In the first part of this article, we analyzed the effect of size and world location on the international relations of states and the problems of foreign policy. But more immediate in its conditioning effect is regional location—location viewed with reference to the immediate vicinity.

Like world location, regional location is a question of facts plus the significance of those facts at any given historical period. Just as it was found necessary to consider world location in relation to two systems of reference, the geographic and the historical, so the full meaning of regional location becomes apparent only after considering both the geography and the historical and political significance of a state's immediate surroundings.

Regional location determines whether neighbors will be many or few, strong or weak, and the topography of the region conditions the direction and nature of contact with those neighbors. The man who once formulated the foreign policy of Manchuria had to do so with one eye on Japan and the other on Russia; every international gesture of Belgium is conditioned by the fact that she lies between France and Germany and across the Channel from Great Britain; and the states of Central America can never for a moment forget that the territory north of them is occupied by one large power and not by several whom they might play off one against the other as their European counterparts, the Balkan states, have been able to do from time to time with their northern neighbors.

In July, 1936, none of the Great Powers wanted a European war. But, as in 1914, the preceding three or four years had brought in their wake a series of incidents and developments which increased tension considerably and made statesmen realize that a general war was far from impossible. The armaments race, the Italo-Abyssinian affair, the remilitarization of the Rhine zone, the Franco-Soviet alliance and the resulting denunciation of Locarno by Germany, the growth of nationalism and dictatorship, the increasing hostility of bolshevism and fascism, the apparent breakdown of world peace machinery—to mention only a few aspects of the situation—produced considerable pessimism about the chances for keeping the peace. On July 1, 1936, M. Blum, speaking in the League Assembly, emphasized “with what serious apprehension France views the present situation.” “The world at this moment,” he said, “is not a world of peace … We feel the atmosphere growing heavy; we see the shadow looming. Everywhere the world is arming … For the first time in eighteen years, a European war is once again looked upon as a possibility.”

The representation of colonies in the French parliament is one of the many oddities characterizing France's colonial system. Nothing similar is found in the political institutions of any other European colonial power. This representation is a direct result of the doctrines of the French Revolution, which preached the equality of man irrespective of race, color, or political education. Thus during the years of the National Assembly delegates from Santo Domingo, Martinique, and Guadeloupe were admitted, and on August 22, 1792, all of the colonies were given representation in the national parliament. This equality lasted until the advent of Napoleon and the constitution of the Year VIII, which suppressed the colonial deputies entirely for nearly fifty years. The political idealists of 1848 not only freed all slaves in the colonies, but also gave them the political rights of French citizens. In good Bonapartist tradition, Napoleon III, in 1852, put an end to this political experimentation, and only Algeria participated in the plebiscites of 1852 and 1870. When the Government of National Defense succeeded the Second Empire and by the decree of September 8, 1870, called an election on the basis of the electoral law of March 15, 1849, Algeria and the colonies regained their political representation at Paris; and they have kept it until the present time.

The 1936 term of the Supreme Court will probably be rated a notable one. This is due both to the Court's own work, and to certain extraneous occurrences which could hardly fail to have some impact upon it. In any attempt to evaluate the work of this term, one should bear in mind the following facts: First, a month after the Court convened President Roosevelt was reëlected by one of the most impressive popular and electoral majorities in our political history. Second, in February the President submitted to Congress his proposal for the reorganization of the Supreme Court, including the enlargement of its membership by the addition, up to fifteen, of a new justice for every one remaining on the Court beyond the age of seventy. This proposal aroused violent opposition, the debates on it continued for many months, and ultimately the plan was defeated largely through the efforts of the President's own party. The discussions on this proposal were going on during much of the time in which the Court was sitting. Third, in every case in which New Deal laws were attacked, they were held valid. These results were accomplished in many instances by five-to-four margins, and in the Minimum Wage Case by a five-to-four reversal of a previous five-to-three decision.

In introducing the subject of this paper, it is held that we have failed, on the whole, to develop the public service as a well-recognized professional calling in this country, although it is not denied that preliminary steps toward this goal have been taken here and there, and particularly during the past few years. The position is probably tenable that more progress has been made in this direction in the last decade than in any preceding period since Jackson, not excepting the decade from 1883 to 1893 when civil service commissions were first installed. Jackson's famous statement: “The duties of all public officers are, or at least should be, made so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance, and I cannot but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience,” has apparently been perennially accepted by the general public.