Evening star., 1938-10-22


the agents OF David Lawrence.
Congress and
tampering with the quasi judicial
commissions.
The President in his press confer
ence at Hyde Park drew attention 10
the recently completed reorganization
plan in the judicial branch OF the
Government, where experts from Ihe
Department of Justice and commls-
sion of jurists worked out a formula
which was presented to Congress 1or
vote.
The analogy is not, however, on all
fours with the reorganization OF the
executive agencies. In the first place.
the Judicial Commission dealt wholly
with procedure. Secondly, there was
no question about the constitutional
power Of the judicial branch OF the
Government to deal with the pro-
cedural questions.
Congress- Control Is Issue.
In the matter of executive reorgan-
tzation there is a conflict Of view as to
the power of Congress not only to
delegate certain authority to executive
agencies, but to retain such control,
For Congress to delegate legislative
functions except within prescribed
limits is an unwarranted use OF con-
eressional power Likewise, for the
executive to seek broad grants OF power
which give discretion to executive
agencies to make regulations some
times equivalent to new law was not
contemplated by the original separa-
ton of the executive and legislative
branches.
Congress is responsible for the
spending of money and for the last
is years has insisted on exercising
check on expenditures through the
Office of controller general. But the
Roosevelt administration wants to
furnish an audit after the money is
spent and does not want any Govern
ment officer checking in advance to
determine whether money is about to
be expended at variance with the pur-
poses of Congress.
Certainly, it is no time to lock the
barn after the horses are stolen, and
no Government agency would pay
much attention to letters of comment
written by an auditor general such
as the administration favors especially
when the audit occurs after the money
Is spent.
Another obstacle tc the passage OF
the reorganization bill was the Presl-
dents insistence that quasi judicial
commissions come under budgetary
control Of the Executive. The argu-
ment was that the courts already sub
NIT their budgets to the Department Of
Justice for approval. But actually this
system is not relished by the courts,
though there is less concern about
j. because court officials are appointed
FOX life.
Indirect Control Seen.
As .or the quasi-judicial commits
s.o-s, their members are appointed
by .ne Executive for fixed terms and
VI. Roosevelt has assumed the author
~ 70 remove them without giving any
cause. as he did in the case of the
late William E. Humphreys of the
Federal Trade Commission Earlier
this year too, the President removed
Chairman Morgan of the T. v. A., even
though the statute expressly pointed
cut the conditions of removal and the
necessity of concurrence by resolution
of Congress. BY making up the budget
for these commissions, politically
minded personnel can impair the in
dependence of the commissioners and
get up an indirect control-at least
that was the basis for the principal
fight on this aspect of the measure.
. Another objection to the President s
bill related to the abolition of the
Civil Service Commission and setting
up one-man control Of civil service.
If a civil service commissioner could
be appointed who would really be
immune from political influence and
If he could serve 15-year term and
be beholden to nobody in government,
there might be much to commend the
plan.
On the whole, there are several
points on which the President will
have to compromise in order to get a
reorganization bill passed. But with
the broad necessity of reorganization,
few persons who know government
intimately will quarrel. 1t has been
a reform agitated for decades by both
Republican and Democratic Presidents.
If Mr.. Roosevelt is so taken with
the idea of an independent body of
experts to formulate reorganization
plans, fertile field for such group
would be the drafting of rules of pro-
cedure for the quasi judicial commits
.ions. Certainly the need for uniform
ity is more than ever necessary and
much litigation nowadays would be
supernuous if all the Federal COM
missions and boards had to obey the
same rules of procedure and were
equally jealous in safeguarding the
citizens rights. To such a use of
experts most persons who have had
experience before the commissions
would say Amen"
(Copyright 1889