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: 01 August 2014
The Public Health Service, the Coast Guard, and (under very recent legislation) the Coast and Geodetic Survey constitute a special group of bureaus, distinguished by the fact that their heads are selected as a matter of rule from groups of higher subordinates who are originally admitted by non-competitive examinations and advanced under the closed systems of commissioned personnel peculiar to these services.
In the case of the surgeon general of the Public Health Service, the statutes say merely that he shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. A regulation of the service, however, provides that the surgeon general shall be selected from the commissioned medical officers above the rank of “passed assistant surgeon”—next to the lowest grade. The President presumably could override this regulation, and indeed an opinion of the Attorney General has indicated that his choice is not confined to the list of commissioned officers by any law relating to the service. In fact, however, the principle has been observed in the selection of the four surgeons general appointed since 1879. This system of selecting the heads of the service guarantees training and acquaintance with its problems, but—especially in view of the flexible type of assignments so characteristic of the Public Health Service and so useful in freshening a permanent personnel—the options open to the President and the Secretary of the Treasury are numerous enough to leave room for the possibility of a sort of administrative politics.
Part I of this article, which appeared in the preceding number of the Review, dealt with the first of four groups in which the bureaus are classified for the purposes of the present discussion, on the basis of the mode of selection and prior experience of the bureau chiefs now in office. Group I comprised the bureau chiefs appointed under the general merit system administered by the Civil Service Commission, covering thirteen units in the Department of Agriculture and, in addition, the National Park Service, the Reclamation Service, the Bureau of Naturalization, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the offices of the Supervising Architect, the Director of Supply, and the Commissioner of the Public Debt.
2 18 U. S. Stat. L., 371–377, March 3, 1875.
3 The Act of Jan. 4, 1889 (25 U. S. Stat. L., 639) required that the medical officers of the service should be appointed after examination and then to the lowest grade of surgeon. The regulations that instituted the semi-military type of organization—recommended by Dr. John S. Billings of the army medical service in 1870–were put in force in 1873, amended in 1878, and recognized and strengthened by the statute of 1889. The writer has drawn here from the manuscript of Robert D. Leigh's exhaustive treatise on Federal Public Health Administration (now in press). See also Schmeckebier, L. F., The Public Health Service (1923), pp. 167–168 Google Scholar.
4 29 Opinions of Attorneys General, 287–293 (Dec. 21, 1911). The regulation in question dated from 1889.
5 The first surgeon general, Dr. J. B. Woodworth, was a leader in the then emerging public health profession; he had been a Civil War medical volunteer and at the time of his appointment (1871) was connected with the Chicago board of health. Dr. Woodworth having died in office in 1879, Dr. J. B. Hamilton served as surgeon general until 1891, when he was relieved at his own request and recommissioned as a surgeon in the service. His successor, Dr. Walter Wyman, served twenty years and died in office. Neither Hamilton nor Wyman seems to have been extraordinarily distinguished in the service prior to his appointment as head. The choice of Dr. Rupert Blue in 1912 was largely in recognition of his notable anti-plague work in San Francisco. Dr. Blue was reappointed in 1916 and, at the expiration of his second term in 1920, was made an assistant surgeon general at large. There is a tendency, evidently, for the express rule that members of the service cannot be detailed for longer than eight years' duty as assistant surgeons general in Washington to give rise to an analogous convention regarding the limitation of surgeons general to two terms.
6 The conditions in this service are such, however, that administrative politics easily defeat themselves. It is said that one of the most brilliant members of the Public Health Service, recently an assistant surgeon general, has hurt his chances by too obvious attempts to have himself considered for the position of surgeon general.
7 40 U. S. Stat. L., 84, 88, May 22, 1917.
8 41 U. S. Stat. L., 812, 825, June 4, 1920. The title “superintendent” was changed to “director” by a provision of June 5, 1920, 41 U. S. Stat. L., 874, 929.
