In spite of all that has been written about Rousseau's political theory, he is still generally regarded as a proponent of the theory of natural rights. His political writings are thought to contain an exposition of that theory, and they are believed to have been highly influential in spreading it. Thus Professor Crane Brinton, writing in the Encyclopædia of the Social Sciences, says that although Rousseau added little to the actual dogmas of the theory of natural rights, “he did much to give it proselyting strength” and he “gave the doctrine of natural rights, hitherto endowed with the solid and effective but imaginatively limited prestige of nature as reality, as uniformity, and as the “golden mean,” the additional prestige of nature as mystic strength, as magna mater.” But it has already been shown that Rousseau's political doctrine was neither wellknown nor influential in France until the doctrine of natural rights lost its vogue and the authoritarian doctrines of Robespierre and the extremists of 1793 superseded it.

The power to conclude and ratify treaties in the United Kingdom is one of the few remaining prerogatives of the crown. We may search in vain for constitutional laws, provisions, and decrees specifying the required formalities incident to the negotiation, conclusion, and ratification of treaties by Great Britain, because these matters are not governed by any act of Parliament or by any written regulations. British constitutional law on these points has not been embodied in statute and rests upon the common law alone. Thus there is no express definition of the treaty-making power and no reference to the authority by whom the treaty-making power may be exercised. Nevertheless, it may be said that under British constitutional law, which in this instance is common law, the authority to make treaties is vested absolutely in the crown as the unquestioned prerogative of sovereignty.

Constitutional Amendment. The Pennsylvania constitution provides: “Any amendment … may be proposed in [either house]; and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each … the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall cause the same to be published three months before the next general election, in at least two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers shall be published; and if, in the General Assembly next afterwards chosen, such proposed amendment shall be agreed to … the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall cause the same again to be published in the manner aforesaid; and … submitted to the qualified electors. …” Herman Tausig, suing as a taxpayer, sought to prevent a popular vote on a number of proposed amendments undertaking, among other things, to repeal provisions thought to forbid the levying of graduated income and inheritance taxes and the appropriation of money for old age pensions. In holding that the action was not premature, the court stated: “The law of this state prohibits inquiry into the validity of the steps preliminary to the adoption of an amendment after it has received the approval of the people.” Reversing, or at least qualifying, certain earlier rulings discussed in the opinion, it demanded strict compliance with the procedure set out above, but ruled: “The framers did not intend the Secretary of the Commonwealth should be responsible for the actual publication; he has no means of accomplishing this. Nor will the submission of a proposed amendment be frustrated by the neglect or refusal of one or more newspapers to publish within the specified time. … All the section commands is that the secretary transmit the advertisements of the proposed amendment to the proper newspapers within sufficient time to enable them to be published … three months or more in advance of the election.”

The power to incur public debts is one which may have a vital influence on all governmental services. Since borrowing is often the easy way out of a difficult financial situation, the state's credit must be jealously guarded against abuse by the unscrupulous, the inefficient, and the over-ambitious. As a result of their experiences during the nineteenth century, most of the states in this country placed constitutional restrictions upon the use of the state's credit. But despite limitations many states have contracted large debts during the past twenty years, and several of them have been embarrassed by debt problems.

Proposals for administrative reorganization continue to cause controversy. Politicians, academicians, and administrators line up for and against—with men of intelligence and experience on both sides. The temperature of the academicians sometimes rises as much in disputation as does the temperature of their lay brethren. Why such heated disagreement among scholars and scientists? The explanation is suggested by the fact that dissension in the ranks of the academicians is most pronounced when the “dogma of administrative reform” or the “science of management” (as you prefer) is discussed in the abstract. When specific proposals are discussed, differences of opinion among academicians are less extensive and less dogmatic.

In the April issue of this REVIEW, Professor William E. Mosher, of Syracuse University, ably expounded the views of those students of public administration who hold that public service is, or should be, a distinct profession. It therefore seems desirable that a member of an opposing school of thought should present the other position.

The other school believes that public service is not a distinctive occupation or profession. In the terms of the labor economist and statistician, public service is, at most, a distinctive industry. Within that industry are a host of separate and distinct occupations.

As in previous lists, mention is here confined generally to units specifically authorized by law or established by the President by executive order under general authority vested in him. Changes in units created by heads of departments or independent establishments are excluded unless of major importance.

Advisory Committee for Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Authorized by the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Public Act No. 430, 75th Congress, approved February 16, 1938.

The Policies and Interests of Great Britain and Holland in the Far East. No traveller in Eastern Asia can fail to be impressed by the widespread alarm and hostility towards Japan's intentions and her economic penetration. This feeling is first to be encountered in Ceylon, where, despite the Singapore naval base, there is a distinct undercurrent of uneasiness among the Ceylonese political leaders. The attitude is much more pronounced in British Malaya, and becomes steadily stronger as one nears Japan. Sympathy for China is the dominant sentiment; but at the same time one encounters the belief that in the long run the Chinese may prove the more serious problem. A very important Dutch official typified this attitude when he remarked that he believed that Japan's ambitions in China would fatally overstrain her resources so that in a few years she would cease to be a menace, “but even after a couple of centuries the problem of the Chinese immigrants will be as serious as ever.”