duchess of Luxemburg, abdicated (see LUXEMBURG: 1919-1921) in favor of her sister, Charlotte, January 9, 1919. In 1914, the grand duchess protested in vain against the German occupation of Luxemburg.

ADELAIDE, or Adelheid (931-999), empress, daughter of Rudolph II of Burgundy; wife of Lothair of Italy. "Upon Lothair's death in 950, she was imprisoned by Berengar who wanted her to marry his son. She escaped and sent a piteous appeal to Otto of Germany, who had already defended her father's house in Burgundy. The pope Agapitus alarmed for the safety of the papal lands on the Adriatic . . . joined in the appeal.”— E. Emerton, Medieval Europe, pp. 126-128.-Otto marched into Italy and camped at Pavia. Here he summoned Adelaide, who had found refuge with the bishop Reggio, and offered his hand in marriage. Adelaide accepted. It is believed to be due to this.marriage that the son of Otto I revolted against him in 963, the crushing of which revolt established Adelaide's power. She ruled Germany from the death of Otto I in 973 until 996, when Otto III was declared of age. For her devotion to the church and the establishment of the Benedictine cloister at Selz in Alsace, she was proclaimed a saint.-See also GERMANY: 936-976.

ADELAIDE, Australia, Founding and naming of. See AUSTRALIA: 1800-1840; 1787-1840: Penal settlements.

ADELANTADO, a medieval Spanish official. "The king of Castile, in addition to being recognized by most of the nobles as their overlord, had his own domains in which he exercised the same kind of proprietary sovereignty as the nobles on their estates. The outlying royal territories, as they increased in size and number, and as the sovereigns became more sure of their heritage, were divided for administrative purposes into royal districts with a count, appointed by the king, as administrative head of each. These counts were the first officials with administrative, judicial and military functions to represent the king at the head of frontier districts and provinces. Their duties were chiefly military, and these counts were frequently obliged to go beyond their own frontiers in the interest of the extension of the royal power. The great drawback, however, from the viewpoint of the king, consisted of the fact that the only class from which these officials could be enlisted was the noble class. In fact, they showed themselves to be more faithful to the aristocratic element than to the royal interests, and for this reason the counts were replaced by royal officials called adelantados, who were more completely dependent on the royal power than their predecessors had been, Antequera fails to give the date for the inauguration of this reform, but since the Council of Leon of 1020 defined the jurisdiction of the frontier counts, we know that the adelantados were substituted for these officials at some subsequent date.

"The earliest regulations which apply to these officials were the Laws of the Adelantados Mayores of 1255 and 1274. The frontier adelantado has been noticed already. The provincial adelantado was mentioned in the law referred to as having been in charge of the larger and nearer provinces of Castile, Leon, Navarre, and Galicia. He was at the same time provincial governor, judge, and captain-general. Possibly the most far-reaching and characteristic feature of this office was the requirement that the adelantado should be accompanied on his tours of inspection by letrados or asesores-men of legal training, who should advise him in all questions of law, and assume re

sponsibility for all his official acts of an administrative or judicial character. The adelantados were not trained lawyers or administrators, but soldiers--the predecessors of the colonial captainsgeneral. They were empowered, however, to render legal opinions and dispense justice on the advice of, and by the assistance of the letrados. The asesor or teniente letrado played an important role subsequently in the administration of justice in the colonies. . . . The third type of adelantado specified in the ordinance of 1274 was the adelantado mayor. This magistrate, in contradistinction to the provincial adelantado, was a lawyer, and his activities were confined exclusively to the exercise of judicial functions. He was not accompanied, therefore, by an asesor. He was a peregrinating magistrate, holding court in different parts of the kingdom. Finally, he was frequently designated for special service as adelantado mayor from a higher tribunal of which he was a magistrate, and this tribunal was called the curia, or corte del rey, which was the forerunner of the royal audiencia... This magistrate was in reality a judge of the first royal audiencia of Castile, and his designation to try cases in the provinces was identical in character with the subsequent designation of magistrates of colonial audiencias to try cases and conduct special investigations."-C. H. Cunningham, Institutional background of SpanishAmerican history (Hispanic American Historical Review, Feb., 1918, pp. 26-30). See also AUDIEN

CIAS.

ADELHEID, empress. See ADELAIDE or ADEL

HEID.