9 Scientific Monthly, August, 1916, vol. 3, pp. 308–9Google Scholar, in an editorial note on “Scientific Appointments under the Government,” which was reprinted (together with comment by Prof. E. G. Conklin on the same point) in Science, n.s., August 25, 1916, vol. 44, no. 1130, pp. 277–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The occasion for the editorial is revealed in the opening remark: “…. it is of interest to those concerned with science that Mr. Hughes in his first campaign speeches should select as one of his two leading issues the appointments by President Wilson to scientific offices under the government. This would not have been a vital political issue a few years ago, and it is gratifying that it should now have become so.” The reference is to the fact that the Republican presidential candidate, speaking at Detroit on August 7, 1916, attacked the appointment of a Southern politician in 1913 as director of the census in place of Dr. E. Dana Durand (infra, p. 783), and the selection of E. Lester Jones in 1915 to head the Coast and Geodetic Survey. On the latter aspect of the matter especially, Mr. Hughes was tempted to over-reach himself by the fact that Mr. Jones once studied veterinary medicine incidentally in connection with a stock-farm that he owned and operated in Virginia during part of the time between his return from some study at German universities and his appointment as deputy commissioner of fisheries in 1913; in the parlance of the stump, that was enough to make him “an excellent stockbreeder and veterinary surgeon.” Mr. Hughes' speeches elicited sharp rejoinders from Secretary of Commerce Redfield and others. (See the daily press of August 9, 10 and 11, and the Senate proceedings in the Congressional Record of August 10, 1916). On the major question, the editorial in the Scientific Monthly already quoted remarked: “Mr. Hughes has not pointed out, as an impartial judge might have done, that the two scientific appointments mentioned are the only ones in which the President is open to criticism, or that he is the first President who officially asked the advice of scientific men on such points.”
10 26 U. S. Stat. L., 653, October 1, 1890.
11 After an investigation by the Department of Justice, thirty-nine employees of the Weather Bureau were suspended or otherwise disciplined in April, May, and June, 1913, for alleged activities, inconsistent with official duties, in behalf of Mr. Moore's candidacy. Admitting that Mr. Moore yielded to the well-known “last infirmity” and made serious errors of judgment, it was generally agreed that during his long tenure he had done much to build up the Weather Service.
12 Prepared in 1921 for the information of the incoming president, but paraphrased largely from correspondence that passed between Secretary Houston and President Wilson in 1913.
13 The committee consisted of Professor W. Campbell of the Lick Observatory, Dr. A. Day, secretary of the Academy, Prof. E. L. Nichols of Cornell, Prof. E. C. Pickering of Harvard, Dr. Ira Remsen of Johns Hopkins, Dr. Elihu Thomson, director of the Thomson Laboratory of the General Electric Company, President Van Hise of Wisconsin, Dr. William H. Welch, president of the Academy, and Dr. R. S. Woodward, president of the Carnegie Institution, chairman. The initiative in the direction of such a committee was taken by the adoption of a resolution proposed by Dr. Cattell at the meeting of the council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on April 22, 1913.
14 20 U. S. Stat. L., 377, 394.
15 Dr. Smith, at his own request, was relieved of the directorship from Sept., 1922, to Sept., 1923, in order to give full time to the work of the U. S. Coal Commission, of which he was a member. For the purposes of this article, this hiatus is disregarded altogether.
16 Weber, Gustavus A., The Bureau of Standards (1925), p. 40 Google Scholar.
17 “In the interval between the enactment of the law, March 3, and the date when it was to take effect, July 1, 1901, preliminary plans were prepared by the Office of Standard Weights and Measures. This work was facilitated by the fact that the Inspector of Weights and Measures under the old régime, Dr. S. W. Stratton, was appointed Director under the newly created Bureau.” ibid.
