lar throughout the United Kingdom? What do they know of the history of industrial readjustment to war conditions in these countries of our allies which have become veteran wayfarers along the thorny road on which we have only lately set out? War costs, war finance, national income, bond values-these and many other subdivisions of the one great subject which has to do with the devotion of our great national wealth to the immediate purpose of defeating Germany suggest a vast and almost virgin field for educational activity.

Departments of political science, in their courses on taxation and government, have been dealing for years, of course, with the subjects of public finance, budgetary reform and the like. It is highly probable that the new problems which the world war has injected into this field have not been overlooked in such courses. But the percentage of students reached in this manner is painfully small, while the problems themselves are impinging directly as never before in history on the private means of every minor and citizen in the land. And to a greater degree possibly, than any other social obligation which this war has brought home to the individual, that of investment in his country's bonds is likely to remain a permanent one.

Practically all our undergraduates have a vague sense of their duty to economize, to avoid personal waste. They all know they should be the owners of as many Liberty Bonds as they can carry, that they should "stand behind the men behind the guns," that "he also serves who helps a fighter fight." They have been told so by those in whom they have faith. But how much do they really know about the nature of these imperatives, these young people who are later to

become leaders in a land where from this time on nearly everyone will have a direct financial stake in the Federal Government?

Perhaps for the man in the street the simplest expressions of his personal obligations in these particulars will suffice. For privates in the great army of war thrift and investment, "theirs not to reason why within limits." But college and university students, and this is intended to refer to them all, not the few only who specialize in economics, deserve greater intellectual consideration. Their education in the economic and financial phases of warfare should be shaped with a view to training them for leadership in the thrift army of Liberty Bond holders, as their officers' training corps are busy moulding them for commissions in the ranks of the military and naval services. The need is very great and very immediate. This army of war thrift and investment, which includes us all, whether we have a vote or simply have expectations, has a spring drive ahead of it of gigantic proportions. The third Liberty Loan, soon to be announced, will dwarf in size either of its predecessors. Its success will entail a degree of united effort and exhortation to which we are still strangers. And in the meantime there is confusion of thought abroad on the subject of personal expenditure and a disposition to grumble over war measures, however necessary, which sand the industrial grooves to which we have become accustomed and subject us to annoyances and discomforts. discomforts. Complaint and bewilderment do not provide good psychological soil in which to plant our vast bond crop. We need to "sweeten" it with the intelligent enthusiasm of young patriots who

could meet objections, answer questions, bring order out of the mental confusion of their associates and acquaintances.

Every institution of higher learning in the United States owes it to the general public, to provide some means of instruction which will ac

quaint all those enrolled in its courses with the fundamentals of war economy and finance, to the end that constant, indefatigable but intelligent saving may become more prevalent and that when the time comes we may go over the top to victory with a mighty Liberty Loan!

THIS

HIS condition of anarchy (i. e. no government), has grown out of Jacksonian principles, aided by the theory of separation of powers with checks and balances. Jackson's school seemed to think that an American was good enough to fill any position he could get, and it made but little difference to them how he got it if he were loyal to the party. This attitude, with our other unfortunate heritage, the theory of separation of powers, threw the control of the government out of the hands of the public officials into those of the private party leaders; and we shall never put it back into responsible hands except by destroying these two false concepts through educational processes.

Next is described the organization of the government of the United States, where the president is the general manager. It is true he is not elected by the representative assembly as in the case of the corporation and the municipality; the congress was not

entrusted with this duty because MONTESQUIEU, misunderstanding the government of England in the time of WALPOLE, who ruled all England; and supposing that a separation of powers prevailed in England, wrote that fact into a book which dazzled the eyes of our constitution makers. The result has been that our presidents were for a period selected by a caucus of congress and since then have been chosen by a quasi-representative assembly called the party convention. It is true that we go through the form of a general election in which some fifteen million people vote for a man about whom they know nothing whatever, and the candidate of that convention gets into office which can raise the greatest campaign noise, or by chance, as is frequently the case. It isn't such a bad system, after all, except for its expense, hypocrisy and sham.

The organization of our federal administration departs from the principle of administration which is being

illustrated in two conspicuous respects. First the method of election is different, and we in this follow the same plan as Brazil and one or two other inconspicuous states, as against the practice of all the progressive countries of the world. The other respect in which we depart from type in our federal government is in senatorial confirmation of presidential appointments. I have sought in vain for a single instance where this power in the hands of the senate did any real good; and the examples of its harmful results are written into every chapter of our history. Only recently PRESIDENT WILSON was prevented from securing the appointment to the Federal Reserve Board of a Chicago banker of the highest repute. The case of the Federal Trade Commission is, however, a more conspicuous example of the abuse of this arrangement.

The author of the bill which created the Federal Trade Commission, its most intelligent advocate, not a politician but a conservative reformer, a man who in New Hampshire opposed the leader of his own party because of the latter's conspicuous lack of usefulness, was rejected by the Senate at the request of this leader (a senator) and for no other reason. Any one who has instances of useful results from the existence of senatorial confirmation of appointments in any state or in the Federal system will confer a favor on the present writer by calling his attention to them.

Let us now test our principle by reference to the government which is conceded in most quarters to be the finest example of political evolution; one which has been hampered least by abstract theory; one which has been

carefully guarded by safe conservatism while stimulated by a spirit of stern impatience with special privilege of any sort.

The government of England applies this principle more clearly than does any other public organization with the possible exception of the commissionmanager plan of municipal government. The stockholding citizens of England elect a board of directors called a House of Commons; this House of Commons selects a general manager called the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister selects all of his immediate aides who constitute his executive committee and who are his heads of departments. There is no written constitution to limit what the Commons thru the Prime Minister may do. There is a King and a House of Lords who have served as conservative influences somewhat as our written constitutions have, and we do not know whether it would be desirable to do without both written constitution and aristocratic conservatism at the same time or not

There is yet another aspect of this organization which may be emphasized for the reason that many persons confuse the difference between policydetermining officers who are frequently changed because they complete the making of laws by giving the first impulse to their administration, between such policy-determining officials and persons who are merely administrative officers-that is, persons who are not asked to interpret law but to perform service under the law, such as chemists, mechanics, biologists, accountants, architects, stone masons, street sweepers, gunners, sailors, coal heavers, heavers, doctors, farm specialists,