« AnteriorContinuar »
states; under that there is direct election of the county officers by the voters of the county. The supervisor system is, however, spreading; for the intimate connection between the local governments under this system has been well liked. The usual form of this organization is that the chief executive officer of the local body is a member of the county board.
In local administration the variety is so great as to defy an accurate statement in brief form. An obvious distinction, indeed, may be made between the rural localities which are unincorporated, and the civic localities which are incorporated. That difference, of much importance in law, is of the same importance in the actual business of administration. In truth the real distinction is that in rural administration the work is so small that almost any arrangement will meet with moderate success; while in civic administration the work is so large that not even the best organization of the administration has proved to be a conspicuous suc
Internal sub-divisions. The proper questions of the law governing administration begin with the problems as to the inner organization. An explanation of this highly complex organism
43 STATE.— Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284; Ex parte Wiley, 54 Ala. 226; People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38; People v. Curley, 5 Colo. 412; Perkins v. New Haven, 53 Conn. 215; State y. Hocker, 39 Fla. 477; Foltz v. Kerlin, 105 Ind. 221; State v. Waite, 101 Ia. 380; State v. Gilmore, 20 Kan. 551; State v. Lamantia, 33 La. Ann. 446; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44; Lindsey V. Attorney-General, 33 Miss. 508; State v. Dillon, 90 Mo. 229; State v. Clarke, 21 Nev. 333; Taggart v. Commonwealth, 102 Pa. St. 354; State v. Glenn, 7 Heisk. 472; Day L. & C. Co. v. State, 68 Tex. 526; McGregor v. Balch, 14 Vt. 429; Burch v. Hardwicke, 30 Grat. 24.
may be helped by a biological analogy. In any government its organs correspond in some degree to the functions required of it. Indeed, the differentiation therein is no more than a matter of functional adaptation. Such specialization results in efficiency. At bottom it seems that the division in the agencies of administration is dictated by law inherent in all growth; as it is an internal reflection of external environment. In other words, make this the first question: what has the administration to do; that will answer the second question : what departments of government are there?
The principle in organization is system. Organization requires system in the proper co-ordination of officers. For this all officers upon the same grade must be so assigned that some are at one work, others at another work. Organization requires system also in the proper subordination of officers for direction. To make this out to its full extent each officer should be under his chief, their chiefs under another chief, this chief under the head of the chief executive himself. In any administration these forms will be preserved to a greater or to a lesser extent. For, indeed, some such arrangement is involved in any organization whatsoever.
In usual organization there is thus built up this articulated body. The object of this organism is to produce definite action. To this end there is specialization in the separate officers, so that there may be equipment for action. To this end, also, there is this organization of these officers into a whole, so that there may be direction in action. The purpose in administration is the enforcement of the law; and this can only be accomplished through the process of an administration that is organ
ized upon definite lines to that end. All this is said in a clear exposition of The Duties of the Attorney-General, 6 Opin. 346 (1854).
Attorney-General CUSHING said in part: The organization of the executive departments of the administration implies order, correspondence, and combination of parts, classification of duties—in a word, system; otherwise there is waste and loss of power, or conflict of power, either of which is contrary to the public service, which has a regard of so much work to be done by such persons at a given cost of either time or money. Besides which, in a political relation, want of due arrangement of public functionaries and their functions is want of due responsibility to society and to law. Accordingly, it has been the general purpose of Congress, at all times, both as to the great subdivision of departments and the arrangements of the duties of each, to classify and systematize.44
$ 58. Department.
An administration is a hierarchy. In the typical administration the department is the largest division. How many departments there shall be is a question ; in some governments there are more, in some less. It is all as the need is in any case. As the amount of things done by a government increases, the number of its principal departments will increase by division of the business of one old department between two new departments. Moreover, if wholly new powers are assigned to a government a new department will be required. Organization, as has been remarked before, is a reflection of the activities of a government.
44 INTERNAL SUBDIVISIONS.--Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51; Ex parte Allis, 12 Ark. 101; People v. Turner, 20 Cal. 142; Bunn v. People, 45 Ill. 397; State v. Board of Liquidation, 42 La. Ann. 647; Thomas v. Owens, 4 Md. 189; Lindsey v. Attorney-General, 4 George, 508; Cotton v. Phillips, 56 N. H. 220; People v. Schoonmaker, 13 N. Y. 238; State v. Weston, 4 Neb. 234; State v. Brown, 5 R. I. 1; State v. Hastings, 10 Wis. 525.
The growth of the departments can be traced with great ease in some such public document as the Report of the Dockery Commission, 53 Cong. 2nd Sess. House Rep. 49 (1893). The first thing to be noted in that report is the original organization of the executive departments. There were four at first: the Department of State for political and foreign affairs; the Department of War for military and naval affairs; the Department of Treasury for collection and disbursement; and the Department of Justice for legal and judicial matters. The next step was the separation of a Department of Navy; the next the creation of a Department of Interior; the next the promotion of the office of PostmasterGeneral; the next the invention of a Department of Agriculture; the last the provision for a Department of Commerce. All this is a growth upon the lines indicated.
This is not quite the whole story. These nine departments do not include every officer of the United States; there are some few unattached officers. This situation becomes of some importance at times. For example, it came to light in the opinion on the Civil Service Commission, 22 Opin. 62 (1898). This was a request for an opinion upon the question whether an act which required all clerks in all executive departments to work not less than seven hours applied to the clerks of the Civil Service Commission. It must be obvious that, in an exceptional office with exceptional duties pertaining to all the departments, it would be best if it need not be placed within the regular organization.
Attorney-General GRIGGS advised that the case did not apply: No board, commission, bureau, or office which is not expressly or by implication under the control of one of the chief executive departments can be considered as belonging to an executive department. There is nothing in the act constituting the Civil Service Commission which makes it subject to any regulation or control except that of the President himself. It follows therefore that when an act of Congress refers to the executive department it does not embrace and cannot properly be applied to any branch office or bureau which is not under the control of one of the executive departments presided over by a cabinet officer.
The departments, then, are those offices which are headed by the cabinet officers. In the American system of government the high political officers are also the actual working heads of the administrative department. Modern constitutional government has found by experience that whenever a gap exists between the chief officers of the state and the heads of the administrative departments that the administration suffers by this lapse. Because, after all, in the larger matters, questions of administration cannot be separated from questions of politics.45
45 DEPARTMENT.-Attorney-General, 6 Opin. 346; Civil Service Commission, 22 Opin. 62; State v. Hutt, 2 Ark. 282; Love v. Baehr, 47 Cal. 364; In re House Bill, 21 Colo. 32; State v. Keena, 64 Conn. 215; State v. Bloxham, 26 Fla, 407; Julian v. State, 122 Ind. 68; Bryan v. Cattell, 15 Ia. 538; State v. Nield, 4 Kan. App. 626; State v. Mason, 43 La. Ann. 590; Scharf v. Tasker, 73 Md. 378; In re