18 Following the change of party in 1913, some sniping was attempted by at least one Congressional delegation. In August, 1913, three Representatives from one of the South Atlantic states called at the White House, complaining of neglect of the light-houses in their district and incidentally urging the appointment as commissioner of a person whom they named. At the same time, one of the Senators from the state in question wrote to the President's secretary: “I understand that there is preat complaint at Mr. Putnam's administration of the office now because he has brought strangers into the South—carpet-baggers, as it were—and put them over our people.” The Maritime Exchange, however, protested against any disturbance of the office for political reasons, and Secretary Redfield wrote to the president of the American Steamship Association: “It is my very earnest belief that the head of an important scientific service of this kind should not be subject to change for political reasons. Your letter is a support which I appreciate in this direction.”
19 16 U. S. Stat. L., 594, Feb. 9, 1871. The independent unit was called the U. S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries; it was renamed Bureau of Fisheries when attached to the newly created department in 1903. Spencer F. Baird was virtually the creator of the unit as well as its first commissioner; during much of the time he was also head of the Smithsonian Institution.
20 Mr. Bowers' successor was appointed from candidates recommended by a committee representing the American Society of Naturalists and the American Zoological Society. It is understood that in 1898, when a similar committee approached President McKinley, he informed them that he was not free to follow their advice. Regarding Mr. Bowers' incumbency, a scientist long in high position in another branch of the government with unusual opportunities for observation—although admitting the political instigation of the original appointment—informs the writer: “Bowers made a very good commissioner and did not interfere with the scientific work.” Subsequently to his removal, Mr. Bowers was a member of four Congresses. The guess may be hazarded that his obvious resentment at his removal may have remained a disturbing factor in the bureau's affairs as late as 1921–22.
21 Dr. Smith is at present fisheries adviser to the Siamese government. The explanation of his virtual removal which is perhaps most charitable to all concerned was given to the writer by a person then in touch with Fisheries' matters, as follows: “ …. Secretary Hoover was concerned about the critical condition of the Alaska salmon fisheries and desired a more rigorous policy of regulation I have always felt that had Dr. Smith's knowledge of Alaska fisheries been as thorough as that which he had concerning other fishery matters he would have remained in office. I have also felt that under the circumstances his removal probably was justified, but that considering his long service, ability and reputation the removal was accomplished in an unnecessarily offensive manner.” Apparently Dr. Smith learned of his impending displacement through the innocent and embarrassed Mr. O'Malley, whose appointment was held up in the meantime and “a political dog fight precipitated with several other candidates.” The writer's informant remarks: “It is also my understanding that this discreditable and discourteous phase of an otherwise legitimate transaction was dictated by a Mr. Houston, then assistant secretary of commerce, a politician from Tennessee.” The writer has been unable to get any explanation from the Department itself other than a brief note from Secretary Hoover, saying (apropos of the sentence in the text above): “It seems to me that the statement you make reflects somewhat on Dr. Smith, as to whose services and ability as a scientist there should be no such reflection.” What can the writer say?
22 16 U. S. Stat. L., 440, 458, Feb. 28, 1871, which says that the supervising inspector general “… shall be selected with reference to his fitness and ability to systematize and carry into effect all the provisions of law relating to steamboat-inspection service.”
23 The census unit was not made permanent until 1902, but was organized afresh in each decennial period. There was some continuity of staff, however. Joseph C. G. Kennedy had charge both in 1850 and in 1860; Francis A. Walker, who was president of the American Economic Association and the American Statistical Association and in his time perhaps the leading economist and statistician in the United States, directed the censuses of 1870 and 1880. His successors as superintendent were a newspaper man in 1890 and in 1900 a banker and business man who had been governor of Minnesota. Willcox, Walter F., “The Development of the American Census Office since 1890,” Political Science Quarterly, XXIX, 438–459 (Sept., 1914)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 An unsigned comment in the Journal of Political Economy, July, 1914 (XXII, 691)Google Scholar, said: “The condition of the U. S. Census Bureau is again alarming scientific students of statistics ….. Subsequent to the virtual removal of the head of the bureau at the opening of the Wilson administration, there was a return to the old idea of placing in charge of the organization a man without statistical knowledge or experience ….. During the administration of Mr. Harris, the bureau has continued to sink in prestige …..” Dr. Durand was displaced before the completion of the publication of the 1910 census—a thing that seemed unfortunate in itself; certainly it is hard to apportion responsibility under these circumstances.”
