When, over a century and a half ago, a poet saw a group of his countrymen about to set sail on their way to a new home in Georgia, he took a gloomy view of their prospects. He believed that they were leaving a land of scattered hamlets, sheltered cots, and cultivated farms, where ease, health, and plenty had prevailed, for a “dreary scene” around the “wild Altama”—a region of blazing suns, wild tornadoes, poisonous fields, and matted woods where lurked the “dark scorpion … vengeful snake … crouching tigers … and savage men more murderous still than they.” Posterity has liked best the poet's fond memories of his native village. Goldsmith, however, considered the practical politico-economic aspect of his poem to be its best feature. He had indeed paid some attention to actual economic changes that were causing a depopulation of the English countryside. His compatriots, he believed, were crossing “half the convex world,” not because they were dissatisfied with a land where simple pleasures and “light labour … gave what life required but gave no more,” but because such a manner of living was no longer possible in Britain: “trade's unfeeling train” had “usurped the land” and made it a place where the “man of wealth” extorted pleasures “from his fellow-creature's woe” and took up “a space that many poor supplied.”

In any consideration of the future of the states, it is desirable at the outset to recall the circumstances of their development and of their entry into the Union. When the present Constitution was framed and adopted, the states were more than a century and a half old. At that time, and for many years thereafter, it was the states to which the people gave their primary allegiance. Under the Articles of Confederation, the strength of the states was so great that the central government was unable to function; when the Constitution was framed, the people were still greatly concerned about “states' rights.” This priority of the states in the federal system continued through the nineteenth century, down to the period of the Civil War; in the closing decades of that century, state government sank into the depths in an orgy of graft and corruption and inefficiency, which resulted in a wave of state constitutional restrictions, particularly upon legislative powers.

At this time, when the prestige and efficiency of the state governments were at their lowest ebb, there began to appear ringing indictments of the whole state system. Most conspicuous of these were the well known writings of Professors John W. Burgess, of Columbia University, and Simon N. Patten, of the University of Pennsylvania.

In the 1934 term, the Supreme Court came to grips with some of the major constitutional problems of the New Deal and rendered decisions more intimately affecting our national life than any since the Dred Scott case of 1857. The great slavery decision rocked the nation to its foundations by its futile attempt to solve a problem insoluble by any means save war. The important constitutional decisions of the Reconstruction period in their immediate consequences affected mainly the South, and it will be remembered that by a series of side-steppings, some involuntary and some not, the Supreme Court escaped the necessity of passing squarely upon the validity of the basic program of Reconstruction as embodied in the act of 1867. Forty years ago, in its 1894 term, the Court incurred much unpopularity by three decisions of major significance. It invalidated the Income Tax Act passed in fulfillment of Democratic campaign pledges; it emasculated, temporarily at least, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by holding it inapplicable to a most obvious and vicious monopoly—the sugar trust; and it incurred the hostility of organized labor by sustaining the issuance by a federal court of a labor injunction. None of these decisions was, however, nor were all of them together, as far-reaching in significance as those handed down in the last term of Court.

The determined attacks which students of county government in New York State have been making on the barriers which have prevented reorganization are at last attaining some success. At its regular session of 1933, the legislature passed and the governor signed a county home rule act sponsored by Senator Fearon, providing simply that any county outside of New York City might “adopt, pursuant to the provisions of this act, a county charter for the government of such county.” This act, however, did nothing effective to remove the considerable obstacles which the state constitution puts in the way of county reform, and was itself of doubtful constitutionality. It served only to throw a clearer light on the fact, already familiar to students of the subject, that in New York it is the constitution that has been the strongest bulwark of antiquated local government.

