In all the varied current of contemporary political theory which seems to have set against the conception of unitary sovereignty as the basis of the structure of the state, the work of Mr. H. J. Laski stands out sufficiently to command general attention. Perhaps this is as much because of the arresting fashion in which Mr. Laski has challenged the traditional doctrines of political theory as it is from the positive content of his own theories. He has seized upon the ideas centering about group rights which Drs. Figgis and Maitland have forced so brilliantly upon modern attention, and has made great play with them in developing Mr. Ernest Barker's idea of “The Discredited State.” Because of the radical implications of some of these theories as Mr. Laski has expounded them, political theorists have for some time been waiting for the promised exposition of Mr. Laski's ideas in more systematic form than has yet been offered by any of the historical and critical studies and the two brief introductory chapters of The Problem of Sovereignty and Authority in the Modern State, or even The Foundations of Sovereignty. But as Mr. Laski is professedly a disciple of William James, it is perhaps too much to ask that he throw his ideas into any form that smacks of system and the rationalistic taint which pragmatists seem to attach to system. To the end of his days William James never entertained seriously the idea of giving his “way of looking at things” any more logical arrangement than the form of a series of rather popular lectures—with vast benefit, no doubt, to the “readableness” of his essays, but with equal difficulty to an unambiguous interpretation of what he meant by his suggestions. The similarly casual nature of such connection as has yet bound Mr. Laski's ideas to a single unity may excuse one, then, for finding some difficulty in selecting a method of presentation.

There is little need to point out the growing strength of the British Labor party. At the recent general elections, it achieved approximately one-third of both the House of Commons and the popular vote; and the fact that at the preceding election it had rolled up twenty-two per cent of the House and thirty per cent of the ballots proves that its recent achievement was not merely occasional. Throughout Great Britain there is thoughtful consideration as to whether Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald will prove as able a prime minister as he proved a leader of His Majesty's Opposition.

What may not be so widely appreciated is that the British Labor party is fundamentally, in fact no less than in theory, a socialist party. At its annual conference held in June, 1923, the following resolution was proposed:

“This Conference … asserts that the supreme object of the Labour Party should be the supersession of Capitalism by the Socialist Commonwealth … ;” and with hundreds of delegates representing several million members, the resolution was passed unanimously. Indeed, as the chairman, Sidney Webb, remarked in putting the resolution to a vote, it was largely unnecessary, for everyone in Great Britain recognized that the British Labour party was a socialist movement.

At the close of the Spanish-American War President McKinley sent word to a lawyer in New York City that he wanted him to be secretary of war. The lawyer sent word back to the President that he knew nothing about the army. The President replied that he had plenty of officers to look after the army, but for secretary of war he wanted a man who could work out a system for the government of our insular possessions. The lawyer accepted the cabinet position and in a short time the new secretary of war formulated the now famous McKinley Instructions to the second Philippine commission, and thereby established the policy for the government of the Philippine Islands. Twenty-two years of development under this policy bear testimony to the political genius and high statesmanship of Elihu Root.

The gist of this policy was that we should train the Filipinos to govern themselves. The task set for this paper is to explain the part played by the local governments in training the Filipinos for self-government. Any discussion of autonomy for the insular government must necessarily be mere academic speculation unless the parties to the discussion have some comprehension of the progress achieved in training the Filipinos for self-government in local affairs. And certainly there has been no scientific treatment of the local government side of our Philippine policy in the innumerable books and articles published in America on the Philippine problem.

Not only were the results of the British national election of last December momentous for the British people themselves, but it may be doubted whether any other election in the country's history ever excited as much interest in foreign lands. The United States was much concerned at the possibility of Great Britain erecting a tariff wall around not only the British Isles but the British Empire as well. The dominions were vitally interested. The whole of Europe awaited with increasing anxiety the decision of the British electorate, as upon it depended to some degree, at any rate, the next step of the British government in the settlement of the all-important problem of reparations upon which the reconstruction of Europe depended.

The Constitution of the Irish Free State is the result of a political drama extending over a period of eight years. From the Ulster Rebellion and the Home Rule Act of 1914, the action has been tense and almost continuous. The threats and concessions of that time played into the hands of the radical Sinn Fein, and with the Easter Rebellion of 1916 it became evident that the issue was no longer one of home rule but of independence. The government at London, however, did not realize this until once more the traditional methods of settlement had been tried.

On October 10, 1923, the permanent constitution of the republic of China was promulgated. The “Double Ten,” already a national commemoration day, becomes fittingly the date of the long-awaited culmination of the constitutional movement inaugurated by the revolution of 1911. Although the national assembly was the same legislature which, sitting as a constituent body, completed the first draft of the constitution in 1913 and passed the larger part of it through its second reading in 1916–17, the actual periods devoted to committee work and discussion were limited to the time, not amounting altogether to three years, during which the assembly was permitted by military and political exigencies to remain in session.