The Next Step in Washington R. CHESTER ROWELL'S ar MR Secretary Hughes Advocates the ticle in this magazine emphasizes THE Secretary of State explained the once more the most glaring defect in the American constitutional system-the lack of sympathetic coöperation between the executive and legislative departments. Most Americans have been brought up to regard the separation of the so-called three functions of government-judicial, legislative, and executive -as the great keystone of the American edifice. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that this idea is merely a superstition, a fetish, and the attempt to carry it out is responsible for many of the absurdities and failures of government in this country. That the judiciary should be distinct and separate is obvious, but the closer the executive and the legislative departments can be brought together the better and the more smoothly will the American system work. The extent to which the Constitution separates these functions is constantly overstressed. As a matter of fact the Constitution gives the President an important part in lawmaking. It makes it his duty to submit a legislative program at the beginning of each session-in other words, it makes his the initial voice in legislation. It gives him the one great power held by other national executives-the right to veto every act of Congress, a veto that cannot be overruled except by a twothirds vote. What a misstatement to say, under these conditions, that in the United States the executive and the legis lature maintain a distinct existence in water-tight compartments! Yet there is a pressing need to discover some method of bringing these two agencies closer together so that the differences and quarrels that have too frequently blocked important legislation shall be ended, or at least mollified. One way frequently suggested-it was proposed by Mr. Taft while President and is endorsed by Mr. Rowell-is to give members of the Cabinet the right to appear in Congress, answer questions, and defend their policies. This idea has Mr. Hughes's approval. words: There is, however, the possibility of improvement without weakening our safeguards, by improving the methods of contact between the executive and the Congress. It ought to be possible for Cabinet officers to take part in the debates in both houses on matters touching their departments and thus to be able to give exact information and to defend themselves against unjust attacks. A vast amount of time is now wasted in the Congress over the things that are not and never were. An ounce of fact is worth many pounds of talk. Under the present arrangements, a Cabinet officer often hears of misunderstandings and of an outpouring of mistaken notions, which a brief statement from him could have corrected, but the misapprehension has been voiced and has gone through the country, perhaps never to be overtaken. Mr. Justice Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" says on this point: thus precluded from proposing or vindicating "The heads of the departments are, in fact, their own measures in the face of the nation in the course of debate, and are compelled to submit them to other men, who are either imperfectly acquainted with the measures or are indifferent to their success or failure. Thus that open and public responsibility for measures which properly belongs to the executive in all governments, and especially in a republican government, as its greatest security and strength, is completely done away. The executive is compelled to resort to secret and private arrangements to accomplish his own unseen influences, to private interviews and appropriate purposes, instead of proposing and sustaining his own duties and measures by a bold and manly appeal to the nation in the face of its representatives." We can preserve the advantages of stability and enhance the opportunities of executive leadership, not by overriding the cherished prerogatives of the Congress, or by attempting to gain an illicit advantage for that leadership, but by having a recognized contact through the regular admission of Cabinet officers to the floor of both houses of the Congress. This would not require any voting power on their part of any change in the Constitution, but simply a change in procedure which could 122 A Constitutional Amendment Unnecessary readily be effected by each house. I commend to your attention the report to the Senate on this subject which was made in 1881 by a committee of which Senator Pendleton was Chairman, and Senators W. B. Allison, D. W. Voorhees, James B. Blaine, and John J. Ingalls, with others, were members. They said: "The power of both houses of Congress, either separately or jointly, to admit persons not members to their floors, with the privilege of addressing them, cannot be questioned. The provision of the Constitution that 'no Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his continuance in Office' is in no wise violated. The head of a department, reporting in person and orally, or participating in debate, becomes no more a member of either House than does the chaplain, or the contestant or his counsel, or the Delegate. He