SIXTH CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF LOCAL Delegates: AUTHORITIES (Berlin and Munich, Germany, June 8-13, 1936) Louis Brownlow, Director of Public Administration Clearing House, Chicago, Illinois, and Chairman of the American Committee of the International Union of Local Authorities, Washington, D.C., Chairman of the Delegation; G. Lyle Belsley, Ph.D., Executive Director, Civil Service Assembly of the United States and Canada, Chicago, Illinois; Phillips Bradley, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts; 1 Carl H. Chatters, Executive Director, Municipal Finance Officers' Association of the United States and Canada, Chicago, Illinois; Rowland Egger, Ph.D., Professor of Public Administration, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; John A. Fairlie, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois; Luther Gulick, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Public Administration, New York, New York; 1 Clifford W. Ham, Executive Director, American Municipal Association, Chicago, Illinois; Fred K. Hoehler, Executive Director, American Public Welfare Association, Chicago, Illinois; Benjamin Lippincott, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Samuel C. May, Director, Bureau of Public Administration, University of California, Berkeley, California; Charles E. Merriam, Ph.D., Chairman, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Guy Moffet, Executive of the Spelman Fund of New York, New York, New York; Lindsay Rogers, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, New York; 1 Beardsley Ruml, Ph.D., Member of the Advisory Committee of the National Resources Committee, New York, New York; John G. Stutz, President of the American Municipal Association, Topeka, Kansas; Henry W. Toll, Executive Director, Council of State Governments and American Legislators' Association, Chicago, Illinois; Leonard D. White, Ph.D., of Illinois, Commissioner, United States Civil Service Commission; 'Did not attend. Otis T. Wingo, Jr., Director, National Institute of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.1 Forty-three countries were represented at the Congress by approximately 300 delegates. On the agenda of the Congress were the following questions: (1) The campaign against unemployment by local governments; (2) The cultural enterprises of local governments. The sessions in Berlin, which were held from June 8 to 11, were devoted to the consideration of the first question, and at the sessions in Munich, on June 12 and 13, the second question was considered. The Congresses of the International Union of Local Authorities, in accordance with its statute of organization, are always devoted to discussions only; and no resolutions are presented, considered, or adopted. It has heretofore been the custom of the International Union of Local Authorities to assemble two types of meetings-plenary congresses, which are held triennially; and occasional conferences, which are called at such time as the Permanent Bureau of the Union considers desirable. The last triennial plenary congress was held in London in 1932, and at that time it was decided to hold the next Congress in Berlin in 1935. The meeting was subsequently postponed to 1936. The next plenary congress will be held in 1939. The decision as to the place of the meeting was postponed to a later date. The International Union of Local Authorities decided to hold its congresses hereafter at the same time and place as the congresses of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, which deals with similar administrative problems occurring on the national level. It was also decided that the International Union, in collaboration with the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, would assemble a conference to be held in Paris in July 1937, for the specific purpose of consulting with other international organizations of a technical and professional character which have an interest in municipal government, such as international organizations in the field of health, social work, housing, town-planning, highway construction and administration, and public-works engineering. Copies of the general reports on the two subjects which were discussed at the Congress may be obtained from the Director General of the International Union of Local Authorities, Senator Emil Vinck, 3bis, rue de la Régence, Brussels, Belgium. 'Did not attend. ་ CONFERENCE FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN DANGEROUS DRUGS Delegates: (Geneva, Switzerland, June 8-26, 1936) Stuart J. Fuller, of Wisconsin, Assistant Chief, Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Department of State; H. J. Anslinger, of Pennsylvania, Commissioner of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury. Legal Adviser: Frank X. Ward, of Pennsylvania, Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State. This Conference met at Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations. Delegates of 40 governments were present, together with observers sent by two other governments and representatives of the International Criminal Police Commission of Vienna, the last-named being an unofficial organization whose representatives attended in an expert and advisory capacity only. The Conference was convened for the purpose of drawing up a convention designed to supplement the Hague Opium Convention of 1912, the Geneva Drug Convention of 1925, and the Narcotics Limitation Convention of 1931-specifically a convention which would call upon governments to impose upon persons engaged in the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs, penalties that would be adequate to act as deterrents, and also call upon them to punish the persons within their jurisdiction who arrange or facilitate the smuggling of dangerous drugs in territory outside of the country in which they