and we have an unusual thing there, the Governor's council, elected by the people.

Recently-it must have come to your attention-extraordinary payments were desired to be made by the Governor. The council preaudits those extraordinary expenses. The exact degree of that I do not know, but they preaudit those expenses. They refused to concur in the Governor's recommendation. He insisted, and it went to the attorney general, elected by the people, and we were saved from, what you might have said, a very serious criticism of the Governor. They are elected by the people, not appointed by the Governor.

I can fully understand, and I am sure we all understand, the wave recently passing over this country for town management, managerial management in the States. We felt that Governors should be, and were probably, of that type, that they could do a better job if they were regarded as better managers and had the effort directly behind them of the Comptroller General. Certainly that, in some very striking instances, has not proved tenable, and I do not wonder that you have changed your minds.

Senator BYRNES. Mr. Meriam, the Mr. Willoughby to whom you referred was formerly with the institute?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRNES. When did he leave the institute?

Mr. MERIAM. He was retired under our retirement system, I should say 3 or 4 years ago. I do not remember the exact date.

Senator BYRNES. You talked of his service to the committee when the Budget Act was enacted. Did he also assist the committee of the United States Chamber of Commerce in 1932 when that committee recommended that the control be returned to the Executive of the United States Government?

Mr. MERIAM. I think so; yes, sir.

Senator BYRNES. Have you ever read the statement published by him in 1927, in chapter 4 of his Principles of Public Administration? Mr. MERIAM. I think I have; but I would like to have you refresh my memory on it, sir.

Senator BYRNES. Did he not then take the same position as to the distinction between control and audit that you have taken in the States?

Mr. MERIAM. My recollection is not clear. Mr. Willoughby, himself, says that he can be quoted on either side of this question. If you will read what he has said on this question you will find he has spoken on both sides.

Senator BYRNES. I was going to insert it in the record, but if you say he is on either side I will not do it.

Mr. MERIAM. Yes; insert it in the record. I do not think it is binding at all.

Senator BYRD. Has the Brookings Institution the same right to change its opinion as a member of the Senate or Congress has? A number of the Senators that reported the act in 1921 apparently have changed their opinions about it.

Mr. MERIAM. We would very much rather change our minds from time to time than to stick to one position consistently, when we find we are wrong.

Senator BYRD. I think instead of being criticized the Brookings Institution should be commended.

Representative TABER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one little observation here. I haven't said very much since these witnesses have been on the stand, but this has impressed me: We started out with Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Meriam, and Mr. Gulick of the President's committee, and we permitted them to go along from beginning to end in making their statements, so that we might have a clear picture of what they had in mind. With these witnesses we allowed them 10 minutes on Monday, and then we began to question them, and it has been a barrage of questions ever since. As the result of it, the witnesses have had no opportunity to go into the heart of any explanation that they might desire to make of what they propose.

Now, I am going to suggest that at the next hearing these witnesses be given an opportunity similar to that which was given the President's committee, to go on and make a complete statement of the situation that they care to present, so that we may have a complete picture of it and give them a fair opportunity.

Senator BYRNES. I want to answer that statement. The record will show, I am satisfied, that no witness on behalf of the President's committee was ever permitted to finish a statement without interruption.

Furthermore, there was ample opportunity given to every one, which was freely availed of, to examine every one of those witnesses. When Mr. Meriam took the stand on Monday, Senator Robinson, who was then in the chair, did not, as I recall it, interrupt at all. Mr. Meriam made his statement, and the record will show whether it was 10 minutes or an hour. There was a discussion involving the constitutional question, which consumed, thereafter, the greater part of the morning, and when we adjourned a question was pending by the Congressman from Missouri. The witness said he would answer this morning, and he proceeded to answer, and the inquiry since that time has been following along that same line.