Recent developments in Wisconsin in the field of county and town government indicate clearly that reform elements working within the electorate are not yet sufficiently powerful to overcome the forces of rural conservatism, political inertia and ignorance, and professional office-holding. Here, as elsewhere, county government remains in the grip of shrewd and stubborn opponents of reorganization. The forces of reform are not, on that account, to be under-rated. On the contrary, they show increasing evidences of realization of the nature of their function and the difficulties of their problem. Political education is being undertaken by a variety of agencies, and there exists ample indication of a genuine growth of popular interest in the needs of the state and its subdivisions.

During the first five months of 1935, interest in local governmental problems in Michigan was centered in the regular session of the legislature. The 1935 session should be congratulated on letting some measures lie fallow in committee and on defeating others. Among these bills were several which would have played havoc with the operation of the general property tax in local units. They would have provided for the blanket cancellation of delinquent taxes and for broad exemptions from the property tax. It was the defeat of such proposals rather than any positive program that redounds to the credit of the legislature.

During the past year, the county reorganization problem has been attacked in Ohio along two fronts, corresponding to the two lines of procedure permitted by the state constitution. Under the home rule amendment adopted in 1933, the legislature is empowered to enact optional plans of county government and counties are also authorized to frame and adopt their own charters. The last twelve months have witnessed the first contests over the application of these provisions. A comprehensive program of county reorganization measures has been presented to the legislature and charters have been submitted in four leading counties. The principal accomplishment thus far has been the approval of the Cuyahoga county (Cleveland) charter by a substantial majority vote in the county as a whole.

On October 14, 1935, the Conservative party, which had been in power in Canada since the general election of July, 1930, was resoundingly defeated. The Conservatives had carried 137 seats in 1930. In 1935 their numbers were reduced to 40. The 93 Liberal seats of 1930 were increased in 1935 to 179—a majority of 113 in a house of 245. Such a majority is without precedent in Canadian history. Even the Unionist government in the war election of 1917 received only 153 seats to the opposition's 82. The Liberal sweep was almost Dominion-wide. The Liberals carried all but one of the 26 constituencies in the three Maritime Provinces, 60 of the 65 Quebec constituencies, 56 out of 82 in Ontario (more than they have obtained in that province in any election since 1874), 14 out of 17 in Manitoba, 16 out of 21 in Saskatchewan, 7 out of 16 in British Columbia. Only in Alberta did they suffer a crushing defeat. There, only one Liberal was returned; 15 of the remaining 16 seats were carried by the new Social Credit party; the other seat went to the leader of the Conservative party, Mr. R. B. Bennett.

The recent national election in Great Britain offers another opportunity to study the methods and practices by which British political parties carry on their campaigns. One of the most interesting of these aspects of British politics is the character of the propaganda activities in which the parties engage—activities which present some contrasts to those with which Americans are familiar. In the United States, the regularity of elections accustoms the public to recurrent outbursts of noisy, high-pressure propaganda followed after elections by a silence almost unbroken by official party utterances. The parties of the United States are compelled to manufacture their campaigns out of whatever materials are at hand, seeking to whip up public sentiment without caring very much whether it rests upon sound convictions as to public policy or upon prejudice and passion. Party activities and strategy are determined almost exclusively by one cardinal principle—the effect upon the number of votes which the party can secure.

So long a time has now elapsed since the creation of the first Committee on Policy that even old members of the Association need to be reminded of the order of events.

As a result of certain expressions used by Charles A. Beard in his presidential address at the St. Louis meeting of the Association in December, 1926, a Committee on Policy was set up for the purpose of making a survey of the field of political science and the opportunities and obligations of the Association. This committee, as originally appointed by President W. B. Munro in January, 1927, consisted of C. A. Beard (chairman), C. E. Merriam, F. A. Ogg, R. C. Brooks, W. F. Willoughby, and J. R. Hayden. The following May, Dr. Beard, though remaining a member of the Committee, resigned the chairmanship and was replaced in that position by Thomas H. Reed. The Committee applied to the Carnegie Corporation for aid in making the required study and received in December, 1927, a grant of $7,500. The Committee, with certain changes in membership, continued in existence until December, 1930.