what had been occurring in government and business generally during the last 20 or 30 years.

From the committee's point of view, in recent times the most notable effort was the passage of the civil-service law, which was designed to develop a new type of service.

Following that there was the Taft commission, appointed by President Taft in 1911. I was invited to be a member of that but was unable to do so at that time. However, I followed its work with great interest, and I also followed the work of the Budget committee which grew out of that. That was a general committee of citizens.

Following the Taft commission in 1911, after a long interval, there came the Budgetary Act of 1921, which, in a way, represents a long step forward in the organization of fiscal procedure, although some unexpected steps were taken at that time, which, in a sense, set back administrative control on the executive side.

Then there came-I need not remind you gentlemen here the Economy Act of 1932 and the Economy Act of 1933, which gave to the Executive, for a limited period of time, wide powers of reorganization, readjustment of agencies and of functions. This report is an effort to follow through some of these developments, together with other developments that have occurred on the outside.

During the period since the Budgetary Act of 1921 there have been many developments in this country in the direction of better organization of administration. Some of these have been found in States and some of them have occurred in urban communities. I need not remind you of the long strides toward executive and administrative reorganization in States like New York under Governor Smith; Massachusetts, under Governor Coolidge; Virginia, under Senator Byrd, who is a member of this committee; Illinois, under Governor Lowden; in Maine, under Governor Gardiner; and in a long series of other States, following the general lines of better and more efficient organization of administrative departments.

My colleague on the committee, Mr. Luther Gulick, is here. He has had a very active part in the development of these plans, in their establishment and operation, particularly in the States of New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and if any further detail were desired upon those general trends Mr. Gulick would be in a good position to discuss that matter.

Senator MCNARY. Mr. Merriam, may I ask you at this point, when the Joint Committee on Reorganization was holding hearings, which committee consisted of Members of the Senate and House, there was a bill that was proposed by your committee, which was not introduced, which was considered as more or less of a confidential print, and then later another bill was substituted, which was also of a confidential nature, which was proposed by your committee. Now, this bill comes in later, introduced by former Senator Robinson on June 15. Are these bills similar in their general aspects?

Mr. MERRIAM. There was one bill presented by our committee, a bill that we drafted only for our own information.

Senator MCNARY. Yes; but it was brought to the committee? Mr. MERRIAM. It was brought to the committee at the request of the committee.

Senator McNARY. That is true.

Mr. MERRIAM. We did not present any bill. We stated that in the preparation of our report we worked out certain principles and then we had checked those against the actual drafting of a bill to see how it would come out.. We did not present that as a part of our report, but on the request of this committee it was presented and it is embodied in the record.

Senator MCNARY. That is not the point I was trying to make. Subsequently you substituted another proposed bill which was also printed in the record, which was in the confidential record of the committee. That is the correct history of it. Then this one was introduced by former Senator Robinson on the 15th of June. I am asking you if these bills are similar in their general outline and purposes. Did you have any part, or did your committee have any part in the preparation of Senate bill 2700, introduced by Senator Robinson?

Mr. MERRIAM. Taking those points up separately, Senator, the first two bills which our committee had prepared for drafting purposes were substantially identical, with just a few minor drafting changes. As to the Senate bill introduced by Senator Robinson, we had no part in the preparation of that bill.

Senator McNARY. You were not consulted in the matter at all? Mr. MERRIAM. No; we had no hand in the preparation of that bill. We testified here at some length before the joint committee in executive session.

Senator MCNARY. Have you studied Senate bill 2700 now before us? Mr. MERRIAM. Yes; I have examined bill 2700.

Senator MCNARY. Could you, in a brief outline, state to the committee the differences between this bill and those two that were introduced, prepared by your committee, in confidential sessions?

Mr. MERRIAM. Well, I could do so, Senator, if that is the pleasure of the committee, but Senator Byrnes requested me, first, to make a general statement.

Senator MCNARY. I beg your pardon.

The CHAIRMAN. I stated that in the executive sessions we had devoted most of our discussions to one feature, the General Accounting Office.

