President in all cases-I submit that it is not before the House in proper form.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is of opinion that the point of order should be overruled at this juncture. The Chair is in some doubt as to whether such a point of order could be raised when the bill is not up for consideration, but he will not pass upon that question. The gentleman from Texas reserves the right to object.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, under the reservation, may I ask the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LUCE], who is the author of this bill, whether or not it is his opinion that the Government of the United States ought first to discharge its debts of honor before making gratuities of this kind?

In that connection I want to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that it is now five years after the war, and we have been promising, promising, promising to our ex-service men, 4,000,000 of them, that we would give them an adjusted compensation. The gentleman's party has promised them; my party has promised them. Does not the gentleman think that we ought to discharge that debt first?

This bill involves a matter that we can more properly discharge later on. I am of the opinion that every good woman of the United States-and they all come within the provisions of this bill, and they all rendered valuable service during the war, every one of them-would prefer that the Government pay first its debt that it owes to the ex-service men, and then they will come in later for the deserved expression of our appreciation that is offered in this bill.

Mr. LUCE. I know of no greater debt of honor than that which the Nation owes to those who gave their lives in its service. There is no occasion to consider at this moment any other debts of honor the country may owe. It was in recognition of the nature of this one that it was believed this proposal, appealing to every man in the last Congress, might properly and wisely receive the immediate attention of this Congress, a proposal that the last House by a unanimous vote passed in a form essentially like that of the resolution here, a proposal that the last Senate passed also by unanimous vote. Through a strange mischance the measure was not engrossed in time to reach the President before adjournment. He expected it; he was ready to sign it, and after adjournment expressed regret that accident had deprived him of the opportunity.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr, LUCE. Certainly.

Mr. BLANTON. Is not the gentleman attempting by this bill to segregate the good women of the country from the citizenship of the land? They are just as much citizens of the United States as we men are. They are just as much a part of the Government of the United States as we men are. We are not attempting to pass any bills to erect monuments to the sacrifices made by the male citizens of the United States. I am one of those who would grant everything to the good women of the land that they really desire. But do the good women want it? Why, in war time they made these sacrifices as a matter of course, through patriotism, just as men did. Are they asking for this? I would like the gentleman to tell me from what part of the country the demand comes. I know of no such demand from the women of the South, and I know of no such demand from the women of the North. The women are unanimous in this land in asking that justice be done to the ex-service men of the country.

Of course, we pass these bills. We take them up on consent day. They go through the House rapidly, because we have not had time to consider them; the Members do not know what they contain or how far-reaching they are. They go to the Senate and are passed there in the same way, after five minutes' deliberation. But because they pass in that way is no reason to argue that they are meritorious bills. For one, I think this bill ought to wait awhile. Let us perform first the duty our Government owes to the ex-service men.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas will further reserve the right to object, it is, of course, difficult to objeet to a resolution whose apparent purpose is so close to our hearts as this, the apparent purpose of the resolution being to recognize the sacrifices of our women in the World War. Of course, it was 50 years after the Civil War before we recognized the services of the women in that war. I am sure the gentleman from Texas will agree with me that the time may come, should sometime come, when a proper and fitting recognition of the spirit of sacrifice of the women in the World War, rather than of any particular individuals, should be recognized.

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, yes; when the aftermath of the war is all over and our urgent obligations are discharged. Then we will take up this matter properly and do justice. Mr. CRAMTON. Let me make this statement: At the present time, however, the real purpose of this bill is not to pay fitting recognition of the spirit of sacrifice of womankind in the World War, but rather to pay half the expense of erecting a building for the use of the Red Cross. There is nothing in the report to indicate that the Red Cross is in pressing need of that building at the present time. It is open to grave doubt whether $150,600 should be taken out of our Treasury as a gift to the Red Cross for the partial cost of this building, when we have not the funds with which to construct buildings needed in the District of Columbia for Government operations at this time, nor for discharging the obligations which the gentleman from Texas has referred to. Furthermore, conditions in the Treasury at the present time forbid our making any $150,000 gift to anybody. The need now is for economy and tax reduction. When the time does come that we have passed this great need of economy, and when the time comes for us to erect a monument to typify the spirit of sacrifice of the women in the World War, it should be a fitting monument and not a lean-to on some previously erected memorial. [Applause.]

