career teretts Picerceatrereprenemteesesrersr oni eee et) ecceaeeaee o Sete pereiefoninbuyeeey sermon Soresefyectmiste ec yeseerctd ace Seemann aoe HJ 205! C63 ay Cornell University Library Ithaca, New York BOUGHT WITH THE. INCOME OF THE ’ SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 adSDN ee A RRs ac [se 56 AV HJ2051 .C63 “aT 030 263 085 a Cornell | University Library | THE BUDGET AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT American Soctal Progress Series EDITED BY SAMUEL McCUNE LINDSAY, Pu.D., LL.D., CoLuUMBIA Universiry A series of handbooks for the student and gen- eral reader, giving the results of the newer social thought and of recent scientific investigations of the facts of American social life and institutions. Each volume about 200 pages. 1. THe New Basis oF CIivILIzaTION. By Simon N. Patten, Ph.D., LL.D., Uni- versity of Pennsylvania. 2. STANDARDS oF Puspric. Moratiry. By Ar- thur Twining Hadley, Ph.D., LL.D., President of Yale University. 3. Misery aNp Its Causes. By Edward T. Devine, Ph.D., LL.D., Columbia Uni- versity. 4. GOVERNMENTAL AcTION For SoctaL WeEt- FARE, By Jeremiah W. Jenks, Ph.D., LL.D., Cornell University. 5. Soca, Insurance. A ProcramM or So- ciaL Rerorm. By Henry Rogers Sea- ger, Ph.D., Columbia University. 6. SoctaL RerorRM AND THE CoNSTITUTION. By Frank J. Goodnow, LL.D., Columbia University. y. Tue Cuurcu anp Society. By R. Ful- ton Cutting, LL.D. 8. Tue Juvenite Court aND THE ComMMUNITY. By Thomas D. Eliot, M.A., Ph.D. 9. THe Crry Worxer’s Wortp In AMERICA. By Mary Kingsbury Simkhovitch. 10. Tae Houstne or tHe Unsxittep Wace Earner. By Edith Elmer Wood. 11. THe Bupcer anp ResponsIsLE GovERN- MENT. By Frederick A. Cleveland, Ph.D. and Arthur Eugene Buck, Ph.D. THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York THE BUDGET AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT A Description and Interpretation of the Struggle for Responsible Government in the United States, with Special Reference to Recent Changes in State Con- stitutions and Statute Laws Providing for Ad- ministrative Reorganization and Budget Reform BY FREDERICK A. CLEVELAND AND ARTHUR EUGENE BUCK INTRODUCTION BY WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT ew Pork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1920 All rights reserved “i ™~ FOF Fay ' hAqi'162 CoryvRiGHT, 1920, Br THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and electrotyped. Published May, 1920. EDITOR’S NOTE ALONG with the discussion of a budget system and budgetary procedure in city, state and nation, which has progressed with growing intensity during the past fifteen years, there has been a wide range of practical experi- mentation in the application of the budget idea, especially in municipal and state governments in the United States. It seemed a few months ago when the National Budget Committee was organized and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, as a citizens’ movement, that the time had come to have this experience summar- ized and interpreted by competent authorities, especially when the appointment of select committees of inquiry in both houses of Congress indicated that we were likely to have national legislation in the near future looking to the establishment of some kind of a national budget system. The editor of this series was gratified to find that he could get Dr. Frederick A. Cleveland and Mr. Arthur E. Buck to undertake the task, and former President Wil- liam Howard Taft to furnish an introduction to the vol- ume. Dr. Cleveland is not only a pioneer but also the foremost authority in America on the subject of the bud- get. He has had an exceptional professional training and experience in the underlying political theories of democracy, and the technical problems of public account- ancy. ‘The whole budget movement in the United States owes much to his persevering activities, since he planned and installed the budget system of the great municipal government of New York City ten years and more ago, on a scale that almost rivalled in complexity and size of operations the business of the Federal Government not many decades ago. ‘Later he was the Chairman of Presi- Vv vi Editor's Note dent Taft’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency, and in that capacity directed and made the first and only com- prehensive catalogue and survey of the operations of the Federal Government. In connection with the Constitu- tional Convention of 1915 in New York State he directed and made a similar survey of the organization of the government of the Empire State. President Taft was the first chief executive of the na- tion, or of any American state, who fully grasped and presented the issues of the budget principle in relation to legislation and public administration in any government. Mr. Buck was not only trained under Dr. Cleveland as a member of the staff of the New York Bureau of Munic- ipal Research, with which Dr. Cleveland had been con- nected from its organization and of which he was some- time Director, but had also had notable experience as adviser to Governor Harrington of Maryland, in the preparation of the first Maryland state budget, and in other states as well. Mr. Buck was therefore exception- ally qualified to deal with the subject matter of Parts II and III of this volume, for which he is chiefly responsible. This volume is dedicated to the proposition that the foundations of all democratic institutions must rest on an effective means of making government responsive to public opinion. The method of exposition is historical and descriptive of the devices developed in response to the popular demand that public business shall be “ vis- ible” and that leadership shall be “responsible.” After laying down the commonly accepted proposition of popu- lar control (right of election, acquiescence in the decision of a majority, and the need for a forum before which the responsible heads of the public service may be ar- raigned), Dr. Cleveland, as author of Parts I, HY, and V of the text, maintains this thesis : (1) That the outstanding need, which our federal con- Editor's Note Vil stitution was designed to meet, was a need for executive leadership, which vested in the President “ the executive power ” and gave to him the means for making his leader- ship effective ; (2) That the “ visibility” of leadership is provided for by requiring “a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public monies,”’ and mak- ing it the duty of the President ‘“ from time to time to give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall deem necessary and expedient ”’; (3) That means of enforcing “ responsibility ’ were put in the hands of Congress, and the electorate, by giv- ing to Congress the control over the purse, and making both the President and the controlling representative and appropriating body answerable to the people for the man- ner in which their powers are exercised ; (4) That immediately after this new federal govern- ment had been set up, these underlying principles of popular control were violated, by Congress insisting on retaining to itself the leadership which during the revo- lutionary period had been exercised by committees and refusing to permit Hamilton, as President Washington’s representative, to come before them to give an account of stewardship and to submit plans and proposals to be fi- nanced — the result being the centralized government by standing committees administrated by a bureaucracy, with a board of strategy organized outside of the government ‘by irresponsible political parties. The constructive proposals in this part of the book are largely those which will be found in the report of Presi- dent Taft’s Commission on Economy and Efficiency. They may be summarized as follows: 1. “ That the President shall each year get before the Vili Editor's Note country what it is that the administration desires to do: shall indicate in a budget message wherein action is nec- essary to enable the administration adequately to meet public needs. . . . That the President, under the powers given to him by the constitution is in a better position than any one else to dramatize the work of the Govern- ment, to so impress this upon the attention of the people through the public press . . . as to arouse discussion and elicit comment such as will keep the Congress, as well as the administration in touch with public opinion when de- ciding whether or not the proposals are such as will best meet welfare demands.” 2. That “as an incident to such procedure it is thought that there must necessarily develop a system of represen- tation which will consistently support the administration program which is submitted,’— The same idea being elaborated and the report continuing to show that “a budget system necessarily carries with it means for de- veloping an administrative program and means for pre- senting it and defending it before the legislative branch of the government and the country.” 3. Having provided adequately for executive leader- ship the exercise of effective control over this leadership, both by the representative branch and the electorate, de- pend on the development of a procedure of inquest, criti- cism, and discussion in Congress before the whole body as an open forum, in which each member shall be called upon to vote for or against the plan or program to be financed, section by section and as a whole. In this con- nection it is claimed that the recognized purpose of com- mittees of Congress should be to find out what is being proposed and to bring every proposal into critical review before the members and the country. In other words, the committees should be of two kinds, those acting as attorneys for the administration, and those as its critics. Therefore, the committee assuming leadership for the Editor's Note ix budget should be taken from the pro-administration party and the committee assuming critical leadership should be made up chiefly from the opposition. In the ranks of the National Budget Committee there developed differences of opinion almost from the start concerning the relative merits of the proposals for a na- tional budget system, especially with respect to the loca- tion of the budget bureau and the concentrating of re- sponsibility for the initiation of the budget in the office of the President, as provided for in the Good bill which passed the House of Representatives almost unanimously Oct. 21, 1919, and the plan of the McCormick bill in- troduced in the Senate but not yet reported out by the Select Committee of which Senator McCormick is chair- man. Senator McCormick’s plan puts the budget bureau under the Secretary of the Treasury and divides respon- sibility for revision of the estimates and preparation of the budget between that officer and the President who, however, must transrnit and assume financial responsibil- ity for the initiation of the budget. The difference of opinion on this point is largely one of emphasis. Mr. Taft is primarily interested in seeing executive responsibility fixed and strengthened and therefore nat- urally prefers the Good plan, while Dr. Cleveland is so much attracted by other features of the McCormick plan which seems to him to spell executive representation be- fore the legislature and the putting of the “ opposition ” where it can make clear-cut issues and public debate of budget questions, that he seems to prefer it as a whole and to think that the Good bill, even with the revision of rules contemplated by separate resolutions not yet acted upon by the House, would mean the perpetuation of many evils of the present committee system. The National Budget Committee’s position is that a combination of the two plans in a McCormick-Good bill, x Editor's Note which may finally be enacted by Congress, will give us the advantages of a budget system in which the responsi- bility of the President for the initiation of the budget, and for the correction of the evils which any budget sys- tem is sure to reveal in the business organization of the Government, through some such powers as were con- ferred on the President as a war measure by the Overman Act, but practically unused by him hitherto, will be made unquestionably secure, and Congressional responsibility for criticism and decision of clear-cut issues of policy will be made equally clear and effective. SAMUEL McCune LINDsay. Columbia University, March 17, 1920. PREFACE This volume was begun as a report to the National Budget Committee. Much has been written and pub- lished on the subject of budget since 1912, when propa- ganda for a national budget was seriously begun by Presi- dent Taft in a special message to Congress urging the adoption of the recommendations of his Commission on Economy and Efficiency. In the seven years following Congress did nothing. Meanwhile action was taken look- ing toward the introduction of a budgetary procedure by forty-four of the states and scores of cities. And now, out of the entanglements ‘of war finance the question has come back to bother Congress. During the last year a volume was brought out by Dr. W. F. Willoughby, descriptive of the budget legis- lation passed in the several states. The story of how these laws have worked, where they have been in opera- tion long enough to judge, was still to be written. In undertaking this task, it at once became evident that, since a budget is only a method or mechanism of control, judgment as to the value of one budget system or an- other must take into account the working relations be- tween the representative or controlling body on the one hand and the administrative leadership over which con- trol is to be exercised on the other. This in turn led to a consideration of the manner in which leadership is or- ganized and expressed. In other words, a study of the organic laws of the several states was found to be an es- sential part of a report on budgetary procedure. Upon taking stock of what had been done in this par- xl xil PREFACE ticular it was found that in addition to the wealth of pub- lished materials made available by state boards and com- missions, a report was in course of preparation by the Governor’s Reconstruction Commission of the State of New York, dealing with, among other things, the subject of administrative reorganization in the several states. Mr. Buck of the New York Bureau of Municipal Re- search was a member of the staff of this commission and was immediately responsible for the preparation of these materials. He was, therefore, asked to collaborate in the collection of further materials dealing with the budget experience in the states. Chapters IX, X, XI and XII in this book contain the materials, in modified form, which have appeared in the Commission’s Report on Retrench- ment and Reorganization in the State Government. Chapter XIII was prepared with the assistance of Mr. Luther H. Gulick of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, who as secretary of the Joint Special Com- mittee on Finance and Budget Procedure of the Massa- chusetts Legislature was