The law for the reorganization of central administration and the law on local administration (July 20, 1929) sponsored by the National Peasant government of Roumania have recently been put into effect. Both measures were drafted by Professors Negulescu, of the University of Bucharest, and Alexianu, of the University of Cernauţi. Their adoption comprises one of the most thorough governmental reforms in the history of the Balkans.

The structure of the Roumanian government was, until very recently, almost completely copied from the French system. Roumania was a typical example of a unitary organization. The whole power of government was centralized in Bucharest. Practically all powers of local government were derived from the central authority, and were enlarged and contracted at the will of Bucharest. The whole system lent itself admirably to the domination of the National Liberal party, guided up to 1927 by Ion I. C. Brǎtianu, and after his death by his brother, Vintilǎ I. C. Brǎtianu, who died last year.

Since the strength of the National Peasant party, which assumed the reins in 1928, lies largely in the provinces acquired at the close of the World War, a decentralization of government was to be expected. The bitter resentment of Maniu and his associates toward the over-centralization which favored the policies of the Bratianus forced the recent overhauling of the governmental structure, tending toward federalism—a form which takes cognizance of the differences of the past and present between the old kingdom and the new provinces and attempts to extend democratic features of self-rule to the electorate. At the same time, it attempts to secure bureaucratic expertness.

In recent years, two pronounced tendencies have been manifest in the relation of the states to the local governments. One has been increased state aid for the support of functions which have hitherto been recognized as local functions, particularly roads and schools. These enlarged state grants have been made partly to relieve the burden of local taxation, partly in recognition of a larger responsibility on the part of the state, and partly to stimulate a higher quality of service. In order to insure the realization of the last-mentioned purpose, the aid has usually been conditioned on the fulfillment of certain minimum requirements.

The second tendency has been for the state to assume closer supervision over the finances of local government. This greater solicitude on the part of the state in respect to local finances has sprung from a number of reasons, two of which are the tremendous increase in the size of local funds since the beginning of the road-building era and the frequent misuse of the debt-incurring privilege.

The government of Ceylon presents several points of interest to the student of political institutions. The island is the most important of the British crown colonies, and has been governed in recent years under a dual system, with an appointed executive and a legislative council, a majority of which is elected. A new constitution, which will go into effect during the present year, provides for a novel system with a very large measure of responsible government, on the basis of universal suffrage, for a population overwhelmingly Asiatic, but of several stocks, and with a small European element. This experiment should throw light on the larger problem of the government of India.

Some data—geographical, historical, economic, and social—seem essential to an understanding of the political situation. Ceylon is an island of 25,000 square miles (about half the size of the state of Illinois), lying south of India and just north of the equator. The largest element in the population is the Sinhalese, descendants of an Aryan race that came from North India about the sixth century B.C., became Buddhists in the third century B.C., and retain that religion. Later came other peoples (Tamils) from South India, Hindu in religion, who occupied the northern part of the island. In the sixteenth century, the Portugese gained control of the coasts; and in the seventeenth, the Dutch conquered the Portugese districts. In 1796, during the Napoleonic wars, the Dutch sections were conquered by the British; and after a brief period under Madras they became a separate colony in 1802. After a war with the Sinhalese in the interior hill country, the whole island came under British control.

Signor Mussolini's unequivocal refusal to cooperate in M. Briand's proposal of a United States of Europe and the intransigent policy adopted by Italy at the London Naval Conference of 1930 have again directed attention to the power which the Italian dictator possesses over the foreign policy of his country. The constitutional measures by which he has attained, and now holds, this power throw much light upon the Fascist régime.

