With national defense problems paramount in the public mind, it is not surprising that developments in rural local government during 1941 revealed, more than in normal times, the imprint of national and world conditions. State legislatures, though their sessions preceded Pearl Harbor, devoted much attention to defense problems and assigned to local governmental units an important rôle in defense organization and activities. Various steps were taken to foster coöperation in the defense effort by government at all levels; and, in view of the necessity for large national expenditures for defense purposes, additional emphasis was placed upon the need for local economy. Concurrent with the various defense-related developments was a continuation of normal peace-time efforts to improve the organization and operation of rural local government. As in former years, the events of 1941 will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional charters and home rule; and (6) intergovernmental relations.

The Constitutional Atmosphere. In examining the effect of the present war on the English constitution, we are obliged to consider that constitution in its own context. Whether for good or ill, there is no international standard of practice, nor any universally accepted philosophical dogma, by which one may estimate its qualities. One cannot usefully apply to the English constitution the test of conformance to the ideals of Plato or Aristotle (or even of Thrasymachus the Sophist), or of Marx or Pareto, or even of Hamilton or Jefferson. It is profitless to wonder how well the English institutions of today might suit contemporary France, let us say, or contemporary America; nor is it relevant for either me or you to say “I like” or “I don't like.” The historical context of the English constitution is Locke and 1688, Disraeli and Gladstone, Asquith and 1911, Baldwin and 1926.

Between 1920 and 1940, the General Assembly of Indiana through resolution or act authorized no less than twenty-four special interim studies of legislative problems. In addition to these, the governor on eight different occasions set up commissions to study and report on matters of legislative concern. Diligent search has failed to disclose any evidence of activity on the part of a fourth of these commissions, but the others turned in reports averaging one hundred pages in length and at an average cost of $4,000.

No state better represents a period of local government reorganization than North Dakota. The 1941 legislative session climaxed for that state a decade of reorganization attempts to make adjustments in the institution of county government. The 1941 legislature added to consolidation and disorganization laws enacted in previous legislative sessions three alternative forms of county government—the “County Manager Form,” the “Short Form of County Managership,” and the “County Consolidated Office Form.” As if these did not permit enough variation in reorganization, a Governmental Survey Commission has been created to recommend to the next legislature any changes in either state or local government that may seem necessary.

When Nazi planes, on the night of May 10, 1941, bombed the rooms of the Empire Parliamentary Association in Westminster Hall in the Houses of Parliament, they struck at a central institution of the British Empire. Fire destroyed most of its records. Fire-blackened, water-soaked documents, annual reports, verbatim reports of annual meetings and of sessions of the Empire Parliamentary Conference, and other documents, all bearing marks of that night, have formed the basis of this article, which incorporates also the experience gained from personal contacts with the Association in most parts of the Empire, including the addressing of meetings of members in the parliaments of each of the Oversea Dominions and attendance at meetings of the Empire Parliamentary Conference.

To refute the maxim silent leges inter arma is one of the modern challenges to a democracy at war. It is usually recognized that when a state is at war many of the rights of personal liberty normally enjoyed by its citizens must be limited to prevent interference with the prosecution of hostilities. In international conflicts having an ideological basis, such limitations, if too severe, produce a somewhat embarrassing dilemma for a democratic state. The requirements of total war may necessitate at home some of the very objectionable features of government which are to be overthrown elsewhere; yet to be too lenient with dissident groups can well be disastrous. At all events, the government hesitates so to act as to invite its citizens to ask: “To what purpose is a war in defense of democracy if it begins by ending the very liberties which a people are asked to defend against external aggression?” Nevertheless, war conditions are not alone responsible for altered conceptions of personal rights. Internal developments in peace-time may also create a need for changes in such rules; the law cannot remain constant when the conditions upon which it is based are being transformed. Within a twenty-five-year period in English history, two major wars, as well as a series of domestic emergencies, have produced conditions sufficiently serious to arouse substantial sentiment favoring restrictions on civil liberties. At the same time, however, other equally determined groups, whose position is strengthened by the increased popularity of democratic ideals, have sought to combat such restrictions. The events of the period examined show the nature and the result of this conflict.

In time of war, there is a tremendous growth in the number of federal employees. This is due both to the establishment of new war agencies and to an expansion in the activities of existing agencies whose work constitutes a part of the war effort. Coincident with the growth of the federal service in war-time is the contraction of the area from which new employees can be selected. Many persons otherwise eligible for government employment either volunteer or are drafted for military service, while others are attracted by the lure of higher salaries in industry. Thus the problem of securing and retaining the services of an adequate and efficient body of government employees becomes in time of war a far more serious one than in time of peace. It is the purpose of this article to describe the principal means which the federal government is using to obtain the additional civilian personnel needed for the present war effort.

The relationship between the domestic political philosophy of a state and its reliability as a member of an organized world community is one of the more hotly debated issues in the present discussion of future international organization. On one side of the argument is the school of thought which holds that international organization can be safely erected only upon a basis of solidly democratic states. On the other side is the school which denies that there is any such close connection between the internal political organization of a state and its external relations. In support of their respective positions, the former school can cite the early American experience and the latter the early Swiss experience.

“The cardinal factors of British democracy,” writes W. I. Jennings in The British Constitution, “are that the character of the British government depends essentially on the results of the last general election, that there must be a general election at least once every five years … and that the electors have a choice exercised freely and secretly between rival candidates advocating rival policies.” For more than two years the British government has had to meet the challenge of a war crisis which threatens the very existence of British democracy. And war, it is commonolace to say, changes everything. The mandate, whatever it was, of the last general election was given in 1935, in days which, though they may still be dear to some, are certainly dead days beyond recall. Like the Parliament of 1911, the present Parliament has had its life prolonged beyond the maximum of five years. There have been no by-elections, with major rival candidates advocating rival policies; for, soon after the declaration of war, the chief whips of the three major political parties in the House of Commons signed an agreement providing for an electoral truce covering by-elections.

In these days of war, with democracy facing the greatest challenge in its history, it would be a sad mistake for anyone to assume an attitude of smug complacency. Such would be disastrous if not literally treasonable. Educators, therefore, along with labor and industry, business and agriculture, need to re-examine and revaluate their contribution to the common welfare of the community. Engaged in a war that threatens the very existence of freedom of thought, scholarship, and teaching, educational leaders have an obligation to see that the best possible use is made of one of democracy's outstanding institutions—a free educational system. If the democratic nations fail to train men in good moral and intellectual habits, fail to produce men of keen insight and critical judgment, fail to give us free minds that can join in our struggle toward a better life for all the people of the world, they will have failed in one of their most important obligations to the human race, no matter how the struggle upon the field of battle may end.

This is a time when the nation expects every man to do his duty. The first duty of a learned profession is to determine how its members can be of greatest usefulness. This report is intended to be an analysis of possible and proper contributions which political scientists may make to the national effort. For the most part, it suggests ways and means to the individual; it makes few recommendations for action by the Association.

This report examines the opportunities for public service which are available to political scientists in the following fields of activity: (1) in public employment; (2) in undertaking tasks for the federal government; (3) in undertaking needed research; (4) in training persons for the public service; (5) in advancing public understanding of war-time and post-war problems; and (6) in strengthening democratic institutions and ways. Much of what is said on each of these subjects will be applicable to other social sciences and to colleges and universities as a whole.