This is a period of revaluations. The crucial tests that have been imposed within the last year upon so many nations by the stress of war have probably led most of us to question and perhaps to doubt old, and as we had believed, firmly, rooted tenets and dogmas. It is true that political science has long since abandoned the eighteenth century confidence in general theories and deductions; but there were many who had cherished at least a loyalty to certain fundamental political ideals: individualism, self-government, democracy; and even these are challenged by newly emphasized factors of strength and weakness that seem to determine the fate of nations. It behooves us now to be cautious in drawing premature conclusions from abnormal conditions, and to retain some faith in principles that have not been demonstrated to be unsound.

Amidst the confusion of political values we have all been impressed with the importance and with the achievements of technique, and we may be tempted to insist upon high technical standards in government as an undisputable political ideal.

The American people, especially in the eastern portion of the United States, are averse to political and social change particularly in institutions that have existed for a long period of time. A recent critic of American life has the following to say as a reason for this attitude of the American people:

“Among the many characteristics which foreign observers have ascribed to Americans are two about which there has been little difference of opinion. We are good-natured and we are individualists. Sermons have been preached against our good nature, so we need not dwell upon it. Much more important is our individualism—our absorption in individual interests and our reluctance to undertake things in combination with our neighbors or through the government. That individualism is an American characteristic is proved by a number of familiar facts. Thus the phrase ‘social reform,’ which in other countries suggests comprehensive plans of state action, is still usually associated in the United States with the welfare work of private corporations, private endowed schools of philanthropy…. Again, the coöperative movement which has made such signal progress in Europe, is in its infancy here.

The nineteenth century, it is a commonplace to remark, witnessed a notable revival of nationalistic sentiment, the germs of which go back to the eighteenth, and the political consequences of which are in considerable part still outstanding. The emancipation of the Balkan States, the union of Italy, and the consolidation of Germany, were substantial, though incomplete, realizations of nationalism. The Germanization of Austria-Hungary, which had seemed inevitable, was brought to a halt by the national revival of Slav and Magyar. And today, not to mention the Irish situation, Eastern Europe is fairly alive with smaller nationalities seeking to gain or to maintain autonomous development. Nationalism, in spite of, or rather because of its being so largely a matter of sentiment, is the most active force in European politics. The dynastic system, certainly, is only a superficial relic of a past reality; loyalty to a dynasty, except as it is identified with nationalism, has lost its former significance. And on the other hand, a socialistic brotherhood which shall rise superior to the bounds of nationality is a dream of the future.

The appalling record of the past year and a half ought to make us, interested in international law, extremely modest. Professing that we expound international law as it is, we have been deluding ourselves and really setting forth international law as we believed that it ought to be. The universal bankruptcy of normal international relationships has shown to us how great a gap there is between that which we had conceived to be and that which really exists. Many of the foundations of international law we now see to have rested upon a conception of international society which did not really obtain. Perhaps, too, although professing contact with the actual, we have been living in an unreal world, a world wherein the ideal was given a much wider range and play than we were justified in believing. Any attempt to reconstruct the formal bases of international law—and such reconstruction must be made—must take account not only of the experiences of the present war, but of the long series of half-submerged elements which led to the present disaster almost with the inexorability of the forces of natural law. Shocked and benumbed as we are by the constant revelations of horror in these past months, there is also the awful realization that, after all, what has taken place has been largely the result of factors seemingly without immediate human direction.

The aim of the present paper is to describe the regulative powers granted to state boards of health, and to consider the wisdom of these grants as well as their validity as tested by the principle that the law-making powers granted to legislatures may not constitutionally be delegated by them to other agents of government.

State boards of health, while primarily administrative bodies, have generally a more or less extensive power to make regulations in supplement to and having the force of statute law. Questions thus arise as to the extent and validity of the ordinance-making powers granted. Does the power to make these regulations, having the force of law, change the nature of these boards? Under what conditions may they exercise their power?