In Italy, as elsewhere in Europe, the conduct of foreign policy has been vested in the executive, subject to but few constitutional limitations. However, whereas most European constitutions confer upon the legislature an ultimate control over the foreign policy of the government, this has never been the case in Italy. The Statuto of March 4, 1848, which today remains the nominal fundamental law, endowed the king with almost exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations. It is the king who “commands all land and naval forces; declares war; makes treaties of peace, alliance, commerce, and other treaties, communicating them to the house as soon as the interest and security of the state permit,” subject only to the limitation that “treaties involving financial obligations or alterations of the territory of the state shall not have effect until after they have received the approval of the houses.” Under the system of ministerial responsibility originally established, these powers came to be exercised by the ministers, the king personally assuming the familiar position of the constitutional monarch.

It is a well recognized fact that government publications are frequently the most valuable, and sometimes practically the only, reliable source of information on many phases of political, social, and economic life. Every bibliographical aid to their use, therefore, is to be highly welcomed by the student of government; and, fortunately for him, these aids are being rapidly multiplied. A noteworthy illustration is the List of Serial Publications of Foreign Governments, 1815–1929, now being prepared by Miss “Winifred Gregory under the general direction of a joint committee of the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Eesearch Council, and the American Library Association. Under each country will be listed, in a classified arrangement, the reports and other serials which record governmental activities since 1815. Section two of the preliminary checking edition of the List is devoted to the British Overseas Empire (except Canada).

Angus Fletcher, librarian of the British Library of Information in New York, points out that “the publication of official documents is a relatively recent development in English parliamentary history. It was not until 1837 that official documents were finally made available to the public, in the form of the regularly issued Parliamentary Papers as we know them today. The publication of Non-Parliamentary Papers is of stilllater origin.” The establishment of His Majesty's Stationery Office was a result of Burke's Act for Economical Reform in 1782, prior to which time the service of this office had been granted as a monopoly to persons in favor at court. The student entering on a study of British public documents can well afford to review the very readable and valuable historical account of the records of Parliament given by Sir Courtney Ilbert, wherein he traces the development of the written reports of the journals and debates from their beginnings.

In the course of the last eight years, economists and political scientists in the United States have become increasingly aware of problems created by government influence on private foreign investments. For an understanding of these problems, they have turned to an analysis of the experiences of England, France, and Germany before the World War and of the United States since. But little attention has been given to the implications of control of foreign investments for international organization. It is the purpose of this paper (1) to summarize the nature of the control in each country; (2) to outline the theory underlying government control; (3) to point to the international effects of this control; and (4) to propose certain changes which are necessary to bring this aspect of state policy into line with recent developments of international organization.

In a sense, it is inaccurate to speak of government control in England, because the influence exerted by the government there was not in the nature of regulation. The relationship between government and bankers was one as different from legal control as is the theory of the common law from that of the civil law. That is to say, there was no statute on the basis of which the government influenced the outward flow of capital. Such relationship as there was, such similarity of policy as existed between finance and government, depended upon the existence of an accord which was the result of a common heritage and a common purpose.

One of the achievements of the brilliant administration of Harry F. Byrd was the segregation of the sources of revenue. The governor was quite sincere and enthusiastic in his support of this principle, believing, it seemed, that it was the panacea for a great many of our tax troubles. His exuberant enthusiasm caused him to make an error, many believe, when he had written into the rather inflexible constitution of the commonwealth the provision that no state tax shall be levied on real estate and tangible personal property. The state, therefore, no longer has any interest in this kind of property, and its supervision over local fiscal officers extends only so far as they are agents of the state, assessing and collecting the state's revenue.

Each county and city has a local commissioner of the revenue, elected by the people, who assesses for the state intangible personal property, individual incomes, and money and capital, and who assesses for the local government tangible personal property, machinery and tools, and merchants' capital. The state tax commissioner has forms printed and sent to each local commissioner on which all the items mentioned above are supposed to be listed at their fair market value by the taxpayer. Mr. Morrissett, the present state tax commissioner, has inaugurated a plan of holding annual conventions of commissioners of the revenue where the problem of assessment and the complications of the state tax code are discussed.