particularly qualified to make this contribution. I take this opportunity also to acknowl- edge indebtedness to Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay, Vice- Chairman of the National Budget Committee, and editor of the Series in which this volume appears. Bae ee Norwood, Mass. February 1, 1920. INTRODUCTION I am glad to write a Foreword to this book. Mr. Cleveland I have known for a number of years. He isa pioneer in the reform of the wasteful methods of govern- ment finance in municipal, state and the federal field. He is not a mere public accountant — he is a student of gov- ernment, and he has thought out methods for avoiding the ordinarily sloppy and irresponsible manner of man- aging the public business in a Democracy, by giving to our ubiquitous sovereigns, the people, the knowledge which they should have of the numerous monetary trans- actions of their agents in which they are interested. The great problem of popular government on its practical side is to create machinery by which those for whom govern- ment is carried on, and who should control and direct gov- ernment in a large way, shall be advised of the facts, and upon those facts, correctly interpreted, shall exercise dis- criminating criticism and ultimate decision. Mr. Cleve- land rightly conceives that one of the great defects in the past which has led to wastefulness and ineffectiveness in government finance is the failure to keep the public thus advised. This leads to invisible government which does not make for either efficiency, economy or honesty. Mr. Cleveland regards a proper governmental budget as very important in eliminating ‘“ invisible government.” The budget system for governments has had its fullest and most successful development in Great Britain, and it has squared with the whole structure of government in that country. When therefore we attempt to adapt the results there attained to our own case we are somewhat xiii xiv I ntroduction embarrassed by the constitutional differences between the British governmental system and ours. In English history, the King was the Executive, and Parliament and the House of Commons, as the originator of financial legislation, were the donors of the funds with which the King was to conduct his government. He ap- plied to Parliament for enough to run the nation. Par- liament considered his application and determined whether he was not asking too much. In order to induce com- pliance with his request, he found it wise to elaborate the details of his needs and prove them to the satisfaction of the representatives of the people who were to be bur- dened with the cost. Each year Parliament had to deter- mine how much it thought the King needed of what he asked, and the particular methods of taxation by which the money could be taken from the people. It was this statement which constituted the budget. It showed how much was to be spent in detail and showed the source from which and method by which what was to be spent should be secured. The natural attitude:in such an arrangement of the representatives of the people was that of closest scrutiny of the petition of the King for appropriation and of reluctance and opposition toward too great expenditure. It did not enter into the early idea of the relation between the executive and legislative branches that the legislative branch could be a factor in increasing the appropriations. Hence in the reign of Queen Anne it became a standing order of the House of Commons that no motion to increase any item in the supplies should be in order except upon motion of the Crown. Of course the relations between the executive and the legislative branches have had a revolutionary change in Great Brit- ain, so that the King has ceased to be the executive, and the Government is carried on by a Premier and a Cabinet, who are the real executive and, as leaders of the majority in the House of Commons, also constitute the moving Introduction XV: party in the legislative and appropriating branch. But whatever changes the constitutional changes in the British government have made, the important features of the budget remain. Detailed estimates are made by the gov- ernment and furnished for examination and determination by the committees in Parliament and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a representative of the Crown ultimately pre- sents to Parliament, in a succinct, graphic way, the general financial condition of the Treasury, what is needed to run the Government for another year, and the taxation method by which it is to be raised. It is a comprehensive speech, adapted to popular understanding, and the result of ex- pert work in the executive offices and in committee, and is presented in such a way as a whole that the press and other instruments of publicity can bring it to the people and present the issues arising out of its important factors clearly and with a sense of proportion. The people can judge from such a budget how much each important item costs and how they could be relieved from taxation if the item were omitted. . Except in the very early days of the Republic, when Hamilton, with his wonderful genius, was inaugurating the business side of our Government, we never had any- thing like a proper budget. We have never had concen- trated in one capable body the duty of detailed calculation of what is needed to run the Government for a year and the systematic fixing of the taxation sources from which the money needed is to be procured. It is true that the General Appropriation Committee of the House, until within some decades, did have the function of making all the appropriations for the Government, and it is also true that earlier the function of determining the ways and means was united with that of fixing the expendi- tures; but we never have had executive responsibility for the preparation of the expense plan of the Govern- ment, with a suggestion of the means by which it could xvi Introduction be met. The Executive spends the money. The Execu- tive operates the machinery of government. Therefore, the Executive is much more intimately associated with the facts upon which the cost of government is to be deter- mined than the legislative branch can be, and if it is so minded, is better qualified to determine where real econ- omy can be effected and where apparent economy will be wasteful. This is not to be regarded as an argument in favor of taking away from the legislative branch the ul- timate decision as to the expenditure of the funds of the Government and the methods of taxation to raise them, but it is a strong reason why the legislative branch of the Government in its work of ultimately determining how much should be spent and where it should be raised should have the benefit of the assistance of the executive de- partment in an elaborate statement of how much the Government can be run for and where the money can be had. What should be the machinery to secure it? From my personal experience I have no doubt that the responsibility and power should be given direotly to the President ; that he should be allowed funds from which to create a bud- get bureau, and that the estimates prepared by the heads of departments should be subjected to the pruning and veto power of the President, as assisted by his Budget Bu- reau. There is a difference between the House and the Senate over the pending bill as to whether the Secretary of the Treasury should have the Budget Bureau as a part of the Treasury Department and should himself exercise the pruning and limiting power. The Senate bill re- lieves the secretary from some of his duties in order to enable him to discharge this additional burden. Sup- porters of the Senate bill object that the President has not the time to do this thing. I venture, in the light of the experience I have had, to differ radically with this latter view. The preparation of the budget is going to Introduction Xvii be one of the most important functions that the whole Ad- ministration performs. Therefore the President may well devote all the time that is needed to giving general form to the budget and deciding the questions that are certain to arise between his Budget Bureau and the de- partments whose estimates are to be subjected to a prun- ing. The Secretary of the Treasury will not have suffi- cient prestige with the other departments to avoid the effect of the jealousies that any one familiar with the working of departments knows must exist. The Presi- dent himself will have sufficient difficulty in adjusting the differences between his own Bureau and the various de- partments, but he can do it with his power —I doubt if the Secretary of the Treasury can. The conservatism of chief clerks and those who have been long in the service and under whose influence the heads of departments must come is a very difficult obstacle to overcome in seek- ing proper economy and a change of method. When one- third of the expenditures of the Government is to be through the Treasury Department itself, the expenses of that department should be passed upon by a higher power. The Good House bill, therefore, in providing for a Pres- idential budget, is much to be preferred to the McCor- mick Senate bill. The former bill gives the President an unusually effective method of keeping proper watch on the departments and of stimulating the heads of the various departments to greater detailed care in the saving of public money. More than this, the budget will neces- sarily contain recommendations involving high and im- portant governmental policies, and it is right that the head of the Administration should be directly responsible for such recommendations. Of course all these matters will be considered in Cabinet and in respect to all of them the President must be the ultimate judge. He can be saved detail, but he can not be saved and ought not to be saved the duty of exercising deliberate judgment on the XVili Introduction main issues which the budget will necessarily present. Mr. Cleveland in this work deals with another feature that can not be suppressed in the consideration of a budget system, and that is the way in which Congress shall dis- charge its duty in respect to the executive budget after it has been presented. The mere publication of an execu- tive budget and its submission to the committees of Con- gress is not enough to give it proper weight and effect. Improved as the means of publicity and information have been, the spoken word, with its accompanying incidents, is still a most important factor in bringing home to the people the critical points in any measure, especially in that of a budget. The Administration as the proponent of the budget should have an opportunity to be heard in the court to which it submits its case——that is, in Congress. The President should make the same kind of a speech to Congress as the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer in Great Britain makes to Parliament, and then his Cabinet ministers should be given the opportunity on the floor of each House to support and defend the features of the budget for which they are responsible and with which they are familiar. There is not the slightest reason why the heads of the departments should not be given seats in both Houses, with an opportunity to take part in any debate. In the discussion of the budget, both in the explanation before it shall be referred to the committees, and in criticism of the action of the committee after the committee has made its report, the Administration should be heard. It is suggested that the heads of departments could hardly support and defend estimates which had been pruned down or changed by the President. This is a reason of no substance whatever. The heads of depart- ments are and should be loyal to the Administration, and should take and support the view which the President has adopted as the Administration view in respect to the Introduction xix budget. They will have no difficulty in so doing. If any head of a department does, then his place is not in the Cabinet. Just after the Civil War, the leading statesmen of both political parties recommended that the heads of depart- ments be given seats in each House and an opportunity to join in the debate. Some twenty years later, men equally prominent in the Government, experienced in Con- gress, made a similar recommendation. Such an ar- rangement would greatly facilitate the business of Con- gress in getting at the facts through the interrogation of members of the Administration on the floor of each House; and it would give the members of each House a clear conception of the needs of the Government as the Administration thinks them to be, backed by arguments of men who must by reason of their duties know what they are talking about. Indeed the very function thus added to the others of the Cabinet ministers will stimu- late them to a closer attention to their departments and a more intimate knowledge of their working. But more important even than giving the Administra- tion a chance to explain and defend its budget in the very forum where questions are to be decided is the reform of the two Houses of Congress themselves by creating a- committee whose functions shall cover the whole field of expenditures and receipts. The division of authority in making up appropriation bills between a dozen commit- tees in each House is a travesty which necessarily leads to expansion of governmental expenditure far beyond what it would be restrained to, if all expenses were in the control of one body which at the same time was vested with the duty and power of arranging for the raising of the money. Congress, as Mr. Good, the Chairman of the Appropriation Committee says, must put its own house in order before it shall have a right to criticise the executive for extravagance. xx Introduction One may note in opposition to the budget the claim that Congress always cuts down and never adds to the estimates of the various departments. Doubtless the sta- tistics will prove this in respect to what may be called routine expenses, but that is due to the complete absence of restraint upon executive estimates. Each bureau chief and each department head now make estimates and no- body curbs them. The executive budget places responsi- bility on the President to do this. The custom has grown among executive chiefs of bureaus and departments to ask for much more than it is expected will be appropriated in order to avoid their being cut below actual requirements. Such a haphazard method of estimates and their pruning is certain to be wasteful and often misdirected and likely to hamper governmental operation. The President with his control may easily see to it that only that is asked which is needed, and he and his Administration can ex- plain why. Congress can then exercise the discretion that it should have in either approving the judgment of a responsible maker of a budget or in differing from him. In such a case Congress will be dealing with real esti- mates and a real plan and their judgment will be based on the best judgment which the Administration can fur- nish them. Never before in the history of the country has reform of its ridiculous system of spending and raising money been so critically important. For years we shall have to raise enormous amounts and the dangers of inter- fering with our prosperity by the stifling weight of tax- ation must convince everyone who thinks, of the impera- tive necessity of improving our national business system. Mr. Cleveland was a chief participant in the great work done for the city of New York by the Bureau of Munici- pal Research which after a struggle of fourteen years has brought about a radical improvement in the management of the finances and expenditures of New York City. He Introduction xxi was the Chairman of the Economy and Efficiency Com- mission which under the authority of an appropriation from Congress I appointed during my Administration to investigate the proper methods of introducing economy in the business of the Government through a budget sys- tem and in many other ways. That commission made reports which I transmitted to Congress, which ought to be of great value in assisting the present Houses in the preparation of a proper bill. The recommendations and reports of the commission did not meet the favor of lead- ing Congressmen and all the work done, contained in printed reports and unprinted manuscripts, has been dust covered until now. Of course the bureaus and divisions of governmental work have been vastly increased in num- ber and expanded in function since that time, due to the war. Still those reports are instructive. The discussions and researches of that commission reflect the highest credit on its very able members, of whom Mr. Cleveland was the official head. Mr. Cleveland had much to do in aiding the very thorough investigation of the proper meth- ods of budget reform embodied in the proposed New York Constitution of 1915. Itis for these reasons that we may welcome this book from Mr. Cleveland. Wix~irAm Howarp Tart. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION «oo «3 6 ee ee ee le PART I. HISTORIC BACKGROUND AND INTERPRE- TATION OF THE RECENT MOVEMENT FOR AD- MINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION AND BUDGET PROCEDURE CHAPTER I Tue Principles AND EssENTIALS oF PopuLAR CONTROL . Popular Good Will—the only Safe Foundation for dae tion Building . a 5 Class Domination — the Cause of Social Unrest . Need for Means of Peaceable Adjustment . Revolution —the Result of Lack of Means of Peaceable Adjustment , Realization of Ideals of ‘Democracy — Essential to Peace . What Is a Democracy? S, Gu) Gomomrrost ay, Where Justice Resides. . Present-day Meaning of “ Liberty” Meaning of “Equality” and ‘ ‘Fraternity ” - Practical Application of Concepts of Democracy . Need for Providing Organs of Volition as Well as of “Action Two Types of Organization and Leadership . Essential Characteristics of Organization and Leadership for Action Essential Characteristics of Democratic. Agencies for Deliber- ation and Decision . Essentials of Popular Control as ‘Exemplified in "Popular "As- sembly . Procedure of Deliberation as Exemplified in Trial by ‘Jury . Procedure of Deliberation in Representative Government . Procedure for the Conduct of Deliberation in Representative Assembly . ar How Publicity Can Be Given to Acts of Government . The Need for Responsible Leaders . Appeals to the People . : xxiii . xii w ON ANN APw 10 I2 12 14 15 16 18 20 2I 22 23 25 XXIV Contents CHAPTER II PAGE ESSENTIALS OF PopULAR CONTROL LACKING IN THE DEVELOPMENT oF Our PouiticaAL INSTITUTIONS . Seb og: Vitis i Attempts Made to Account for “ Social Unrest” Appeals to Patriotism to Maintain the Status Quo Popular Concept of Right. . \ Evidence of Institutional Maladjustment 6 ‘ American Institutions as Appraised by James Bryce ‘ Short-Comings Described by President Wilson . The Picture Drawn of Senator Hoar . President Roosevelt’s Stand . Proposals of Governor Hughes. . . Defects Described by President Taft . ‘ Causes of Popular Resentment Described ‘by Senator Root . The Need for an Institutional Means of Obtaining Expression of Popular Will Based on “ Deliberation” Standard for Judgment of Institutional Fitness . Wanted — An Effective Mechanism of Popular Control . CHAPTER ITI PRINCIPLES OF PopuLAR ContTrot Lain Down By JEFFERSON . Popular Control the Essence of Democracy . . How Popular Control Is Made Effective cern Representa- tives : Restatement of the Problem . An East Indian View . Democracy Insists that Leadership Shall Be Subservient . Jefferson’s Four Principles of Popular Control The Principle of Popular Elections . : Acceptance of the Principle of Majority Rule . . Arraignment of Administration in Representative Forum . The Right of Leaders to Appeal to the Eeople: from De- cision of Representative Body . . . Experience of Other Countries . : Neglect of Last Two Principles in ‘United States . CHAPTER IV IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP—ItTs CoNTRIBUTION TO INSTITU- TIONAL MALADJUSTMENT k The Boss—the Product of Condidions 3 awe ht Lack of Appreciation of Need for Leadership . The Leadership of Standing Committees . . Acceptance of the Principle of Oligarchy . The Rise of Humanitarian Civic Leadership . 37 37 38 39 40 4I 45 45 46 50 52 Contents XXV PAGE Three Groups of Irresponsible Leaders . . 60 1. The Irresponsible “ Boss” and the Irresponsible “ Party” 61 2. Irresponsible Humanitarian Leadership . 63 3. Irresponsible Agencies to Pomote Responsible Leadership Within the Government CHAPTER V THE BEGINNING OF THE RECENT MovEMENT FOR aeeentis REFORM AND A BupcET SYSTEM. . . 72 New York City a Center of Interest in Better Administration 72 A Question of News . sr 73 A: Question of Sick Babies and Padded Rolls. . . . 74 Beginning of a Nation-Wide Campaign . Be ty ee, BS The Inspirational Leadership of President Roosevelt oo oe 96 The Contribution of President Taft . . eee 97 An Effort to Institutionalize Executive Leadership - « « 78 A Portrayal of Conditions to Be GOTSREIES se ew 79 A Definite Program Proposed. . . ee eg oe a BE Preliminary Staff Inquiry . . . 8 The President’s Commission on Economy ‘and Efficiency . . 82 Request for Codperation of Congress in a Budget Procedure 83 Order of the President to Prepare a Budget. . . . . 85 Attempt of Opposition Leader to Prevent Action. . . . 85 Favorable Reception Given by the Public. . . . . . . 86 Concrete Results which Followed . . . . . .. . . 8 CHAPTER VI STATE CoMMISSIONS TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE NEED FoR ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION AND AN EFFECTIVE Bupcer PRocEDURE . ... . apa Se ss . 89 Investigations of Need for Economy and Efficiency as o1d as Our Government. . The Ro6le of Civic Agencies and Bureaus of Municipal Re- search . QI Commissions to Recommend Administrative Reorganization i in the State Governments . jm ea Recommendations for Government ‘by Commissions ‘ Recommendations for Single-Headed Administration . BAL CHAPTER VII GENERAL Discussion oF RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZA- TION PLANS To PRovIDE FoR RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP . 100 Boss Rule vs. Responsible Leadership . 101 Reorganization and Financial Responsibility in the Large Gitlés: sa Gow Bo LTE? Oe ee 8 Se ee OF! XXVL Contents PAGE The Program of the National Municipal League — Federal Plan; Commission Plan; Commission Manager Plan . 105 The Propaganda of the Short Ballot Association. . . 100 Beginning of Administrative Reorganization Movement in State Governments . 107 Reorganization Plans Providing for Centralization of Execu- tive Authority. be aS he ba A TOO) The Proposed New York Plan of 1915 Sey Tae) ae 0 See 2 Se LOD Illinois Plan . 3 sr tolzesh idee. Use Soph a OO Plans of Idaho and Nebraska. . . . . . 2... UE “The Wisconsin Idea” . fo eR ae OR Oe Ge ee EY Wisconsin Idea vs. Illinois Plan . oc we eh Bes aay ETO The New York Standing Committee System ef te, ae Gee dO CHAPTER VIII GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT STATE Bupcer ENACTMENTS . ....... .- . . 118 Budget Legislation in California and Wisconsin. . . . . 118 Budget Legislation in Other States. . . . 120 Budget Movement, a Quest for Responsible Leadership - . Tat Three General Types of State Budgets . . . . . 123 Appraisement of Types of State Budgets. . . . . . . 126 PART II. DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF PROPOSED PLANS AND RECENT LEGAL ENACTMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION IN STATE GOVERNMENTS ....... wouter es iy SP: ok} 4 BOO) Cannon’s Defense fend wD ak gh) Ge ag OF The ‘Outloak for Responsible Government. | 1... 403 Responsibility for Unrest. . . 2. 2. 2. 6 2 6 ee + G05 PART I. HISTORIC BACKGROUND AND INTER- PRETATION OF THE RECENT MOVE- MENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION AND BUDGET PRO- CEDURE THE BUDGET AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT CHAPTER I THE PRINCIPLES AND ESSENTIALS OF POPULAR CONTROL THERE is no human phenomenon more depressing, no political condition more fraught with peril to society, than a government unsupported by the good will of the people —a condition which, unabated, causes increasing distrust and social unrest, leading, when long continued, to popular despondency or acts of violence. Under such circumstances no permanence can be given to the institu- tions to which society looks for its ministry of justice and service, except as such institutions can be maintained by an overriding and overruling militarism — the discipline enforced by a dominant autocracy. Popular Good Will — the only Safe Foundation for In- stitution. Building Class rule in any form is autocratic. Autocracy in any form violates the most persistent and compelling ideals of group consciousness. And when group consciousness is awakened there is no resort for the maintenance of the established order except to corruption or terrorism. Both of these methods of control, when exercised by persons in authority, carry with them the seeds of de- struction of the very institutions which autocracy seeks to protect. 3 4 The Budget and Responsible Government Whether the governing class be an established nobility, a legalized aristocracy, an extra-legal plunder-bund, a privileged plutocracy, or a soviet of terrorists acceptable to a misguided proletariat, the continuing consent of other classes cannot be assumed. Every institution so set up rests upon a smoldering volcano. Class Domination — the Cause of Social Unrest The reason for this uncertainty and unrest is obvious. Both the motive and the underlying assumption of class rule are hostile to the ideals that move the masses. The usual motive of class rule is exploitation. The underly- ing assumption in every case is superiority of the ruling class — an assumption which, in the end, arouses the organized opposition of the masses. Both the motive and the assumption breed distrust in the government and resentment toward the governing class. For this reason any government which does not provide a means for the peaceable abatement of class rule as a condition which arouses continuing popular distrust and resentment must be prepared to meet its doom. The end is either eco- nomic and social degeneration, with corresponding po- litical weakness, or revolution. Need for Means of Peaceable Adjustment The need for providing means of peaceable adjust- ment of institutions to social environment finds another justification — it is a condition essential to survival. Political institutions grow and are subject to much the same conditions as other living organisms. In the proc- ess of growth, class rule at some time or other asserts itself because of its temporary superiority — a superiority gained through leadership. But class rule is advantage- ous only so long as class leadership can appeal to, and obtain the support of, the masses, and the favoring con- dition is the absence of a nation-wide popular conscious- The Principles of Popular Control 5 ness of desire for individual equality of opportunity. When such a consciousness is present class rule gives way to democracy, for the reason that only democratic leader- ship can command the confidence and support of the people. From class rule to democracy, however, is a long and devious road. Changes at best must come slowly. But politically organized peoples ultimately in- sist on change, when they become conscious of the need. Revolution cannot operate as a positive principle; its only service is negative. It may be highly serviceable, just as a great conflagration at times has proved to be. But constructively, as a method of adjustment, it is unfavor- able to democracy. It is unfavorable because a revolu- tion can be brought about only by class conflict; and, . left to itself, in the end it establishes class rule — the danger being that the dominant class will seek to intrench itself in the newly established order. Revolution — the Result of Lack of Means of Peaceable Adjustment A war of defense against foreign aggression con- . tributes to national unity of purpose and action, but revolution does not. Civil war may be necessary to break the domination of a ruling class which has become intrenched; but, as has been said, the immediate result, if the insurgents are successful, is to set up at least a temporary domination of another ruling class. The best that can come from revolution is a leadership, and a following favorable to the holding of governing powers in trust for all the people, till peace conditions may be reéstablished conformable to democratic ideals. Realization of Ideals of Democracy — Essential to Peace On the other hand, the ideals of democracy operating under conditions which admit of peaceable adjustment of 6 The Budget and Responsible Government existing institutions to meet social needs are such that, if realized, they make civil war impossible; for they con- tain in themselves the principles essential to the reconcil- ing of class conflict and the inspiring of mutual confi- dence. They are ideals of social optimism. The vision of democracy is a vision of a society ruled by “ justice.” Peace is assured by a good will that rests on the consciousness that every man is ready to do his bit for the benefit of all—a concept of brotherhood that means that each person is a member of a family having common rights and opportunities. What Is a Democracy? A democracy is a politically organized society the members of which undertake, one with another, to ac- cept, for purposes of control, the deliberate judgment of a majority. Institutionally, democracy means that the public agencies of the politically organized society shall be controlled by the will of a majority of its members and conducted for their benefit; or, to use the words of Lin- coln, the demands of a democracy are that the “ govern- ment of the people ” shall in the last analysis be ‘‘ by the people” and at all times be “for the people.” In the exercise of popular control over the government, de- mocracy means the decision of every question of public policy in accordance with the dictates of social conscience; it means that there must be a meeting of the minds of not less than a majority of the whole society as deter- mined by a plebiscite or representative body, or both, in- stead of the society being subject to the dictates of a personal sovereign or the consensus of the minds of a minority as a dominant privileged class. It means rule by the consensus of public opinion, including all classes, arrived at after due deliberation; 7.e¢., after each ques- tion at issue has been clearly stated, the facts supporting the claims and contentions of all parties are made known, The Principles of Popular Control 7 and the arguments of the recognized leaders of all parties have been heard. Democracy assumes, as a condition precedent to its successful operation, that means must be employed to give to its people full knowledge of facts and conditions, and the benefits of full discussion and interpretation, before a consensus of opinion is taken. Public opinion to be just, must be deliberate; and it is a primary duty of all democratic society to provide the means to make it such. Where Justice Resides Given adequate means of enlightenment, democratic justice rests on the superior rights of the whole people to sit in judgment. This superior right is insisted on, in order that the politically organized society may be as- sured that each decision will be consistent with com- monly held ideals of “liberty,” “ equality,” and “ fra- ternity,”’ as against the selfish desires of a class to es- tablish an order of things favorable to an assumption of its own superiority — the notion that an individual or a class has a right to claim advantages and opportunities not enjoyed by others. The language of democracy — that is, the terms in which the consensus of opinion shall express itself — needs no definition or elucidation because it proceeds from the thought of the people; the very essence of which is that they, the people who make the decision, shall insist on their own interpretation. For judgment, democracy assumes to need no guidance in arriving at conclusions consistent with group conscience other than that of its own chosen leadership. It only insists that it be informed and provided with a means of arriving at a consensus of opinion; that it be per- mitted to express its will; and that its decision, when reached, may be enforced. By long experience it has been found that the most 8 The Budget and Responsible Government human, the most just, the most socially sound, judgment on matters of right and duty is not the judgment of an individual or the judgment of a class, but the judgment of a majority of the whole society affected. Never has the question as to where justice resides, what is the best test to be applied to any matter of public policy, been more ably expressed than by Alexander Hamilton when discussing the virtues of democracy in a letter written to a farmer in 1775. He said: “The sacred rights of mankind, are not rummaged for among old parch- ments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature... and cannot be erased or obscured by mortal power.” There is a universal longing among mankind for “ jus- tice ’’— a justice which satisfies the desires of the human heart. And the most fundamental of all human desires is for that respect and opportunity which is expressed in demands for “ equality.’ Equality of opportunity re- quires that each individual shall be free — hence the de- mand for “liberty.” The most complete expression of this ideal is found in the common notion of “ brother- hood.” Wherever there is class domination and exploitation this popular ideal of justice is violated and organized op- position is aroused. Individuals may object to popular notions of justice, carping critics may endeavor to show that in human society there can be no such thing as lib- erty, equality, and fraternity ; but nevertheless these ideals persist and are made the basis for every appeal to group endeavor. They have been, are to-day, and ever will be the dominating motive in every democratic social action. Present-day Meaning of “ Liberty” The voice of democracy speaks in terms of the highest inspiration of the human race. These ideals form the The Principles of Popular Control 9 basis of social ethics. Under conditions of inequality enforced through institutional restraint, liberty has been given a negative meaning. But with slavery abolished, and the harshness of the law abated liberty becomes con- structive. In our democratic society, liberty is inter- preted as “the right of self-determination,” and this right is given an unselfish meaning. By “the right of self-determination” we mean the right of every individual to choose his own career and make the most of it, so long as thereby he does something that is serviceable to society. That is to say, democracy has no place for slackers; it demands service. And the liberty longed for by a democratic society is that each person must be free to choose how he shall undertake to serve himself by serving others. In other words, the free will and choice of each man must always be subject to the right of the society of free men of which he is a part to decide what is service- able and what is not. Thus the only restriction placed on the individual is the mandate of society that each man, in order to gain his liberty, shall go through the service gate; that he shall gain his freedom by service to his fellow men. This is the only view which is con- sistent with democratic notions of human happiness and common well-being. Adopting this definition of liberty, only those who are not socially minded are not free. This view sets up no barriers except to those who would claim for themselves privileges which they would not accord to others. This is the ideal which marks the distinction between autocracy and democracy. Autocracy insists that a “ divinely ap- pointed” person or a privileged class must decide what is serviceable; democracy insists on the judgment of the whole political society, leaving to the individual, however, the fullest freedom to employ and develop his faculties 10 ©The Budget and Responsible Government and to express his deepest longings within the ever widen- ing range of serviceable activities made possible by social cooperation. Meaning of “ Equality” and “ Fraternity” In our democratic society “ equality” is interpreted to mean that each person shall have a like opportunity to achieve success in whatever specialized field of service to mankind he may choose; and “ fraternity ” is interpreted to mean that, by common consent, all are members of a political family whose supreme law is mutual considera- tion and a desire to serve others carrying with it accept- ance of the principle that the individual shall at all times be ready and willing to subordinate self to the common good. Democracy, in its present-day interpretation, therefore, carries with it the notion that service to one’s fellows stands above self. Or to put it in another way, each shall be free to find his greatest happiness in his own choosing to do things which are serviceable to the society of which he is a member, claiming for himself the success which those who are served may award. It is in this concept of justice that the ideals of democracy begin and end. In this philosophy there is no room for class domination and class exploitation. Every individual and group accom- plishment or success is the accorded measure of service, whether the rewards are material or otherwise; they are, nevertheless., the rewards to man by man for benefits con- ferred. Practical Application of Concepts of Democracy Making practical application of this concept of social justice to everyday affairs, it is insisted that society has the right, by well-considered majority opinion, to decide not alone what is serviceable and what is not, but also to decide what services can best be rendered through the The Principles of Popular Control II government as its organ, and what can best be left to private arrangements or contract between individuals. Having decided that certain services can best be rendered through the government, it is for the society served to determine what shall be performed by national, state or local agencies, and how each shall be organized and con- trolled. With respect to that broad domain left to pri- vate initiative, it is for society to decide what may be per- formed by corporate and what by noncorporate agencies ; what shall be regulated as public utilities and what left to private arrangements; what services offered to society shall have professional technical qualifications prescribed by lav’; what shall be regulated to insure health and safety and what not; what provision shall be made to prevent profiteering through capitalistic monopoly and control. In fact, every relation of life must come within the rule of democratic justice to have any status or right at all; and the rule of justice having been established no one has any right or reason to complain. He may seek change in the order of things, but unless and until his proposal meets with favorable consideration he must ac- cept the judgment of mankind that what is, is right. Thus the solid foundations of government and of all human institutions and all vested rights are to be found in the laws and customs of a contented people; in laws which express the will of a majority; in constitutions which leave to the people as a whole the right of self- determination, giving them the means of gradual growth in adaptation of their institutions to an ever changing environment. Accepting this as the paramount justice to be attained through adequate and effective means of popular control, it is conceived that every constituent part of society may find a place and be an element of strength in the structure reared for the continuing service and happiness of the people,— that the “ government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not 12 The Budget and Responsible Government perish from the earth,” and that in even more perfect adaptation the spirit and the institutions of democracy may go on forever. Need for Providing Organs of Volition as well as of Action The practical problems of democracy lie in providing institutional means of self-expression: self-expression on matters of social justice; self-expression in the choice of effective instruments and agencies for individual and group accomplishment; self-expression in control over its corporate and governmental servants, its organs of collective action. Wherever government rests on the popular will there must be organs of volition as well as for action — organs of popular perception, resolution, and control as well as agencies for rendering community service. That is to say, the mind of the nation must be organized as well as the body — a personnel must be provided for delibera- tion and expression of opinion, as well as a personnel for performing physical ministerial acts. In these two fields, the one for successful functioning of organs of voli- tion, the other for the successful functioning of organs of administration, lie every problem of politics and government — every consideration which has to do with the formulation and outworkings of rules of justice and social conveniences as interpreted by group con- science and translated in action by the politically organ- ized people — the state. Two types of Orgamzation and Leadership Organization is a means; its success depends on adap- tation to an end to be achieved. The whole purpose of organized effort is to get things done, which could not be so well done or at all if left to individual effort. The problem of democratically organized group action is to The Principles of Popular Control 13 enable society to avail itself of the benefits of teamwork, and at the same time to enable the membership to control the team. Therefore, in a democracy there is something more to be done than in an autocracy; in an autocracy it is only necessary to provide the means for getting things done; in a democracy means must be found for making the doing organization responsive to the will of the people. To this end all democratically controlled group activities, whether political, industrial, social, or otherwise, must provide: 1. An organization and leadership which is effective for action, for teamwork in rendering service, for achieving results. 2. An organization and leadership for enabling the membership to determine what service or results are desired and to know whether the results which are achieved through teamwork are consistent with their determining will. The first provision is essentially administrative, its end is ministerial; the second is a deliberative and inquisi- tional function. For the first, the form of organization and procedure must be suited to teamwork or effective group action; for the second, the form of organization and procedure must be suited to deliberation and in- quisition — deliberation and inquisition which has for its purpose the arriving at conclusions through member- ship control. For the first, the leadership must be ex- ecutive, directive — leadership in planning for the devel- opment of a subordinate organization for the execution of plans, in imposing a discipline which will assign to each man a part and make him promptly responsive to every executive order given; for the second, the leader- ship must be inspirational, and suggestive or critical as the case may require — leadership which foresees needs 14 The Budget and Responsible Government for adaptation, proposes change, arrays facts and argu: ment in an appeal to reason to win the approval or dis- approval of a majority of the deliberative body with a view to making this reflect the popular will. This means that every coOdperative body, if it is to succeed in, the achievement of its ends, must provide for itself two groups of servants; that is, it must provide ser- vants who are responsible as doers, and it must provide servants who are responsible as determiners. It must organize each of these groups of servants in a different way, must arrange and dispose of the personnel of each group in a manner adapted to performing these two es- sentially different functions. The one must be adapted to rendering service — administration ; and the other must be adapted to ascertaining the will of members and im- pressing this will on the service group — the exercise of popular or membership control. The present purpose is to point to the principles and essentials of popular control. But before doing so, it may be helpful first to note the distinguishing character- istics of the organization upon which the will of the mem- bership is to operate. Essential Characteristics of Organization and Leader- ship for Action The ministerial service, the organization of the mobile service group, in order that it may achieve the purpose for which the institution exists, must be so developed that its leadership may be effective. The controlling law of administration must be the law of obedience; its dis- cipline must aim to develop in each member ability to act in cooperation. And to accomplish this every in- dividual and working group must respond to a dominat- ing directive will. The rank and file must be made up of superiors and subordinates, each subordinate in the or- ganization being responsive and responsible to executive The Principles of Popular Control 15 authority. There must be an attitude of respect; there must be personal loyalty. Such organization and dis- cipline is necessary to get things done through teamwork whether the institution, of which the serving group is a part, be autocratic or democratic. The difference between an autocracy and a democracy lies not in its administrative organization, but in the ab- sence or presence of a controlling electorate or repre- sentative body outside of the administration with power to determine the will of the membership, and to enforce the will on the administration. To satisfy the require- ments of a democracy, this nonadministrative controlling group must be a voting personnel, an electorate, broad enough to include all classes. The working or admin- istrative group must be controlled for the benefit of the whole membership as its needs are adjudged by a ma- jority. To serve the purposes of a democracy, the ad- ministrative group has the same need of a directing execu- tive, single or multiple, as in an autocracy. Effective cooperation is possible only when there is a supreme au- thority to command; but in a democracy this must be amenable to a group not under the domination of the executive but which rises superior to it in its power to decide what the service organization shall be and who shall be responsible for leadership. But if the controlling group is not to be destructive of its own purpose, it must be able to enforce its decisions upon the service group without interfering with its discipline. Therefore the controlling group must speak to the service organization through its executive leadership. Essential Characteristics of Democratic Agencies for Deliberation and Decision _ Coming now to the principles which govern the organ- ization and leadership of a popular controlling group,— to be effective and at the same time democratic, each mem- 16 The Budget and Responsible Government ber of it must be free, a law unto himself — the purpose being through individual freedom to arrive at a group opinion on any question brought up for decision, whether it be a question of group policy, or a matter of inquest into the acts and proposals of the executive, or deter- mination as to whether the executive is worthy of the confidence and the authority reposed. The purpose of the organization and leadership of this controlling group is: (1) to find out and state in form for consideration what are the questions with respect to which the collective judgment of a numerous voting membership is to be had; (2) to provide a method of inquiry and discussion which will get the question fully before this numerous member- ship with all its social and institutional implications; (3) to put the question, after consideration, in such form that it may be answered “yes” or “no,” and to record accurately the opinion of each person authorized to vote; (4) to devise an effective procedure for impressing and enforcing this collective judgment — the ascertained will of the membership. Essentials of Popular Control as Exemplified in Popular Assembly In the outworking of a small local democracy the problem of devising an organization and procedure to make the controlling group effective is a simple one. Nevertheless, its essentials are the same as must govern the organization and procedure of the controlling group in a populous, widely scattered democratic society. For this reason it seems worth while first to consider what these essentials are as they find expression in the small political unit. In a simply democratic society the entire voting mem- bership, or electorate, meet and organize themselves into a deliberative, inquisitorial, and determining body. Such an organization is found in the New England township; The Principles of Popular Control 17 such were the folkmoots of the ancient Teutons and early English; such was the controlling group as first constituted by agreement on the Mayflower before the Pilgrim fathers set about founding a colony at Plymouth. In a controlling body of this kind the first business is to organize and to provide for leadership for purposes of deliberation. To this end a chairman or moderator is appointed to conduct the proceedings and to keep order, in which purpose he is assisted by one or more sergeants at arms. There is also a secretary to keep a record. Leadership is provided for by having matters of business brought forward in one of two ways: (1) by executives or officers of the administrative group who are called to account by having them appear before the controlling body to report on their stewardship —and to submit proposals for change in administrative law and grants of authority; (2) by members of the controlling group itself, each of whom on his own initiative may submit proposals for discussion and action. In case a report or proposal is brought forward by an executive officer, it is presented to the whole body of voting members by the officer in person. After making his presentation he submits himself to questioning by any members of the controlling body who may desire further information. If the proposal comes from a member it is expected that it will be explained and defended by that member; and if the proposal calls for a committee as an aid to deliberative action it is usual to make the proposer the chairman of the committee — unless the motion for a reference to a committee comes from the opposition when the opposition leader should be in control of the committee. If opposition is developed which calls for action, the opposition or criticism must be offered in the presence of the leader criticized in order that he may be given full opportunity to explain and defend. In any case, every proposal must be presented by its sponsor in 18 The Budget and Responsible Government the form of a motion or resolve so stated that there can be no question about its meaning; and so stated that decision may be reached by a “ yes” or “no” vote. When issue is joined on any proposal, great care is taken not to have any uncertainty about it, a special pro- cedure being used so as not to confuse the opposition or criticism with the original motion. An issue presented by an opposition must therefore be clearly set forth in the form of an amendment and a vote must be taken on the amendment before the main question is put. The purpose of this special procedure is to make the leaders take sides — to enable each member to know what each leader stands for when he makes an appeal for votes. Before a vote is taken, arguments are heard from the leaders of each party — those who are sponsors for the measure, and those who lead the opposition being re- quired to submit to questioning by the voting members. It is only after each member of the deliberative body has had every chance to become informed that the matter in hand is then brought to a vote and decided. Thus every provision is made in order that every action by the controlling group may be taken after due consideration, and that the group opinion may be an act of deliberate judgment. Procedure of Deliberation as Exemplifed in Trial by Jury This procedure, developed for insuring that group action shall be based on deliberation, is not alone con- fined to controlling bodies which sit in judgment on questions of social and political justice, as in a town meeting or a folkmoot; it is exemplified in Anglo-Saxon courts of justice for the application of rules of law and equity to controversies between individuals and the ad- judication of vested rights. For this purpose a jury is chosen to sit as a small body of citizens so selected that The Principles of Popular Control 19 they may act for, and express the opinion of, the com- munity. This jury, together with a presiding officer, a judge, constitutes the popular forum. To the end that the court thus constituted may act with due deliberation, the following are considered as essentials: (1) Before the trial or hearing begins, each party must be “in court;”’ that is, each must submit a carefully prepared statement of his claims, and, if there is any opposition, issue must be joined — there must be no doubt in the mind of the presiding officer and the parties con- cerned as to what is the question to be decided; in case motions and counter-motions are in- terposed those are taken up and disposed of by the court, one at a time. (2) When the case is ready for hearing on its merits, each party has a right to be confronted by his adversary in order that he may hear his state- ments and criticisms, and answer them. The jury has the right to hear the evidence, and to listen to cross-examination of witnesses to test the creditability of the evidence submitted for its information. (3) Before the jury is asked to vote each has a further right to be fully informed as to all pertinent facts and to hear arguments of the moving parties on the application of recognized and accepted principles of justice, to the facts as developed at the hearing. (4) The hearing having been closed, each member of the jury, being fully informed as to the facts and contentions of parties, has a right to vote according to his own consciousness of right — the consensus of opinion arrived at thus being taken as the will of the whole political society, 20 The Budget and Responsible Government unless appeal is permitted and taken in a man- ner prescribed. The jury system is a departure from the methods of direct democratic control in that a representative body takes the place of a meeting of the whole voting member- ship of the political society served. But the principles governing the deliberations of the jury are in effect the same as those governing the. folkmoot. In fact, they are the recognized essentials of every deliberative body which is controlled by democratic ideals. Procedure of Deliberation in Representative Government It is only in a very small political society that all the voting members can get together personally to participate in deliberations which lead up to an expression of group opinion. It is found, however, that, when political so- cieties grow beyond the possibility of such participation by the whole electorate, the representative principle, as in the case of the jury, may be effectively used. That is, practical application is given to democratic principles of control by creating an intermediate representative body to sit as a court of political inquest and deliberation in place of the electorate, the proceedings being so con- ducted that what takes place in the court may be known to, and reviewed by, the whole membership. In other words, a representative body is created to assist the elec- torate.and to act for them on matters delegated to it. Thus the representation principle does not change the function of the electorate; it only changes the method of procedure whereby the electorate may be informed. The whole voting membership still retains the power of ultimate or supreme control. When inquest is made into the acts and purposes of an executive officer, the elec- torate, in theory at least, still retains the right to settle all issues on matters of public policy; it still retains the The Principles of Popular Control 21 right to enforce its decisions and make the administra- tive organization and leadership subservient through “election” and “control of the purse.” Ina democracy, the electorate is the organ of society for giving voice to the will of the people; and where a representative body is interposed for purposes of inquest and discussion, it serves as a court of first instance, the electorate being the court of last resort. Whether the practice coincides with the theory depends on the procedure developed and used (1) in the conduct of the deliberations of the representative body; (2) in provision made for giving publicity to its inquiries and discussions; (3) in the opportunity given to leaders for appeal to the electorate, and (4). in the methods em- ployed for the conduct of the appeal to the people. Procedure for the Conduct of Deliberation in Representa- tive Assembly Wherever the representative principle is applied, these proceedings are found by practical experience to be es- sentials to effective popular control; they are essentials because they are the processes by which the motor centers of the body politic are brought under the domination of the will of the people—the only processes by which popular sovereignty can be made real. It is important, therefore, that each of these processes be carefully worked out, reduced to a definite procedure, and that this procedure be protected and maintained, otherwise the processes of popular control may be prostituted to the purposes of class rule, and action taken of the people will not be deliberate. It is necessary that all of the essentials of deliberative procedure be developed for the conduct of the business of the representative political branch of the government that by experience has been found necessary to the en- lightenment of voting members of a folkmoot or a repre- 22 The Budget and Responsible Government sentative court of justice. By no other process can the members of the representative political body act intelli- gently in an effort to voice their own opinion or to voice the will of their constituencies. For purposes of in- quest into matters of administration, it is necessary that the exectttive or responsible directing officer be brought before those who are to sit in judgment: unless this is done the members are deprived of opportunity to ques- tion them; unless this is done they must accept hearsay evidence as to the facts; unless this is done no oppor- tunity is given to members sitting as a political grand jury to listen to cross-examination to test the credita- bility of witnesses; unless this is done the case of admin- istration must be tried on information by star-chamber proceedings — without opportunity to explain and defend when changes are made, the purpose of which is to con- vict them of malfeasance or nonfeasance or breach of trust and to rob them of their “ character” as public serv- ants in the interest of persons of selfish design. These are essentials not alone to the protection of the public servant, but also to the whole morale of institutions of political and social justice. How Publicity can be Given to Acts of Government Provision must be made by the representative body for giving publicity to its inquests and deliberations, for this is the only way that a large and widely scattered elec- torate may become informed. It is only through such a procedure in the representative body as has been de- scribed, and a means of publicity which will make its