Frederick F. Blachly

Approaches to Governmental Liability in Tort: A Comparative Survey

The rapid growth of public services and functions in most countries, the large number of persons engaged in the civil service or in the military forces, and the increase in the number of risks brought about by mechanisms such as the automobile, the airplane, and other methods of transportation, mean that an ever-increasing number of persons will suffer injuries resulting from governmental acts and operations. A problem of great importance, then, is that of the responsibility of the state and its agents for such injuries. The solution of this problem involves considerations dealing with: The nature of the state; an ethical basis for the establishment of responsibility; a legal basis for the establishment of responsibility; the types of action for which the state and its agents should be responsible; the persons to whom it should be responsible; and the relationship that should exist between the state and its subdivisions and agents. In addition to these theoretical considerations, attention must be given to a number of practical problems, such as: How should claims against the state and its agents be handled? How shall the divisions of government meet their obligations? What is the best method of protecting officers in their governmental duties? Can one system of responsibility be established that is applicable to all divisions of government? No two countries have solved their problem of responsibility in the same way. This is due largely to the historical circumstances under which the systems have been developed. An attempt will be made in this paper to summarize the ways in which the responsibility of the state and its agents for tort are solved in England, the United States, Germany, and France, and to establish a theoretical and practical basis for the more satisfactory solution of the problem in the United States. Responsibility will be examined in these various countries, so far as possible, as it exists in the three chief

Regulated Monopoly versus Enforced Competition

T HE method of dealing with trusts and combines which has been adopted by Germany aff ords a striking contrast to the method employed in the United States. Our assumption that monopoly is evil in itself, and that &dquo;trust-busting&dquo; is consequently a crusade for social and economic righteousness, is not shared in Germany. Her laws and ordinances express very clearly a quite different doctrine, namely, that the evil so often associated with trusts lies not in monopoly

Fiscal Control in Oklahoma

living within their income. With the introduction of the budget and the various methods of fiscal control which accompanied it, there came at last an effective method of limiting the states expenditures and keeping them within the revenue during each fiscal period. The financial and accounting systems of state governments have not reached a highly developed stage, and the next ten years will probably witness many changes and improvements. And yet the methods of fiscal control in use today have done much to eliminate the waste and extravagance of former years. The present systems of accounting and reporting afford the information necessary for intelligent planning and for the continuous study of comparative costs, which will lead to further economy and efficiency in the conduct of state business.