President appoints the members of his Cabinet, the approval of the Senate is necessary to confirm his choice. Congress determines and defines the powers vested in the Cabinet and directs and regulates in detail the organization and procedure of the various departments, while at the same time, in performing their duties, the Cabinet officers are directly responsible to the President, and it is he who must assume responsibility for their acts. Congress exercises considerable control over the departments through generous or restricted appropriations, and has the power to request information or reports from the different branches of the Cabinet. Formal investigations may also be made by the Senate and House of Representatives, which may lead to an exposure of facts that may result in forcing the resignation of a department head or subordinate official. Then, too, the members of the President's Cabinet are through custom more or less closely connected with Congress and possess the right to participate indirectly in legislative action, although they are not members of the legislative body.

But the former notion of isolation for the executive official has vanished, and in its place has come the idea that, to be a successful Cabinet secretary he must influence legislation as well as manage his department. The Cabinet officers not only give information before legislative committees, but actively urge and oppose pending measures. Moreover, in many cases the administration policies are formulated into tentative statutes in consultation with the heads of departments, the President, and members of Congress. Within recent years this influence of the Executive over the legislative department has grown rapidly. A long series of constructive laws, passed since the administration of President McKinley and including those

dealing with the Hawaiian, Porto Rican, and Philippine governments, our relations to Cuba, irrigation, army reorganization, the regulation of corporations, the railway laws, the creation of the departments of Commerce and Labor, the provision for an Isthmian canal, for

a permanent census bureau, for a permanent rural free-mail delivery, the parcels post, the postal savings bank, the creation of great forest reservations, the inspection of meats, foods, and drugs, the income and corporation taxes, the conservation laws, the tariff of 1913, the currency act, and a host of others. Of this great array of constructive measures, all were either prepared in detail by executive officials or in closest consultation with them.1

No previous President has used the strength and influence of the executive department to direct and control the legislative process more than President Wilson. Under the President's guidance and with the full power of the executive departments important public measures were enacted into law, including the Underwood Tariff Act with a moderate downward revision, the repeal of the Panama Canal tolls, the Federal Reserve Act, the Income Tax Law, the increase of army and navy appropriations, and the strengthening of the marketing service, Federal Farm Loan Act, national aid to vocational education and to road building -in all, constituting one of the most remarkable records attained by any administration.

All of the powers of the President combined tend to make him not only chieftain of his party, but the leader of the nation on all matters of foreign and domestic policies. As the leader of public opinion, the President keeps in close association with the public press, gives out official statements and correspondence, and keeps the public informed on matters of important public policies. The President may present his views through public addresses and may thus help to foster public opinion. In all of these respects the President of the United States has developed the office far beyond that anticipated by the makers of the Constitution, and the Presidency has thus become one of the unique parts of the government of the United States. It is not surprising that the office of President should be looked upon with such favor as to prove suggestive to many recent

1J. T. Young, The New American Government and Its Work (The Macmillan Company, 1915), p. 18.

states, in the adoption of their constitutions, in the granting of similar powers to their Chief Executives.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN CABINET AND PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS

The Cabinet system involves the union of the executive and the legislative departments. With the Prime Minister at its head, the Cabinet directs both executive and legislative functions. The Prime Minister is final authority on all matters of dispute relative to party politics. Members of the Cabinet hold office because they have the support of the majority of the legislature. When they cease to have this support, they give place to a ministry who, for the time being, have gained the legislative support.

In contrast, the presidential system involves a separation of the legislative and the executive branches. The two departments are retained as equal and co-ordinate, and the heads of executive departments are not members of the legislature. They recommend legislation and may appear before committees of the legislature in support of their measures, but they are not members of either house. The chief executive and the members of the legislatures are regarded as equally independent and responsible to the people. The President of the United States is individually responsible for the entire field of administration. heads of the executive departments are appointed by the President, are responsible to him, and may be removed at his pleasure. They advise the President on matters of policy, but he may disregard their advice whenever he chooses.

The

The English Cabinet acts as a unit. It is responsible both to the legislature and to the people. In the Cabinet government of England the legislative and executive departments combined exercise the supreme power of the state, subject to no legal limitation. Under the Cabinet system, the courts are not allowed to set aside actions of the legislature.

If the judges interpret a law contrary to the wishes of the legislature, the law may be changed. Judges are trained to respect the intentions of the lawmakers in the interpretation of statutes and to consider public opinion back of Parliament as the ultimate power. Cabinet government is essentially party government. The Cabinet holds office as a result of the election of its party, retains office as long as it receives its support, and must resign whenever that support is removed. Rival leaders continually face each other in Parliament, the one in office, the other seeking office. The opposition serves as a critic and check to all of the acts of the government.

In comparing the two systems of government, the parliamentary, or responsible, and the presidential, Professor Willoughby says that it is difficult to weigh the merits of each since it is not easy to dissociate the systems from other features of government.1 It is to be noted, however, that in England, where the parliamentary system prevails, it is impossible for the two branches, the executive and the legislative, to be in political discord; whereas in the United States, under the presidential system, it is a matter of chance if there exists political harmony between the executive and the legislature. Professor Willoughby suggests that the possibility of lack of harmony found in the United States cannot be attributed entirely to the presidential type of government, but in part, at least, to the fact that the terms of office and time of elections are different in the three branches of government. Carrying the comparison farther, the same writer points out that the responsible system of Cabinet government necessitates a far higher political capacity on the part of the people than is required in the case of presidential government, that the parliamentary system "has worked well only in the case of England, whose people have had centuries of experience in the working of popular institutions. It has worked in

1 W. F. Willoughby, The Government of Modern States (The Century Company, 1919), pp. 356–358.

differently in France, and in most other countries has given very unsatisfactory results."'1

SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT

Though both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government are acknowledged to be notable developments in democratic government, the two systems are held, at present, under scrutiny, with a view of modifying certain features in order to permit a progressive adaptation to new conditions. Especially is this true with regard to the parliamentary system. The inadequacy of the Cabinet system as found in England became evident when the many exigencies arising with the outbreak of the recent war had speedily and efficiently to be met. It was found necessary to reduce the size and modify the existing form until a Cabinet entirely different from that which had heretofore existed was evolved. Post war conditions have also made necessary some changes in the organization of the executive department. Weaknesses and desired changes have been indicated in reports made by committees both in England and in Canada2 relative to the necessity of revising Cabinet government. The committees were authorized to make complete investigations of the distribution and execution of governmental functions and to recommend changes which would aid in the discharge of official duties. It was found that both in England and in Canada an intolerable burden of disposing of too many matters of trivial importance is placed upon the Ministers, that they have "both too much to do and do too much." The chief function of the Cabinet, as suggested by the report of Lord 1 W. F. Willoughby, The Government of Modern States (The Century Company), p. 358.

2 Important among these reports are: The Murray Report (Canada), October, 1912; Report of the Special Committee on Machinery of Government (Canada), Hon. J. S. McLennan, chairman; Report of the Machinery of Government Committee, Viscount Haldane, chairman; and the Committee on National Expenditures, 1918.