World Affairs Institute

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN GERMANYSource: Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 92, No. 1 (February, 1930), p. 37Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20681402 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 04:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Advocate of Peace through Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.62 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:55:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Advocate of Peace, February, 1930 37

(Czech Social Democrat), Education; Dr. Meissner (Czech Social Democrat), Jus tice; M. Bechyne (Czech Social Demo

crat), Food; *Dr. Vyskovsky (Czech Agrarian), National Defense; M. Bradac

(Czech Agrarian), Agriculture; *Dr.

Spina (German Agrarian), Health; Dr. Czech (German Social Democrat), Na tional Welfare; Dr. Matousek (Czech Na tional Democrat), Commerce; *Mgr. Sramek (Czech Clerical), Unification of

Laws; M. Dostalek (Czech Clerical), Public Works; M. Mlcoch (Czech Small

Traders), Railways; Dr. Franke (Czech National Socialist), Posts and Telegraphs.

Dr. Benesh is probably the only Foreign Minister in any country to hold office con

tinuously since 1918, and Dr. English, Finance Minister, has been a member of six governments. The participation of two German parties in the government is

generally regarded as a proof that German

co-operation, which was at first tried as an

experiment, has come to stay. The new Coalition will command rather more than a two-thirds majority in the Chamber.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN GERMANY

THE second half of November, the sub-committees of the Constitutional

and Administrative Reform Committee

(an offshoot of the Federal Reform Con ference which met in January, 1928) met in Berlin in a joint session, at which im

portant decisions were reached regarding constitutional reorganization of Germany. Perhaps the most important result of the session was the adoption of a compromise solution of the problem of dualism as be tween the Reich and Prussia. Known by the clumsy title of the "Differentiating general solution/' the compromise formula follows closely the preliminary proposals issued by the Constitutional Sub-Commit tee last March. It would make all the

main territorial divisions nominally States

(L?nder), but would differentiate between the newly organized North German States and the larger and older Federal States, Bavaria, Baden, W?rttemberg, and Sax

ony. * Member of the late Cabinet.

Prussia, under this scheme, would dis appear as a unit altogether, and the Prus sian and Reich Governments would be

amalgamated. The Prussian Provinces would be labeled "States" and would thus stand in the same direct relationship to the Reich as the big Federal States. They would, however, retain their present pro vincial constitutional characteristics; their governments would be appointed for a

specified time?probably four years?and not be subject to the whims of Diet ma

jorities. Provision would be made for the other States (now free States or free

Cities) to adopt similar constitutions. The Reichstag and the Prussian Diet

(Landtag) would be amalgamated. Dur

ing a transition period a common Diet for all the States of the new type might be constituted. The composition of the Reichsrat (Federal Council) would be de termined by the population of the States

represented. It is significant that a motion introduced

by the Bavarian Premier to the effect that the proposed solution was neither neces

sary nor suitable and was politically dan gerous was rejected by a large majority, and after that the various clauses were

adopted mostly by as many as eight votes to three, Bavaria, of course, being always among the dissentients.

REPARATION CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE

ON JANUARY 3, the second repara

tion conference for the institution of the Young Plan met at The Hague. The conference lasted until January 20, when an agreement was signed, comprising a

protocol of adoption of the Young Plan, five separate treaties?with Germany, Aus

tria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslo

vakia?regarding reparations, and a< treaty with Switzerland defining her relations with the Bank for International Settle ments. In spite of the fact that the Jan uary conference had been much better pre pared diplomatically than the first con ference on the Young Plan, held at The

Hague in August, 1929, and that a great deal of work had been done by the com missions set up by the August conference,

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.62 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 04:55:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions