The profusion of American statistics is a frequent source of astonishment to statisticians of other nations. Statistics are assembled and published by official agencies at all levels of government; by trade and industrial associations; by individual business concerns; by the church, universities, and the press; by professional research organizations; by a multitude of societies and associations with innumerable aims and programs; and sometimes by the plain citizen himself. Collectively, the statistical activities of the nation comprise a system in the same sense that the activities of four and one-half million business units comprise a national economic system.

There is, in fact, a functional relationship between the national statistical system and the socio-economic order of which it is a part. The primary functions of social and economic statistics are to illuminate practical problems, to assist in the determination of policies, and to aid in arriving at administrative decisions. No sharp line can be drawn in these respects between public and private affairs. Statistics find their raison d'etre as tools, to be used by public officials and by all manner of private interests, and in each case to make some part of the socio-economic system work more effectively.

In the workings of municipal politics, scant honor is accorded that lowliest member of the political hierarchy—the precinct captain—yet his is actually an important position, and one which it may be worth while scrutinizing carefully, as a small-scale replica of the entire complex organism. Representing as he does the lowest rung of the political ladder, his contacts are necessarily with the voters directly. He is, in a very literal sense, that “man of the people” famed in campaign oratory, with his feet on the ground and his hands manipulating the minor gadgets of the political machine. His function is, simply and admittedly, vote-getting, although there are a number of methods which he may use in the attainment of this end. The extent of his personal recognition and emoluments at the hands of the party is determined entirely by the number of voters whom he succeeds in enticing into the fold, and the means employed in corralling them are as diversified as the foibles of human nature and the types of voters represented in a large city.

On the most significant aspect of public budgeting, i.e., the allocation of expenditures among different purposes so as to achieve the greatest return, American budgetary literature is singularly arid. Toilers in the budgetary field have busied themselves primarily with the organization and procedure for budget preparation, the forms for the submission of requests for funds, the form of the budget document itself, and like questions. That these things have deserved the consideration given them cannot be denied when the unbelievable resistance to the adoption of the most rudimentary essentials of budgeting is recalled and their unsatisfactory condition in many jurisdictions even now is observed. Nevertheless, the absorption of energies in the establishment of the mechanical foundations for budgeting has diverted attention from the basic budgeting problem (on the expenditure side), namely: On what basis shall it be decided to allocate x dollars to activity A instead of activity B?

Writers on budgeting say little or nothing about the purely economic aspects of public expenditure. “Economics,” says Professor Robbins, “is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Whether budgetary behavior is economic or political is open to fruitless debate; nevertheless, the point of view and the mode of thought of the economic theorist are relevant, both in the study of and action concerning public expenditure.

Transference to administrative agencies of powers traditionally associated with legislatures and with courts has destroyed old categories of political science, and necessitates a reappraisal of the structure of American governments. The story of the growth of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers has been told too well to require extensive treatment here. With the development of the social service state, the legislatures, we are informed, have been illequipped to legislate in detailed fashion because of the quantity and the technicality of governmental activities and because of the need for flexibility and adaptability in the conduct of those activities. Two other reasons for delegation of legislative power may be advanced. The legislature may wish to devolve the responsibility of self-government on a particular industry or vocational group. Or again, it may desire to wash its hands of a particularly trying problem of public policy, and this it can do by turning the problem over to an administrative agency.

The events of the days of May, when Parliament replaced the “National” Government of the third Chamberlain by the “truly National” Government of the third Churchill, illustrate the danger of simple explanations of the working of the British constitution. The notion that responsible government could be expressed in terms of Parliamentary “control” of the Government in power has disappeared. There has been, however, a tendency to replace it by the equally naive explanation of Governmental control of Parliament. The truth lies in between. On the one hand, it must be recognized that, through the party machine, a Government with a majority has very substantial powers of control. On the other hand, it must equally be recognized that public opinion, acting through members of Parliament, has a profound influence on the policy of the Government. The precise relationship has never been fully investigated, because the British electoral machine has never been adequately studied. It is doubtful if it can ever be adequately expounded, because, like so many parts of the British constitution, it depends upon intangible elements which do not lend themselves easily to demonstration.

