Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Municipal Reform League. The various "systems" of municipal government described in this report - the council system, the board system, the representative system, the system of responsible heads, the federal system, etc., - show what confusion exists within the minds of those who have devoted much time to study of the municipal problem, and from whose ranks must be expected to come the Moses who is to lead us into the promised land. Mr. Woodruff probably expressed most accurately the condition of mind of the municipal reformer in the old rhyme which he quoted to the delight of those assembled at Minneapolis:

The centipede was happy quite

Until a frog, in fun,

Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?"

This raised its mind to such a pitch,

It lay distracted in the ditch,
Considering how to run.

But while the hope of immediate concerted action in the direction of practical reform is not much strengthened by the perusal of the papers read at the two meetings of the League, it is to be remembered that as a result of these meetings and of the publication of their proceedings, we are obtaining the one thing which we need more than any other, namely, knowledge of our municipal institutions, and of the working of the various municipal systems existing in the United States. The period within the last fifty years has been one of experimentation. The period now beginning seems. to be one of induction from those experiments — an induction which has hitherto been impossible because of lack of knowledge.

At the present time, however, the only induction that can be made is of rather a negative than a positive character, namely, that slight changes in organization, however enthusiastically they may be advocated, seem to have little influence in bettering the actual condition of municipal government. This result seems due to a failure to apprehend the fundamental theory of municipal government, which, as a legal question, has not received much attention at the hands of the gentlemen who have been most interested in the movement for reform. It is hoped, however, that with the growth of interest in municipal government will come a determination to study the legal position of the city in the American system of government as carefully as fifty years ago the legal position of the state was studied. Such study is of the greatest importance; for on a clear conception of the city's position depends not only the degree of local self

government which it shall possess, but also the organization which shall be given to its government.

On this legal side of the municipal problem, the present volume of Proceedings is distinctly deficient; but it contains a vast fund of information on municipal government which no one interested in the problem in the United States should fail to ponder. It is to be hoped that the League will continue in the work which it has undertaken, and from which so much good is to be expected.

The volume on The City Government of Boston contains the valedictory address given by Mr. Matthews, in accordance with. custom, on the occasion of retiring from the office of mayor. Being devoted almost exclusively to local matters, it will primarily interest the general student of municipal government only so far as Boston has had to solve problems similar to those which confront all large cities. But the book contains several chapters which have a wider character. Particularly to be mentioned among these is one entitled "The Problem of Municipal Government." Seldom do we find among those in public municipal life so large a knowledge of foreign municipal conditions and institutions as Mr. Matthews possesses. Nowhere shall we find a more thorough appreciation of the legal position of the American city, or a clearer perception of the difficulties which beset us in our attempts at municipal reform, and which tend to render futile many of the projects brought forward with so much ardor by reformers.

Mr. Matthews has no confidence in the efficacy of many of the reforms which have been proposed. He particularly distrusts the "non-partisan" idea, in the sense in which that term is generally used, believing that this plan, as well as any scheme of minority representation, would lead to the formation of social municipal parties; but he even more distinctly repudiates the idea that the question of municipal organization is unimportant, and himself proposes, as a result of his experience, several changes which cannot fail to impress all with their wisdom. Among these are, "a reduction in the number of elective officers; . . . the concentration of executive business in the mayor; fewer departments, longer terms of office, the civil service rules and the limitation of indebtedness." But the point upon which Mr. Matthews lays particular stress is the proposition that the city is an organ of government and not a business corporation. That this is the truth in law is beyond question; and there would be difficulty in maintaining that it is not just as true in fact.

Most of Mr. Matthews' suggestions for reform, as well as his statement of general theory, are to be found in the chapter to which attention has been called. It is a great pity that these remarks are contained in one of those public documents whose usual fate is not to reach the eye of the public, but to be consigned to the oblivion of the library shelf. It is believed that a service is rendered to those interested in municipal questions by calling their attention. to this most excellent little book.

F. J. GOODNOW.

Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reiches. Von DR. PAUL LABAND. Dritte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage, in zwei Bänden. Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1895. xii, 767, 1058 pp.

[ocr errors]

The third edition of Dr. Laband's great work reveals an interesting development of the great publicist's thought, but rather in the philosophical, than in. the strictly legal, part of his treatise. In this edition Dr. Laband seems to have realized far more distinctly than in his first edition the importance of a clear conception of the nature of sovereignty in the description of any existing political system, and of the definite location of the sovereignty in a federal system. He also appears to have more successfully attained this conception, and to have more firmly located the power for which it stands in the case of the federal system, in the central organs.