25 Permitted by Rule III, sec. 2, in connection with certain positions enumerated in Schedule B.
26 37 U. S. Stat. L. 360,407, Aug. 23, 1912. Cf. Schmeckebier, L. F. and Weber, G. A., The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce (1924)Google Scholar.
27 Dr. Klein is the sixth director (or chief, as the position was termed before 1919) since the establishment of the bureau in 1912. The first chief, Albertus H. Baldwin, was the head of the former Bureau of Manufactures, and before that was chief clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor, having advanced since 1884 through civil service positions in as many as five departments, on the basis of college and other educational preparation that had little to do with business. He later became a commercial attaché and is now in banking. Dr. E. E. Pratt was specifically trained for commercial and industrial investigations and was manager of the industrial bureau of the Merchants' Association of New York when appointed chief in 1914; he left in July, 1917, when his relations with the President and the Secretary of Commerce had become strained; he now has business and chamber of commerce connections. Burwell S. Cutler, chief from 1917 to July 14,1919, came directly from private business and returned to it. Phillip Kennedy, who served until June 30, 1920, was commercial attaché in London at the time of his appointment; he is now vicepresident of a bank. Professor Roy S. MacElwee was assistant director of the bureau under Kennedy, and director until March 31, 1921; he is at present harbor commissioner at Charleston, S. C.
28 The Bureau of Industrial Housing and Transportation in the Department of Labor is omitted from consideration in the body of this paper, on the ground that it is merely the war-time Housing Corporation in process of liquidation. Robert Watson has been head of this bureau and president of the Housing Corporation since 1920. He was appointed by the Secretary of Labor, but his position is exempt under a ruling of the Attorney General relating to the applicability of civil service rules to government-owned corporations. Mr. Watson is a seasoned civil servant. In 1906, at the age of twenty, he entered the immigration service as a clerk; he was chief clerk of the Department from 1913 to 1917, assistant director of the U. S. Employment Service and assistant to the Secretary of Labor from 1918 to 1920.
29 23 U. S. Stat. L. 60, June 27, 1884, which created a “Bureau of Labor” in the Department of the Interior. It was renamed the “Department of Labor” and made an independent unit by the act of June 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stat. L., 182. In 1903, under the name “Bureau of Labor,” it was transferred to the newly created Department of Commerce and Labor. In 1913 it was rechristened the “Bureau of Labor Statistics” and was placed in the Department of Labor.
30 Miss Lathrop, originally appointed in 1912, was not disturbed by the new administration in 1913, although there was gossip of a movement in behalf of the widow of a recently deceased Louisiana congressman.
31 The transformation was recognized and completed by the act of June 5, 1920, 41 U. S. Stat. L., 987. It provides that the director of the Women's Bureau shall be a woman.
32 Commissioners of conciliation are specifically excepted positions under Civil Service Rule II, sec. 3, Schedule A, subd. XIII. The director of conciliation is appointed by the Secretary of Labor.
33 Qualifications of a different sort would be attached to the Bureau of the Budget if it were included at all in this survey. The present director, Brig. Gen. Herbert M. Lord, appointed in 1922 on Mr. Dawes' resignation, was assistant director during the first year of the bureau's existence. A graduate of Colby College in 1884, General Lord was newspaper man and clerk of the House ways and means committee in early life; he entered military life temporarily in 1898 and permanently in 1901. During the World War, he was Army Liberty Loan Officer. The relation of the Budget Bureau to the President is unique, and the fact that General Lord was promoted to his present position still leaves unanswered the important question of the relation of the budget function to politics. The whole matter is passed over here as a separable problem.