Mr. BLANTON. I will say to the gentleman from Michigan that the reason why bills of this nature pass so frequently is that sometimes we are rather afraid to object to them for fear of adverse criticism and in having our motives misconstrued; but I am not afraid to object, and I do object. The SPEAKER. Objection is made.

BRIDGE ACROSS WACCAMAW RIVER, 8. C.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (S. 384) to authorize the building of a bridge across Waccamaw River in South Carolina near the North Carolina State line. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the North and South Carolina Waccamaw Bridge Co. be, and the same is hereby, authorized to construct, operate, and maintain a bridge, with approaches thereto, across the Waccamaw River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, north of and near Bellamy Landing, Horry County, S. C., in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906. SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER TO CONNECT BENWOOD, W. VA.,

AND BELLAIRE, OHIO.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5624) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Ohio River to connect the city of Benwood, W. Va., and the city of Bellaire, Ohio.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GRAHAM of Illinois). Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Interstate Bridge Co., a corporation or ganized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, its succes sors and assigns, is hereby authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Ohio River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, to and into the city of Benwood, Union district, county of Marshall, in the State of West Virginia, from the central part of the city of Bellaire, county of Belmont, in the State of Ohio, in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navi gable waters," approved March 23, 1906.

SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

BRIDGE OVER THE ST. CROIX RIVER.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5837) authorizing the construction of an international highway bridge over the St. Croix River between Vanceboro, Me.. and St. Croix, New Brunswick.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of Congress is hereby given to the State of Maine to construct, maintain, and operate jointly with the Dominion of Canada a highway bridge to be located over the St. Croix River between Vanceboro, State of Maine, and St. Croix, Province of New Brunswick; the location and the type of structure to be suitable to the interests of river navigation and in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906: Provided, That the construction of said bridge shall not be commenced until the consent of the Parliament or other proper authority of the Dominion of Canada shall have been obtained: Provided further, That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is expressly reserved.

The Clerk read the following committee amendments:

Line 3, page 1, strike out the word "given" and insert the word "granted" in lieu thereof.

Line 5, page 1, strike out the word "highway."

Line 6, page 1, after the word “river," insert the following: ", at a point suitable to the interests of navigation."

Line 7, page 1, after the word "Brunswick," change the semicolon to a comma and strike out the last two words in the line. Strike out all of line 8, page 1.

Strike out the first three words in line 9, page 1.

Line 3, page 2, after the word " 'Canada," insert "for the erection of the structure."

Line 4, page 2, after the word "obtained," change the colon to a period and strike out the rest of the line.

Strike out all of line 5, page 2.

At the end of the bill add a new section reading as follows: "SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved."

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill granting the consent of Congress to construct a bridge over the St. Croix River between Vanceboro, Me., and St. Croix, New Brunswick."

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendments.

The question was taken, and the amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE ST. JOHN RIVER.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 5348) for the construction of a bridge across the St. John River between Fort Kent, Me., and Clairs, Province of New Brunswick, Canada.

Is there objection to the pres

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
ent consideration of the bill?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of Congress is hereby given to the construction, maintenance, and operation by the State of Maine and the Dominion of Canada, jointly, of a highway bridge to be erected across the St. John River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, between Fort Kent, Me., and Clairs, Province of New Brunswick, Canada, in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled “An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906: Provided, That the construction of said bridge shall not be commenced until the consent of the proper authorities of the Dominion of Canada for the erection of the structure shall have been obtained.

