Thoughtful men cannot long be associated with government without beginning to ask questions, both as to the technique of administration and the underlying policies with which these techniques must reckon. It is good, therefore, that those in the government service who are most interested in public administration should meet from time to time with the professors and publicists who also are interested. I wish to do my part, therefore, in helping in the baptismal ceremonies for this new society which has in it so much promise. To the non-governmental members of the society I wish to pass on the observation which my father made when he came as Secretary of Agriculture to Washington in 1921. Leaving Iowa, he shared to some extent the widespread public opinion that government servants are both clock-watchers and chair-warmers. Within a few months he had completely changed his ideas and told me that he would like to bring some government men back with him into business because they were so exceedingly clear-thinking and efficient.

While we in the United States have not as yet so completely recognized public service as a career as they have in England or France, and while there is undoubtedly great room for improvement, I am nevertheless convinced that nowhere in the world will you find a better group of earnest, hard-working, efficient men and women than those who are engaged in American public service, whether it be on the local or the national level. Of course, by taking thought they can improve their service, and that, I take it, is the object of this organization.

The authors of the Constitution of the United States regarded it as a triumph for the human spirit in America that a new form of government could be established by the process of discussion, deliberation, and popular action, as distinguished from the age-long processes of violence. Looking backward from their time and forward into our own, we may say that they were justified in their celebration.

With reference to a far less momentous occurrence, this modest occasion, we may properly regard as a triumph for the same spirit a voluntary action of public officials and interested citizens looking to the resolute and continuous improvement of the public services. It is this action, the establishment of a Society for Public Administration, that we are ratifying and approving today. These officials and these citizens are no hirelings of a despotic power, taking orders from above. They are not seeking the aggrandizement of a class, bent on exploiting and holding down a subject people. They are not concerned primarily with emoluments, promotions, and honors as such. On the contrary, they are proposing to search their own hearts and minds, to study ways and means of making more efficient and economical the services rendered by government to the people. They do not wish to diminish either civil liberties or individual responsibilities in society. On the contrary, they cherish these eternal values and intend to discover and develop schemes and methods of administration deliberately adapted to the perpetuation of these precious elements in the American heritage.

Much has been written on the origin, development, and characteristics of representative government; and in recent years there has been a revival of interest in this subject, and a further analysis of the evidence and criticism of views formerly accepted. In this extensive literature, considerable attention has been given to the nature of political representation and representative government, and to the relation between the representative and his constituents, with important differences in the definitions and meanings ascribed to these terms. Many writers have assumed that their views on these matters are the only correct statements; but some of the more recent writers have recognized, to some extent, the need for a closer analysis of the different senses in which these terms may be employed. An examination of different views may be of service in leading to a clearer understanding of the problems involved.

Etymologically, the literal meaning of represent is to “present again,” and from this it has come to mean to appear in place of another. In this secondary sense, a representative has been defined as “an agent, deputy, or substitute, who supplies the place of another or others.”

The 1938 term of the Supreme Court brought substantial changes in its personnel. Mr. Justice Cardozo died on January 9, 1938. He was succeeded by Mr. Justice Frankfurter, who took office on January 30, 1939. On February 13, 1939, Mr. Justice Brandeis retired, and on April 17 Mr. Justice Douglas was appointed to fill his place. By the end of the term, therefore, four justices appointed by President Roosevelt had taken office. It is too early to appraise the results of these appointments upon the decisions and doctrines of the Court. One statement may be made, however, which throws some light upon the recent trend of judicial decisions. In preparing the present survey of the Court's decisions, some sixty cases were examined, all but one or two of them turning upon constitutional issues. In these sixty-odd cases, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Butler, the two remaining members of the conservative “old guard,” dissented together twenty-five times. In several instances they were joined in dissent by Mr. Justice Roberts, and once or twice by the Chief Justice. In the main, however, they stood alone against a compact majority of six or seven justices. With the death of Mr. Justice Butler in the fall of 1939, Mr. Justice McReynolds stands like the boy on the burning deck amidst what obviously appears to him to be the imminent destruction of the old constitutional system.

Recent congressional debates on neutrality legislation have once more focused attention on the problem of control of American foreign policy. On the one hand, the President has demanded that leadership in formulation of foreign policy be concentrated in the hands of the executive; on the other hand, Congress has insisted that its powers be employed to provide for adequate control of that leadership on behalf of the people. This problem of executive leadership and proper control is, perhaps, the central problem of the machinery of democratic government, but in the field of foreign policy it is a particularly difficult one because constitutional construction and usage have failed to draw definite boundaries as to congressional and executive powers. If Congress is the instrument through which popular control of the executive is to be exercised, it is important to study the adequacy or inadequacy of such control.

Although much has been written on the general subject of the President's pardoning power, there is still considerable confusion concerning the use of that power for the restoration of civil and political rights to persons who have been deprived of them as a punishment for crime. Particular questions frequently raised are: What rights are lost? How are they lost? How may they be restored? That the issue is a live one is supported by the fact that in the year 1938 no fewer than 203 pardons were granted by the President to restore civil rights.