34 The director of customs is appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, but the present incumbent was exempted from civil service restrictions by a special executive order (infra, p. 799), and for this reason the customs service was not classified with the first group of bureaus. All of the other heads of bureaus treated in the fourth group are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.
35 Dr. Cottrell shortly afterwards became director of the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory in the Department of Agriculture. See this Review, August, 1926, pp. 563–4. Mr. Bain was nominated while Mr. Wilson was still president, and was re-nominated and confirmed under the new administration.
36 The chairman of this committee announced at the time: “It is believed that the appointment of Mr. Turner will conserve the ability of the various divisional heads in the tasks to which they have been devoting themselves, and promote …. the extension of the Bureau's service in the economic and industrial development of the country.” H. Foster Bain, the retiring director, was a member of the committee and proposed the name of Mr. Turner. In a personal letter to the writer, Mr. Bain says: “Cottrell first, and later I, had been trying for some time to get Turner to join the staff….. By a fortunate set of circumstances he was free to leave about the time the directorship became vacant….. My four years there convinced me that it was desirable to bring into the organization wherever possible more of the experience and viewpoint of men who have been engaged in the active work of the industry outside government service….. It is only when the highest paid position is open that there is any hope of getting an outsider of experience and qualifications to join the staff. Even then, I am sorry to say, the salary does not cover the necessary expenses.”
37 Smith, Darrell H., The Bureau of Education (1923), p. 7 Google Scholar. The successive commissioners of education and their tenure have been: Henry Barnard, 1867–1870, a leader in behalf of the legislation that created the bureau, who resigned because of lack of congressional support; John Eaton, 1870–1886; N. H. R. Dawson (a political appointee) 1886–1889; Dr. William T. Harris, 1889–1906, a practical, widely-respected school-man, who resigned because of age; Dr. Elmer Ellsworth Brown, 1906–1911, who resigned to become chancellor of New York University; Philander P. Claxton, 1911–1921; John J. Tigert, 1921–.
38 An editorial note in the Journal of the National Education Association, June, 1921, p. 108 Google Scholar, probably expressed the consensus of opinion in educational circles, at least as regards this method of change, saying: “Out of a clear sky …. comes the announcement of the dismissal of Dr. Claxton as Commissioner of Education and the appointment of Mr. J. J. Tigert in his place. This action will be deplored by the friends of public education throughout the nation. It is not necessary to discuss the long and faithful service of Dr. Claxton, whose work has had the approval of two successive presidents of opposite political faith, nor is it necessary to review the little-known record and untried leadership of the man who has been named in his place …..” As a matter of fact, clear though the sky may have seemed, political observers could have told educators that lightning was likely to strike somewhere in Kentucky. On March 22, 1921, the daily press remarked of President Harding: “It is understood he is awaiting recommendations from Kentucky for a number of offices.” An educator then in touch with the Bureau furnishes the writer a summary of his impressions of the moving forces, as follows: “Kentucky had a candidate for the President's cabinet. For one reason or another (some alleged moral turpitude) he was not accepted. Kentucky then claimed a district prohibition agent, but unfortunately the post had been promised to a citizen of Ohio. The salary of the prohibition agent was $6,000 or thereabouts. Kentucky was then informed that it might have a $5,000 post, namely, the commissionership of education. But it was important that the new commissioner should be acceptable to the American Legion. Mr. Claxton had been a well known pacifist before the war. And while he had behaved himself during hostilities …. enthusiastic legionaries had protested against his incumbency before the Harding administration came in. Mr. Tigert …. was a member of the American Legion and highly acceptable to it.”
