The legal philosophy of Nelson is fundamentally a liberal doctrine. It is, on the one hand, opposed to the philosophy which places a supreme trust in human reason and which believes that man can sit down and codify a system of laws in which there will be no gaps; and, on the other, it is opposed to a belief in the necessary rationality of existing institutions in the onward sweep of human history, the idea which was so dear to the Historical School of jurisprudence.

Nelson is a Naturrechtlehrer in the sense that he believes in the existence of metajuristic criteria of justice. That there are elemental principles of justice which are universal, and according to which laws are either just or unjust, decisions either right or wrong, Nelson believes cannot be denied. The moment we admit the injustice of a statute, or a judicial decision, we admit that we have used a criterion on which to base our opinion. The mistake we make, however, is to suppose that we can discover criteria, either empirically or logically.

The B.A.E.-Extension Service views quoted above stress the importance of securing on planning committees representatives of all economic, social, racial, and geographic groups found in the county. To what extent are such groups represented on planning committees at present?

A wide geographic distribution of representation is, of course, more easily secured than any other kind of distribution. Geographic boundaries between groups are easily recognized, and it is usually taken for granted that distinct areas should be separately represented. A distribution based on type-of-farming areas will, of course, mean representation of geographic areas. And geographic distribution will ordinarily achieve some degree of distribution among social, economic, nationality, or other groups. In practically all counties, the county committee includes at least one member from each township, other civil district, or type-of-farming area in the county. Ordinarily this is achieved by making the chairman of each community committee, or other member selected by the community committee, also a member of the county committee. In a few cases where the county committee was set up first, a member from each township or district was made responsible for selecting the members of a community committee for his area.

At various times in the past, the question of the extent to which political activity on the part of government officers and employees should be curtailed has been a subject of public discussion. Within the past two years, the question has arisen again in connection with the passage by Congress of what is popularly known as the Hatch Act. The purpose of the present article is to point out the principal restrictions imposed by this new, as well as by earlier, federal legislation upon the political activity of individual government employees. These restrictions are of three types: (1) those relating to political contributions and solicitation, (2) those relating to political office-holding, and (3) those relating to political activity generally. Each of these types will be discussed, first, in relation to federal employees, and second, in relation to employees of state and local governments.

The results which are likely to flow from any political change are extremely difficult to predict. It would have been impossible a generation ago to foresee that the gradual shift, in democratic as well as totalitarian states, of the political center of gravity from the legislature to the executive would create a new instrument of political power. That instrument is official publicity, or, more bluntly, governmental propaganda. It is suggested here that the tremendous growth in the publicity activities of modern governments is a direct consequence of the continued absorption by the executive of a larger degree of legislative initiative and power. Indeed, it seems highly probable that the development of the administrative bureaucracy as a source of policy and law will result, if it has not already done so, in making propaganda an indispensable instrument of government, with profound implications for traditional democratic processes.

What is undoubtedly the most thorough and comprehensive study ever made of Federal administrative procedure was completed with the submission to the Attorney General, in a letter dated January 22, 1941, of the final report of the Committee named. In its investigation and report, the Committee confined its attention to those Federal agencies that substantially affect private interests by their powers of rule-making and adjudication. To the study of their procedures, it assigned a staff of lawyer-investigators, which produced 27 mimeographed monographs, 13 of which have been printed as Sen. Doc. No. 186, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. In its interim report of January 31, 1940, the Committee thus described the methods being employed in the preparation of these monographic studies: “They have involved extended interviews with officials and employees of the agencies involved, with members of the public affected, and with attorneys who have represented clients before these agencies. Members of the Committee's staff have attended numerous hearings and other administrative proceedings as observers, and have closely examined the files of the agencies to discover the methods utilized in disposing of matters arising under the various statutes and regulations. Upon the completion of these investigations, the staff has prepared for the study of the Committee a preliminary report upon each agency, discussing in detail its administrative procedures. The report has been given to the officers of the affected agency for their consideration and comment. Thereafter, the full Committee has met with the agency's officers to discuss with them the facts and problems disclosed by the report.” (Final Report, pp. 254–255). The Committee held public hearings in June and July, 1940. In Chapter IX of its final report, it presents recommendations concerning a number of the individual agencies studied; and in Appendices B through M, it summarizes data collected on significant topics.

The Problem. One of the most important government personnel problems at the present time is the increasing difficulty of securing high grade new employees for government jobs, and of retaining experienced civil servants in the face of higher salary and wage schedules in private industry. Ordinarily this would not be a particularly sore spot, because of certain advantages of government employment which might offset lower pay. However, at the present time, and especially in defense agencies such as the War and Navy Departments, it is necessary that the best available personnel be secured for key positions so that our defense preparations may be completed as expeditiously as possible.

It is possible to distinguish in the federal administrative agencies, collectively known as “the bureaucracy,” a separate branch of government distinct alike from the executive and from the legislature. It is equally possible to argue that the administrative agencies, because they are the organs through which the law becomes effective and because they are at least nominally under presidential control, are parts of the executive establishment; or that through congressional control over appropriations they are extensions of the legislature. To the extent that the bureaucracy does in fact share all of these characteristics, it becomes the instrument through which the close fusion of executive and legislative functions required by the complex nature of modern government may be brought about under a constitution committed to the eighteenth-century doctrine of separation of powers.

As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order or Reorganization Plans under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.

Advisory Committee on Fire Fighting and Prevention. Appointed by the Director of State and Local Coöperation of the National Defense Advisory Commission on December 5, 1940, to study the problem of fire prevention in the defense program, to provide for development of methods and training, and to disseminate information.

The electoral system of Britain provides students of representative government and observers of voting behavior with a large and valuable field of investigation. The Mother of Parliaments has been elected on a democratic basis since 1918, and the constituency pattern which was rearranged after the first World War has continued down to the present time. The party picture too, although constantly changing, has not been altered fundamentally during the period. We have therefore an interesting and satisfactory span of time between the two world wars in which to examine the various aspects of British electoral institutions and behavior.

After fifty years of experimentation in constitutional government, Japan finds herself today on the threshold of a new era of revolutionary changes. For the greater part of the past half-century, the Japanese political system functioned well. But in recent years many Western features have been found rather awkward and ill-fitting, if not actually obstructive. For some time now, the nation has been discarding many of the foreign trappings which once served so well, but are no longer worth preserving. This casting-off process has been gaining momentum steadily since 1933 and was greatly accelerated by the voluntary liquidation of political parties in July and August, 1940. Thus, a political renovation of a scope heretofore unknown is now in full swing with a new national structure rapidly taking form to meet the dynamic changes in all phases of the Empire's national life.