County, W. Va., and near the mouth of Turkey Creek, Pike County, Ky.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Norfolk & Western Railway Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and authorized to do business in the State of West Virginia and to possess and operate a railway in Kentucky, its successors and assigns, be, and they are hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River at a point suitable to the interests of navigation at or a point about a mile and a half west of Williamson, Mingo County, W. Va., and near the mouth of Turkey Creek, Pike County, Ky., where the said Tug Fork forms the boundary line between the States of West Virginia and Kentucky, in accordance with the provisions of the act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters, approved March 23, 1906.

near

SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 646) to make valid and enforcible written provisions or agreements for arbitration of disputes arising out of contracts, maritime transactions, or commerce among the States or Territories, or with foreign nations.

The SPEAKER. tion of the bill? Mr. BLANTON.

Is there objection to the present consideraMr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] think a bill of this kind should come up on consent day? Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania.

I certainly do or I would not have placed it on the Consent Calendar. Mr. BLANTON. With the small amount of consideration that can be given it?

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will withhold his objection a moment, perhaps I may be able to remove the grounds of it.

Mr. BLANTON. I will withhold the objection.

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. This bill is one prepared in answer to a great demand for the correction of what seems to be an anachronism in our law, inherited from English

jurisprudence. Originally, agreements to arbitrate, the English courts refused to enforce, jealous of their own power and be cause it would oust the jurisdiction of the courts. That has come into our law with the common law from England. This bill simply provides for one thing, and that is to give an opportunity to enforce an agreement in commercial contracts and admiralty contracts-an agreement to arbitrate, when voluntarily placed in the document by the parties to it. It does not involve any new principle of law except to provide a simple method by which the parties may be brought before the court in order to give enforcement to that which they have already agreed to. It does not affect any contract that has not the agreement in it to arbitrate, and only gives the opportunity after personal service of asking the parties to come in and carry through, in good faith, what they have agreed to do. It does nothing more than that. It creates no new legislation,

The Clerk read the following committee amendments:

Line 3, page 1, strike out the words "given to," and insert in lieu thereof the words "granted for."

Line 5, page 1, strike out the word "highway."

Amend the title so as to read: “A bill granting the consent of Congress for the construction of a bridge across the St. John River between Fort Kent, Me., and Clairs, Province of New Brunswick, Canada."

The SPEAKER. The question is on the committee amend

ments.

The question was taken, and the amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE TUG FORK OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER. The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (S. 1374) to authorize the Norfolk & Western Railway Co. to construct a bridge across the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River, at or near a point about 14 miles west of Williamson, Mingo

in commercial contracts and in admiralty contracts. Mr. BLANTON. In what way does it affect the present understanding of the situation as between nations?

Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania. It does not affect that at all. It only affects contracts relating to interstate subjects and contracts in admiralty.

Mr. BLANTON. How many pages are there in this billfour or five?

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the question ought to be prolonged here. This is a bill which clearly ought not to be considered under unanimous consent. It contains 11 pages.

Mr. BLANTON. I object. I do not think it ought to be considered now. I think it ought to come up in its regular order. INSURANCE AND COLLECT-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE-THIRD-CLASS MAIL. The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 4442) to extend the insurance and collect-on-delivery service to third-class mail, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of this bill?

SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The following committee amendments were read:

Amend the bill as follows: Strike out lines 3 to 12, inclusive, on page 1 and line 1 on page 2, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"That the consent of Congress is hereby granted to the city of Aurora, a municipal corporation, situated in the county of Kane and State of Illinois, to construct, maintain, and operate two bridges and the approaches thereto, one of said bridges being across the east branch of the Fox River, reaching from Stolps Island to the mainland and connecting the west end of Benton Street with Stolps Island, and the other bridge across the west branch of Fox River, reaching from Stolps Island to the mainland and connecting the east end of Holbrook Street with Stolps Island, both situated in the said city, county, and State, in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled 'An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters,' approved March 23, 1906."

