Fascism a World Movement. Fascism is no longer an isolated incident in the individual history of a few countries. It has developed into a universal movement which in its seemingly irresistible surge is comparable to the rising of European liberalism against absolutism after the French Revolution. In one form or another, it covers today more areas and peoples in Europe and elsewhere than are still faithful to constitutional government. Fascism's pattern of political organization presents a variety of shades. One-party-controlled dictatorships rule outright in Italy, Germany, Turkey, and, if Franco wins, also Spain. The so-called “authoritarian” states may be classified as belonging to the one-party or multiple-party type. To the one-party authoritarian group, without genuine representative institutions, adhere at present Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, and Portugal; while Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Latvia, and Lithuania may be classed together as authoritarian states of the multiple-party type, with a semblance of parliamentary institutions.

The British Unemployment Assistance Act of 1934 is unquestionably the most important legislative innovation in the field of public poor relief since the passage of the Elizabethan poor laws. It represents the final fruition of the movement for the “break-up” of the old poor law system, for by its provision the “break-up” is made virtually complete. In sweeping terms, it adopts the principle of national responsibility for the care of the nation's ablebodied poor, and establishes for the administration of the duties thereby thrust upon the national government a vast new machinery directly operated from Whitehall. Local responsibility for a major portion of a basic governmental function is thus completely wiped out, and the old poor law stands stripped of its essential substance and significance, a mere shell of the former system out of which grew the modern institutions of English local government.

Almost from the creation of the League of Nations, there have been proposals for its reform; a few amendments to the Covenant have actually been adopted. Discontent with the League's achievements in the recent dispute between Japan and China and that between Italy and Ethiopia have of late brought the discussion to a head, and have led to official action by the League itself. According to the British Foreign Minister, in a speech before the Assembly on September 25, 1936:

The underlying motive for the work on which we are now engaged, of examining the Covenant and the procedure of its application, is the recent failure of the collective action of the Members of the League to achieve the prime object for which it was undertaken.

And M. Litvinoff, speaking three days later, asserted that the question

did not arise in any academic way, but was brought into existence and imposed upon us, both by the unhappy outcome of the Italo-Ethiopian conflict and by the whole course of the political events of recent years.

At the meeting of the Council on June 26, 1936, the Chilean delegate proposed that a study of the reform of the Covenant be undertaken; and he proposed it likewise at the 16th Ordinary Session of the Assembly, in July, 1936. Discussion at this session did not reveal much enthusiasm for reform.

A study of the financing of the 1936 campaign is particularly interesting since it may show what, if any, effect the “New Deal” program has had upon political alignments. Eventually, any radical shift in the support of a political party must be reflected in the sources from which it draws its campaign funds.

In 1928, both major parties depended largely upon bankers and manufacturers for their contributions, although the Republicans received a larger proportion of their fund from manufacturers than did their rivals. In 1932, although the proportion of the Democratic fund coming from manufacturers dropped appreciably, Roosevelt's promises of a New Deal had no apparent effect upon the support of the bankers, who contributed as heavily as in 1928.

“Practically every volume of the United States Statutes contains one or more acts or joint resolutions of Congress authorizing action by the President in respect of subjects affecting foreign relations, which either leave the exercise of the power to his unrestricted judgment, or provide a standard far more general than that which has always been considered requisite with regard to domestic affairs.” Thus did Mr. Justice Sutherland summarize the legal precedents for the President's actions in imposing an embargo on arms shipments to certain belligerent countries in South America, after Congress had delegated to him discretionary authority in such matters. This is more than a succinct historical summary. It is the first case in which the dicta of the Court has made clear that sharp line of distinction between the Chief Executive's discretionary powers in foreign affairs and those in internal matters.

President Roosevelt's message of January 12 urging a thorough reorganization of the administrative branch of the federal government was greeted by a Congress undoubtedly astounded at the number and revolutionary character of the reforms advocated. Among the suggestions around which opposition has crystallized is the proposed redistribution of the General Accounting Office's functions relating to accounting, expenditure control, and auditing between a more circumscribed “General Auditing Office” and the Treasury Department. It is unfortunate that the benefits to be derived from this reorganization are not widely recognized. On the contrary, the move easily lends itself to characterization as an arrogation of further power on the part of the Chief Executive and an attempted removal of the administrative branch of the government from any effective control by Congress. In the words of Senator Vandenberg, "it would put a muzzle on the only watch-dog that's left around here.” Publicity is given to the “proposed abolition of the Comptroller-General's office,” as though this independent critic of Administration expenditures were to be done away with entirely. Actually, under the President's plan provision is made for an independent audit which could be made more effective than the confused control exercised by the Comptroller-General under the present arrangement. In addition, the recognition of accounting and expenditure control as fundamental elements of management would bring into the federal system an increased efficiency in administration which is sadly needed.

For some time, the growing stature of political science as an independent social science has been a notable feature in American universities. Yet, up to the present time, the categories of this new field of scientific endeavor have not found their way into the indexing departments of libraries, nor have they been recognized by indexers of other collections. Even the editors of encyclopedias, people of great learning and ability, have omitted some of the most significant topics of political science, because of the lack of any accepted index indicating the range of the field and focusing attention upon its primary categories. The American Political Science Review itself is confronted with the problem of a suitable subject-index. The growing complexity of all kinds of materials bearing upon the work of political scientists, and more particularly the increasing mass of public documents, has become more and more baffling. Even the skillful indexers of the Congressional Record, for example, seem unaware of the major topics of interest for political science, and thus no sign-posts of the usual kind have been made available to workers in our field.