ADEN is a rocky barren peninsula in southwestern Arabia on the Indian ocean about 100 miles east of the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb. It is one of the important fortified coaling stations on the great highway from western Europe to India and the East. A brief Portuguese occupation at the beginning of the sixteenth century was followed by Turkish seizure in 1535. In the seventeenth century Aden came under the rule of the Sultan of Sana and native chiefs, which lasted until 1839, when it was captured by the British in punishment for native maltreatment of a shipwrecked British crew. The island of Sokotra off the coast of Africa is under British protection, and the Kuria Muria islands off the coast of Arabia are attached to Aden.-See also ARABIA: Political divisions; BRITISH EMPIRE: Extent.

ADERBEISAN, or Azerbaïjan, north-western province of Persia, anciently called atropatene. See ATROPATENE.

ADHÉMAR, Adémar, Aimar, Aelarz de Monteil (d. 1098), bishop of Puy en Velay; one of the leaders of the first crusade, which he accompanied as papal legate; caused the Siege of Antioch to be raised. See CRUSADES: 1096-1099.

ADHERBAL (fl. 112 B.C.), king of Numidia. See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

ADIABENE, a name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy formed a tributary kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently held.-G. Rawlinson, Sixth great oriental monarchy, p. 140.

ADIGE, Counts of. See TYROL: Origin. ADIGE RIVER: Northern Italy.-Scene of fighting (1016). See WORLD WAR: 1916: IV: Austro-Italian front: b, 2.

ADIRONDACKS.-"This is a term ' by the Iroquois, in derision, on the t

appear, at an early day, to have descended the Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence, above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people Algonquins-a generic appellation, which has been long employed and come into universal use, among historians and philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."-H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, ch. 5.-See also below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: Their Conquests, &c.

ADIS ABABA, Convention of (1896). See ABYSSINIA: 1896-1897.

ADITES. "The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."-F. Lenormant, Manual of ancient history, bk. 7, ch. 2.—See ARABIA: Ancient succession and fusion of races.

ADJUTATORS, or Agitators. See ENGLAND: 1647 (April-August).

ADLERCREUTZ, Karl Johan, Count (17571815), Swedish general; defeated in Finland in 1808 by the Russians; assisted in the overthrow of Gustavus IV.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. - Definition.General survey.-Origin.-Character of tribunals. Administrative law is the portion of the law dealing with the enforcement of the social will as expressed by its authorized representatives in the established legislative bodies. Administrative law includes the organization of the executive powers of the State and of its general and local subdivisions, together with the respective functions of the administrative officers, the limitations of their powers and the remedies afforded in case of abuse of power or dereliction of duty. In the United States this branch of law would embrace all provisions relating to both elective and appointive officers, federal, state, county, municipal or other. It would also cover such matters as the law of municipal corporations, the abatement of nuisances, taxation and other revenue matters, such extraordinary legal remedies as the writ of prohibition, mandamus, injunction, habeas corpus, quo warranto and certiorari, and such equitable remedies as may be applied to executive officials.

"On the continent of Europe, particularly in France and Prussia, a special class of tribunals, separate and distinct from the ordinary courts of justice and constituted on different principles, has been provided, for the determination of administrative controversies, that is, disputes between private individuals and the public authorities as well as disputes among administrative officials themselves. In general, where such a system prevails, so-called administrative controversies are not allowed to be determined by the regular judicial courts. The idea originated in France at the time of the Revolution, and may be said to have resulted from the extreme conception of the doctrine of the separation of powers, then held by the French. Montesquieu's famous theory concerning the necessity of intrusting the legislative, executive, and judicial powers to separate and distinct organs was embodied in extreme form in the 'declaration of rights of man and the citizen' of 1701 by the Constituent Assembly, which asserted that if the judiciary were permitted to meddle with adminis trative officials in the discharge of their duties the constitution would be violated and the operations

of the government hindered. The administrative authorities were therefore made completely independent of judicial control, and the judges were interdicted under pain of forfeiting their offices from interfering in any manner with the acts of the administration. This principle was in turn introduced into other continental states, particularly into Prussia and Italy, and has been retained by them to the present day.