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The bill as amended was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE ARKANSAS RIVER AT LITTLE ROCK AND ARGENTA, ARK.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (S. 602) to extend the time for the construction of a bridge across the Arkansas River between the cities of Little Rock and Argenta. Ark.

There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge authorized by the act of Congress approved October 6, 1917, as revived and reenacted by the act of February 15, 1923, to be constructed by the county of Pulaski across the Arkansas River at the city of Little Rock on the site now occupied by the free highway bridge constructed by sald county in the years 1896 and 1897, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval hereof.

SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

COMMITTEE TO ATTEND THE FUNERAL OF EX-PRESIDENT WILSON, The SPEAKER. The Chair names the following committee to attend the funeral services of ex-President Wilson tomorrow: Mr. LONGWORTH, Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. GREENE of Massachusetts, Mr. HAUGEN, Mr. KAHN, Mr. DAVIS of Minnesota, Mr. MADDEN, Mr. BURTON, Mr. GREEN of Iowa, Mr. VARE, Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee, Mr. Pou, Mr. BELL, Mr. SABATH, Mr. TAYLOR of Colorado, Mr. BYRNES of South Carolina, Mr. LINTHICUM, Mr. BARKLEY, Mr. CAREW, Mr. MONTAGUE, Mr. WINGO, Mr. EAGAN, Mr. FISHER, Mr. HAWES, Mr. GERAN.

BRIDGE BILLS.

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make a brief statement on behalf of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Speaker, Members are in the habit of putting in bridge bills in different forms, much to the annoyance of the committee and the department that has to pass judgment on the bills. The committee has asked me to request Members wishing to prepare bridge bills to apply to the committee at the House Office Building, rooms 221-226, for a form which is printed in the right way. It will facilitate the operation not only of those who make out the bills but those who have to pass judgment upon them.

Mr. SPROUL of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have published in the RECORD three articles that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post written by my colleague the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MADDEN].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman asks unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the articles mentioned. Is there objection? Mr. STENGLE. Reserving the right to object, what are the articles about?

Mr. SPROUL of Illinois. The first one is New system in Government"; that is, the Budget. Mr. STENGLE. I have no objection.

The SPEAKER.

Is there objection?

There was no objection.

THE BUDGET.

Mr. SPROUL of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under the leave granted me I insert the following articles by my colleague Hon. MARTIN B. MADDEN, which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post.

The articles referred to are printed, as follows:
THE NEW SYSTEM IN GOVERNMENT.

(By MARTIN B. MADDEN, chairman Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives.)

[From the Saturday Evening Post, June 9, 1923.]

An improved regimen for the conduct of the business affairs of the Government is just as important to one political party as it is to the other. It is not my purpose here to recount the achievements of the new order that has been instituted for the management of the Nation's finances. Other places and other times will be more appropriate for the asseverations and disputations which are so vital to American political contests. My Interest in the Budget system lies beyond the political exigencies of the present. The perpetuation of the steps that have been taken and their systematic improvement and development are so essential to the future prosperity and happiness of the American people that they should understand thoroughly the change which has been effected. The necessity for placing the financial methods of the Government upon a budgetary basis began slightly to be felt prior to the war. President Taft made an attempt at it with a degree of discouraging success. The time was not ripe. We had a negligible debt, and our sources of taxation were indirect and plenteous for our needs. As a nation we could go on a financial spree without the usual depressing aftermath. The pre-war period and the period of the war changed the situation. Even before we entered the conflict our import trade fell off and customs receipts dwindled. We feverishly increased expenditures in an effort to bring our military and naval forces to a better state of preparedness. The margin between a comparatively tax-free and a tax-burdened public was beginning to narrow.