During recent years, the county manager plan has been growing steadily in popularity. This is shown by the literature on the subject, and, to a lesser degree, by the adoption of the system in a number of counties. Where the plan has been tried, the duties of manager have generally been conferred upon some existing county officer. In North Carolina and Virginia, for instance, different counties have experimented with (1) a member of the county board, generally the chairman, as manager, (2) a financial clerk, auditor, or accountant as manager, and (3) an engineer-manager. While the duties of the office have varied somewhat in the different types, each conforms in certain essential principles to the plan as outlined in the “model county manager law.”

In Missouri, the presiding judge of the county court, the county clerk, and the highway engineer correspond to the above officers; and should the state adopt a county-manager law, the duties of manager would probably be conferred upon one of these three officials. In fact, first-hand information secured in 1929 by interviewing county officials in thirty-three of the 114 counties, attending sessions of the county court, and studying official records shows that the county clerk and highway engineer have already, in some instances, developed general executive powers of some importance. This is true, for example, in awarding contracts, purchasing supplies, auditing claims, reports, and settlements, and determining the county tax rate. Before discussing these functions, the legal status of the county clerk and the engineer should be explained.

Losses by the Labor party—looked upon as one of the most radical of Western European labor parties—and gains by the non-socialist groups at the Storting elections on October 20, 1930, resulted in a notable, though not a decisive, move toward the right in Norwegian parliamentary politics. The move was a remarkable one in that the Labor party lost 12 of its 59 seats in the Storting; the Conservative party added 13 to the 31 seats it already held; and the Communists, who had held three seats, were unable to elect a single representative. The move lacked decisiveness, however, because the Laborites, in spite of their losses, still constitute the largest parliamentary party. At the same time, the popular vote registered for the party was the largest ever given to any Labor or Socialist group in the history of Norway. The Conservatives did not take over the government, and the Radical government under the premiership of Mowinckel continued. While the Radicals joined with the other non-socialist parties in the fight against Labor, it advocates, nevertheless, a progressive social program. Furthermore, the present move to the right is not nearly so marked as was the move to the left in the last triennial election in 1927. The new Storting remains farther to the left than was the Storting before the 1927 elections.

The chief reason why this election deserves attention is that in it there were placed before a literate, alert, and intelligent electorate—representing a homogeneous people with a democratic background—vital issues involving the acceptance or rejection of an advanced socialistic program.

There was recently published in the pages of this Review an article from the pen of Professor William E. Rappard, entitled “The Beginnings of International Government,” in which the author took issue with the use of that phrase and challenged the validity of the concept to which it refers. He took as his text, more or less, a volume published in the United States some years back which employed the contested phrase in its title. And he concluded that the term is a misnomer, and that the phenomenon referred to does not—in the possible alternative sense of supernational government—exist today to any appreciable extent.

There has subsequently appeared another volume carrying the neat title “International Government;” and another volume with somewhat the same designation is promised shortly. Some ten years ago, the writer of the present comment, in composing a similar work, was compelled to face the problems of theory and of verbal expression here involved, and decided in favor of “International Organization.” To that he has adhered in subsequent editions, with ample reference to the functional side of international government (“procedure,” “coöperation”), but, as originally, for reasons not involving a denial of the validity of the contested concept. He would like to discuss briefly the criticism of the idea of “international government” offered in his accustomed brilliant and trenchant style by Professor Rappard.

The main difficulty lies not so much in accepting the definition of government adopted by Professor Rappard (orderly exercise of authority); but that is the first point at which the writer would take issue.