"The chief advantage claimed for the system is that the subjection of the public authorities to the continual control and interference of the judicial courts is detrimental to prompt and efficient administration. Administrative controversies are somewhat peculiar in their nature and involve questions which for proper consideration require a special and technical knowledge not ordinarily possessed by judges whose training and experience have been confined to the field of private law, and whose education has been academic rather than practical. Such judges are likely to have exaggerated notions of the rights of private individuals, as against those of the public; they are inclined to a natural timidity in deciding issues between individuals and the government adversely to the claims of the individual; and with their disposition to adhere strictly to legal rules and traditions they sometimes unnecessarily hamper and obstruct the legitimate operations of the government.

"The history of administration in the United States and England abounds in illustrations of the truth of these observations. Only men who have been trained in the study of administrative law and who have had practical experience in the actual work of public administration, it is said, are capable of deciding wisely controversies involving a technical knowledge of an administrative question. Judges without such special knowledge or experience are apt to apply to the interpretation of controversies between private individuals and the public authorities the pure principles of private law, rather than those of the public law. This sometimes leads to results that are wholly inconsistent with sound public policy and efficient administration, for the rules of law governing the organization and functions of the administration are quite different from those governing the relations of private individuals, since the purpose of the former is the public welfare rather than private interests. When the government is a party to a dispute it cannot be treated like a private litigant without seriously injuring at times its efficiency and impeding its operations. The law of contract and tort, for example, which plays so important a part in the regulation of the conduct of private individuals, occupies a very unimportant place in the law governing the relations of the public authorities. The administration of two such widely different bodies of rules requires, therefore, different habits of mind. traditions, and training. It is also to be remarked that the individual under the continental system can often obtain redress where he could not do so in America or England. as for example, in a case of neglect or abuse of power by an official, who would not in America or England be liable in damages.

"Where there are two sets of tribunals and two separate bodies of law, disputes must sometimes arise as to which domain a particular controversy belongs and which tribunal should have jurisdiction of it. For the determination of such disputes of jurisdiction the French law provides for a tribunal of conflicts, while in Germany there is usually a similar tribunal known as a competenceconflict court In both countries these courts are composed of a certain number of regular judges

and of persons in the administrative service. In the German imperial system, however, all conflicts of jurisdiction between the imperial administrative courts and the judicial courts are settled by the iatter, there being no special conflict courts. In both countries the power of raising the question of a conflict of jurisdiction belongs to the administration only, the theory being that it alone can be interested. When the administration notifies the judicial court that in taking jurisdiction over a particular controversy, it is encroaching upon the sphere of the administration, the court suspends further proceedings, and the question of competence is referred to the tribunal of conflicts for determination. If the decision is in favor of the claim set up by the administration, the case is removed to the administrative courts for final decision, otherwise it is decided by the judicial court. "In England and America, and in countries generally where English legal institutions have been introduced, the doctrine of administrative jurisdiction, as it is known and practiced on the continent of Europe, is little known. There administrative law is not a separate branch of jurisprudence, and specially constituted administrative courts with jurisdiction over controversies between private individuals and public officials do not exist, at least not in the form in which they are found on the continent. Disputes between the public authorities and private citizens, like differences between private individuals themselves, are decided by the regular judicial courts and according to the ordinary law of the land. Nevertheless, both in England and America, there are numerous boards, commissions, and authorities which possess what may not improperly be described as administrative jurisdiction. They are, in fact, often referred to as administrative tribunals; they possess the power of adjudication and determination in many cases, and not infrequently their decisions are conclusive, and hence not subject to review by the courts. Although they are not a part of the judicial system, their procedure when hearing and determining controversies is often characterized by the formalism of the courts of justice. A regular system of appeal is often allowed from one to another, and in some cases their decisions are published and cited as precedents. In England examples of authorities which exercise a limited administrative jurisdiction are the Railway Commission, the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, and the Board of Agriculture. In the United States similar bodies are the Interstate Commerce Commission, whose powers have been described as 'quasi administrative, quasi judicial'; the Pension Office, the Patent Office, the Land Office, the Bureau of Immigration, the office of Comptroller of the Treasury, the General Board of Customs Appraisers, the United States Customs Court, and the Court of Claims. In the state governments there are almost countless boards and commissions which possess similar powers. Among these may be mentioned railroad commissions, boards of health, departments of education, pure food commissions, etc. There is, in fact, scarcely any department of the administrative service in which controversies involving both public and private rights do not frequently arise, which can be more wisely determined by the administration itself than by a court of justice. This fact has been recently recognized by the Congress of the United States in the act creating a customs court vested with power to determine controversies between the government and importers, regarding the value and classification of imported articles upon which a customs tariff is imposed. Whatever, therefore,