Senator McNARY. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement has been made there should be some explanation of other provisions.

Senator MCNARY. I thought you had just about concluded, Mr. Merriam. I haven't had the time to devote to Senate bill 2700 that I should have, because of other pressing matters before the Senate. I thought maybe, knowing your familiarity with those matters, and your general theory of reorganization, that you could probably briefly recite the difference between the bill as it first stood and this one, but I shall not ask you to do that at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. May we have it understood that at the conclusion of your general statement you then proceed to answer Senator McNary's question in detail?

Mr. MERRIAM. Yes.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to ask Dr. Merriam whether the memorandum prepared on the former bill represents the views of the committee, the President's committee, as to the plan of reorganization?

Mr. MERRIAM. You mean the bill that is embodied in the record? Senator BYRD. Yes.

Mr. MERRIAM. That was the bill we had drafted in working out our general conclusions, and, in the main, represents the views of the committee.

Senator BYRD. That represents the bill that you think Congress should pass if it carries out the recommendation of the President's committee?

Mr. MERRIAM. That is the bill printed in the record?

Senator BYRD. Yes.

Mr. MERRIAM. In the main; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Doctor.

Senator BARKLEY. Doctor, you were discussing trends a moment ago. I wanted to ask you whether the increase in the appointment and the functions of city managers in cities all over the country is part of that trend toward better administrative functions in matters of government?

Mr. MERRIAM. That was to be my next point, Senator Barkley. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that he make a general statement first and then he will answer the questions that are asked of him. Senator BARKLEY. I will withdraw the question.

Mr. MERRIAM. I am the guest of the committee, of course, Senator, and I am here to answer any questions that you may put to me. Senator BARKLEY. It would be better for you to make a general statement without interruption.

Mr. MERRIAM. I will try to make that as brief as I can, considering my loquacious tendencies, also having in mind the burdens of the Senators and the demands on your time.

The similar movement to which Senator Barkley has just referred has been going along in cities in the past 10 years. Some 400 cities have even adopted a more compact system in what is known as the city manager plan. A great number of towns, some small towns, middle-sized towns, and some of the larger ones, like Cincinnati, have undertaken to reorganize administration along managerial lines. Even in cities where they have not undertaken the managerial plan, so-called by name, there have been many steps toward what we call consolidation, reorganization of the government as in New York City, or as in Chicago, and other large towns where you have not adopted the managerial plan but where there has been a growing tendency to set up a new form of administration which would enable the executive, on the strictly executive side, to manage executive affairs.

There has been a similar movement, although not so well developed, in quite a number of our counties, and, in general, even where the counties have not adopted the outright managerial plan there has been an attempt to draw together the threads of county administration. Finally, in the field of private business, particularly in the field of large scale business, many notable attempts have been made at reorganization of their administrative activities.

Gentlemen may point out from time to time that the full benefit of these reorganizations have not always been reflected in benefits to the consumer, but, waiving that question, certain notable advances have been made in the large scale organizations of industrial enterprises, and nowhere in the world has that progress been more notable than in the United States. If people want to look up the reorganization of

business on a large scale, they cross the Atlantic and see what is happening over here.

A further reason why the Committee on Administrative Management entered into this field was the general trend toward expansion of the functions of the Government, and in more recent days the expansion of governmental functions and governmental activities into many new fields. Notably that would be the case in the field of conservation, the field of public works, the field of public welfare, and so forth.

Much of this activity, beginning with the year 1933, was enacted under very great pressure, in the middle of a Nation-wide calamitous depression. Naturally the Government reached out in whatever direction seemed most feasible and practical at the given moment, but large numbers of agencies were created, large numbers of quasi-public corporations were created, and it seems as if this were, perhaps, the moment to reconsider the relation of this proliferation of organizations to the central hand of the administration.

Senator MCNARY. Pardon me. Have you finished what you intended to say as to what you call a growing tendency toward one-man government in cities?

Mr. MERRIAM. I did not call it a tendency toward one-man government. I am calling it a tendency toward centralization of administration.