The majority of the early schemes for a general international organization, or League of Nations, before the Covenant envisaged its functions as principally negative—chiefly the general function of preventing war by peaceful settlement of international disputes. Little or no attention was paid before the Covenant to potentialities of positive and coördinated international action. This is all the more remarkable in view of the growing number of spheres to which international action had already been extended. Apart from Schücking and Mr. L. Woolf, only the proposals of the triumvirate of the “Union des Associations Internationales,” M. Fried, M. Paul Otlet, and M. La Fontaine, seriously urged the necessity of rational coördination and positive coöperation. Unfortunately, before the war these proposals failed to receive the serious attention which they merited. The object of the Union was well founded. Already by 1914, there existed over twenty “public unions” and nearly 150 “private associations;” while the growth in the number of international conferences revealed the volume of international activity. Moreover, the dispersion of this activity and the lack of coördination had led to unfortunate overlapping. Three active organizations were occupied with the international regulation of railways, and two with agriculture. The scientific unions worked independently of any comprehensive plan.

But the absence of coördination was not the only weakness apparent in the pre-war situation. The independence of each organization and the lack of a central authority increased the difficulties of working. Elaborate negotiations necessarily preceded the summoning of an international conference, even though the conventional constitution provided for periodic but regular meetings. Further, with the exception of one or two of the most powerful unions, the force of the influence which could be brought to bear on governments was weakened by the isolation.of each union. Finally, the absence of a collective political authority often barred the way to progress in international technical organization.

The regular session of the Texas legislature which began in January of this year had before it a proposal for a constitutional amendment to permit counties to adopt the county manager plan of government. The resolution providing for submitting the question to the voters at the regular election in 1932 passed the House by the required two-thirds majority, but failed in the Senate by a single vote.

The amendment would have empowered counties having a population of over 60,000, on a favorable vote of their qualified voters, to draw up home-rule charters for themselves. On a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature, all other counties were to have the same privilege. The amendment also carried a grant of power to cities and counties to consolidate the two governments. To carry out the latter provision, the rural and urban votes were to be counted separately; and a majority of the urban and a two-thirds majority of the rural votes were required. The larger majority required in the rural sections was a concession to the natural antipathy to a “one-man government” found among rural voters.

The International Labor Organization has become one of the most active of all the international institutions of the post-war period. According to the treaty of Versailles, international labor conferences, composed of delegates from countries which are members of the International Labor Organization, are to meet annually to consider and adopt recommendations and conventions applicable to labor problems and conditions throughout the world. The subjects for a number of possible agreements are suggested in the Versailles treaty, and include the right of association of laborers, the establishment of the eight-hour day, the adoption of the weekly rest period, the abolition of child labor, and various related matters. In drafting conventions and recommendations, the conferences are to be guided by a number of principles laid down in the Versailles treaty, and are asked to recognize that “differences of climate, habit and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labor difficult of immediate attainment.”

Economic difficulties alone were recognized, at first, by the makers of the treaty of Versailles as standing in the way of the attainment of “strict uniformity in the conditions of labor.” It was, however, soon brought to the attention of the Peace Conference that governments might not all prove equally competent constitutionally to deal with labor problems, and that some might prove totally lacking in legal capacity to adhere to the proposed labor conventions. This legal limitation was felt to be especially likely to arise in the case of federal governments, in many of which all matters of labor legislation are reserved to the member-states, and hence are beyond the legislative powers of the central governments. It was predicted by some that these legal difficulties would prove more stubborn obstacles to the uniform regulation of labor matters than differences in climate, habits and customs, and economic opportunity.

The National People's Convention held in May, 1931, and the provisional constitution adopted by it, mark a stage in the development of modern political institutions in China. But it is as yet too early to determine how successful these will be in establishing a permanently stable government.

Calling the Convention was itself an indication that a relative degree of stability had been attained, following the agreement between the Nanking government and Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang in Manchuria and the defeat of the northern opposition under Generals Feng and Yen. But the decision to call the Convention developed internal differences in Nanking, leading to the retirement of Hu Han-min, head of the Legislative Yuan, who has been kept under guard. This in turn aroused distrust in Canton, which led to the open revolt of several southern provinces on the eve of the Convention's meeting. This movement has come about by one of the curious realignments of political leaders and generals, bringing together the more conservative and more radical elements in the Kuomintang, with suggestions of possible combinations with the recently defeated northern generals and other opposition elements in the interior.