may be said against the European system of administrative justice and of administrative law, with its somewhat exaggerated emphasis upon the rights of the government in contradistinction to those of private individuals, the fact remains that it exists in England and America, though in less developed form; and the rôle which it is destined to play in the future is bound to increase with the multiplication of governmental functions and the increasing complexity of the governmental organization." -J. W. Garner, Introduction to political science, pp. 585-594.-See also CABINET; COMMISSION GOVERNMENT; CONGRESS; MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT; REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT; SUPREME COURT.

Administrative law in France. "The territorial unity of the French state was attained many years ago. The great vassals who under a weak monarchy might have developed into independent princes, and whose domains might then have formed separate commonwealths, were suppressed by the kings and their lands became provinces of the kingdom of France. Most matters of administration, which during the feudal régime had been attended to by vassals, became a part of the royal administration and were attended to by the royal officers who were subject to a strong central control. These were the intendants, who date from the time of Richelieu and Louis XIII, and whose work was performed in the provinces or generalities as they were sometimes called, and the council of the king at the centre which directed all their actions and heard appeals, taken by individuals aggrieved, from their decisions. The great centralization of government under the absolute monarchy left little room for any important local authorities; though we do find even in the times of the most extreme centralization that there were in certain of the provinces, called pays d'états and occupying a privileged position, local assemblies having more or less control over the actions of the intendants; and also that in some of the largest of the cities the people had more or less welldefined rights to elect their municipal officers, rights, however, of which the king was endeavoring in the interest of centralized government to deprive them. The attempt made by the government of Louis XVI just before the revolution to introduce into all parts of the kingdom provincial assemblies modelled on the assemblies of the pays d'états failed; and when the revolution came in 1789 it found a most highly centralized system of administration--a system which hardly recognized the local districts as anything more than administrative circumscriptions, possessing few if any corporate powers. In these districts most matters of administration were attended to by officers either appointed and removed by the king in his pleasure, or else subject to a strict central control. The system which the revolution received as a legacy from the absolute monarchy it made few radical changes in. . . . The aim of the revolution was social and political rather than administrative reform. The revolution destroyed the social system on which the absolute monarchy rested and introduced the political principle that the people should have a larger influence in the management of the government, but it did little more in the way of permanent administrative reform than to make the system more symmetrical than it had been before. The reason why no greater change was made in the general character of the administrative system was that the revolution really aimed at the same end that had been before the eyes of the absolute monarchy. This end was the crushing out of feudalism, the taking away from the privilege classes those semi-political and social privileges a

exemptions which had been the cause of so many of the miseries of the absolute monarchy, but for which the absolute monarchy was responsible only in so far as it had allowed them to continue to exist, after the duties which had been originally associated with them had been assumed by the Crown, and after the expenses which their performance necessitated had been imposed upon the tax-payers. The cause of the dissatisfaction of the people with the absolute monarchy is to be found not so much in the character of the government which it gave the people as in the fact that its progress in the desired direction of abolition of feudal privileges seemed almost to have ceased. Therefore we find that the chief reforms of the revolution were social and, to a degree, political but not administrative. The celebrated night of the fourth of August, 1789, saw the abolition at one time of about all that was left of the feudal regime, while the exemption of the privileged classes from taxation was done away with by the new and proportional system of taxation formulated and enacted by the revolutionary leaders in the constituent assembly. After the constituent assembly had thus cleared away the débris of the feudal system it would have been suicidal for it to establish any system of administration in which large rights of local government were given to the people of the localities. For the people, as a whole, were so utterly incapacitated for political work, through long administrative and governmental tutelage, that it is improbable that they could have succeeded in governing themselves well. At first it is true there was a slight attempt in the direction of decentralization, but this, as might have been expected, was unsuccessful and led to disorganizatron and inefficient government, as indeed, did all attempts at reorganization until the government of the directory when Napoleon came into power.

