shudders through the counting-rooms of our cotton mills, and a hurry call for relief goes to Washington. National interests naturally look to the national government for protection. That is just what government is for to safeguard the life of the nation in all its developments. As a nation grows and as its activities expand, if its government does not respond in its functions, that is a lost nation. In becoming a world power, we are already finding that the accompanying responsibilities are subjecting our governmental organization to strains that it is unfitted to bear. These strains are bitterly deplored by our congressional politicians. The prevailing congressional opinion is that the chief cause of budget derangement is increased expenditure for national defense. It is characteristic of public events that they ignore the wishes and disregard the repose of politicians. Nations cannot choose their responsibilities, and attempts to avoid them as they present themselves only make them the harder to bear. Such experience is an incident of political evolution, and there is no escape from it. All through our history it has been the pressure of responsibility that has compelled improvement in the organization of public authority.

II

MAKING THE NATIONAL BUDGET

It is a fundamental principle of constitutional government that appropriations are made and that expenditures are controlled by the representatives of the people. Since it is officially admitted that our national representative assembly fails to discharge this constitutional function successfully, an inquiry as to the cause thereof must naturally begin with an examination of the means which it employs.

The process of budget-making starts with the transmission of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, giving estimates of appropriations required for the public service. This is a duty imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury by law. These estimates are given in minute detail, so that when published they make a large volume. The estimates for 1910 form a quarto volume of 755 pages. On comparing them with the estimates submitted to the British Parliament, they appear to be much inferior as a source of information. The British estimates are an analytic exhibit of the various sorts of expenditure, exactly classified, even to the extent of supplying cross-references when portions of the expense of any service are carried under different headings. For instance, under the appropriations for parliamentary offices, there are references to building, stationery, and printing estimates, etc., indicating how much on par

liamentary account and how much on other accounts. Moreover, the classifications are accompanied by brief explanatory comments which possess obvious utility. The estimates transmitted by the Secretary of the Treasury form simply a schedule of the demands of the various departments.

In preparing the estimates, the Secretary of the Treasury has heretofore acted in a purely ministerial capacity. In this respect important changes are taking place which will be considered later on. For the present it will be better to limit consideration to the procedure under which this growth of federal expenditure has taken place that has been officially described as great and alarming. The point to bear in mind is that heretofore the Secretary of the Treasury has had nothing to do with the budget save to transmit to the House of Representatives the estimates sent to him from the various executive departments. One will get a true idea of the function he has performed in the making of the budget if he be regarded simply as a funnel through which the departmental demands were poured upon Congress. The letter of transmission makes this point clear. In sending in the estimates for 1910, which was done on December 7, 1908, Secretary Cortelyou described them as being such as were "furnished by the several executive departments."

Until recently there has been no provision for any concert of action among the heads of the departments in preparing the estimates which they pour upon Congress through the Treasury Department funnel. All that the law has heretofore required of the heads of the several executive departments is that they shall

forward their estimates to the Secretary of the Treasury on or before October 15 of each year. It then became his duty to arrange and compile the estimates thus submitted and to transmit them to Congress on the opening day of the session, together with his own estimate of the probable revenues of the government. It may seem strange that the various executive departments should act independently of one another, each formulating its own demands without any supervision or general control, but such has been the case. It is clear that this go-as-you-please method precluded anything like a systematic budget for which there is a responsible author. But, however wild and unregulated the procedure may seem to be, that has been the actual practice. Upon this point I have consulted Mr. James A. Tawney, Chairman of the Committee of Appropriations of the House of Representatives. Under date of October 13, 1909, he has given me a statement of the practice that has existed prior to March 4, 1909, when a law was passed that will be considered later on. Mr. Tawney says:

"The head of each department prepared his estimates, or the estimates for his department, without any reference whatever to the estimates submitted by the heads of other departments, and without any reference whatever to the estimated revenues for the fiscal year for which the estimated expenditures were to be made.

Frequently these estimates for appropriations were far in excess of the estimated revenues. This threw upon the Committee on Appropriations the necessity of reducing the estimated expenditures so as to keep the appropriations within the estimated revenues." 1

1 The essential portions of Mr. Tawney's statement are given in Appendix B.

That is to say, there was nothing like team-work on the part of the executive departments. Each worked for itself. As to this, however, it should be observed that since the heads of the various departments form the President's cabinet, which meets frequently for consultation, conditions of contact and association exist that have doubtless exerted some influence upon departmental policy in all respects. But until recently no definite provision of law has existed for establishing a collective responsibility.

Congressional action on the estimates thus transmitted begins in the House of Representatives. When they are received by the Speaker, they are by him referred to the several committees having jurisdiction over particular classes of appropriations for which the estimates are made. This is done under Clause 2 of Rule 24, regulating the disposition of business on the Speaker's table. By order of this rule, unless the House itself on motion of a member directs a particular reference, the Speaker directs every executive communication to be printed and referred to the proper committee. Reference by the Speaker is the regular practice, and in the routine transaction of business the members do not know what communications have been received or how referred until they see the list published in the Congressional Record. Indeed executive communications are so numerous that no other method would be practicable. For instance, the Congressional Record for December 9, 1909, gives a list of fifty-three communications from various bureaus and departments that were referred under Clause 2 of Rule 24.