Any constitutional instrument is subject to strains and stresses by reason of demonstrated inadequacy or omission at some times, and of failure to reflect the current state of mind of its constituents at others. The Covenant of the League of Nations, which is by way of a constitutional instrument in the hitherto unoccupied field between independent states, has had reputations as diverse as that of a straight-jacket and an empty sack. In the end, most of the waves of sentiment arrive at the customary human dilemma, that the trouble is not so much with the mechanism as with its human operators.

The League of Nations has had a hectic existence for an institution just emerging from its teens. Its first ten years were a series of easy successes, but the eight years just past have confronted it with problems too tough for the morale of its members; or problems have been kept away from it because, if it cut at all, it would likely come too close to the quick.

After this period of confusion, the members of the League, at the 19th session of the Assembly, took a series of actions to make the Covenant more useful to them. Resolutions of September 30, 1938, dealt with the question of the so-called separation of the Covenant from the peace treaties by approving amendments in the Preamble and Annex and Articles 1, 4, and 5 of the Covenant; and by interpretation with the procedure under Article 11, par. 1; the obligations under Article 16; and collaboration of the League and non-member states. Whether or not these decisions make any actual change from recent practice, the meaning of the Covenant is the clearer because of them, and its application will be more certain when the occasion arises.

Thus far, reference has been made, not to the great mass of the civil servants, but only to the higher officials. The work of more than ninety-seven per cent of the members of the service has no significance for this study. The laborers, clerks, writing assistants, and a large majority of the members of the professional class make only incidental contributions to policy, and while their importance is occasionally to be noted, we are not concerned here with a detailed examination of their work. Suffice it to say that the 150,000 who are usually referred to by the term “civil service” possess a certain esprit that links the members together. Within this number, however, there are marked divisions: there is the foreign, diplomatic, and consular service, the colonial service, the defense services, and the home service, all with their peculiarities, often of outlook and sometimes of mode of recruitment, salary, or promotion. Outside of this group fall such diverse units as the local government service, the large judicial service, and the employees of such semi-independent agencies as the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Central Electricity Board. Our interest here is centered on the more important members of the professional or specialist class of some 14,000 members, the higher officials of the executive grade numbering between 4,000 and 5,000, and the administrative class with its small but highly important membership of 1,200 to 1,300.

During the 1937 term, the Supreme Court underwent the first changes in its personnel since Mr. Justice Cardozo succeeded Mr. Justice Holmes in March, 1932. On June 1, 1937, Mr. Justice Van Devanter retired and was succeeded at the opening of the new term in October by Mr. Justice Black. On January 18, 1938, Mr. Justice Sutherland retired and was succeeded on January 31 by Mr. Justice Reed. During a substantial part of the term, Mr. Justice Cardozo was absent on account of illness, and his death occurred July 9, 1938. Mr. Justice Black, whose appointment had attracted much public comment, threw himself into the work of the Court with unusual vigor. During the term, he wrote the opinion of the Court in fifteen cases. He dissented in fourteen cases, in nine of which he wrote dissenting opinions. He concurred without substantial opinion in eleven cases, and wrote a concurring opinion in one other case. Mr. Justice Reed participated less actively, first because of the lateness of his appointment, and second because his prior service as Solicitor-General of the United States disqualified him from sitting in a considerable number of cases. These changes in the membership of the Court have altered the almost even division on the bench between the so-called conservatives and the so-called liberals. Without attempting to speculate as to the course of future decisions, it is significant that the irreconcilably conservative block of justices, consisting of Justices Van Devanter, Sutherland, McReynolds, and Butler, has been broken up.

Since over 80 new ministers have entered French cabinets subsequent to the period covered in a previous article in this REVIEW, the figures supplied therein may well be brought down more closely to date. During the 805 months between February 19, 1871, and March 13, 1938, 434 persons, under-secretaries excluded, have formed the 106 separately appointed or reappointed councils of ministers. The question as to how many different cabinets France has had under the Third Republic may be left to metaphysicians. Almost every newly-appointed Conseil contains a large percentage of those who served in its predecessor. Cabinets which resign upon the election of a new president of the Republic are frequently reappointed in toto. Some cabinets have served for only a few days.

Resort to armed force as an instrument of national policy, though often outlawed and denounced by common consent, seems as inevitable today as ever before. When the Covenant of the League of Nations was adopted, it was agreed “that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections” (Art. 8, Sec. 5). Shortly after, on September 10, 1919, 28 nations assembled at St. Germain-en-Laye and Paris to sign a Convention for the Control of the Trade in Arms and Ammunition. This was followed by a conference to consider the draft of a new convention which was called by the League and met in Geneva on May 4, 1924. The adoption of the Arms Traffic Convention the following year was hailed everywhere as a signal victory.