Both of these things are manifest in the concluding paragraph of page 52 of his third edition, a paragraph which does not appear at all in the first edition, and which, we may therefore fairly infer, represents the development of Dr. Laband's thought upon this fundamental subject. Freely translated the passage reads as follows:

From the above course of reasoning it follows that in international unions of states- confederacies - the states, which are the members of the union, are the possessors of the highest political power; while in the union of states in a federal system there is a power present which is superior to the states and rules over them. In this system, therefore, the states do not possess the supreme power. The supreme power, the power which has nothing above it, we call sovereign. The fundamental, characteristic distinction in idea between the international confederacy and the constitutional federal union consists in the principle that in the former the separate states of the confederation are each sovereign, while in the latter the central power is sovereign.

Of course Dr. Laband holds that sovereignty is neither divisible nor relative nor dependent nor subject to limitations. It is absolute, and exists in its totality or does not exist at all. There is no doubt that the great publicist now stands upon completely solid ground in reference to this cardinal concept of political science.

It is evident, on the other hand, that he has not yet built his whole political philosophy upon this foundation, and that this fundamental idea has not yet completely penetrated even the more important divisions of his reasoning. He still holds, as he held in his first edition, that sovereignty is not the distinguishing characteristic, the absolutely necessary quality, of the state; and that there can be states without sovereignty-in proof of which assertion he instances the states of this Union and those of the German Empire.

He says that the essence of the state is to be found in the "inherent power to rule." He does not, however, explain how any body which is not sovereign can have an inherent power to rule. It is easy to understand how, in a federal system, what we call the states of the union have the power to govern in a certain sphere independently of the central government, when the central government itself is not sovereign, but is subject to a power still more supreme. If, however, these states do not derive their powers to govern from this more supreme power, to which the central government itself is subject, but possess them inherently, then we are bound to conclude that our so-called federal system is not a federal system in reality, but is an international union of sovereign states.

In a word, it is apparent that after having attained the true conception of sovereignty and its general position in a federal system, Dr. Laband allows himself to become confused, in the application of his principle, by the fact that in European constitutions the sovereignty has not yet been organized sufficiently distinct and separate from the central government or a part of the central government, and by the other fact, that the members of federal unions are still called states. But if the true doctrine in reference to sovereignty is to make itself practically valuable in the improvement of present political systems, it must not undertake to compromise its principle with existing forms and names. It must seek to organize itself separately from, and wholly supreme over, all governmental organs, and to revise the political nomenclature of the past, so as to make it express the actual relations of the present.

If Dr. Laband were a younger man, I doubt not that he would work his way to this conclusion. It is not impossible that he may yet do

so; but it looks now as if nothing short of another popular upheaval will teach the great publicist that his doctrine — that the states of the German Empire, i.e., the princes of those states, have the inherent right to govern, while sovereignty is in the oligarchic Federal Council (Bundesrath) is not founded upon the actual conditions of Germany's political society, is contradictory in itself, and is reactionary in its effect.

When we turn to the second part of Dr. Laband's work, viz., the interpretation of the imperial constitution in regard to the structure and powers of the government, and the description of the modes of its operation, no intelligent reader can help feeling the highest satisfaction and delight. The treatment is full, perspicuous and vigorous, and, so far as I am able to judge, entirely correct. Without reading Laband, a complete knowledge of the constitutional law of the German Empire can hardly be attained.

JOHN W. BURGESS.

Du Contrat Social. Par J. J. ROUSSEAU. Introduction et des Notes par EDMONd Dreyfus-BrisSAC. Paris, Félix Alcan, 1896. — xxxvi, 425 PP.

There is rather more than the usual amount of truth in the eminently Gallic paradox with which M. Dreyfus-Brissac begins his introduction: "Rousseau est célèbre, mais il n'est pas connu." In view of the enormous responsibility which is laid by tradition and common fame upon the Contrat Social in connection with the French Revolution, and later with socialism, it is certainly surprising that hitherto no critical edition of the work has been published. M. Dreyfus-Brissac has now, in the handsome volume before us, removed this reproach from literature and political science. Nothing that is important and very little that is merely interesting about the Contrat Social is omitted from the present work.

The editor's introduction summarizes the facts in respect to the time and manner in which Rousseau produced his famous essay. Then follows the text of the work as published at Amsterdam in 1762, accompanied by annotations consisting of parallel or suggestive extracts from other works of Rousseau and from the great writers on politics. Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Grotius, Spinoza, Bodin, Bossuet, Locke and Montesquieu are conspicuous among the writers thus cited; and the quotations constitute a most interesting and valuable commentary on Rousseau's text. pression of the editor's opinion, by way of comment or criticism, is

No ex

« PreviousContinue »