has no official term; he is neither elected or appointed to either house; he has no participation in the power of impeachment, either in the institution or trial; he has no privilege from arrest; he has no power to vote. "We are dealing with no new question. In the earlier history of the government the communications were made by the President to Congress orally, and in the presence of both or either of the houses. Instances are not wanting-nay, they are numerous-where the President of the United States, accompanied by one or more of his Cabinet, attended the sessions of the Senate and House of Representatives in their separate sessions and laid before them papers which had been required and information which had been asked for. "Your committee is not unmindful of the maxim that in a constitutional government the great powers are divided into legislature, executive, and judicial, and that they should be conferred upon distinct departments. These departments should be defined and maintained, and it is a sufficiently accurate expression to say that they should be independent of each other. But this independence in no just or practical sense means an entire separation, either in their organization or their functions-isolation, either in the scope or the exercise of their powers. Such independence or isolation would produce either conflict or paralysis, either inevitable collision or inaction, and either the one or the other would be in derogation of the efficiency of the government. . "It has been objected that the effect of this introduction of the heads of departments upon the floor would be largely to increase the influence of the executive on legislation. Your committee does not share this apprehension. The information given to Congress would doubtless be more pertinent and exact; the recommendations would, perhaps, be presented with greater effect, but on the other hand, the members of Congress would also be put on the alert to see that the influence is in proportion only to the value of the information and the suggestions; and the public. would be enabled to determine whether the influence is exerted by prevision or by argument. "This system will require the selection. of the strongest men to be heads of departments, and will require them to be well equipped with the knowledge of their offices. It will also require the strongest men to be leaders of Congress and participate in debate. It will bring these strong men in contact, perhaps into conflict, to advance the public weal, and thus stimulate their abilities and their efforts, and will thus assuredly result to the good of the country." This desirable change could be made at any time under appropriate rules which would promote the convenience both of Cabinet officers and the houses of Congress. It could be required that questions to be addressed to the members of the Cabinet should be filed a certain length of time before the appearance of the officer and, except when matters relating to his department were under discussion, his attendance would be excused. It would not be difficult to arrange the mechanism of such contact if its importance were recognized. A Cabinet Both In and Of Congress T HE idea of having Cabinet representation in Congress, advocated by Mr. Hughes, might well be pushed still farther. Perhaps the best solution would be for the President to form the habit of appointing his Cabinet from members of Congress-Senators and Representatives-who, of course, should still retain their membership in that body, where they would introduce legislation pertaining to their several fields and be prepared to explain and defend it at any time. This can be done without recourse to legislation, for the Cabinet as such is not a legal body. There would still be secretaries of the various departments, but they would be permanent officers working under the various members of the Cabinet. The advantage of this change would be great. It would most effectively bring about coöperation of legislative and executive functions and, in doing so, it would enhance, rather than diminish, the dignity of Congress. Obviously, the men selected for Cabinet rank would be the oldest and most experienced members of the two bodies, whose presence in the Cabinet would add to their prestige while at the same time it would not detract from their importance as old-timers in legislation, who would have that knowledge of Congress which would enable them to represent the White House most intimately and the talent for debate and knowledge of Congressional mentality and manners that would make them respected on the floor. In other words, they would not be "outsiders." The fact that Cabinet officers were to be taken from Congressional leaders would also put an entirely new meaning on a Congressional career and make it attractive to ambitious men. A Specimen Cabinet W WOULD Cabinet heads selected from Congress be as able as those chosen from a wider field? With the improvement in the calibre of Senators and Congressmen that would follow this change, with the years of legislative experience and knowledge of public affairs that Congressional leaders would obtain, the chances