39 Of the thirty-two commissioners of patents (not counting the present incumbent, but including one incumbent who served briefly twice at an interval of fourteen years), nine served one year or less, nine two years, six three years, and only three more than four years. The record of the first commissioner, Henry L. Ellsworth (1836–1845) has not been equalled; the longest tenure since has been six years. The instability has also affected the two assistant commissioners, who are presidential appointees. “During the ten year period from Aug. 15, 1913, to Aug. 15, 1923, 5 persons have held the office of Commissioner, 5 persons that of First Assistant Commissioner, and six persons that of Assistant Commissioner.” Weber, G. A., The Patent Office (1924), pp. 21–2Google Scholar. The Patent Office was transferred to the Department of Commerce by executive order of March 17, 1925.
40 The office of superintendent of immigration was created by the act of March 3, 1891, 26 U. S. Stat. L., 1084, but the title was changed to commissioner general and the term Bureau of Immigration was first used in an act of March 2, 1895, 28 U. S. Stat. L., 764,780.
41 Howe, Frederick C., The Confessions of a Reformer (1925), p. 255 Google Scholar. The writer knows of no more pointed commentary of the fatuousness of the idea that temporary, politically appointed bureau heads serve to “humanize” administration than the juxtaposition of the remark already quoted and Mr. Howe's strictures on the civil service which follow in his next paragraph: “… In a generation's time, largely through the civil service reform movement, America has created an official bureaucracy moved largely by fear, hating initiative, and organized as a solid block to protect itself and its petty, unimaginative, salary-hunting instincts. America has paid a heavy price for its permanent classified service. In Washington at least, it would bte better if we had the spoils system, with all of its evils, in those offices that have it in their power to shape policies, to control executive action, and to make the state a bureaucratic thing.”
42 2 U. S. Stat. L., 716.
43 4 U. S. Stat. L., 564.
44 One of the commissioners since 1897 (not to go further back) had prior service in the Bureau of Pensions itself. James L. Davenport, head of the bureau from 1909 to 1913, had been clerk for sixteen years and first deputy commissioner for twelve years before his appointment. He was, of course, a Civil War veteran.
45 The director of prohibition, James E. Jones, is not treated in this study, being regarded as a division head rather than a bureau chief. When appointed director in 1925, he had been assistant prohibition commissioner for over four years and previously had been with the Department of Agriculture for twenty-eight years. A bill (H.R. 10729) to establish a prohibition bureau was introduced in the 69th Congress, first session, and passed the House of Representatives on May 27, 1926.
46 12 U. S. Stat. L., 432.
47 There was a predilection, seemingly, in favor of a Southern Republican for the post. It was understood that C. Bascom Slemp, of Virginia, later the President's secretary, declined appointment. Mr. Blair's name was challenged by Senator Johnson, of California, who complained of Mr. Blair's action as a delegate in the 1920 convention and who also declared that, as the son-in-law of one of the richest men in the state, Mr. Blair was related to persons who naturally had many matters for adjustment in the income tax unit. The Senate committee on finance held a hearing behind closed doors in May, but recommended confirmation.
48 42 U. S. Stat. L., 1453, March 4, 1923. Even before the passage of this act, the customs division was distinguishable by reason of its duties and its field forces from other so-called divisions of the Treasury Department, such as loans and currency, paper custody, secret service, etc., which are not regarded as bureaus for the purposes of this paper. Their heads are, of course, classified employees. H.R. 10729 (passed by the House of Representatives on May 27, 1926) proposes to give statutory recognition to a customs bureau as such.
