budget, from time to time since then have come out strongly for the budget idea. As has been said, the circumstances attending the efforts of President Taft could not have been more unfavorable to successful leadership in so far as his ability to obtain legislation was concerned. Not only had he lost much of his popularity because of the stand he had taken on the tariff and in other legislative and official acts offensive to the progressives, as they later came to be known, but the by-election of 1911 returned a large majority against him in Congress. Hostility to his constructive proposals in Congress and its committee was a matter of course. He had sacrificed public opinion on the altar of "party" fealty. Thereby he had surrendered his "big stick "- the power of direct appeal as a means of enforcing action. When the militant progressive public lost confidence in him, he had no means of compelling action, except through party organization, and half of his "party as it turned out was hostile to his leadership. Not only his budget proposals but his recommendations for legislation looking toward certain needed departmental reorganization met with like fate. Even his executive orders met with obstructions and delays on the part of officials urging statutes, rules, and practices which had grown up in the course of a hundred years of congressional committee control. Many administrative changes were made reducing the amount of red tape with an annual saving which far outreached the total cost of the staff inquiry; but the constructive recommendations of the President which required congressional coöperation were not given respectful hearing by the controlling majority of the legislative branch of the National Government. Concrete Results which Followed Ample rewards were found for effort, however: (1) in the renewed vigor given to administrative reorganization and budget procedures introduced into the hundreds of American municipalities; (2) in the appointment of numerous state commissions to inquire into and report what changes were necessary to enable these states to conduct their enterprises with greater economy and efficiency; (3) in the many legal enactments in the states reorganizing administrative departments, boards and commissions, and providing for a budget procedure, and (4) in the national issue finally being taken before the people in the platforms of all the principal national parties pledging candidates for election to Congress to the adoption of a national budget procedure. STATE COMMISSIONS CHAPTER VI TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION Investigations of Need for Economy and Efficiency as Old as Our Government As has been pointed out, one of the first results of the publicity given by President Taft to the need for administrative reform was the appointment of committees and commissions of inquiry to report on administrative reorganization of the state governments. The use of such bodies, however, is not confined to the last ten years. As a recognition of a need for better administrative organization and methods, many commissions of inquiry have been appointed since the beginning of our Government. For example, in the Federal Government a committee was appointed, during the administration of President John Adams, to inquire into and report on possible necessary changes in methods of distributing public moneys appropriated to each department, whose findings and recommendations were published in 1798; following this, three other committees were appointed and reported on retrenchment and expenses of government, in 1818, 1822, and 1828. In 1830 a select committee of Congress was created to whom was referred a section of President Jackson's message respecting the need for reorganization of the executive departments; other reports were made on the retrenchment, public expenditures, and the civil service in 1842, 1876, and 1882. In 1888 the select committee headed by Mr. Cockrell was appointed to inquire into the methods of business of executive departments; this was followed by the Dockery Commission in 1893, which employed experts and made voluminous reports on the subject of administration, organization and methods. In the second year of Cleveland's second administration, 1894, the members of the cabinet made a joint report. Besides these general inquiries, many reports, largely by committees on expenditures of Congress, were made on departments.1 Similar reports by committees of state legislatures have been made for many years. Such reports might be counted by the hundreds. But the significant fact is that only within the last few years has the need for administrative reorganization and an effective procedure for budget-making impressed itself on the public. This was due to several influences and conditions; namely, the background work that had been going on in the cities; the dramatic interest given by President Roosevelt through his vigorous and appealing leadership; the fact that the national and state governments were threatened with deficits; and the breadth of vision, the magnitude of the inquiry, and the frequent publicity given to the need for administrative reorganization by President Taft. Thus there came to be a changed attitude on the part of the public that could not be ignored by legislators and public officers seeking electoral support. 1 In addition to the general inquiries the following dealt with subjects of department administration: Department of State, 1838, 1846, 1881, 1895, 1901, 1909; Department of Treasury, 1794, 1801, 1816, 1837, 1864, 1869, 1871, 1876, 1880, 1890, 1891, 1909; Department of War, 1824, 1843, 1854, 1873, 1876, 1878, 1881, 1904; Department of Justice, 1880; Department of Post Office, 1821, 1822, 1831, 1835, 1836, 1881, 1884, 1901, 1902, 1908; Department of Navy, 1796, 1821, 1839, 1842, 1865, 1872, 1875, 1876, 1878, 1879, 1886, 1893, 1899, 1901, 1902, 1905, 1909; Department of Interior, 1882, 1886, 1892, 1901, 1907; Department of Agriculture, 1868, 1875, 1888, 1899, 1901, 1906, 1907; Department of Commerce and Labor, 1891, 1893, 1905, 1906; Government Office, 17 reports between 1819 and 1909. The Rôle of Civic Agencies and Bureaus of Municipal Research In preparing the way for national leadership, too much weight cannot be given to the work of the many unofficial civic agencies which have urged the need for better public service, or to voluntary and unofficial committees which have conducted staff inquiries and coöperated with officers in obtaining intelligent consideration for questions of municipal and state administration. These latter began their work during the Roosevelt administration. The interest manifested at this time in the methods and results of municipal administration is shown by the sudden development of unofficial "Bureaus of Municipal Research." In 1906 a special committee was organized by the Citizen's Union of New York, of which Mr. Fulton Cutting was the head. Through this committee and its staff such results were obtained that in 1907 it was incorporated as an independent, nonpartisan "Bureau of Municipal Research," with a board of trustees of nation-wide reputation, based on their interest in municipal administration. Its point of view was that the conditions found and described in the large cities were quite as much a matter of citizen neglect as they were matters of official wrongmindedness and boss rule. New emphasis and vigor was given to unofficial civic enterprise by the employment of a staff which approached the problem by the research method. During the next ten years no less than thirty bureaus of similar character were organized which employed trained staffs to study administration conditions. and results in as many cities. In many other cities special committees of Chambers of Commerce or other existing agencies were organized; or existing agencies, public or private, employed the staff of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research and other research bureaus, with a view to making more effective coöperation between |