The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1911-01-05

minnesota SpenQS large sums OF mon.
ey every year for drainage, and have
every reason to believe that the ex-
penditure OF this money by thesdrains
age board of this state has brought
the best results, but as member OF
the board cannotsOf mysaownsknOwl-
edge assure the people Of the state
that the best results have in all cases
been obtaiEed.
In the second place under the pres
ent system of organization, with a
large = number. of nominal and. per.
functory boards in charge of the af.
fairs Of state, there is no way of Sc
curing such cooperation as lis essen
tial in efficient business .administra-
ton. The boards are uniformly too
large. The members reside .in,severy
portion of the state, and, seyen.-if they
could, be assembled. at any one time
and place it would be extremely diff.
dcult to agree on anyasingle: PROPOSE.
ton and to- secure uniforms support in
the execution, thereof.
RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD q
BE PLAcED=oIREcT;
According to the report of the state
auditor the state collects and dis
burseszoyer 50 ZOO, 900 annually. II a
private business Institutions transacted
its business Saby similar methods 1T
could not long exist in the present
field of active competition. Our state
has been exceptionally fortunate in
securing honest and intelligent officers
and the fact that the state has made
| such great progress with so few
charges of mismanagement or2graft is
a great credit to the mens=tn charge.
but positively no argument In favor of
the system and cannot possibly con-
vey any assurance. for the future.
Bearing in mind the two essential 'ele,
ments of successful misunderstanding
tratien, fixed responsibility and active
cooperation there are. several depart
| ments of state that can be cited as
ance, banking and public examiners
departments are all properly organ.
| lied with q responsible head in charge
| of each and deputies as we'll as in
spectors especially skilled in their
work and devoting all of their time
thereto. In the board of control and
tax commission every member is espes
cially skilled in the performance of
the duties Of his Office, devotes all his
time thereto and the business of each
board is organized and transacted
along lines of efficiency and merit. In
all these cases there is no question as
to responsibility and if all the, bust
ness of the state were transacted
along similar lines the results would
unquestionably be far=greater.
WOULD CONSOLIDATE
SOME DEPARTMENTS.
Perhaps the only remnant of the
theory that purely political considera'
lie expense is the present.1fee office,
There is no possible defense for the
existence of this office today. Fees
collected do not belong to the officer
but to the state, and the state owes
the officer. sufficient compensation
for his work, including necessary .ex.
I spenses, and no more. No state officer
should be dependent, for his support
upon the amount of fees collected. II
these fees aggregate a larger amount
than necessary to amply compensate
I him for his work and necessary ex
penses, he is appropriating money that
belongs to the state, and if they are
insufficient for that purpose, he is
rendering services to the state with
out proper compensation. Perhaps. nc
Offices in this state can illustrate this
more forcibly than those connected
with the oil and boiler inspection, and
surveying of logs and lumber. The In
spectiona of Illuminating oils could be
turned: over to the dairy and food de-
partment with practically no addi
tional expense, which would resultaiu
saving the state in fees disbursed fol-
the inspection of oil approximately
$4,000 annually, the total amount OF
fees collected during the fiscal year
ending July. 81, 1910, being $53,560.60
The dairy; and, food inspectors should
test the oil in making their inspection
trips throughout the state. This
would make the inspection more rigid
and effective. as the inspectors would
be free from local influence and indie
pendent of the amount OF. fees collect
ed, all of which should 60 into cthe
state treasury. With reference to the
boiler inspection the same argument
can be used.
WOULD ABOLISH OIL
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
In the case of oil inspection, this. de
partment should be entirely abolished
and it's work performed by theEdairy
and food department. In the case OF
boiler inspection, this work should be
performed by expert inspectors in. the
labor department, who should :, 3be
amply compensated for their work
and who should travel throughout the
state in the performance of their du
ties, devoting all their time thereto
The fees collected should be based or
boiler capacity and paid into the state
treasury. With reference to- the in
spection' of logs and lumber, this
could be performed by inspectors un
der the forestry commissioner, andsthe
fees collected therefor turned over tt
the state as in other cases.