In the year 1930, before the Great Depression had unleashed its full fury, federal aid to the states totaled approximately $135,000,000. The highway grants represented more than one-half of this amount, and National Guard payments accounted for another 22 per cent. The number of subsidies did not exceed 11, even if we treat as separate grants the payments for forest fire protection and distribution of nursery stock—both administered by the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. Opposition to the principle of grants-in-aid was strong, and had compelled the abandonment of the grant for child hygiene. No uniform federal policy had been established concerning the purposes for which aid should be given, the bases on which it should be apportioned, or the extent to which the federal administering agencies should exercise supervision or control over state activities.

But 1940 marks the beginning of a new decade. The tragic thirties are past, and the full force of their impact on intergovernmental relations can now be observed. It is timely, therefore, to re-examine the system of federal grants-in-aid, and note the more important changes that have occurred. The most obvious fact is the increased use of the subsidy principle.

Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the problems of local government in rural areas. Increasing demands upon the taxpayer for the support of government and its services have emphasized the need for modernization of our local political institutions. Although advances in this direction are inevitably slow, each year brings some progressive steps, the cumulative effect of which, over a number of years, should be considerable. In 1939, with most state legislatures in session, numerous statutes were enacted which had as their purpose the readjustment of governmental areas or functions, the improvement of local-government organization or finance, or the promotion of coöperation among various governmental units. At the same time, there were instances in which local units themselves sought, under existing authority, to undertake the performance of new services or to provide their inhabitants with governmental forms or procedures better suited to present-day needs. As in previous years, the developments of 1939 will be summarized under the following headings: (1) areas; (2) organization and personnel; (3) functions; (4) finance; (5) optional charters; and (6) intergovernmental relations.

The need for federal supplementation of state and local funds in carrying on certain relief and work activities will undoubtedly continue, and even expand, in coming years. Although the economic and fiscal problems arising out of this situation usually receive the spotlight, the administrative aspects are no less important. To a large extent, the effectiveness of the programs of federal financial aid is determined by the administrative arrangements under which the funds are distributed and spent. To the political scientist, therefore, federal participation since 1933 in “normal” state and local public construction and in work programs designed for the needy unemployed is of particular interest, because in these instances profound modifications have been made in the traditional procedures for administering federal aid.

It is interesting to reflect that the changes which have taken place in federal aid techniques since 1933 came quickly and without warning. The administrative set-up of federal aid activities appeared to have achieved a rather stable and permanent form during the second decade of the twentieth century. Certain outstanding characteristics could be noted in the federal subventions then being offered. The term “federal aid” referred to annual, recurrent lump grants made by the federal government to participating state governments. Each state legislature wishing to take advantage of federal aid for a particular function would first set up or designate a state agency with power to perform the work involved. The state agency, in turn, would periodically draft a program to be submitted to the federal government for its approval.

Recent congressional debates on neutrality legislation have once more focused attention on the problem of control of American foreign policy. On the one hand, the President has demanded that leadership in formulation of foreign policy be concentrated in the hands of the executive; on the other hand, Congress has insisted that its powers be employed to provide for adequate control of that leadership on behalf of the people. This problem of executive leadership and proper control is, perhaps, the central problem of the machinery of democratic government, but in the field of foreign policy it is a particularly difficult one because constitutional construction and usage have failed to draw definite boundaries as to congressional and executive powers. If Congress is the instrument through which popular control of the executive is to be exercised, it is important to study the adequacy or inadequacy of such control.

Students of political phenomena have shown an increasing interest, during the past few years, in objective analysis of the functioning of party machinery and of the men who make up that machinery. If the publications on the subject which have come to the writer's attention are typical, the existing literature on party organization practically ignores such organization in rural areas and contains no systematic survey of the opinions and sentiments of organization politicians. The present study is designed as a contribution toward remedying this situation.

