The time and the place are the fitting setting for a discussion of the nationalism of the British Empire—that Empire which is more than a State, more than a union of States, greater than a confederation, more powerful than a league; an Empire composed of so many different, diverse and, at times, seemingly antagonistic elements that it has long been predicted by statesmen and theorists it would disintegrate at the first shock. The test has been met and endured. The British Empire is stronger because of the stress.

In a few hours there will be brought to a close the most blood stained year in all history. No man dare predict what misery or happiness the mystery of the new year will reveal, how many maps of Europe will be rolled up, who will make the penitential pilgrimage to Canossa, whether thrones will be shaken in the dust or nations survive; but one prophecy can be made, and for that the vision of the seer is not necessary. The events of the last eighteen months have proved to the world that the British Empire is bound by no frail rope of sand but is linked by bonds of steel. It is no weak structure built on shifting ground. It is an Empire of many races and creeds, but one in its unity.

One of the most striking features of our constitutional law is the persistent purpose to protect the liberties of the people from arbitrary power by vesting the functions of sovereignty in three coördinate departments of government. This division is accomplished by express provisions in some state constitutions and by necessary implication in all constitutions, federal and state. By judicial construction the legislature may not exercise judicial or administrative powers; the executive may not exercise legislative or judicial powers, and the judiciary is denied the exercise of legislative or administrative powers. This fundamental principle of constitutional law is established by judicial decisions, both state and federal, of long standing and uninterrupted unanimity.

A commission is an administrative body; may it exercise judicial functions, and if so to what extent? The question involves, first, a definition of judicial functions; second, a statement of the exceptions to the rule that judicial powers may not be exercised by the administrative department; and, third, an appreciation of the relation of judicial determinations to the regulatory powers vested in commissions. We may then consider whether or not the present scope of judicial determinations by commissions, and the court review of such determinations, are satisfactory.

Administrative decisions in connection with immigration are in a different class from those of the interior department and those of the interstate commerce commission as explained in the preceding papers. The interior department deals with distributions of public property and the interstate commerce commission acts judicially with reference to private rights; whereas administrative decisions in connection with immigration determine some of the most sacred of private rights as a mere incident in the execution of a public policy.

The immigration service is within the general but minutely regulated administrative jurisdiction of the department of labor.

This is the tenth and youngest of those executive branches of the federal government that are administered by members of the president's cabinet. For its administration the present secretary of labor, who is also the original incumbent, is William B. Wilson, of Pennsylvania.

By administrative adjudication is usually meant the exercise of quasi-judicial functions upon and in the control of vested property rights, or personal rights secured by constitutional guaranties. It often accompanies and effectuates regulative power of a quasi-legislative nature. A large measure of this quasi-legislative power has been given to the departments and bureaus dealing with the lands of the United States, but the enforcement of such regulations, insofar as they affect rights of person or vested rights of property, is chiefly by process of the regular courts. Thus the regulation of the occupancy and use of lands reserved for national forests is entrusted to the secretary of agriculture. His regulations usually prohibit acts that were theretofore innocent and customary though not vested rights. Sometimes they restrict the use of land in which there exists a vested private right of use for a particular purpose only, but the restriction does not affect the right itself.

If, for the moment, we can conceive of Uncle Sam as being Andrew Carnegie, of Carnegie's millions as unimproved real estate, and of Carnegie's intention to die poor, as Uncle Sam's liberal land policy, we can perhaps best picture to ourselves the public land administration in the United States in a nutshell. The government, like Carnegie, is unloading its vast wealth in a manner calculated to do the most good, and it is guarding itself continuously, although often futilely, from being imposed upon and cheated. The ownership of the public domain by the United States is of the highest possible title. There is no one to dispute the government's absolute ownership of it. There are no taxes to pay. The government is subject to no obligation to dispose of its land. It can keep or dispose of the land as it chooses.

In 1789 the United States government started as owner of practically all of the Northwest Territory. Later it acquired, what some geographers call the Southwest Territory, by further cession from the States. By purchase, discovery, annexation and conquest the United States acquired further holdings, so that with the exception of Texas and private holdings the government's fee simple title in the public domain extended from the thirteen colonies to the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast of Florida to the Pacific and the Arctic Oceans.

In order to understand the reason for a board of appeals, and something of its functions, it is essential to have a general idea of the system of handling and disposing of the public lands, their resources, and all other matters within the jurisdiction of the department of the interior.

It has been the wise policy of the United States so to dispose of its lands and resources as to encourage the establishment of homes and the extraction and use of minerals, rather than to seek to derive a revenue therefrom. The agricultural lands of the public domain are freely given to citizens who will establish their homes, erect improvements, and cultivate the soil. The taking of the minerals is permitted under what amounts to a gift, conditioned upon certain development work; so with the use of water for irrigation, for power, and for municipal and domestic purposes.

The purpose of salary standardization is briefly:

To furnish a simple and logical classification of all employments, with general descriptions of duties, appropriate titles and rates of compensation, qualifications and conditions governing advancement, for purposes of appropriation, financial and civil service control, information to present and prospective employes and to the public. Salary standardization would be a relatively simple thing if a single government agency, backed by a strong executive, were empowered to develop a new classification and put it into effect.

In the ten minutes I have, I want to apply some of the principles of standardization to the inspection service of the city. Now of course in ten minutes I could not even outline the extent and importance of the inspection work of a city the size of Philadelphia. But that it is important and becomes more so with each extension of the city's activity, is too well known to need repetition. In the first place I want to give some of the results of one very significant attempt at the introduction of standards in the inspection service. This was made by the registrar, in the bureau of water in Philadelphia. What he tried to do was to find the best method of procedure and have it followed, and to keep such records that a standard day's work could be determined.

The forty-five inspectors in this division count water fixtures, read meters, and inspect for the waste of water in dwellings. This data is used for the basis of water rent charges. Formerly each inspector was given a certain number of political wards and turned loose to collect his data as he saw fit. He made out his own route. There was no outside supervision, and no one knew for sure how many hours a day a man worked, or indeed whether or not he worked at all.