A MORE EFFECTIVE CABINET Address before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, By Hon. ANDREW J. MONTAGUE Ex-Governor of Virginia Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Pennsylvania Bar Association: The success and duration of American political institutions depend less perhaps upon the official than what may be termed the unofficial statesmanship of the nation. While this unofficial group has not such a concrete sense of responsibility in the workings of our institutions, yet by reason of personal detachment it is mainly the creative source of our political ideals and of our standards of administrative efficiency. The American lawyer is no negligible member of this class, and especially do the achievements of the Bar of this imperial Commonwealth confirm its title to an exalted place in this unofficial but formative and constructive force in our national life, a full appreciation of which inspires my confidence that this forum is not inappropriate for the presentation of the subject which I would discuss. It may be true that the lawyer of to-day exerts upon politics less influence than in former years. The interesting explanation of this decline, while not wholly creditable to our Bar, I shall not now discuss, but shall, in passing, observe that in matters of constitutional domain, and in legislative, administrative and juridical procedure, our profession still easily wields a dominant influence. We may not again have the constructive judgments of Mansfield, Marshall, Gibson and Shaw, the eloquent illuminations of Erskine, Pinkney and Webster, or the entrancing philippics of Black. The genius and achievements of these rare and radiant men form an orbit all their own, which still furrows our professional firmament with an expanding lustre. But the American Bar will, from time to time in the coming years, dower the nation with a jurisprudence wider in scope and more responsive to the evolutionary necessities of a constantly advancing civilization-with facts gathered with a more exact induction, arranged in more scientific classification, and more nourishing of the principles of ordered liberty; and while these great contributions may not flare up as a flame to lead, they will rather steadily flow, as oil into the tired joints, and as water into the thirsty lips of our mother Republic. The American lawyer should not alone be an adviser of clients and a trier of causes; he should more frequently devote his observation and learning to the duties of the statesman and the publicist. With fidelity and fearlessness he should investigate political conditions and determine without traditional or partisan bias whether our institutions are, as now administered, adequate to cope with changed conditions, and if not, he must help fashion them to the needs of a developing and progressive people. He must test the ship of state itself as well as the course of its voyage; and if upon rigorous examination the need of reform in political custom or in governmental administration is disclosed, a historic past should not be invoked through sheer conservatism to keep fast the door against changes essential to a more historic future. In such a spirit I venture with misgivings to submit. as my theme a reform of the Federal Cabinet, whereby its members may occupy seats on the floor of each House of Congress, with right of debate upon matters relating to their several departments, and with the corresponding right of each House to compel their attendance, and to propound interrogatories and interpellations under appropriate rules of procedure. In other words, I would urge the expediency of a more effective Cabinet system, somewhat analogous to most of the legislative governments of the world, so far as such a reform can be effected under our present constitutional limitations. Such organic limitations must first be considered. For however desirable a more effective co-ordination of our executive and legislative departments may be, the lawyer must first be satisfied of a clear constitutional warrant for the exercise of any new administrative or legislative function. A select Committee of the House of Representatives, composed of seven members, with Mr. Pendleton, of Ohio, as Chairman, unanimously reported on April 6, 1864, a bill giving to the Cabinet the powers and imposing upon them the duties I have suggested. Again, on February 4, 1881, a select Committee of the Senate, composed of Pendleton, Allison, Voorhees, Blaine, Butler, Ingalls, Platt, of Connecticut, and Farley unanimously reported substantially the House Bill of 1864, accompanied with copious regulations governing the procedure involved in the change. Neither of these Committees expressed any doubt as to the constitutionality of the measure; nor was this questioned on either occasion or in either House; indeed, the provisions of the Constitution authorizing such a procedure seemed too plain for controversy. The Constitution vests in the President the power to call together the Congress, or either House thereof, in extraordinary session, and to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper in the event that they cannot agree upon the time of adjournment. It also empowers him to veto every bill, joint order, resolution or vote, except a vote to adjourn; and requires that he "shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall deem necessary and expedient." 30505-16 The clause quoted does not prescribe the form in which he shall present information and measures, nor does it empower Congress to prescribe such forms. Manifestly, this method or form is left with the President, and his presentation of such information and measures in person is no more a usurpation of legislative jurisdiction than his power of veto; in fact, his power to initiate legislation is without any limitation whatever. The Presidents down to Jefferson appeared before Congress and personally addressed or delivered their messages. Perhaps his faulty throat and weak voice induced him to discontinue this particular practice, which has unfortunately never since been resumed. Washington and his Secretaries not infrequently appeared before the Senate and House, making oral explanation of recommendations and measures, as well as of departmental matters. It would therefore seem that if the President can in person or in writing submit measures or bills, Congress may by statute enable the members of his Cabinet to do so in his behalf. The public business in this respect is now inadequately complied with by the transmission by the President to Congress of the reports of the several members of his Cabinet. There is no law requiring these reports to be so submitted; but they have, by custom and necessity, become a vehicle, though a clumsy one, for imparting information to Congress. We also find that the law originating the Treasury Department in 1789 provides that the Secretary "shall make report and give information to either branch of the legislature either in person or in writing (as may be required) respecting all matters which may be referred to him by the Senate or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his office." It may be interesting to observe that in the debate upon this bill it was objected that the right of personal appearance upon the floor of Congress by the Secretary would |