Napoleon is to France what the Norman kings are to England. He moulded the form of he local institutions. The laws and decrees which were passed during the period of his control of the government have, it is true, received during this most important modifications, but the principles of the present system of local adchisitation are even now to be found in them. con was satisfied that the social principles of rae evolution could be adhered to only through a sadishment of a most centralized system of nahestration and government, by means of which

upuse to action should come from the centre wh should be controlled by those who were upachy with the new order of things. Since Napoleonx time, however, there has been great

on the direction of decentralization. This with the government of the restoration and its chimax in the communes act of 1884; x consisted in the recognition of the possesthe localities, or at least the most imporac localities, of juristic personality and belongs to them a sphere of action of win which the central administration is ... but little.

withstanding the decentralization which wa goig on, the French system of adminises even at the present time quite De old Napoleonic principles to make compared with our own, a system which

nistrative point of view is quite department district and canton we as the lowest administrative Saune is either rural or urban, but Makes no formal distinction in orNa the two, both being governed

ན་་

by the same law, viz., the law of April 5, 1884. While the department is an artificial creation of the revolutionary period, the commune is a natural growth. Before the revolution we find that there were, as a result of social and political conditions, two kinds of local communities in France, viz., the urban communes and the rural communes. In the former were an officer, called by different names but performing for the most part executive functions, and a deliberative council. In the rural communes, and even in some of the cities, a general meeting of the inhabitants was often found together with a series of executive officers. A decree of 1702 established in each of these rural communes an officer called a syndic, who was to act to a large extent under the supervision of the intendant of the generality or province in which the commune was situated. The acts of all these authorities were subject, just before the revolution, to very strict central control, which was one of the results of the administrative centralization of the absolute monarchy. In 1789 the constituent assembly decided to efface all distinction in administrative organization between the rural and the urban districts, and provided for the formation of about 44,000 communes. Different experiments at organization were made in the period between 1790 and the year VIII or 1800 when the Napoleonic legislation was adopted. By this legislation there were placed in each commune a mayor and a municipal council, the former attending to executive business, both that relating to the commune, which was a municipal corporation, and that affecting the state as a whole, and the latter attending simply to local business. By this Napoleonic legislation, both the mayor and the members of the municipal council were appointed and could be removed by the central administration, while the decisions of the municipal council, even though they affected simply the local affairs of the commune, were in all cases subject to the approval of the central administration. Since the overthrow of the empire there has been an almost continuous tendency to decentralize this extremely centralized system. 1831 the municipal council became elective, and by a gradual process the mayor has become elected by the municipal council in all the communes of France. But up to about 1884 no actual power of decision was given to the municipal council, whose resolutions were in most cases subject to central administrative approval. The law of April 5, 1884, has made a most radical change in this respect by providing that the decisions of the municipal council are absolutely final except in those cases in which the law has specially provided for central administrative approval. . . . In each commune at the present time are to be found a mayor and several deputies who are to assist him in the performance of his duties, all elected by the municipal council. In both cases the choice of the council is limited to its members. They serve for the term of the council, but may be suspended by the prefect of the department for one month, by the minister of the interior for three months, and may be removed by the President of the republic. Removal makes the person removed ineligible for the period of one year. Further, the prefect has quite a large control over the mayor in that the law provides that if the mayor refuses to do an act which he is obliged by law to do, the prefect may step in and, after demand made by the mayor, proceed to do the act himself or may have the act done by a special appointee The mayor and his deputies are unsalaried and are not professional officers like the prefect Their official expenses are to be paid however Like the prefect, the mayor

In

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

is at the same time the 'agent of the central administration in the commune and is the representative and the executive of the communal municipal corporation. As an officer of the central administration he is in most cases under the supervision of the prefect. Among his duties as such central officer may be mentioned his duty to keep a register of vital statistics. As the French law expresses it, he is an officer of the état civil. As such he also solemnizes all marriages. He is also an officer of what is known as the judicial police and, as such, has the power to file informations in purely petty offences and may act as public prosecutor in the smaller places. He has to publish and execute all the laws and decrees within the commune, makes up the election lists, the census tables for the recruiting of the army, publishes the assessment rolls, etc., etc. Finally the mayor has a large power of local police. He has quite a large power of ordinance, a power which, like the similar power, of the prefect, is always based upon some express provision of law. The power of ordinance granted by the statutes is, however, quite a general one. He has the right to issue such ordinances as may be necessary to maintain good order, public security and health. He has also a large power of issuing orders of individual and not general application, as, e. g., to fix the building line for particular edifices, to grant building permits, to remove nuisances, and so on. All such ordinances and orders are sanctioned by the penal code, which punishes the violation of all legal ordinances and orders by a fine. An instance of the control which the prefect has over the acts of the mayor when the latter is acting as an officer of the general state administration, is to be found in the case of these ordinances and orders which may be repealed by the prefect within a month after their issue.

