Frank J. Goodnow, one of the founders and the first president of the American Political Science Association, predicted many years ago that the era of constitutional controversies, when most of the great national legal and political issues in the United States centered around the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, would gradually be replaced by an era when the foremost issues of the time would be concerned with the scope, efficacy, and significance of administrative law and procedure. Issues of constitutional construction, however, have a tendency to persist in the operation of the American federal system of government. And the effort to reorganize the federal judicial system in 1937 aroused a new interest in constitutional history, principles, and theories. But it is true, nevertheless, that one of the matters of major importance today in the internal affairs of government is concerned with the development of administrative practices and techniques, as well as with the adaptation of administrative' legislation and adjudication to constitutional theories and principles.

For many years, administrative law and procedure grew in Anglo-Saxon countries without any special consideration being given to its development. Albert V. Dicey's insistence that there was no such thing as the French droit administratif in England seemed to satisfy the lawyers and publicists, and it was taken for granted in Anglo-American countries that there were no real issues or legal problems involved in the administrative process differing from the ordinary features of the application of the common law ideas of the administration of justice and of the supremacy of the law. The pioneer work of Goodnow, Ernst Freund, and others made only slight impressions on the legal profession, but gradually prepared the way for a new type of instruction and the consideration of problems in public administration and in public law.

Fearful of a committee appointed by the House of Commons to investigate the current tendencies towards atheism and profaneness, Hobbes in 1666 burned some of his private papers. The Great Plague and the Great Fire of London had just occurred. While many Englishmen were prone to blame the fire on those whom they considered the “treacherous Catholics,” they tended to regard the plague as obviously an act of God. The House of Commons shared this widespread attitude and, desirous of ridding the country of the causes of the divine displeasure, named several persons whose wickedness might be the occasion of the display of God's wrath against the English people. The House included Hobbes in the list and specifically mentioned his Leviathan. Moreover, some bishops of the Church of England, at about the same time, suggested that it might be well to burn Hobbes as a heretic. Nothing came of the parliamentary investigation; indeed, the investigation seems not to have been begun. And no fires were lighted except that in which Hobbes saw fit, as has been said, to burn some of his private papers.

It is interesting to conjecture, however, what the name of Hobbes would mean in the history of ideas if his works had happened all to perish in 1666 and we, then, had to judge him through the literature which his works provoked. The word provoked may here be used advisedly. For an amazing number of hostile writings against Hobbes were printed during his life-time and immediately after his death.

Why do some American citizens fail to vote in any election? Why do others limit their voting to contests in which a president is chosen? And of those who vote, why do a controlling number sometimes support candidate B instead of A? Candidate A may be of unquestioned honesty, superior brains, and broader and more significant experience. Any election provides examples of this sort of thing, and any reader can cite other illustrations from his own observation of recent or not so recent elections.

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.

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.

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.

“Returns from three more by-elections make it abundantly clear that the British people are not behind Prime Minister Chamberlain in his peace-at-any-price policies.” Thus the Nation summed up the results of the first five post-Munich byelections. The London Times, however, in an editorial on the ninth of the same series, thought “the result of the East Norfolk by-election should hearten and stiffen the Government.”

Legislative safeguards for the preservation of the neutrality of the United States enacted by Congress in the fall of 1939 immediately took on added significance as the sea warfare of the belligerent powers in Europe increased in intensity. The many losses of neutral as well as belligerent vessels due to unanchored mines, submarine attacks, and other activity confirmed the prevalent opinion in the United States that the withdrawal of American persons, vessels, aircraft, and cargoes from the area of combat in the waters of northern and western Europe was a wise move. The seizure by British warships of cargoes from German ports or of German origin or ownership, although carried on neutral vessels, added to the dangers to which neutral shipping was exposed.