No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Mr. W. F. Willoughby, in his Principles of Public Administration, holds that “the function of direction, supervision, and control of the administrative activities of the government resides in the legislative branch of the government.” More specifically, he states that, “in the case of our national government at least, Congress is the source of all administrative authority.” It may be suggested however, that an examination of existing systems of government shows a large amount of variation in this respect, and that three main systems may be recognized.
These three main systems may be noted in private as well as in public administration. In undertakings managed directly by a single person, he at the same time is the organizer of the business and conducts its operation. This may be called an autochthonous administration. In collective groups, or societies, a distinction appears between the determination of general policies by the group or society (or by a general committee) and the actual management by the officers or agencies set up by the central group for certain purposes.
1 Principles of Public Administration, p. 11; Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration, p. 116. In support of these statements, he cites opinions of the United States Circuit and Supreme Courts in 1835 and a report of a Senate committee in 1881. But the Supreme Court opinion does not fully sustain his statement. On the other hand may be cited opinions of several attorneys-general, notably Caleb Cushing in 1855, and also other opinions of the Supreme Court. Cf. Fairlie, , National Administration of the United States, pp. 7–19Google Scholar; 6 Op. Atty-Gen. 10, 365; 7 ibid., 453, 470; 8 ibid., 343; 10 ibid., 413; U. S. v. MacDaniel, 7 Peters 14 (1833); Wells v. Nickels, 104 U. S. 444; U. S. v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 102 U. S. 273, 279; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1, 63, 67, 75.
2 Cf. Willoughby, W. F., Principles of Public Administration (1926), Chap. 2Google Scholar; Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration (1934), Chap. 11; Fairlie, J. A. “Congress and the National Administration,” 26 Michigan Law Review, 237 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Dodd, W. F., State Government (2nd ed., 1928), p. 175Google Scholar.
4 Fairlie, J. A., Administrative Procedure in Connection with Statutory Rules and Orders in Great Britain (1926)Google Scholar; Carr, C. T., Delegated Legislation (1921)Google Scholar; Thorpe, F. N., Federal Departmental Organization and Practice (1925)Google Scholar; Freund, Ernst, Administrative Powers over Persons and Property (1928)Google Scholar, Chap. 11; Fairlie, J. A., “Administrative Legislation,” 18 Mich. Law Rev., 181CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 U. S. v. Langston, 113 U. S. 389.
6 See Benson, George C. S., Financial Control and Integration (1934)Google Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.