The witness will certainly be given, by this committee, an opportunity to make any statement that he desires. The only way we can avoid what the Congressman is complaining of is if we go back to the rule that governed us for about 30 minutes on the first day, when we agreed that the witness would be permitted to make his statement, and then, if the chairman had any questions to ask, he would ask them, and ask each member in turn around the table, but we have all gotten away from it; we have gotten into the habit of all committees, to ask questions whenever we felt like it.

Senator HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me you have stated absolute facts. The most delightful part of this proceeding has been that everybody has been treated graciously and been given every opportunity to speak his thoughts. As I recall it, Mr. Meriam had finished his written statement before any questions were asked.

Mr. MERIAM. That is correct, sir. I think it was about 10 minutes; I do not think it was an hour.

Senator HARRISON. I do not think I have missed any of it.

Representative COCHRAN. You completed your statement day before yesterday before anybody interrupted you, did you not?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes.

Representative COCHRAN. You could have gone on if you desired, but you completed your statement, did you not?

Mr. MERIAM. Oh, yes.

Senator HARRISON. What I wanted to ask, in order to get the force of the Brookings Institution recommendations, does each member of the staff go out and make his recommendations and present his own thoughts without bringing it back to your general staff and discussing it with your general staff?

Mr. MERIAM. I tried at the outset, in a very brief statement, to explain the procedure which we have followed in this report. The subjects are assigned to the different members of the staff, according to their special field of knowledge. We have men that specialize in different fields. Those men prepare the first draft of the report. Ordinarily that is done in two parts: The first part is the purely factual part, the descriptive part, and then it comes to the recommendations.

Now, in the ordinary course of events we meet in groups, informally, sometimes formally; we have so-called staff conferences. Then the first draft of the report comes in, which is in two partsno. 1, the descriptive part; and no. 2, the recommendations. Those reports are circulated among the different members of the staff. Now, that does not mean always that every member of the staff reads every report, but the men who have familiarity with the general field in which the person has worked read them.

We have all kinds of criticisms and suggestions, and sometimes, when the thing gets pretty warm, we may spend hours and hours and hours in staff conferences discussing what the recommendations would be. That is one reason why Senator Byrd hasn't gotten some of our reports quite as quickly as we hoped he would get them, because there are certain of the recommendations that have gone into a jam. We have to work on the thing until we get to the conclusion. Senator HARRISON. After you have come to your conclusion, must it be a unanimous conclusion of the staff before you can make your recommendation or is it the majority conclusion?"

Mr. MERIAM. When the staff cannot agree, the general procedure is the so-called alternative recommendation; that is, a recommendation that the thing might be done in either one of two ways, or it may be a softening of the recommendation.

Ön reports of this type we do not use the procedure that we use in our more literary efforts, our book publications, where a dissenting member of the staff has the privilege of a footnote being attached taking exception to a particular statement. We never have used that in this type of report.

Now, I think one of the weaknesses of our State survey work has been that we have almost invariably taken those assignments on a very rigid time schedule; and while we have excellent staff conferences in the field, while the men are on the job, when it comes to putting the material in at the last moment we do not do as thorough conference work as I think we should.

Now, in this particular report the thing has been gone into very, very thoroughly; I hate to say how many hours have gone into it in conferences on this particular point.

Senator HARRISON. Let me ask you as to your recommendations to Mississippi, Oklahoma, and these various States; those were prepared by some staff members in the field, were they?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes, sir.

Senator HARRISON. Then they send their reports in before they make recommendations to the staff here?

Mr. MERIAM. No, sir. The man who makes one of those reports actually goes into the field, and he makes a study of that particular subject in the field. He may or may not actually write his report in the field. It may be written in the field or may be written when he comes back.

Senator HARRISON. What I am trying to get at is whether it is many minds that meet on this proposition. Are these the views of one or two members of the staff?

Mr. MERIAM. The views that are set forth in this report

Senator HARRISON (interrupting). You are talking about your report to this committee?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes. On the survey I think it is fair to say, sir, that we do not and have not had as much group thinking as we should have. I do not think there is any question about that.