reside, and which would strengthen and extend the system of extradition of offenders for contravention of the laws relating to dangerous drugs. Thus, the specific purpose for which the convention was understood originally to have been intended is to require governments to provide, by legislation, penalties adequate to enforce the legislation already stipulated by the existing drug conventions to be enacted and enforced by governments and also to provide measures designed to aid officers of the law in their efforts to suppress the illicit traffic. The American Government, in response to the expressed desire of other governments that an additional drug convention be drawn. up and in the hope that an instrument might be fashioned which would (1) strengthen the measures at present available to prevent infringement of the principles laid down in the opium and drug conventions and (2) provide international agreement to prevent and to punish in an effective and deterrent manner the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, whether raw or refined, sent delegates to participate in the work of the Conference. It was hoped that the Conference would enlist the increased cooperation of other governments in the international effort to suppress the abuse of narcotic drugs, particularly in the suppression of all kinds of illicit transactions in opium and its derivatives, in coca and its derivatives, and in cannabis and its derivatives. The convention as drafted by the Conference, however, is regarded as not calculated to give effect to the intent and purpose of the older drug treaties. It contains no provision formulating the elementary principle that the offender against the laws for the control of narcotic drugs should be deprived of the proceeds of his illegal acts. The Conference rejected a proposal for a provision of this kind. The convention is regarded as wholly inadequate in respect of offenses against laws for control of the production of raw materials, opium, coca leaves, and particularly cannabis. Had the suggestions of the American Delegation been followed, the convention might have provided, in a number of countries, the requisite constitutional basis for Federal legislation to control the last-named drug, now generally recognized as a dangerous growing menace. The offenses enumerated in the convention are not set forth with sufficient precision to afford a clear and legally adequate basis for the legislation necessary to make their prosecution possible. The provisions concerning extradition are regarded as ineffectual and tending to jeopardize existing extradition arrangements in respect of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. The convention totally fails to meet the situation in countries. where extraterritoriality obtains, those being the very countries where the drug situation is at present most acute. The convention as drafted by the Conference would require the American Government (and possibly other governments) to replace its entire existing system of control, prevention, and prosecutiona system which has proved its worth and has received thorough interpretation in the courts-by a much weaker system. The convention is drafted in such a way that this effect could not be obviated by reservation. Far from requiring governments to impose penalties adequate to enforce the legislation already stipulated in the existing drug conventions, to be enacted and enforced by governments, the convention is considered as having the effect of weakening, rather than strengthening, the existing international organization for suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and attempting to limit in scope the obligations imposed by the existing drug treaties. When the convention was presented for signature, the American Delegation placed on record a detailed statement of the reasons why the American Government could not consider affixing its signature to the instrument. The convention as drafted was regarded as necessarily unacceptable to the United States and was not signed by the American. Delegates. FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE JOURNÉES MÉDICALES DE BRUXELLES (Brussels, Belgium, June 20-24, 1936) Delegate: Claude C. Pierce, of Tennessee, Medical Director, United States Public Health Service, in Supervisory Charge of Service Activities in Europe, American Embassy, Paris.1 Twenty-one countries were represented at the session by 32 official delegates, and in addition to the government delegates there were present many representatives of foreign academies, universities,. medical groups, associations, and periodicals. A total of 1,142 persons attended the meeting. The purpose of the annual sessions of the Journées Médicales. de Bruxelles is to bring to Brussels representatives from the medical profession in other countries, with a view to facilitating the exchange of information concerning recent developments in the scienceof medicine. To this end a number of clinical demonstrations were arranged in various hospitals in Brussels and a number of papers. on topics of general interest in the field of medicine were presented to the session. No discussion was held and no vote taken or resolution adopted, following any of the lectures. The next session will be held in June 1937. An International Exposition of Sciences and Arts applied to Medicine, Surgery, Pharmacy, and Hygiene is always held at the same time as the Journées Médicales de Bruxelles and under its auspices. Several American firms were represented represented in this exposition. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CONGRESS OF THE WORLD Delegates: (London, England, June 22-27, 1936) John Van Nostrand Dorr, D.Sc., New York, New York; Martin Hill Ittner, Ph.D., President of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Jersey City, New Jersey. 1 Did not attend. |