Although much has been written on the general subject of the President's pardoning power, there is still considerable confusion concerning the use of that power for the restoration of civil and political rights to persons who have been deprived of them as a punishment for crime. Particular questions frequently raised are: What rights are lost? How are they lost? How may they be restored? That the issue is a live one is supported by the fact that in the year 1938 no fewer than 203 pardons were granted by the President to restore civil rights.

The confusion on the subject is due in large measure to the complexities of our federal form of government. This was clearly noted by Attorney-General Caleb Cushing in his opinion of July 9, 1856, in the case of Oliver Robbins of Sackett's Harbor, New York. Robbins was convicted in 1851, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, of an offense against federal law, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary of New York. In 1852, he received from President Fillmore a general pardon.

The passage of mandatory, state-wide, direct primary laws in Utah and New Mexico within the last four years leaves only two states which retain the convention method of making nominations for all state offices.

The Utah act of 1937 applies to all national, state, and local officers. Any party which polled two per cent of the total vote cast for representative in Congress at the last election, or which files a petition signed by at least 500 qualified electors, comes within its scope. The second Tuesday of September is fixed as the date of the primary, with a second, or “runoff,” primary in those cases in which no candidate receives a majority in the first primary. The primary is open, candidates for the nominations of all parties appearing in party columns on a “blanket” ballot with perforations between the columns. After marking his ballot, the voter detaches the used portion and deposits it in the ballot box. A separate box is provided for unused portions. Names may be placed upon the ballot by petition or declaration of candidacy, and are rotated. State committees and delegates to the national conventions are chosen at state conventions held on or before the last Saturday in June. The platform is drafted by a second convention meeting in September.

A significant development in British government since the turn of the century is the permanent advisory committees to the British executive departments. Writing in 1926, Professor John A. Fairlie stated: “Detailed information as to the operation of such advisory committees is not available; but the multiplication of such bodies in recent years is an indication that they have been found useful.” At the time when this statement was written, there were 60 permanent advisory committees. In the subsequent 13 years, 37 additional ones have been established, making a total of 97 at the present time. This continued multiplication, and the extensive use of such committees made by the departments, indicates that they fill an imperative need in British government by providing expert advice. Likewise, they serve to protect the public interest, because they furnish an adequate safeguard for the public against a bureaucracy whose powers are increasing as the expansion of governmental functions continues.

Under the ordinary circumstances of peaceful relations with other states, the peculiar position of the Dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations may be of little importance. Except to those insistent on the point of national pride, it makes little difference whether foreign Powers have or have not recognized the independent and sovereign character of the Dominions so long as they understand that the responsible governments with which they are dealing are the several ministries in the Dominions. Both external and internal autonomy has undoubtedly been attained by the Dominions in all normal peace-time affairs, and this situation has been recognized by other states. It matters little whether other states take seriously the symbolism of the Crown and the unity of the kingship or whether they regard these as among the odd aberrations of British illogicality. In war-time, however, a very different position is presented when one considers the status of the individual members of the Commonwealth.

The sovereign rights of war and neutrality are not necessarily two aspects of the same power. The war power is capable of unilateral exercise; a state of war is brought into existence by the action of one state, and the legal consequences of belligerency follow automatically and indeed may be claimed by political associations or communities which are not recognized as sovereign states.

The term “presidential short ballot” is applied to the ballot form in which the names of candidates for presidential electors are omitted and only the names of the candidates for president or for president and vice-president appear. The vote for the party presidential candidates on the ticket is a vote for the party electors whose names are filed with the secretary of state. The voter may feel that he is voting directly for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates; actually, he is voting for the electoral candidates of the party represented by his favored candidate for the presidency.