acts known to the people, that an informed public opinion can be developed. And in making such provision this fact is to be borne in mind, that the only way that a city, state, or nation can be kept informed is through the news columns. The proceedings of the representative body, therefore, must be so staged and so conducted as to make The Principles of Popular Control 23 news. This means that the proceedings of inquest and deliberation of the representation must be conducted as a public forum in order that the whole people may “ listen in” through the public press. This means that every issue must be dramatized; it means that the chief actors must be persons who will be listened to — that the great leaders must be brought upon the stage where those who are the recognized advocates of the people in the trial of issues of political and social justice may be pitted against each other. The scene in the forum in the trial of issues joined on questions of common welfare and justice, must be a battle of giants — recognized champions ulti- mately must stand before the whole electorate for a verdict of thumbs up or thumbs down. This is the pur- pose for which the representative body is created: to sit in council as the duly constituted forum of the people and try causes of political and social justice, and to do ‘this in such a manner as not only to make the decision one of deliberative judgment, but to make every act and expression “visible” to the whole people. A primary essential, therefore, is a procedure which will make news of the inquiries, and deliberation of the causes which are being heard by the deliberative branch of the government involving questions of welfare and social justice. The Need for Responsible Leaders An opportunity must be given for appeal from the decision of the representative body to the whole elec- torate — that is, when the chosen leader of a majority in the deliberation body or responsible head of the ad- ministration whose acts are under review, may not deem the action taken to be to the highest interest of the public, opportunity should be given to sound public opinion though the electorate. It is only by giving an oppor- tunity to leaders to make an appeal to the electorate as the final authority in a democracy that popular opinion can 24 The Budget and Responsible Government control. Nothing short of this will enable the people to express their will on issues that they have not already passed on, nothing short of this can prevent representa- tive government being controlled by an oligarchy —a designing minority. Since group opinion organizes it- self around the proposals of leaders in the representative body, it is only by giving to leaders the right of appeal that they can be made responsible to the people. In no other way can action or proposals for action be brought to a final test. And the appeal must be taken at the time when a question at issue is under discussion, when the facts and the arguments may be voted on without con- fusion. This is a recognized rule in every deliberative proceeding. It is even more important in making an appeal to the country than it is for obtaining a vote in the representative body. Another principle must also be borne in mind: that in taking a vote on any question which involves executive responsibility or leadership, the continuing confidence of the people in the man is quite as important as the measure or act in controversy. Responsibility is a personal thing. The vote to be taken must therefore be a vote for or against the officer whose act or proposal has been the subject of inquest and deliberation in the forum of the people where the issue may first be tried. The initial proceeding must be had in a duly constituted forum, in order that the decision may be based on evidence, with full opportunity given for hearing and argument. It is only by such proceeding that a deliberate decision may be reached by the representatives. It is only after such a proceeding, with full publicity given, that judgment on appeal may be deliberate; it is only by process of appeal on a record thus developed that the electorate may act as a positive constructive force in voicing the popular will, The Principles of Popular Control 25 Appeals to the People Appeal to the people must be taken before them and conducted by recognized advocates. If leadership is to be made responsible, these advocates before the people must be leaders; and the issues must be those actually developed in the transaction of the public business. This is vital to effective exercise of popular control. The proc- ess of appeal must necessarily be one of “ election ”’— of choice between men who stand for measures. If the real leaders are not the ones who go before the people and if the issues which the people are asked to decide are framed in camera, by irresponsible persons or groups who have not been required to stand up in a forum constituted by the people for inquest, trial, and discussion, if the contest is not framed under such conditions that evidence can be adduced, witnesses examined and cross-examined, the whole process of popular appeal is degraded to a mock trial, and action by the people decides nothing ex- cept who, among irresponsible leaders, shall be given a chance to work out his selfish designs. Under such con- ditions the electorate has no opportunity to exercise its true constitutional function; and the Constitution itself, by which popular control is sought to be established, be- comes a dead letter. CHAPTER II ESSENTIALS OF POPULAR CONTROL LACKING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AmeErRIcANS have been characterized as ‘“‘a good- natured people dominated by an irresponsible political boss.” This observation may have been apt in times past, but it is not to-day. We are still dominated by an irresponsible political boss, but we are no longer good- natured about it. We resent the fact of this autocratic control; we resent any characterization which assumes that we willingly accept autocracy in any form — al- though we can not and do not deny that we are still a boss ridden people. Every page of our political history since the days of Jackson fairly shouts boss rule. And it is a part of the personal experience of every citizen that when one boss has been overthrown another has stepped into his waiting shoes. Following every cam- paign to crush boss rule, “the system” has insidiously found its way to the forefront of political organization and leadership, first to surprise and later to madden the people. Attempts made to Account for “ Social Unrest” Many attempts have been made to account for this most persistent of all our political phenomena. Some have thought of it as an inherent weakness of democracy —the only alternative remaining after monarchy and aristocracy have been laid aside. Others have explained it as an Americanism — the necessary political result of a dominant commercialism. Still others have attributed it to lack of public spirit on the part of our citizenry and 26 Essentials of Popular Control Lacking 27 to an effort on the part of impractical reformers to de- tract from American institutions. Again it has been ascribed to a too rapid influx of foreign peoples. Appeals to Patriotism to Maintain the Status Quo In this time of great social unrest, not infrequently appeals are made to the patriotism of citizens to preserve the status quo. The value of such appeals is questioned. For, it is said, is not the fact of such widespread dis- satisfaction in itself sufficient evidence that the status quo should not be preserved? In other words, when it is urged that institutions as they exist, in some important particulars, are not in keeping with common ideals of jus- tice when they do not serve as instruments or means of expressing and serving those common purposes which give to the people their impulse to group action — in these circumstances all effort made to induce men to close their eyes to the things which offend common sense can have no other result than to weaken the government at is foundation. Popular Concept of Right This harks back to the principle laid down by Pro- fessor Giddings in his illuminating volume of lectures published under the title of ‘‘ The Responsible State”: That the people insist on distinguishing between what is established by law and what is right; and that the “liberty” to make this distinction, to assert the judg- ment of the individual and the group as to what is right as distinguished from the status quo, is the fundamental on which responsible government rests. It is by reason of this fact that popular control is insisted on. Evidence of Institutional Maladjustment Instead of drawing our inspiration from those who ap- peal for the maintenance of the status quo as a patriotic 28 The Budget and Responsible Government duty at a time like this, instead of seeking to pillory those who point to institutional defects and maladjustments, it would seem the part of wisdom to heed the voice of popular protest, and to take the best advice which may be had for determining what is wrong — not with results, for the people themselves insist on being the judge of results — but with the institutions that have produced these results. To make sure that our advisers have not lost perspec- tive, let us go back to a period before the war, and before the days when those who ventured to criticize the govern- ment were labeled, when honest criticism was not con- sidered dangerous, when the voice of dissent was a voice of protest that carried with it no threat of violence. And in looking back, let us go over again the pictures drawn by men of known conservatism and highest standing. American Institutions as Appraised by James Bryce First let us read again the pages of Bryce’s “ American Commonwealth.” In this he repeatedly points to what we know to be institutional weaknesses in that they have developed inadequate means for recording public opinion, for impressing the will of the people on real issues. He points to what we know to be maladjustment in state and Federal Government and characterizes the government of our cities as a byword and a shame for Americans all over the world. Shortcomings Described by President Wilson In 1885, Woodrow Wilson, in a popular rendition of his scientific treatise on our Federal system, a work that gave to him a national reputation, said: “For a long time this country of ours has lacked one of the institutions which freemen have always and everywhere held fundamental. For a long time Essentials of Popular Control Lacking 29 there has been no sufficient opportunity of counsel among the people; no place or method of talk, of ex- change of opinion, of parley. . . . Congress has be- come an institution which does its work in the privacy of committee rooms and not on the floor of the cham- ber. . . . Party conventions afford little or no oppor- tunity for discussion; platforms are privately manu- factured.” The Picture Drawn by Senator Hoar And in support of this conclusion Mr. Wilson quotes from Senator Hoar, one of the oldest and best informed men in American public life. After describing the Con- gress as a body which had lost its character as a national public forum—as having abdicated its powers and turned over the work of deliberation to its standing com- mittees — to a large number of “little legislatures ” that do business behind closed doors — he says: “Hundreds of measures of vital importance receive — near the close of an exhausted session, without being debated, printed, or understood — the constitutional assent of the representatives of the American people.” Mr. Wilson, commenting on the results of this evident perversion of representative government, further says: “ Our legislation is conglomerate, not homogeneous. The doings of one and the same Congress are foolish in pieces and wise in spots. They can never, except by accident, have any common features. . . . Only a very small part of its most important business can be done well; the system provides for having the rest of it done miserably and the whole of it taken together done hap- hazard.” Since that time he has continued to hold this picture 30 The Budget and Responsible Government up before the American people. In 1912, in his campaign for the presidency, this portrayal was repeatedly used, with new setting, and the lesson was drawn therefrom —that the people had lost control over their govern: ment; that this was a system which lent itself to the uses of persons seeking and enjoying special privilege; that it was undemocratic; that it could lead to nothing but lack of confidence in our government, popular dis- trust, and discontent. President Roosevelt's Stand President Roosevelt, differing widely from Mr. Wilson both in temperament and in politics, spent his whole life in calling the people to a realization of their duties and opportunities as citizens; and his whole life stands out as a protest against the practices and methods which had deprived the people of their right to control the govern- ment. And as he ripened in years and experience it was this moral aspect of public duty that led him to stand forth as leader of a new party — in doing which he was vigorously condemned by his opponents as leading a popular movement which, if successful, would undermine and destroy American institutions. Proposals of Governor Hughes But even the most conservative have recognized that the basis for criticism was sound — that there was serious need for institutional change. In igto, Governor Hughes of New York in his annual message to the legis- lature pointed to cogent reasons why the people of that state had irresponsible government. And in doing so was among the first of a long line of governors who rendered a like service. Defects Described by President Taft President Taft, whose judicial mind led him to consider Essentials of Popular Control Lacking 31 the problem of administration and the discharge of exec- utive duty as consciously as if he were sitting in a court of equity, in a special message to Congress, transmitting one of the reports of the commission appointed by him “to inquire into the methods of transacting the public business” in June, 1912, said: “ Generally speaking, however, the only conclusions which may be reached from all this are that: “No regular or systematic means has been provided for consideration of the detail and concrete problems of the government. “A well-defined business or work program for the government has not been evolved... . “The committee organization is largely the result of historic development, rather than of a consideration of present needs.” Causes of Popular Resentment Described by Senator Root With respect to the political aspects of institutional maladjustment in this country, no one has more faithfully portrayed the causes of popular resentment and social unrest than Senator Elihu Root. Standing before the Constitutional Convention of New York in the summer of 1915, after weeks had been spent by members con- sidering what changes should be made to make the govern- ment more responsive to public opinion, and to provide the means of enforcing accountability, Mr. Root stepped out of the chair to present what to him seemed an out- standing fact— a condition that could not be overlooked by men who had been sent to Albany by the people to read- just the governmental organization. In the course of his remarks, he went to the very vitals of the problem by making the following statement: 32 The Budget and Responsible Government “T am going to discuss a subject now that goes back to the beginning of the political life of the oldest man in this convention, and one to which we cannot close our eyes, if we keep the obligations of our oath. We talk about the government of the constitution. We have spent many days in discussing the powers of this and that and the other officer. What is the govern- ment of this state? What has it been during the forty years of my acquaintance with it? The government of the constitution? Oh, no; not half of the time, nor halfway. When I ask what do the people find wrong in our state government, my mind goes back to those periodic fits of public rage in which the people rouse up and tear down the political leader, first of one party and then of the other party. It goes back to the public feeling of resentment against the control of party organizations, of both parties and of all parties. “ Now, I treat this subject in my own mind not as a personal question to any man. I am talking about the system. From the days of Fenton, and Conkling, and Arthur, and Cornell, and Platt, from the days of David B. Hill, down to the present time, the government of the state has presented two different lines of activity, one of the constitutional and statutory officers of the state, and the other of the party leaders — they call them party bosses. They call the system—I do not coin the phrases, I adopt it because it carries its own meaning — the system they call ‘ invisible government.’ For I do not remember how many years, Mr. Conkling was the ruler of the states; the governor did not count, the legislature did not count, comptrollers and secre- taries of state and what not did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said; and in a great outburst of pub- lic rage he was pulled down. “Then Mr. Platt ruled the state; for nigh upon twenty years he ruled it. It was not the governor; it Essentials of Popular Control Lacking 33 was not the legislature; it was not any elected officers; it was Mr. Platt. And the capitol was not here [at Albany]; it was at 49 Broadway, with Mr. Platt and his lieutenants. It makes no difference what name you give, whether you call it Fenton or Conkling or Cor- nell or Arthur or Platt, or by the names of men now living. The ruler of the state during the greater part of the forty years of my acquaintance with the state government has not been any man authorized by the constitution or by the law; and, sir, there is throughout the length and breadth of this state a deep and sullen and long-continued resentment at being governed thus by men not of the people’s choosing. The party leader is elected by no one, accountable to no one, bound by no oath of office, removable by no one.” This was in 1915. It is the statement of a man who was an honored member of Mr. Roosevelt’s cabinet, and who, though he has always been clear of vision, incisive in analysis, and outspoken in the advocacy of institutional adaptations, when needed, is considered as without any of the aberrations of an emotionalist—at all times “safe and sane.” And what was his vision of the press- ing need, the remedy demanded to cure this “ deep and sullen and long-continued resentment’? He did not pre- scribe palliatives or narcotics; he did not propose to take away the constitutional guaranties of free speech and free press; he prescribed surgery —- some far-reaching ortho- pedic surgery to be performed on the government itself. He also proposed breaking up the adhesions that had been established between the “irresponsible party’ organiza- tion and the agencies of public service; he proposed the normal functioning of the body politic and to this end the reéstablishing of the nerve centers of popular control. The high purpose which he urged upon American citizen- ship and American statesmanship was “‘ to destroy autoc- 34 The Budget and Responsible Government racy and restore power so far as may be to the men elected by the people, accountable to the people, remov- able by the people.” The Need for an Institutional Means of Obtaining Ex- pression of Popular will based on “ Deliberation” This is a vision that goes back to Jefferson, ‘‘ America’s great prophet of democracy,” who before the advent of this malignant growth on the body politic which has come to be popularly described as the “boss and his machine,” laid down what he regarded as the laws of democratic institutional hygiene. The ideals of democ- racy have not been misunderstood. At no time when any great issue has been presented has there been any uncer- tainty about what was conceived by the people as right. There has been no cause for questioning the right-mind- edness of the people. The great problem of democracy has been and ever will be to develop an organization and a leadership which is serviceable — institutions by and through which the servants of the people may be made responsive and responsible to the will of the people. How may the will of the people be an expression of deliberate judgment instead of an outburst of passion after “ deep and sullen and long-continued resentment ” has destroyed faith and given to the institutional firebrand a dangerous following? This is the real problem before us. Standard for Judgment of Institutional Fitness For Americans there can be but one standard for judg- ment as to whether, amid the shifting scenes of an ever- widening pluristic life, their welfare institutions need modification, and that is the standard laid down by every great interpreter of democracy. It is the standard which Edmund Burke had in mind when he said: Essentials of Popular Control Lacking 35 “Tf any one ask me what a free government is, I reply it is what the people think so.” This is the standard which President Hadley of Yale had in mind when he said: “ The thing that governs us is public opinion — not the nominal public opinion of creed and statute book, but the real public opinion of living men and women. “Liberty is essential to progress, democracy is needed to prevent revolution, constitutional govern- ment is requisite for that continuity and orderliness of living without which no worthy life is possible. “ Democracy is right when it is used as a means of keeping the government in touch with public opinion, it is wrong when it encourages a temporary majority to say that their vote, based on insufficient information or animated by selfish motives, can be identified with public opinion concerning what is best for society as a whole. “ Constitutional safeguards are absolutely necessary to make any measure of liberty or democracy possible; but when they are used to protect the liberties of a class bent on its own interest rather than on the general interest of society, they cease to be a safeguard and become a source of peril,” Wanted — an Effective Mechanism of Popular Control For democratic institutions there can be but one founda- tion — the common sense of justice, the right-mindedness of an intelligent, patriotic people, who believe in what is because they have the institutional means of expressing their will and impressing it on their governmental and service agencies through an outstanding, farsighted, clear- thinking leadership, whose acts and proposals are at all times open to public scrutiny, and whose powers rest on the confidence and support of a majority of the people. 36 The Budget and Responsible Government The present-day problem of democracy is primarily a problem of institutional mechanics —or to use a figure which carries with it the notion that institutions are living organisms, a problem of hygiene. It is only when a mechanism or an organism is kept in constant repair and ‘ adjustment, that it may be of continuing service and saved from an appraisal which condemns it as unfit. The American people know that their institutions are right in principle and fundamentally sound; they also know that in the conflicts of contending interest, the efforts of some to maintain the status quo and of others to bring about readjustment, there can be only one place where the power to decide questions of policy can safely reside, namely : in the people themselves. They know that what- ever be the cost of overhauling or readjustment, Ameri- can institutions cannot be reconciled with the demands of a right-minded nation unless they provide for an ef- fective means of popular control. This is a part of the mechanics of institution building to which too little at- tention has been given. This is a matter to which the conservative well wish- ers of America should give prayerful consideration. In these days when men by the million are ready to make the supreme sacrifice to make the world safe for democracy there must be unrest until institutional adjustments are made whereby the voice of its people may be impressed on their leadership and through majority leadership on the government — until American institutions and rights may rest on the abiding faith of citizens that the prevail- ing ideals of right, the commonly accepted notions of individual, political, economic and social justice inspirit those who are entrusted with the exercise of the nation’s sovereign powers. CHAPTER III PRINCIPLES OF POPULAR CONTROL LAID DOWN BY JEFFERSON Four conditions are essential to stable, effective democratic government: (1) consciousness of common ideals and purposes to be realized: (2) organization to secure these ends; (3) leadership, as an essential to co- operation: (4) popular control to make the organization and leadership consistent with the conscious ideals and purposes of those who are served. The American people as a whole have been moved by the highest ideals. They have developed a genius for organization. But in government they have purposely deprived themselves of responsible leadership and, consequently, have not devel- oped an effective mechanism of control over leadership. In other words, the means for making popular control effective being lacking, leadership has been irresponsible and the government has not been popular. Popular Control the Essence of Democracy Popular control is the very essence of democracy. But to make popular control effective it is necessary to pro- vide a mechanism by which the popular will can func- tion — an effective method of enabling the people to know currently what is being done or proposed, of determining what the popular will is and of impressing this will on governing agents. This mechanism or procedure must be developed not in the administrative branch, but out- side of it, with a view to exercising control over it. There is a distinction to be made between the machanism of a 37 38 The Budget and Responsible Government people for developing power, and the mechanism for controlling its development and use. The administrative branch is the power mechanism. The deliberative branch and the electorate are the mechanism of control. The principle cannot be too much magnified, that the purpose of a mechanism of control is not to develop or to use power, but to regulate the development and use of power; in a democracy its purpose is to enable the people through their representatives to make their political engines and all the machinery of public service responsive to their will. How Popular Control is Made Effective Through Repre- sentatives The method by which this may be done effectively finds apt illustration in the method used by the Allied Powers during the World War. The movements of all the ship- ping of the world were controlled through “the bunker privilege.” That is, the representatives of the Allied Powers having gained control over necessary supplies, the “council ” did not take away from the shipping com- panies and agencies their leadership, but they undertook to control the companies and agencies by controlling their leadership. To do this the council required each captain of each ship, the active executive, to tell in such detail as was desired what he proposed to do before further supplies were made available. Then, if a satisfactory statement were made, he was given as much of each kind of supply needed as was deemed necessary to carry him to another port where supplies could be furnished subject to the same scrutiny and control. And in case he did not give a satisfactory account of his sailing or if he so conducted the vessel as to seem to be untrust- worthy, further supplies were denied until some one else, in whom the representatives of the Allied Powers had confidence, was put at the helm. This method of en- Principles Laid Down by Jefferson 39 forcing accountability, it is to be noted, not only placed control of supplies in a representative council, but pre- sumed that the captain was responsible for the crew under him and was able to protect his own responsibility through the authority which he had over his crew without any intermeddling with the discipline of the crew by the council. The American people are sailing a large fleet, compris- ing a flagship, the Federal Government, and forty-eight regular line ships of state, each of which is accompanied by from fifty to five hundred lesser auxiliary craft. The organization and mechanism of control over this great fleet, the process of forcing responsibility upon the cap- tain and crew of each craft, large or small, are of the utmost importance. The question of control over govern- ment is as important as “liberty” or “justice” or “general welfare.” It involves the vital interests and opportunities of every citizen and every group. Restatement of the Problem Organization and leadership in a democracy must be of two kinds: 1. the organization and leadership for the flagship and each of these ships of state, the administra- tion; 2. organization and leadership for purposes of citi- zen control—a representative body and an electorate. Budget making is only a process in the operation of the mechanism of popular control over government by which the people have given over to their representative coun- cils control over all needed supplies; a means by which they expect the council to exercise control over the public service through the bunker privilege. Thus the budget comes to be a matter of supreme importance. To repeat the much-quoted statement of Gladstone, the greatest political mechanician that the Anglo-Saxon race has produced: “Budgets are not merely affairs of arith- metic, but in a thousand ways go to the root of the pros- 40 The Budget and Responsible Government perity of individuals, the relations of classes and the strength of kingdoms.” Budget making is something which, if made func- tional, must be