mendation contained in the budget. He did not even mention the total amount recommended by the deputy supervisor, though he mentioned the total of amounts requested by the departments. The governor contented himself with saying: "The estimates for expenditures have been studied by the supervisor of administration, and his recommendations are embodied in the summary of financial statements submitted with this budget.' In the part of the letter dealing with the subject of capital outlays, he again refers to the " recommendations of the supervisor of the administration," assuming no responsibility therefor, though the budget law requires the supervisor to prepare a budget for the governor "setting forth such recommendations as the governor shall determine."

The governor's refusal to take any of the responsibility for the 1919 budget is all the more significant in the light of the recommendations of his inaugural address, delivered the week previous to the submission of the budget. In that address there are no less than thirteen major recommendations which either belonged in the 1919 budget or deserved mention there. Take for example the recommendations for the welcome of returning troops, for the subventions to public schools, for the instruction of aliens in English, for a survey of the street-railway situation, for the improvement of the port of Boston, for the Plymouth exposition, and for the creation of a loan fund to encourage home owning. These were not dealt with at all in the letter of transmittal nor were they among the estimated financial requirements of the fiscal year. This gives further evidence of the fact that the budget submitted was not the plan of the governor.

The policy of the governor appears to have been cal

1 The italics are the author's.

culated to avoid the possibility of arousing prejudice in the minds of the members of the legislature against him and against the new budget system. Such a breach was foreshadowed in the remarks of more than one legislator and was successfully avoided by the governor's tact and the leadership of Representative Benjamin Loring Young, chairman of the House committee on ways and means. Form and Content of the 1919 Budget

Eliminating the governor's letter of transmittal, the 1919 budget is composed of:

(1) A seven-page statement by the supervisor explaining in detail the recommendations for capital outlays contained in the subsequent pages.

(2) The estimated revenues for 1919, as furnished by the auditor.

(3) A summary of general fund treasury transactions for 1918.

(4) A statement of the condition of state debt, showing the direct and contingent debts separately.

(5) A six-page statement of the recommended appropriations for 1919 by spending units, classified as for salaries, for expenses, and for capital outlays, and showing the source from which the appropriations are to be financed.

(6) A general summary of estimated receipts by sources, showing the amounts to be credited to general fund, special funds, and the total.

(7) A balance sheet as of the end of the fiscal year for which the 1919 budget provides.

(8) A detailed estimate of proposed expenditures for 1919 for the state government, including the legislative and judicial departments. (This statement covers eightyfive pages, and contains 507 enumerated items many of which are further subclassified. While this is as detailed material as is printed, it must be remembered that the

supervisor's private file of departmental and institutional estimates goes into much greater detail.)

(9) An index of the entire document.

House Ways and Means Committee Remake Budget

The 1919 budget was referred immediately to the House committee on ways and means when received from the governor on January 8th. Representative Benjamin Loring Young was chairman of this committee, and the budget when it came out was virtually his measure.

66

Said Mr. Young to the House in his budget speech: Immediately on receipt of the budget, the committee sent a notice to each state department, setting aside two weeks for public hearings and inviting all persons interested to appear. The committee also requested that statements in writing be filed. Open hearings continued for two weeks and a further week was devoted to executive sessions."

During the time that the estimates were before the committee the deputy supervisor of administration, who had prepared the budget sent in by the governor, and the first deputy auditor were in constant attendance. The deputy supervisor had with him his personal estimate files, both for his own information and for the use of the committee.

After the hearings and the executive sessions, the committee arrived at its revisions, and the deputy supervisor, acting under the guidance of Mr. Young, drew up the general appropriation bill. The bill contained provisions for appropriations amounting to $34,944,664.22, or $795,360.23 less than recommended in the budget; $400,000 of this amount represented cuts by the committee in the maintenance recommendations of the governor. This large decrease was made possible partly because of the fact that the estimates upon which the budget was based were drawn in the main before the signing of the

armistice, and represented guesses based on a rising commodity market.

On February 10th, Mr. Young reported out of the ways and means committee the general appropriation bill. It contained appropriations for maintenance and capital outlays, both for the state and for the metropolitan districts. The 515 numbered items were grouped by spending units, except in the case of interest, debt service, and deficiencies.

In presenting the budget bill, Mr. Young delivered one of the most significant addresses that had ever been heard in the Massachusetts legislature on the finances of the state and the fiscal program for the following year. Mr. Young gave this outline of his speech as an introduction: "My remarks will naturally divide themselves under four heads

"I. An explanation of the constitutional amendment for a state budget recently adopted by the people, and a brief statement of the various modifications in the financial procedure of the House and of the general court which would seem to be made necessary or advisable by its adoption.

"II. An explanation of the appropriation bill now reported to the House by the committee on ways and means, and a brief discussion of several of its more important features. This discussion may serve to point out to the members of the House some of the more difficult problems which confronted the committee, those in which the members will probably be most interested, and with regard to which they have a right to demand complete, detailed, and satisfactory information. It is my hope that before this bill is passed to be engrossed every question of doubt in the mind of any member may be satisfactorily answered by the committee, and that no member can justly say that he has not been given an opportunity to know and understand every detail thereof.

"III. An explanation of the general financial policy outlined by his excellency the governor in his budget recommendations (House Document, No. 185), and the manner in which the bill now under consideration carries out that policy in part, together with a brief survey of the additional appropriation bills as may reasonably be expected to come before the general court after final action on the present bill either through submission of supplementary budgets by the governor or otherwise.

"IV. A statement of work accomplished by the committee on ways and means, and of the methods adopted by it during its consideration of the budget."

In the course of discussion on the first point, Mr. Young outlined no unusual changes in the legislative procedure, except to call attention to the fact that bills based on the budget or on supplementary budgets have the right of way over all other appropriations in the legislature. He reproved the departments which had failed to submit their estimates in time for the budget and had then attempted to secure their appropriations through private petitions. Of these departments, he said: "They have refused to enter the open door of the budget, and now seek to obtain entrance to the treasury through the back door of special legislation. If the budget system is to stand, these special bills should receive no consideration at this time."

Mr. Young placed great emphasis on the responsibility of the governor for the budget. He said in part:

"The statute and the constitutional amendment taken together make the governor, so far as finances are concerned, the actual executive head of the state in practice as well as theory. In place of an irresponsible government by boards and commissions, each anxious to augment its own importance and its own financial needs, we have lodged full responsibility with the governor, whose viewpoint is not limited to a particular department or to a particular locality, but extends to the entire state