Suchergebnisse

At the present time, there is an extensive literature dealing with the structure and functions of the eighteen German state governments. For most of the states, one finds collections of laws and regulations, commentaries and manuals, state hand-books, statistical year-books, legal and administrative journals, together with other more or less fugitive publications. But among all this material, there are almost no comparative studies in state law, politics, and administration.It may be worth while to suggest briefly a number of helps for the comparative study of German state government. Of the treatises on public law, the only one which deals exclusively with the states is Julius Hatschek's Ausserpreussisches Landesstaatsrecht (Berlin, 1926). This volume discusses and compares the governments of all the German states except Prussia and Waldeck. The constitutions of ten of the more important states are printed as appendices, but the usefulness of the book is lessened by the complete omission of an index. Otto Meissner's Das Staatsrecht des Reichs und seiner Länder (2nd ed., Berlin, 1923) devotes considerable space to the states and is provided with a good index. It is now, however, somewhat out of date. Walter Jellinek's Verfassung und Verwaltung des Reichs und der Länder (Leipzig, 1925) is of little value for the purpose now under consideration, as it contains only thirteen pages on the states. Fritz Stier-Somlo's Deutsches Reichs-und Landesstaatsrecht (Vol. I, Berlin, 1924) is, of course, recognized as a standard work, but thus far only one volume has appeared. The second volume, dealing with the states, is not yet forthcoming.

It has seemed fitting, at this second meeting of the Association in New Orleans, where it was organized a quarter of a century ago, to give some attention to significant happenings during this period, in the affairs of the Association, in the field of political action, and in the analysis and interpretation of political phenomena. At least two former presidents have discussed some phases of these topics; but there is perhaps room for a difference of approach and emphasis.When this Association was organized, the systematic study and teaching of political problems was but slightly developed. Only a few courses in public law and government were given in some of the larger universities. Of the twenty-five persons who were present at the organization of the Association, and the 214 who became members during the first year, a large proportion were primarily interested in history, economics, and other social studies with political bearings, rather than in political problems themselves.In the constitution of the Association, its object was stated to be: "The encouragement of the scientific study of politics, public law, administration, and diplomacy." In the first presidential address, President Goodnow outlined the field of work of the Association as including political theory, constitutional and administrative law, comparative legislation, historical and comparative jurisprudence, and political parties. He also noted the opportunity of the Association to secure the active coöperation of teachers of these subjects, and to bring together the student and those actively engaged in political life. A further indication of the plans of those who established the Association may be seen in the appointment of a series of standing committees on different branches of the field outlined, and the reorganization of these a year later into sections.

When men reflect about government, whether practically or academically, they always turn up, if they think deeply enough, two central problems: first, how to ensure that government shall do what it is supposed to do, and secondly, how to ensure that it shall not do other things. One is the problem of efficiency, the other the problem of control; and around the two is built most, perhaps all, of the so-called science of politics. At some periods the need for control seems the more vital and pressing. It seemed so to Englishmen, for example, during the two centuries following the accession of the Stuarts. At other times and places the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and in fifteenth century Europe, as in contemporary Italy, the dominant desire was for government strong enough and untrammelled enough to stem successfully a rising tide of disorder. Each age strikes its own balance in favor of one principle or the other, and thereby touches the opposite principle into action to redress the balance at some new point of readjustment.The competing claims of efficiency and control have often expressed themselves in the form of controversy concerning the comparative merits of government by discretion and govern-ment by law—or, in Harrington's phrase, a government of laws and a government of men. In this form the conflict has left its mark everywhere on political thought since Aristotle. Discretion means freedom for government to choose among possible alternatives of action. As one judge has said, "In honest plain language it means 'Do as you like.'" It is thus a condition of efficiency, but it is very apt to exact the price of arbitrariness. Law, on the other hand, requires that government shall act by set rule, shall limit itself to a particular way of acting in each particular situation. It seeks to eliminate choice in favor of certainty; it narrows the possible range of governmental action in order that such action may be predicted and controlled in advance.