integrated with that part of our moral philosophy which concerns itself with the popular will. That is, the budget making process, if it is to be made effective for purposes of control in a democracy, must be a means of enabling the representative branch of the government to reach to the popular consciousness, find its final authority in the will of the people, as it is given expression by the electorate. This is what gives discus- sion of the mechanics of administration and the proce- dure of budget making a place in the literature of de- mocracy. An East Indian View There is a point of more than passing interest in the observation made by an East Indian philosopher while visiting America. Being ‘asked about the attitude of his people toward the British rule, he said: “The British do the rough work of government very well, They seem to like that sort of thing and we are glad to be rid of it. Other people gifted in the art of organization have come down upon India and taken over her public service. To some we paid very dearly and got little in return. But the British—they are good servants ; they are courteous; and on the whole they have proved to be honest. They do the rough work of keep- ing order; they protect our borders from invaders; they carry the mail and parcels; they build and repair our roads, clean our streets and do a lot of other useful things, so that we are free to do pretty much as we choose.” Kipling in his ““ White Man’s Burden” has stated the most up-to-date British imperialistic theory of the service rendered to dependent peoples. The East Indian’s idea of freedom was that he had a Principles Laid Down by Jefferson 41 white man working for him. It differs radically from ours in one respect, but it is quite consistent with it in another. The idea that government exists to serve the people is a fundamental principle of democracy. The individual member of a democratic society is usually glad enough to be rid of the “rough work” of satisfying those wants which common necessity and convenience create — glad to be rid of the need of carrying a gun and of bearing the burdens incident to life in a primitive society in which each man or family stands alone as an isolated protective and producing unit. He is glad to avail himself of broader and still broader codperation made possible through a well-ordered and highly devel- oped and centralized public service, provided this is sub- servient to public opinion —to the will of the majority. ‘Democracy Insists that Leadership shall be Subservient But democracy has no sympathy with, or interest in, any philosophy which stops short of popular control over government. It insists upon political as well as indi- vidual freedom. It conceives that without the right of group self-determination, individual liberty has no guaranty; that members of the group have the right to organize and decide what laws they shall have for the regulation of their conduct, so that each may have equal opportunity and each may enjoy the full benefit of asso- ciation; that members have a right to settle among them- selves which services or activities shall be left to indi- vidual initiative and which shall be organized and con- ducted in common. These are matters to be determined by representative and electoral common sense and not by benevolent paternalism. Democracy must possess and control all of the organ- ized means of protecting its interests as it understands them. In other words, the people themselves must be master of those who master the ship; through the master 42 The Budget and Responsible Government they must control the crew. This is what must be done if they act positively. They may, however, act negatively and tie up the ship. When, therefore, those who are employed or who by self-appointment undertake to do “the rough work” in rendering common service incur the displeasure and lose the confidence of those whom they serve, it is time to change servants rather then stop the service by embargo; and if those who are in posses- sion of the implements and institutions of service use the resources of the people to fortify themselves and remove themselves from popular control, democracy claims the right to tear down such part of their institutions, public and private, as give them shelter, to enable the people to put an end to practices hostile to concepts of justice. This is the right of control by revolution — the funda- mental doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. But democracy does not stop here. Revolution, though justi- fiable under circumstances such as are described in the Declaration, is tyrannical and wasteful. The only use- ful thing about it is the social impulse which it serves. Jefferson’s Four Principles of Popular Control The highest welfare of the people depends on dis- covering some method of control which will not require a democracy to tear down its house in order to oust its distrusted servants. The author of the Declaration of Independence did not stop in his thinking about democ- racy with a formulation of the right of revolution. Just twenty-five years after the Declaration was signed (July 4, 1776), lacking three months, on the fourth of March, 1801, Jefferson put forth another declaration of princi- ples which, in his opinion, would, if applied, make revolu- tion unnecessary. Independence had then been won; threatened war with France had been averted — and no foreign foe threatened; a constitution of perpetual union had been adopted; a new house of their own design had Principles Laid Down by Jefferson 43 been built by the people to live in; and for twelve years (1789 to 1801) the same servants (the Federalists) had been employed to run it. But in this new house there had been trouble between the servants and the members of the household. Many of the latter complained that the former were seeking to free themselves from control. There was growing discontent among the people, at times bordering on revolt. When in 1801, Jefferson, America’s first great apostle and prophet of democracy, on the occasion of his in- auguration as President addressed his fellow country- men he protested against the aristocratic tendencies of those in control of the Federal Government. He was not, however, opposed to the federal idea; he urged federal union. On this occasion he urged its preserva- tion “in its whole constitutional vigor.” He character- ized the federal charter “as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad.” By him it was re- vered as a holy creed, an object of high inspiration, a vital thing set up by the fathers “to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.” To make sure that the Federal Constitution might be pre- served, he laid down in his inaugural address, at a time when his political enemies had cast doubt on the sanity of his views, what he understood to be the principles of democracy. Among these he gave voice to the follow- ing principles of popular control: (1) “A jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; (2) “Absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principles of republics from which there is no appeal but to force; 44 The Budget and Responsible Government (3) “ The diffusion of information and the arraign- ment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason.” Another principle, not listed by him, was included in the concluding paragraph of the address: “ Relying, then, on the patronage of your good will I advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choice it is in your power to make.” Jefferson’s mind was not analytical, nor did he have Gladstone’s faculty for institutionalizing ideals, but he was gifted with clear vision and sound instinct in things democratic, and in enumerating what he believed to be the fundamentals of democracy, he included the four principles which have subsequently been adopted and en- larged upon, recognizing them as essential to an effec- tive mechanism of popular control over government. These essentials may be expressed as: (1) popular elec- tion; (2) acceptance of the judgment of the majority as a rule of political justice; (3) arraignment of persons at the head of the administration for trial on evidence; (4) the right of appeal to the electorate or popular re- call—in the broad sense in which that term is herein- after employed. It must be remembered that not one of these four principles of control had been institutionalized up to that time either here in America or in any other country; neither had executive leadership become fully institution- alized on lines adapted to popular control. A mechan- ism of efficient service was not as yet developed here; and the mechanism of popular control by any method other than revolution was as yet experimental or wholly unde- veloped in any country. America was far in advance in devising a government which frankly rested on popular sovereignty, and Jefferson’s administration went far to prove its ability to weather the storms of class conflict. In this, the newly founded government proved to be a Principles Laid Down by Jefferson 45 success beyond the wisdom of its authors, and despite the predictions of contemporaries. The Federal Constitution having been set up, an aris- tocracy reached out for and obtained control over the government; and Jefferson went before the public as the apostle of popular control — his preachment being that the masses, not the classes, should rule. Here were the principles that in his opinion were to be adhered to in order to make democracy safe. As in the case of the principles of mechanics, means had to be found for their integration into the scheme of things with which men work, in order to make them of practical consequence. The Principle of Popular Elections As suggestive of the fundamental importance of these four principles and also indicative of the time required for an institutional overhauling in the process of adjust- ing new devices, these facts should be noted: It was not until after a half century of agitation and two partisan overturnings here in America, the Jeffersonian and the Jacksonian, that manhood suffrage took electoral con- trol out of the hands of the propertied classes. In most of our states where women have not yet been per- mitted to vote, the “right of election by the people”’ is still an issue. In Great Britain, electoral adjustment to a basis of manhood suffrage came later and more slowly, beginning with the Reform Act of 1832 and continuing to the present time. Acceptance of the Principle of Majority Rule Great Britain has long been schooled in the principle, “acquiescence in the decisions of the majority.” But it has only a qualified meaning. The controversy over the right of the House of Lords to overrule the Commons —the representatives of the people —was not finally settled until the twentieth century, and even now, the 40 The Budget and Responsible Government will of a majority of the representatives of the people may be held in abeyance till confirmed by subsequent expression. In America, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was great fear of majorities; and it was not until after the failure of many efforts to thwart the will of the majority, including the Whisky Rebellion, the movements culminating in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Hartford Convention, South Carolina’s Nullification, and the Civil War, that the operation of this principle, as far as provided for in the Constitution, came to be accepted in its national ap- plication. Arraignment of Administration in Representative Forum The importance of the third principle (the “ arraign- ment of all abuses at the bar of public reason” and the “ diffusion of information”) can be fully appreciated only as we weigh Jefferson’s words. Jefferson was a lawyer. To him the word “arraignment” must have had a significance quite different from “ accusation” or “condemnation” or other words simply implying in- dividual denunciation or public appeal. ‘“ Arraignment ” implies three things: A person or persons responsible for some fault or abuse; an information or indictment by a responsible person; a duly constituted tribunal for the determination of the facts and application of rules of justice. Whether the Constitution was set up by an aristocracy or a democracy, this was thought of as essential to re- sponsible government, to the enforcement of political as distinguished from legal responsibility. The Magna Charta was forced upon King John by a group of aristo- crats who commanded in their armed retainers the force necessary to apply the principle of control by revolution, if the principle of continuous control by peaceful means Principles Laid Down by Jefferson 47 was not accepted. More than six hundred years after the barons at Runnymede had made their experiment, in the mechanics of control over government, after autocracy had gradually yielded to democracy as the controlling force in the English state, John Stuart Mill gave it as his view that the following were the true functions of the House of Commons: “To watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts; to compel a full explana- tion and justification of all of them which any one con- siders questionable; to censure them if found condemna- ble; to be at once the nation’s committee on grievances; an arena in which not only the opinion of the nation, but that of every section of it, as far as possible, of every eminent individual that it contains, can produce itself in full sight and challenge full discussion.” In other words, Mill’s view was that the representa- tive, deliberative, appropriating body was not a mechan- ism for leadership but a mechanism for the exercise of control over leadership. This was his contribution to a broad propaganda which was then in progress in Eng- land under the leadership of Gladstone, the aim of which was to perfect the processes and institutional adjust- ments necessary to make the third Jeffersonian principle of control effective in the English system of government. Early in the century, about the time of Jefferson’s in- augural, the first step in this direction was taken in Eng- land by establishing the principle of responsible leader- ship, the principle, namely, that if anything goes wrong, some one must be answerable for it, some one must be “arraigned at the bar of public opinion.’ That person was the prime minister. And to make responsibility cer- tain, it came to be accepted that his whole cabinet was on trial, on the theory that the prime minister was re- sponsible for them and that they must stand or fall to- 48 The Budget and Responsible Government gether. This was a measure of justice, since it at once insured loyalty to leadership and provided for locating responsibility. The next step was to constitute the House of Commons a court of inquest. The rule of “ Cabinet solidarity ” made certain that the prime minister would be brought before this court to give an account of his stewardship and that his colleagues must share in paying the penalty if anything went wrong.