"As the executive officer of the communal municipal corporation the mayor has the appointment of most of the communal officers, the only important exceptions being found in the case of the local constabulary who are, to a large extent, central officers and under central control, the teachers, the forest guards, and the communal treasurer. Further the mayor is to attend to the detailed administration of all local property and is to supervise the different administrative services which are attended to by the commune. Thus in the financial administration of the commune the mayor draws up the budget of receipts and expenses of the commune, orders all expenses to be paid, has the detailed management of the revenue and property of the commune, executes its contracts and supervises its accounts and its public institutions. But in all these matters it must be remembered that the mayor is simply to execute the decisions of the municipal council, which has the final determination of all matters of communal interest.

"The municipal council is elected by universal manhood suffrage. Electors must have resided for six months within the commune or have paid direct taxes there. Electors must be registered in order to be able to vote. The rules in regard to eligibility are similar to those in force for the general council of the department. The term of office is four years. The council has four ordinary sessions each year, but extraordinary sessions may be called at any time. The meetings of the council are generally public. The mayor presides at all meetings of the council except when his accounts are being examined. As a rule a majority of the members constitutes a quorum. Finally the council may be suspended for a month by the prefect; and may be dissolved by the President of the republic. "The duties of the municipal council relate al

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

most exclusively to the local affairs of the commune, their general duties being so few in number and so unimportant in character as not to deserve special notice. In the legal provisions governing the powers of the municipal council we find a good example of the continental method of regulating the participation of the localities in the work of administration. The law of 1884 (the municipal code of the present time) simply says that the municipal council shall govern by its decisions the affairs of the commune. In order, however, to prevent the municipal council from being extravagant or acting unwisely, article 68 of the law provides that in certain eumerated cases the approval of some central authority, as a general rule the prefect, shall be necessary, before the resolutions of the council are of force. In general this approval of the central administration is necessary for the sale or long lease of communal property, for the undertaking of expensive public works, for the change of use of buildings used for general administrative purposes, for the regulation, laying out or closing of streets, for the levy of taxes above certain limits, and for the borrowing of money beyond a certain amount, and the imposition of octroi taxes, i. e., indirect taxes on objects consumed within the cities. Finally, the budget of the commune must be submitted to the central administration, which must approve it before it can be executed. The purpose of submitting the budget to the central administration, is to afford it an opportunity to see if the municipal council has made appropriation for the obligatory expenses made necessary by law, and to prevent the council from being extravagant. If the budget does not provide for obligatory expenses, levies taxes or borrows money beyond certain limits, or provides for the payment of the current expenses of the commune from loans or extraordinary revenue, the central administration may make changes in the budget so as to make it conform to the provisions of law or to what the central administration regards as proper. Otherwise the central administration may make no alterations in the budget as voted by the council. Finally, in order to prevent the municipal council from overstepping the bounds of its competence as an authority for the purposes of purely local administration and from assuming functions of a central character, it is provided that the central administration may declare any act of the municipal council outside of its jurisdiction to be void. In such case the municipal council or any one interested has the right to appeal from the decision, declaring the act of the municipal council void, to the administrative courts, which thus have the power of determining finally the question of local jurisdiction."-F. J. Goodnow, Comparative administrative law, v. 1. pp. 268-272, 285-292.

Prussian administrative law. "The present form of local government in Prussia was fixed in 1807. The Prussia of the time previous to 1807 was feudal rather than modern. The collapse of feudal Prussia at the time of the French invasion in 1806 was so sudden and so complete as to prove beyond peradventure that the magnificent fabric reared with so much pains by the great Prussian kings of the eighteenth century rested on most insecure foundations. The administrative system which had come down from the time of Frederick William I was bureaucratic to the last degree. The result of such a system was that the people participated hardly at all in the administration or even in the government, and naturally not only had lost all political capacity, but also had come to regard the government either with indifference or