Senator MCNARY. I am calling it that.

Mr. MERRIAM. Just so you do not attribute it to me.

Senator MCNARY. I have a very different view of it, Doctor. I think in the West, which I am particularly familiar with, and probably as familiar as you are, the managerial form of government is diminishing rapidly. I was amazed to hear you say it was a growing tendency throughout the country. Have you any statistics along that line? Mr. MERRIAM. Yes; we could give you the full figures on that. I do not have them in my hand here.

Senator McNARY. I would like to have them in the record.

Mr. MERRIAM. I would be glad to supply them for you, Senator. (Growth of council-manager plan table will be found at the end of this day's hearings.)

Senator MCNARY. Now, you referred, under that category, to New York and Chicago as illustrations of the general tendency in that direction. Where has there been a departure in the city of Chicago and the city of New York, from the fundamental form of government which obtained there for many years along the line of this new trend?

Mr. MERRIAM. You mean at what specific points in the charter organization?

Senator MCNARY. In the general administration. You used those as illustrations, that you are getting away from the councilmanic, the aldermanic form of government and there is more and more consolidation in the hands of one individual. You cited the two cities as an illustration of that. I just want to know wherein there has been a change in what you call the fundamental structure of government that obtained in those cities for many years.

Mr. MERRIAM. I do not wish to dispute what you say, Senator, but those were not the words that I employed.

Senator MCNARY. You are an expert and I am not, so you may use your own language.

Mr. MERRIAM. My language was that there has not been any drift away from councilmanic or aldermanic forms of government, but an attempt to set up a little more clearly the relative functions of the council and the functions of the administration. In my own city of Chicago-I do not want to start in on that because I was in the city council for a long time and I might wander too far into detail that perhaps would not interest you, but, in general, the tendency has been to organize the administration under the direction of the mayor on the administrative side. That would be done by the elimination, let us say, of an elective city clerk. We had for many years a city clerk who was elected. It would be done by the elimination of the elective city treasurer, placing him under the control of the appointment by the mayor.

In the city of New York, to make a long story short, the same thing has developed, and it is even more sharply outlined in the recent charter of New York City.

Senator MCNARY. You mean by that there has been more concentration of power in the hands of one individual than formerly?

Mr. MERRIAM. I do not think it is a concentration of political power, Senator; I think it is the concentration of administrative authority commensurate with his administrative responsibilities.

I will give you an illustration, if you want to go back. I remember being called into the city of St. Paul some years ago to give advice on reorganization of the government. I asked the mayor recently elected how he was getting on and he said, "I do not know. St. Paul is governed by five boards who are appointed by the mayor for the term of 5 years. I am just in for 2 years. In the beginning of my second term I will have control over the important administrative boards of St. Paul. Up to that time I appoint perhaps one man out of five on five commissions that deal with the fundamental questions of city administration." Now subsequently they changed that, so that the mayor of St. Paul has the power to remove either the boards, or, more commonly, the shift from a board form to an individual form; that is, a commissioner instead of a commission. We could give you readily graphs or charts that would show you that line going on for 30 years.

Senator BARKLEY. Has it been manifested in the abolition of the old-fashioned boards of aldermen and councilmen and the creation, in lieu thereof, of commissioners in many cities, not only large ones but small ones; that is, a city commission instead of a city council?

Mr. MERRIAM. It has been, Senator Barkley; yes. There have been city commissions or commissioners set up. Sometimes the aldermanic bodies were made smaller, reduced in size, but not diminished much in power.

Senator MCNARY. Do you think the people generally are relinquishing their right to administer their own affairs and placing it in the hands of someone who may act autocratically?

Mr. MERRIAM. I would say "No" to that, Senator. The tendency has been the other way, at least in the United States.

Senator MCNARY. The tendency is towards more democracy?
Mr. MERRIAM. That is right.

Senator MCNARY. You are getting my idea now entirely. The tendency is towards greater freedom of the people in both expressing their views and in the administration of the affairs of government? Mr. MERRIAM. The mass of the people are more conscious of their power and more disposed to make it more effective through