49 Executive Order of January 25, 1922. 39th Report of the United States Civil Service Commission, 1921–1922, p. 129.
50 The conditions which once surrounded even such services as the Coast and Geodetic Survey are suggested in the following sentences in a very human letter to the writer from a civil service employee who is now chief clerk in an important bureau. Referring to his appointment about 1890 to the then unclassified post of messenger in the Coast and Geodetic Survey, he says: “I remained there safely through the Cleveland administration—with one narrow escape. The change in the White House brought to Washington a horde of office seekers—and jobs were scarce. They finally got around to the Coast Survey. Secretary of the Treasury Carlisle placed a small political scout in the janitorship of the bureau. It was his business to get acquainted, spot the jobs beyond the pale of the Civil Service—and send the names of the incumbents to headquarters. No place was too unimportant to be overlooked. The heads of laborers and messengers went into the basket along with the heads of division chiefs. It looked like my days were numbered, but fortune intervened. The ‘janitor’ had a wife who was a newspaper writer. Her stories sold better when typed. She had no one to do her typing. I had learned typing. One day she asked me to type a story. I did so and made some corrections in the copy that pleased her. I became indispensable to her. Result, hubby kept hands off and I still had my job when McKinley came in. I may say that when the ‘janitor’ finished his clean-up job he was made a chief of division in the same bureau.”
51 Dr. Charles D. Walcott, head of the Smithsonian Institution and at one time director of the Geological Survey, speaking with forty-five years of observation in Washington behind him, makes the following comment apropos of some inquires from the writer: “The gradual degeneration of brilliant and well trained minds and bodies often brings about the most troublesome and trying situations. It cannot be explained to the one affected or his friends.” This problem, however, is common to all types of bureau and has nothing to do with policy as such.
52 The quotation is from a personal letter to the writer on March 4, 1926. In his published account of his official experience, Mr. Houston testifies to the relief experienced by a new cabinet member whose department is characterized by stability of tenure. Referring to the discussion of patronage at the first meeting of the new cabinet in 1913, he writes: “I knew that I would not be bothered much with office-seekers because there are only four or five officers in the Department of Agriculture who are not in the classified service.” Eight Years with Wilson's Cabinet (1926).
53 Another former department head—George B. Cortelyou, who at various times held the portfolios of Commerce and Labor, the Post Office, and the Treasury—does not go quite so far as Mr. Houston. Mr. Cortelyou writes: “It will generally be conceded that the head of an executive department is entitled to have as his principal assistants persons approved by him, selected without reference to the restrictions of the classified service, who are in full sympathy with his plans and those of the national administration and will carry them out wholeheartedly. Some bureau chiefs, by reason of the character of their responsibility and the nature of their duties, would come under this heading, while others would not. I do not know any fairer test than this, in determining whether a given position might properly be included in the classified service. And when applied with discretion, as it should be, it will be found to exempt a much smaller number of positions than is generally supposed …..” Elsewhere in his letter, Mr. Cortelyou indicates that he regards the Comptroller of the Currency, the Treasurer of the United States, the Director of the Budget, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue as belonging to the first group because of “their relation to the policies of the national administration.”
54 Average ages of present bureau chiefs, considered by groups:
55 The phrase is taken from remarks by Dr. Stockberger, director of personnel and business administration in the Department of Agriculture, but originally a botanist.
56 At the time of his appointment as director of the Forest Service, W. B. Greeley wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture: “Your action in the selection of successors for Col. Graves and Mr. Potter from our own ranks has been of the greatest possible encouragement and stimulus to the whole organization. Its reactions are reaching me every day. You have not only recognized individual men, but you have recognized the work of the entire body and thereby given every member of it a great incentive to exert his best efforts.”
57 The evolution of our federal system is multiplying the phases of administration in which it is desirable that the national government should enlist officials with state experience and points of view. The success of indirect federal administration in Germany, for example, has been due in part to the custom of recruiting the officers of the central departments (so largely confined to the drafting and interpretation of laws) from the state services. Where possible, however, it is desirable that state officials should be imported at the level of division heads or below, rather than directly as chiefs of bureau. An example of good practice in this regard was the appointment in 1925 of Dr. Blanche M. Haines, director of the Michigan bureau of child hygiene, to be head of the division of maternity and child hygiene in the Children's Bureau, in charge of the coöperative act of 1921.
58 In its department of American government and politics the Review proposes to report currently on future changes in these offices. Managing Editor.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.