Senator HARRISON. Now, when this change came on that you told us about-what was the date of the change?

Mr. MERIAM. It has been within the last few months.

Senator HARRISON. The last few months?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes, sir.

Senator HARRISON. Did the President's recommendations to Congress to effect the reorganization, and the action of this committee that was appointed by the President to make the recommendation here did that have any influence upon your recommendations?

Mr. MERIAM. No, sir. The main outline of the recommendations were in shape before we ever saw the President's report.

Senator HARRISON. And a vote was taken as to the change?

Mr. MERIAM. No. The argument that came up as to the line of recommendations which we would take was after the President's report was submitted.

Senator HARRISON. Now, who prepared the initial preliminary report?

Mr. MERIAM. Dr. Selko.

Senator HARRISON. The doctor prepared it?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes.

Senator HARRISON. And then submitted it to the others?

Mr. MERIAM. Yes, sir.

Senator HARRISON. And was it unanimous?

Mr. SELKO. I think I can say, without any fear of inaccuracy, that as a staff we were more unanimous on these particular recommendations than we are usually.

Senator BARKLEY. If you are unanimous, you cannot be any more unanimous, can you?

Mr. SELKO. Let me put it this way: I think there was less disagreement with respect to these recommendations than with respect to any of the others.

Senator HARRISON. Well, did any member of the staff oppose this particular change when it took place?

Mr. SELKO. I do not know.

Mr. MERIAM. No; I should say not. The way this thing is done very frequently we do not meet formally around the table like the committee here. We do occasionally. For instance, Mr. Selko's manuscript comes in to me, I read it, study it, and make some notes on it. Then I go up and talk it over with Dan, and then somebody else reads it and talks it over, and then only on relatively rare occasions do we meet formally around the table in a room to debate it. There was one formal meeting we did have that was in the nature of a debate, a full council conference, and that was on this question of whether the Brookings Institution should decide that there was a definite principle which was uniformly applicable alike to the States and to the Federal Government. We knew perfectly well that our whole line of recommendations within the organization with respect to the Federal Government had always been along the line of this report.

Senator BYRD. There was no change, then, on that?

Mr. MERIAM. No, sir; no change within the staff on that line. That has been the unanimous opinion of the staff from the beginning. Our whole record within the institution will show that. There has been, in connection with that, some debate within the staff as to what extent the Budget Bureau should keep accounts.

Senator HARRISON. Well, was that unanimous ?

Mr. MERIAM. On the debate of the principle?

Senator HARRISON. The action taken.

Mr. MERIAM. That action taken was unanimous; yes, sir. Senator BYRD. Who is the chairman of the board of the Brookings Institution, Mr. Meriam?

Mr. MERIAM. Mr. Delano-Frederick A. Delano.

Senator BYRD. Frederick A. Delano. What is his relation to the President?

Mr. MERIAM. He is the uncle of the President.

I want this definitely understood, that our board of trustees does not participate or have anything to do with the staff recommendations. They are a board of trustees similar to the trustees of a university. I think that is as good a comparison as you can make. But the responsibility for the report is on the staff and not on the trustees. Now, occasionally a member of the trustees may read one of the reports, if he is particularly interested in it, but the trustees are not in any sense responsible for the work of the staff.

Senator BYRNES. The Chair recognizes Senator Townsend. wants to ask a question.

He

Senator TOWNSEND. I think the question was answered in the discussion. I wanted to ask if it was a unanimous report.

Mr. MERIAM. Yes.

Senator BARKLEY. Mr. Meriam, this information may have been asked for already, but I would like to get the status of this Brookings Institution in this whole set-up here. You were first employed by the Senate committee presided over by Senator Byrd?

Mr. MERIAM. By the Senate committee presided over by Senator Byrd and by the House committee under Representative Buchanan. Senator BYRD. May I make a statement there?

Senator BYRNES. Wait until he finishes.