Evening star., 1934-07-22
Good" and bad" Bureaucracy

bVOu anu bhu DuIth uCihtJ
Genial Jim Farley, always opu-
nistic. always looking on the bright
side Of things. brings comforting as
surance to the West Coast and 70 the
rest OF the Nation There is really
no substance to expressed fears re-
garding the growth Of a bureaucracy
Ii Is true that there seems TO bc
some reference, he says. TO the
dangers Of buresucracy But. take
St from Big Jim. such fears are
Proundless. For there are two kinds
of bureaucracy. one is known. 10
Jim, as bad bureaucracy" The
other is known. TO Jim. as good
bureaucracy" Do not be misled into
the belief that the distinction has
been casually drawn, For no one
recognizes these dangers more than
] do" II has only been after careful
and studious consideration of these
dangers that the Postmaster General
has reached his verdict and pro-
nounced the country safe from bu-
reaucracy. Because, if there is q
bureaucracy, it is a good bureau
cracy." And whoever heard of a
''good bureaucracy" that was dan
gerous2
There are methods Of preventing
bad bureaucracy and retaining only
the good bureaucracy" The best,
apparently. is to follow the Postmaster
Generals prescription. Here 1t is:
Not to abolish the institutions or
measures that have been adopted to
protect the rights Of the people, but
TO be sure that in the administration
of these institutions every measure
shall be taken TO make certain that
a fair and adequate service is given
for the money paid.
What are these measures9 Well,
one has been led TO believe that the
first requirement for public Office is
that the applicant should have been
+. r. B. (Which, of course, means
For Roosevelt Before Chicago. Another
measure which should be taken is
TO be sure the candidate has the in
dorsement of his Senator or Repre-
sentative and the Endorsement of the
party organization OF his home dis
trict-such as Tammany Hall. Another
measure, in case a position must be
filled in an organization which was
"blanketed" into the civil service
under a previous administration, is
TO 'unblanket" that organization from
the civil service by executive order,
thus permitting complete and un-
restrained exercise of measures noted
above. The tremendous bureaus-or
institutions" as Mr.. Farley prefers
to call them-created under the new
deal are happily designed to become
the agencies of good bureaucracy,
not being hsmpered by civil service
or merit system. And. despite Mr.
Farleys valiant efforts. Congress de-
clined to put first, second and third
postmssterships under civil service,
an act which also might have in
terfered with the building up of a
good bureaucracy"
The country may not be in danger
from bureaucracy, a good bureau
cracy, but there seems to be growing
alarm that the country is in con-
siderable danger Of an out-and- -out
return to the spoils system, which
means abandonment OF the merit sys-
TEN as the most effective guarantee
Of that fair and adequate service"
OF which Mr., Farley so nobly speaks.
The most recent expression OF such
a fear is from Luther c. Steward,
president of the Federation of Federal
Employees, who finds that:
On every hand evidence accumu-
lates that, In an atmosphere OF cyni-
cal indifference on the part of
national authorities, who should be
standing as bulwarks OF the merit
system, spoilSmen are undermining
the whole structure Of the Federal
clyll service.
Perhaps, as in the case of bureau
cracy, there is distinction between
a good spoils system" and bad
spoils system" and fears of return
to the spoils system are without
ioundation--becauSe the spells system
Is a good spolls system, not a bad
Spoils system