are that the quality of Cabinets would greatly improve. Even under present conditions, Mr. Coolidge could find Republican leaders enough in the two Houses to construct a Cabinet that would rank pretty well with the present one in executive ability and above it in effective relations with Congress. Mr. Burton, for instance, would probably not have failed with an Administration tax bill in the House, as Mr. Mellon did. Mr. Borah would have known what the result of the Hanihara letter would be on the Senate. Here, then, is a list that would not disgrace the nation, and doubtless other combinations could be assembled: Secretary of State-William E. Borah Secretary of the Treasury-Theodore E. Burton Secretary of War-James Wadsworth Secretary of the Navy-Frederick H. Gillett Attorney-General-George Wharton Pepper Postmaster-General-Reed Smoot Secretary of the Interior-Albert Johnson Secretary of Agriculture-Arthur Capper Secretary of Commerce-Albert B. Cummins Secretary of Labor-Robert M. La Follette The last name shows how useful this method would be in handling certain political problems that so frequently vex the White House-such as blocs. Indeed, the fact that Cabinets selected in this way would bring together all elements in the party, even the discordant ones, is a practical argument in its favor. The Passing of a Great Frenchman T HE death of Anatole France came at a time when his vogue was beginning to gather considerable momentum in the United States. To a certain number of Americans this, probably the most Gallic of contemporary French writers, has been a familiar companion for thirty years, but it is only within the last decade that he can be said to have been a popular author in this country. It is an eloquent sign of the perennial quality of his genius that Anatole France produced two of his greatest books, "Penguin Island" and "The Revolt of the Angels," in his old age, and it was probably the wit and philosophy of these two books that was responsible for his steadily increasing fame in America. As a satire on human nature and especially on his own beloved France— "Penguin Island" is the greatest thing that has appeared since "Gulliver's Travels," but it is not likely to have the strange fate that has overtaken Swift's masterpiece, and become a children's classic, for it is only the sophisticated mind that can appreciate the genial and Voltaire, Anatole France, and the Reverend "Billy" Sunday 124 subtle sarcasm of this modern Frenchman. Where is there anything more delightful than the indignation of Vergil at his treatment by Dante, expressed in all its classic disdain to the Christian missionary Marbode? Who has ever given a sharper thrust at theology and dogma than this gay modernist in his description of the debate among the fathers of the Church on the baptism of the penguins and the disappointment expressed over the fact that these birds have no souls and for that reason cannot be condemned to hell? Probably the greatest specimen of historic irony ever put in a few pages is Anatole France's short story "The Procurator of Judea." It really sums up his whole philosophy of history and of human nature. Pontius Pilate, in his old age, reviews his stormy days as the Roman Governor of Palestine. He remembers with the utmost vividness Mary Magdalene, but he has forgotten that such a person as Jesus Christ ever lived! This may be blasphemy-blasphemy against both formal religion and the higher instincts of human nature-but it is certainly wit, and wit on a very large canvass. It is not surprising that all the works of Anatole France should have been placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitum of the Roman Catholic Church, and also not surprising that the devout should have christened him the "Twentieth Century Voltaire." The resemblances between Voltaire and France, however, were only superficial. The differences were partly the differences of temperament, partly the differences of circumstances and time. Some one has said that Voltaire, despite his attacks on the religion of his day, was not a skeptic; that the intensest thing in his nature was his belief, the very ferocity of his assault merely expressing his conviction that humankind was was destined for higher things, spiritually and materially, than those which he saw in Eighteenth Century France. His zeal was therefore the zeal of the reformer, and his aim the establishment of a new and higher order. But Anatole France was the skeptic-the man who doubted everything, to whom the existing reality was no more absurd than were the aspirations of those who sought to replace it with something better. To him Voltaire, and his passion for a finer world, were as much of a joke as would have seemed the Reverend "Billy" Sunday had he ever made the latter gentleman's acquaintance. It's a chilling prospect that he gives of human fate, in the "Garden of Epicurus," where the last man awaits his doom, sitting on that huge cake of ice which was once the world-a poor shivering wretch, as ignorant, as stupid, as devoid of art, literature, science, religion, civilization, as was the original human being who started in the wrong war of