Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 04.djvu/885

CIVIDALE DEL FKIXJLI. CrVIL ADMINISTBATION. CIVIDALE DEL FRIITLI, clie'vfr-da'ia U61 fr^-uo'lt- (|)robably from -ML. 'civitalis, from cii'ilux, town). A city in nortlioastern Italy, in the Province of Udine. near the Austrian border, about 10 miles east by north of the city of that name, with which it is connected by rail (Map: Italy, H 1). The picturesque Natisone, which flows through the city, is spanned by a fifteentli- century bridge. A cathedral of the same age con- tains an "often-restored' bapstistery of the eighth century, and among its archives a translation of the tJospels by Saint .Jerome, written in the fifth century, a tenth-century psaltery, and many other valuable manuscripts and art treasures. In the museum are many Roman and Lombard antiquities. Cividale was for many years the residence of Lombard dukes. The modernized city has a military- training-college, and silk, cotton, and linen factories. Population (com- mune), in 18S1. S-20.5; in 1901, 9061. CIVIL ACTION (Lat. civilis, from civis, citizen). Any judicial proceeding involving a controversy between individuals in regard to their private matters, distinguished from pro- ceedings where pulilic interests are concerned, as in a criminal prosecution. Civil actions in- clude the procedure in a court of chancery or equity, and also those cases in which the State submit.s to an action by an individual. See Action ; Prosecutiox, CIVIL ADMINISTRATION. In the most general sense, equivalent to public administra- tion—the conduct of the affairs of the State, or Government, or of any subordinate division there- of. In a more restricted sense, the term is fre- quently employed to describe the management of the municipal or non-military concerns of the State: and sometimes, more narrowly, as refer- ring to the executive and judicial departments of the Government, as distinguished from the legislative. See Admixistbatiox ; and compare Admixistbati-e L.w, The principles and the methods of civil ad- ministration vary greatly, from the simplicity and riexibility of patriarchal government or other personal autocracy, to the rigidity of a mod- ern bureaucratic system, like that of France and Russia, and the complexity of a highly devel- oped political system, like that of Great Britain and tile United States. There is a general simi- larity among modern civilized States in the or- giinization and working of the central adminis- tration. The great departments of State — those having to do with foreign affairs, with the army and navy, with the collection and disbursement of national revenue, with commerce and indus- try, and with the [lost-office — present "no great diversity, either in ftmctions or in organization. The chiefs of these departments are ministers of State, the principal and authorized advisers of the Executive, or, as in Great Britain, consti- tute the real Executive. (See Cabinet.) Usu- ally these chiefs are political and therefore temporary officers, who may come and go with- out greatly modifying the organization and methods of their departments. Their influence is great while it lasts, but is shortlived: the permanent policy of the administration, as well as its methods and personnel, being for the most part determined by permanent officials of great experience, knowTi as under-secretaries, assistant secretaries, bureau chiefs, etc. s these per- VOL. IV.— 50. nianent ofiicials are the persons who really con- duct the work of administration, so they are, in everything but the political sense of the term, responsible for the proper conduct of the affairs of their respective departments, and, Iwing so, they are usually unfettered in the choice of their subordinates. In other matters, however, especially in those of purely domestic concern — as the administra- tion of justice; the maintenance of the public peace; the sij)ervision and control of religion, of morals, and of public education; the levying and collection of taxes, direct and indirect; the conduct of elections, and the 'internal affairs' generally of the community — there is as great diversity in the organization and methods of administration as there is in the political char- acter and ideals of the several States, In those countries in which the feudal and monarchical tradition is strongest, whatever the form of the government may be. not only is the civil ad- ministration most highly centralized, but it is much further-reaching, more searching and ob- trusive than in those coimtrics which luive more completely emancipated themselves from that tradition. This is as true of republican France as of monarchical Germany and autocratic Rus- sia. In the free governments, on the other hand — as in the United States, Great Britain, and her self-governing colonies — not only is the ad- ministration decentralized, and left, as largely as possible, in the hands of local self-governing groups, but the general administration is rigidly confined to matters of general or national con- cern, and is not permitted to trench upon the local concerns of the subordinate political groups of the State. In these countries, accordingly, such matters as the building and repair of roads and bridges, and the maintenance of an adequate constabulary or j)olice force, are dealt with by the borough, parish, town, or city, and not by the State; while, in the L'nited States, even the matter of public education, which is conceded to be an affair of State, and is usually governed by State statutes, is, for the most part, turned over to the locality eoncemed — -the city or school district — for administration. Wliile in no modern civilized State is the ad- ministration wholly centralized, or. on the other hand, wholly decentralized, the two systems are, in their principles and methods, if not in their actual embodiment in practice, so sharplr dis- criminated as to call for a few words of com- parison. Doubtless a centralized administration is capable of a much higher degree of efficiencv than is attainable under the other system. For matters of great moment, requiring time for Iheir maturing, and, when ripe, calling for prompt and decisive action, it is indispensable, Xo govenmicnt would think of employing any other system in its military and international affairs. Then, too, it achieves a certain uni- formity and regularity of action, and thus tends to strengthen the established government by giving its administration an impersonal effect of jiermanence and solidity. On the other hand, these very qualities of regularity and imiformity of action tend to harden into the inflexibility and routine of bureaucratic system, which, being lifted above public opinion and free from any effective criticism, crystallizes its abuses in the form of hallowed customs, and lends itself too easily to oppression.