been spent, as well as the character of results which have been obtained, and by making both the "fund accounts" and the "expenditure accounts" public records to which any one who may be interested may have access (subject to such reasonable rules as may be prescribed for the protection of the office), by providing further for a system of reporting which will make these facts regularly available to executive officers and periodically available to the public, any attempted subversion, any result which may show inefficiency in the organization, any waste which may be due to lack of proper attention or supervision, would be a matter which no chief executive could afford to overlook.

Should it happen that an executive officer desired to use funds wastefully or in a manner not intended, the President could not afford to assume responsibility for his action or continuation in the service. Nor would Congress be lacking in the means necessary to protect the best interests of the public, if the evidence necessary for locating executive responsibility were at all times at hand.

This is the alternative proposed to the present method of transacting public business behind closed doors and in the dark, the legislative branch dealing with the executive branch as under suspicion, the administrative officer withholding information from Congress and the public on the theory that he is to be placed on trial and must appear as a witness for his own prosecution-therefore the less said the better.

Proposals of the President Based on Common Experience and Common Sense

These proposals of the President are based on common experience and common sense. They are supported by the best judgment and the best experience which has been gained in organization and management of corporate bodies, both public and private. While officers of a private corporation are not ordinarily limited by law in such manner as to make it necessary for them to act under formal appropriations, it is the ordinary method of transacting business to have the president of a corporation lay before the board, at its annual meeting, a report

which is also made available to citizens or stockholders; it is common experience for the president, as the responsible head of the executive branch, to set forth what has been done during the past year and what it is proposed that the corporation should do during the next year; it is common experience for the president, as the head of the administration, to accompany his proposals with estimates; it is common experience for the executive, as the head of the administration, to submit estimates with recommendations as to how proposed expenditures shall be financed. These data are submitted to the board and made available to the public or the stockholders as a basis for consideration before authorization is given to go ahead. On the basis of the report submitted as well as the proposals made the president of a corporation expects to obtain the support and coöperation of the board, in so far as his record may entitle him to support and his report and proposal may in their judgment accord with the ends and purposes of the institution which they represent. When the proposal of the executive is thus clearly stated, responsibility for action taken is definitely located. In case there is a division of opinion between the board and the executive, their differences are clearly defined and may be acted upon by stockholders or citizens, as the case may require. It would be little less than insane for the trustees of a private corporation, as the representatives of stockholders, to pass a by-law requiring that each department and division head should report to the board direct what he thought ought to be done with the estimates of costs, without having these matters first passed upon by his executive superior. Under such circumstances the board could not expect to act on the best advice; what they could expect and invariably would receive would be proposals for expansion and corresponding proposals for expenditures that would bear no relation to the ability of the corporation to finance them. Such a requirement is just as adverse to intelligent planning and to the economic execution of plans in government work as it would be if imposed by the board on a private corporation. It is this method that the President is undertaking to supplant.

The Budget as a Means of Locating Congressional Responsibility Having before them a definite statement as to what it is that the President assumes responsibility for, having before them the brief of the administration supporting each proposal, then the responsibility of the members of Congress would be just as clearly marked. As each member would have before him at the beginning of the session a statement of facts about each question in which he or his constituency may be interested, each member and each committee would be in a position at once to go into each item or question submitted, and in case. any detail necessary to complete understanding was lacking, to ask that this detail be supplied. The effect of such a proposal as is made by the President would be to make each member of Congress free to think, to speak and to vote as he chooses on each proposition for which the President assumes responsibility; he would be able to act independently instead of being led around by the nose by some one, or some few, who may have a monopoly of information. But while each member is thinking and speaking and voting, citizens may likewise be thinking; the press may be speaking; the constituency of each member may be busy "instructing their representative" as to which proposals of the administration or of Congress are at variance with their views.

One proposal of the President deserves special consideration, viz., that in case Congress sees fit to bring in new measures— measures requiring appropriations not contemplated in the budget submitted by the President-such measures shall be submitted as a separate bill, instead of being injected as a "rider" on the regular bill. The advantage of such a proposal is obvious. It puts responsibility where it belongs. It gives to the President the same opportunity to consider and act independently on proposals for appropriations originating in Congress that Congress has with respect to proposals originating with the administration.

The Difficulties which Lie in the Way of the President In giving this enlarged interpretation to executive responsibility under the constitution, President Taft has undertaken a

task the difficulties of which can scarcely be comprehended. Not only has the government never had a budget, but it has never had a balance sheet; it has never had an operation account; it has never known how it stood financially; it has never had any means for reviewing its contracting and purchasing relations; it has never had the information necessary for considering questions of economy and efficiency of service rendered. As a safeguard against ignorance and official irresponsibility, the service has been bound up in a mass of red tape that makes efficient management impossible. Instead of being able to base his proposals on accounts and reports such as are ordinarily available to a corporate executive, the President is put to the extremity of requiring re-analyses of all the transactions of the past two years. He is also put to the necessity of having the estimates prepared on entirely new lines. This could not be done before the last fiscal year was completedJuly 1. The mass of detail which must be analyzed and summarized is only suggested when we consider that the Government is engaged in practically every kind of undertaking known to private concerns, and on a scale that puts executive attention and judgment to the severest test. That the first budget submitted cannot be all that may be desired is certain; but if, through this first submission, the people of the United States have laid before them a picture of what it is that Congress is asked to finance, and if the way be pointed out for locating responsibility for failure to provide adequately for welfare needs, an end will have been achieved that will make it as impossible to continue to do business by the methods that have obtained as it would be for the American people to revert to coach and pillion after the introduction of the railroad and the automobile.

(179)

EFFICIENT ORGANIZATION OF THE PERSON

MY

NEL IN ADMINISTRATION 1

W. F. WILLOUGHBY

Professor of Jurisprudence and Politics, Princeton University

Y discussion of this topic will be confined entirely to a consideration of the problem as it presents itself in

our national government, though most of the points raised and lines of action urged are, it is believed, of more general application.

The subject of the government personnel may be considered from a number of viewpoints:

(1) That of improvement of our political institutions and purification of politics.

(2) That of justice between individual citizens in respect to opportunities for entrance into the government service, and of advancement after entrance according to personal merit.

(3) That of efficiency, or securing the maximum return in work done for expenditures made for remuneration of personal service.

In a general way these three manners of viewing the question may be said to be those of looking at the problem from the standpoint of: (1) the general public, (2) the employe and (3) the employer.

It is my purpose to approach this important question of efficiency in administration from the third of these standpoints -that of the employer, the hard dollars-and-cents point of view of getting the most for your money.

The personnel of the government may, for purposes of consideration, be divided into three classes: (1) Subordinate positions. (2) Directing personnel at Washington. (3) Field positions.

In respect to the first of these, the selection of entrants to the

1 Read at the meeting of the Academy of Political Science, October 26, 1912.