The confusion on the subject is due in large measure to the complexities of our federal form of government. This was clearly noted by Attorney-General Caleb Cushing in his opinion of July 9, 1856, in the case of Oliver Robbins of Sackett's Harbor, New York. Robbins was convicted in 1851, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, of an offense against federal law, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary of New York. In 1852, he received from President Fillmore a general pardon.

As one of the most significant of recent developments in public administration, the government corporation has been the subject of much study and discussion. Apparently without exception, interest has centered around the corporate agencies of the federal government and their operations. The time is perhaps overdue to point out that an increasing number of our state governments are depending upon corporations of their own for financing, constructing, and operating a wide variety of enterprises, including tollbridges, sewage disposal plants, water resources and hydro-electric projects, housing programs, construction of university buildings, planetariums, public markets, and health resorts. The creation of the large majority of these state and local “authorities,” as they are ordinarily termed, is the direct outgrowth of the New Deal's public works and housing programs. In December, 1934, President Roosevelt wrote the 48 governors suggesting legislation which through “revision of the procedure relative to municipal financing” would enable the states to take “full advantage” of any public works program that Congress might continue. The legal division of P.W.A. was placed at the disposal of the states, and much of the stimulation as well as the form of “authority legislation” must be credited to its staff. In some states, only through separate corporations and the device of revenue bonds could state constitutional limitations upon borrowing be circumvented and state participation in the public works program made possible. Administrative advantages of the public corporation were also considered of importance, however, and in states where constitutional obstacles were not met, these seem to have been the determining factor in the creation of corporate agencies.

In 1921, the House of Representatives of the Ohio General Assembly established a committee of eight members whose duty it was to scan all bills introduced for the purpose of determining whether they were frivolous or irrelevant, not introduced in good faith, or duplications of existing law. When this committee had satisfied itself on these points, bills were to be reported back to the House with recommendations of assignment to appropriate standing committees, thus relieving the speaker of this particular duty. In 1929, the rule covering the functions of this Reference Committee was amended so as to permit it to recommend changes, combine bills, and give its approval to “the form and legal effect” of bills. Other changes in 1937 and 1939 dealt with the number of members serving on the committee, and allowed the committee eight legislative days, instead of six, for disposing of bills. The rule under which the committee now functions is as follows:

“When a bill has been read the first time, it shall be referred to the Reference Committee for its consideration and report within eight legislative days after such reference. If it be apparent to said committee that any bill is of a frivolous nature, or that it was not introduced in good faith, or that it is a duplication of a House bill, or can easily be handled as an amendment to a House bill already introduced, or that it is in conflict with or a duplication of an existing statute without making proper provision for the repeal or amendment of such existing statute, said committee shall report said bill back to the House for its return to the author with a notation thereon of the reason for its return.

The city of Philadelphia is tapping a new source of revenue for $18,000,000 in 1940. Events leading to its adoption have their basis in the past ten years of financial distress. These events were not peculiar to Philadelphia. They may be found in one form or another as budgetary problems in many leading municipalities of the nation. Outstanding among the factors causing distress in Philadelphia was a 25 per cent decline in the assessed valuation of real property since the peak year 1931. This represented over a billion dollars of valuation and a loss of $20,000,000 in current real estate tax levy. Since current real estate has been the chief source of the city's annual income, the decline resulted in curtailment of essential city services and reduction of personnel.

For some years, curtailment of services, reduction in personnel, and the fortunate receipt of large annual sums from delinquent taxes enabled the city to survive the difficulties of the depression. However, the point was reached when these factors no longer sufficed to balance the budget. They were followed by more doubtful financial expedients, namely, overestimating of yearly receipts, floating of current deficits by means of temporary loans, and short-changing of sinking funds through excessive valuation of sinking-fund assets.

For almost six years, American commercial policy has been dominated by the trade agreements program. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 was a congressional grant to an administrative agency of authority to alter the American tariff structure. Congress had recognized the desirability of relinquishing direct control over the tariff, temporarily at least, because of the widespread feeling that subordination of group welfare to individual interests was inherent in the system of congressional tariff-making. This new departure was widely acclaimed at first, but opposition soon developed. It was charged that the trade agreement method violated democratic principles, that trade agreements were negotiated in secret starchamber proceedings. As negotiation of individual agreements was announced, producers who feared for their protected position in the home market, importers who desired to see domestic tariffs reduced, and exporters who wished to see the tariff barriers of other countries reduced, all sought to influence the course of the negotiations. This paper analyzes the methods used by the trade agreements organization to deal with these interested persons. Pressure groups have insisted that their interest in the course of trade agreement negotiations rests in the fact that they possess valuable information that the trade agreements organization must have to reach the best “bargain” with the other party to the trade agreements. Evidence to support this contention will be examined. Finally, for purposes of comparison, brief reference will be made to British experience.