This shortened ballot form is the result of three developments: (1) provision for a group vote for the electoral candidates of each party; (2) the addition at the head of the ticket of the names of the presidential candidates, whether the electoral candidates are voted on as individuals or as a group; and (3) introduction of the voting machine. Each of these developments started near the turn of the century.

Modern warfare is waged on at least four fronts through the coördinated efforts of military, economic, diplomatic, and progaganda weapons. Not the least of these is propaganda. Conscious as never before of the catastrophic effect of war upon humankind, the people of a nation must be convinced, before they can be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice, that they are fighting in the name of Truth and Right. It is desirable, therefore, to portray the enemy as a wicked, murderous aggressor, a fit subject for the collective hatred of the state. Once a people become convinced of the blamelessness of their own government and aroused by a spirit of righteous indignation against the enemy, the problem of motivation becomes much easier.

Neutrality versus support of the British Commonwealth was the issue which confronted the Union of South Africa when Great Britain, on September 3, 1939, went to war with Germany. A glance at recent South African political history will assist the reader in understanding the significance of the political crisis which marked the Union's entry into the conflict. As the outcome of an earlier crisis at the end of 1932, when South Africa abandoned the gold standard, a Coalition Government headed by two Boer generals was formed. Genaral Hertzog, leader of the Afrikaans-speaking Nationalist party, who had been prime minister in the preceding Nationalist-Laborite Pact Government, continued in the premiership. The post of deputy prime minister in the Coalition Cabinet was taken by General Smuts, the head of the South African party (made up of both Afrikaans and Englishspeaking elements of the population), which had formed the Opposition to the Pact Government. When this Coalition of 1933 was welded into Fusion by the formation of the United party in 1934, the rô1e of the official Opposition was assumed by the extreme Nationalists under Dr. Malan. Minor parties in Parliament were the Laborites and the Dominion party, an offshoot of the South African party with strong pro-British sentiments.

As one of the most significant of recent developments in public administration, the government corporation has been the subject of much study and discussion. Apparently without exception, interest has centered around the corporate agencies of the federal government and their operations. The time is perhaps overdue to point out that an increasing number of our state governments are depending upon corporations of their own for financing, constructing, and operating a wide variety of enterprises, including tollbridges, sewage disposal plants, water resources and hydro-electric projects, housing programs, construction of university buildings, planetariums, public markets, and health resorts. The creation of the large majority of these state and local “authorities,” as they are ordinarily termed, is the direct outgrowth of the New Deal's public works and housing programs. In December, 1934, President Roosevelt wrote the 48 governors suggesting legislation which through “revision of the procedure relative to municipal financing” would enable the states to take “full advantage” of any public works program that Congress might continue. The legal division of P.W.A. was placed at the disposal of the states, and much of the stimulation as well as the form of “authority legislation” must be credited to its staff. In some states, only through separate corporations and the device of revenue bonds could state constitutional limitations upon borrowing be circumvented and state participation in the public works program made possible. Administrative advantages of the public corporation were also considered of importance, however, and in states where constitutional obstacles were not met, these seem to have been the determining factor in the creation of corporate agencies.

Of the 203 different proposals voted upon in 36 states during the 1938 elections, 154 were constitutional amendments. Ninety-seven amendments, or 63 per cent of the number submitted, were approved by the voters. Louisiana, with 28 amendments, led the states in the number of proposals submitted; Georgia followed closely with 23 and California with 19. Nearly one-half of the total number of amendments were considered by these three states. In the following description of amendments accepted, no attempt has been made to list the great variety of local municipal proposals on the ballots in Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Pensions and Public Welfare. California adopted an amendment granting plenary power to the legislature to provide for administration of relief as well as authority to reimburse counties for aid given. New York approved a precedent-setting amendment permitting the use of state money and credit for social welfare, “including provision, by insurance or otherwise, against the hazards of unemployment, sickness, and old age”; while Missouri broadened its constitution by adopting an amendment authorizing its legislature to grant pensions or assistance to persons over 65 years of age.