228 
THE AMERICAN-SC AN DIN AVI AN REVIEW 
junkers. In England the bureaucratic machine (so far as it exists) 
was for many years disputed ground between the landed and indus¬ 
trial interests, and this situation helped to extend the famous two- 
party system beyond its natural term of years, the landed aristocrats 
being called Conservatives, while the industrial plutocrats were known 
as Liberals. It must be added, however, that the lack of independ¬ 
ence so characteristic of bureaucracies is not due to “corruption,” but 
is rather a consequence of the fact that the ideals of the bureauciatic 
class are either identical with or dominated by those of the social stratum 
above. From this stratum many officials are directly recruited, and 
by virtue of their social prestige they leaven the mass so effectively 
that a class loyalty is established which in time of conflict shows itself 
to be more powerful than the loyalty to the State as a whole. 
Now the striking peculiarity of Icelandic bureaucracy is that no 
such superimposed loyalty exists. There is no non-official gioup in 
Iceland to which officialdom is subservient, and this for the all-sufficient 
reason that such groups as do exist are weaker than the bureaucracy 
itself, and thus tend to be drawn into the bureaucratic orbit rather 
than to exercise drawing-power of their own. The independence of 
Icelandic officials is thus very real, and if independence is as good a 
thing as it is supposed to be, the governmental peifoimance ougit 
to be better than the average. In many ways it is better than the 
average. Thus, crime of any sort is practically non-existent, yet the 
inhibition of the criminal element is far from being accomplished by 
a ferocious insistence upon law and order at any cost, the atmosphei e 
is one of freedom, not of suppression. On the other hand, too much 
bureaucratic independence has its bad points, as the histoiy of pio- 
hibition in Iceland shows—and perhaps it may be permissible to dwell 
somewhat on this subject, in view of the intrinsic interest which it has foi 
Americans. 
Prohibition was established in Iceland by referendum, and thus 
began propitiously with a solid basis of popular support. In spite 
of this, however, the law is generally and justly regarded as a failuie. 
Some blame the doctors for this, and it must be admitted that the 
practice of medicine in Europe generally, and not least in Iceland, 
involves a most liberal use of alcohol as a cure-much if not cure-all. 
The truth is, of course, that medicine is a tradition as well as a science, 
and consequently clings to traditional remedies long after science has 
discarded them. Witness phlebotomy, which survived well into the 
nineteenth century. Yet honest doctors after all write prescriptions 
for the sick, not for the well, and their charges will hardly be found 
wandering the streets, drunk or otherwise. As for the dishonest doc¬ 
tors, the officers of the law may be expected to deal with them. Here 
we reach the crux of the matter, for in fact the prohibition law is a 
failure simply because it is not enforced. Nor is there prospect that 
