lecture at the Berlin Hochschule für Politik in which he cautiously analyzed public expenditures in the United States, England, France, and Germany. And he added: “The international comparison of public expenditures should serve only one end—the contest of all countries for the most constructive and lowest expenditures.”

It is a truism that public interest in present-day government centers around the pressing problem of how to achieve an administrative system conducive to the “most constructive and lowest expenditures.”

With the rapid expansion of the services of the United States government, especially since the inception of the New Deal, one of the greatest problems in the maintenance of efficient administration is the coordination of the multitude of governmental activities. Some may object to better coordination and increased efficiency because of the fear of reducing the number of employees and increasing unemployment. This fear is unfounded. The object of coordination is greater efficiency. This might result either in decreased employment and expenditure or in more effectively accomplishing the objects of government, and in the performance of more or better services than would otherwise be possible. In the latter case, coordination might result in increased employment. If the government is to accomplish the purposes of the New Deal, all its establishments must work in harmony. No greater need for coordination has existed than during this depression.

The Stavisky affair in France was, it would now seem, one of those national crises with which students of French politics are familiar. In cases of the kind, a chronic condition becomes acute. A latent anti-democratic sentiment and a dormant antiparliamentary movement appear to become suddenly aroused. A concatenation of apparently superficial circumstances causes an emergency to exist.

The many persons who, like M. Charles Benoist for example, have for a long time insisted that the inevitable ultimate outcome for a system suffering from a chronic condition marked by periodic crises must be revolution, dictatorship, or reform seemed in February of 1934 to be supported by unusually important facts. In conditions such that anticipation of revolution or dictatorship was prevalent on an exceedingly large scale, M. Doumergue assumed power, as is well known, with the definite understanding that he would direct his efforts seriously and unconditionally towards reform.

The Treaty of Versailles provided that at the termination of a period of fifteen years from its coming into force, a plebiscite should be held in the Saar Territory to determine under what sovereignty its inhabitants desired to be placed. The following conditions were laid down for the plebiscite: “A vote will take place by communes or districts on the three following alternatives: (a) maintenance of the régime established by the present Treaty and by this Annex; (b) union with France; (c) union with Germany. All persons, without distinction of sex, more than 20 years old at the date of voting, resident in the Territory at the date of signature of the present Treaty, will have the right to vote. The other conditions, methods, and the date of voting shall be fixed by the Council of the League of Nations in such a way as to secure the freedom, secrecy,and trustworthiness of the voting.”

In the December, 1933, issue of the REVIEW, pp. 942–955, appeared a tabular review of the changes in major units of the national government between March 4 and November 1, 1933. Supplementary lists have appeared in the following issues: April, 1934, changes between November 1, 1933, and March 15, 1934; October, 1934, changes between March 15 and June 30, 1934; February, 1935, changes between June 30 and December 15, 1934; August, 1935, changes between December 15, 1934, and July 5, 1935. The present list indicates the reorganizations effected and new units created between July 5 and August 12, 1935. As in previous lists, mention is made of units only specifically authorized by law or established by the President under general authority vested in him.

This year, Sweden is celebrating the five hundreth anniversary of the Riksdag, or national parliament. Appropriate ceremonies were observed in January at the opening of the annual session in Stockholm, and near the end of May the entire Riksdag and the royal family journeyed to the little town of Arboga, in central Sweden, where the first meeting of the parliament was held in 1435. There an impressive celebration was held, culminating in the unveiling of a statue to Engelbrekt, the first, and one of the greatest, in a long line of remarkable leaders in the cause of the common people of Sweden. It was Engelbrekt who led the revolt against the union with Denmark-Norway in 1434, and who, on January 13, 1435, convened at Arboga an assembly representative not only of the nobles and the clergy but also of the commons—the citizens of the towns and the farmers of the countryside.

Many political scientists have condemned direct election of judges. Of late, an increasing number have recommended the plan of having a judge “run against his record” instead of having him run for office on the strength of his record and at the same time campaign against declared opponents. In California, an experiment has recently been undertaken designed to test the validity of such a plan.

By popularly initiated constitutional amendment, originated by the Commonwealth Club of California and supported by the state chamber of commerce, the state has modified its long-used method of selecting judges of the supreme courts and the district courts of appeal. The amendment neither ends all popular election of judges nor vests all authority for selection in the hands of state officers.

Although the ultimate form of the National Socialist political system in Germany is not yet clear, certain institutions are emerging which bid fair to make more than a passing claim to perdurance in that system. Among these, surprisingly enough, is the popular referendum. Apparently doomed to obsolescence towards the end of the republican period because it was proving to be superfluous in a representative régime and too radically democratic, it has suddenly been accepted as a leading constitutional practice in a Germany which is dedicated to the extirpation of political democracy. In somewhat more than ten months, the Hitler cabinet has twice requested and received popular verdicts at the polls, a record of nation-wide popular consultations which is exactly equivalent to that of the fourteen years of the Republic.

On November 29, 1934, the youngest surviving son of George V was married, to the accompaniment of national excitement greater than that caused by any similar event since Queen Victoria's jubilee of 1897. On May 6 of the present year, the nation and the Empire celebrated George V's jubilee, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne, and popular enthusiasm was even greater than in November. The stability and popularity of the British monarchy is impressive in a Europe which less than twenty years ago saw most ruling monarchs dethroned, and has since witnessed the deposition of Alfonso XIII in Spain and (more recently still) the assassination of the most successful Balkan king. Except for Italy, where the development of Fascism has greatly weakened the position of the king, monarchs exist in Europe only in three Balkan countries and in those regions of northwestern Europe where democratic government has been long established—Scandinavia, the Low Countries, and the British Isles. It is a common assumption that the limited monarch has been found not only compatible with but a support to the democratic capitalistic state.

When the United States last year became a member of the International Labor Organization, many people deplored the decision as being the first covert step toward full membership in the League of Nations. Those whose outlook was more sympathetic to international cooperation replied, in defense, that the Labor Organization is independent of the League, having its own buildings, its own separate organs, its own secretariat, and so on; that its membership is not identical with that of the League; and that therefore a state, by becoming a member of the Labor Organization assumed no connection whatever with the League.