progress 500,000 years ago! Yet Anatole France had at least one enthusiasm in common with his Eighteenth Century predecessor. Human injustice aroused in him a note which had all the sound of sincerity. Dreyfus played the part in his life that Calas and La Barre played in that of Voltaire. In the latter years of the Nineteenth Century, when the whole of France was yelping at the heels of this devoted Jew, Anatole France brought his powerful support to his aid, and, with Zola and Clemenceau, successfully insisted that his country should right a terrible wrong. And, when the Great War broke out, he showed that his emotions were as primitive as those of the patriots and saints whom he had been ridiculing all his life and that so narrow a prejudice as love of country was deep seated also in his own philosophic bosom. He insisted, at the age of seventy, that he be permitted to shoulder a musket and defend France in the trenches and was appeased with difficulty when his country found for him war employment more adapted to his age and talents. His death-bed disclosed that his soul nourished no skepticism where the most fundamental of human affections were concerned. There was nothing of the cynic in his last cry of "Maman!" as his mind, oblivious of the housekeeper he had married as an old man, reverted to the mother of his childhood. Thus Anatole France's career presents as fine a subject for irony as any of his own creations, and perhaps its most valuable lesson is that truth and justice and love of country and human affection are, after all, realities, which even a life steeped in the deepest erudition, and years devoted to skepticism and genial mockery, cannot destroy. Veterans Not Eager for the Bonus N EW light is shed upon that much disputed point in the bonus controversy-the attitude of the veterans themselves-by the history of the Adjusted Compensation Act for the last six months. About 4,500,000 war survivors are entitled to its benefits, yet, at the present writing, only 1,300,000 have put in their applications. The bonus director of New York State, which, at the election of 1923, voted payments to its ex-soldiers, makes a similar report. Not far from 500,000 candidates are eligible, and of these 340,000 have applied. The Federal Government is appealing to Army and Navy men to hurry their applications, and is even resorting to "broadcasting" for this purpose, strongly emphasizing the fact that the delay causes financial loss. basis on which the bonus campaign was built was somewhat fallacious. There clearly was no universal demand for this legislation. The mass of war veterans were not ranged as one man for the punishment of any legislator who ignored their campaign. Those opposed to the bonus frequently pointed to the enrollment of the American Legion, which, out of a possible membership of nearly 5,000,000, had attained only about 600,000 members. It is possible, even probable, that the majority of these are included in the 1,500,000 applicants who have already made their appearance, but is clear that, excluding the organization, the great mass of men and women who served their country in 1917-18, have manifested no great eagerness for additional compensation. This fact in itself should end any attempts to obtain further legislation in the next Congress. Such a demonstration is inevitable, but clearly the great majority of veterans who, six months. after the passage of the law, have not sufficient interest in the Adjusted Compensation Act to enroll for its benefits, are not likely to play an important part. One great argument of the bonus advocates has disappeared. A ation What does this mean? An argument A Society to Promote Religious Tolerof the anti-bonus advocates was that the veterans as a mass really had little interest in the subject, and that the whole question had been precipitated by Congressmen and the like for political purposes. The large vote the measure obtained in both houses-sufficient to pass it over the Presidential veto-was explained on the ground of political cowardice; the veterans in every district were keeping track of their representatives' behavior, and woe to the statesman who decided wrong on this issue! Human nature being what it is, it is too much to expect that the vast majority of those legally entitled to payments from the Federal Treasury will not ultimately turn up to claim their due. But the fact that most of them have to be urged and almost implored to do so in itself shows that the STILL, small voice has been lifted in all the turmoil produced by the reverberations of the Ku Klux Klan and its enemies. At Utica recently a new organization was formed under the name of the "Hamilton-Jefferson Society." The first chapter has a membership of one hundred, fifty of them Catholics and fifty Protestants. An additional touch is supplied by the fact that most of the Catholics are members of the Knights of Columbus and most of the Protestants Masons. The average member of the Knights of Columbus expresses surprise at the ideas entertained of his organization by certain Protestants. That a feeling should exist that its purpose is to make the United States the vassal of |