So

The war period completed the evolution. Our own Government expenditures for participation in the war, the loans to our allies, and the loss of a substantial yearly income on account of the governmental ban on alcoholic liquors compelled the levying of heavy income and other internal taxes that for the first time made the average American citizen sense his duties as a subscriber to the maintenance of government. long as the revenues flowed freely to the national coffer from sources which he did not feel he was not particularly concerned about the cost. When he became a heavy direct contributor he also became an interested stockholder, with the very proper curiosity to ascertain how his money was being expended and what he was getting for it. The same stoical spirit of sacrifice and endurance of privation which characterized the attitude of the taxpayer toward his personal comfort during the war also reflected his attitude toward the funds necessary for its conduct. He was for anything that was essential to victory and stood for a lot more. When the struggle was over and the public mind was again able to concentrate upon domestic problems one of the very first to command attention was that of publie expenditure and the corollary of taxation.

Both political parties pledged themselves to provide a remedy. One of the first important laws to be signed by President Harding was the Budget and accounting act of 1921. This measure marked the beginning of an epochal reform. As the years roll on and the history of the postwar period is written with that clear vision which comes from a dispassionate survey of events, the outstanding achievement, to my mind, will be the determined and successful effort devoted to the initiation of correct financial methods in the business of the Government.

To many who have not given much thought to what is meant by a budget system the term is an abstraction that somehow or other magically saves money. It is to them the wand of the conjurer by which waste is eliminated and frugality made the daily order. When we were preparing the bill which established the Budget system one of my colleagues informed me that if he met a budget on the street he would undoubtedly take off his hat, bow humbly, and say, "Howdy, stranger." A budget system is nothing more or less than an orderly procedure which requires the constant application of the best-known principles of business conduct to the financial affairs of a nation, with the accompanying requisite of a continuous endeavor to keep those principles alive in the acts of the individuals charged with the operation of the system. The Budget is not a temporary shibboleth. It is a permanent governmental system at the service of any political party which may be in control. There is nothing automatic or mysterious about it. tem is operated by a few well-defined responsible units of governmental machinery, each functioning within its own prescribed sphere and highly susceptible to the public praise or censure which its efforts may justly merit.

The sys

There are four outstanding principles in the Budget system, as initiated, namely:

The placing upon the President of the responsibility for the submission to Congress of a balanced program of expenditures with the

PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

The duties placed upon the President are onerous. Governments, 1lke individuals, have habits, and the habit of incoordinate and uneconomical handling of public funds has been hard to break. The Bureau of the Budget was created to enable the President to perform his budgetary duties. It is a small organization, consisting of a director, an assistant director, and a corps of about 40 investigators, accountants, and clerks. It is not a governmental bureau within the generally accepted meaning of the term. The significant fact about this activity is that it stands for the Chief Executive. It is his personal agency. It acts for him and in his name. Whatever it does reflects the attitude of the President upon the question at issue. It has no budgetary duties as a bureau per se. This feature of the law established the axis of the Executive phase of the Budget system.

The more spectacular of the two duties placed upon the President is the preparation of the Budget estimates for submission to Congress. The process necessarily involves denial and disappointment. The estimation of the available revenues for a particular fiscal year is a comparatively easy task under ordinary conditions, but keeping the desires of the spending departments within those revenues is a far different proposition. It requires the exercise of all the stern and diplomatic qualities that a man can possess. Pressure comes from all sources, within and without the Government.

The cold and calculating provision of the law helps to lighten the burden. The proposal must be balanced. If the expenditures are more than the estimated revenues, the President must assume the responsibility of telling Congress how he thinks the additional revenue should be obtained, whether from new taxes, loans, or by some other means. the estimated expenditures are less than the revenues, the duty is his to recommend a disposition of the surplus in such a manner as he may deem to be in the best interest of the public.

If

A Budget estimate first must run the gantlet of the Cabinet officer, who has to aid him the departmental budget officer selected by him. The head of the department harmonizes as best he can the requests of all his subordinates, and this total goes to the Bureau of the Budget for treatment by the President. The relative importance of the requests of each of the departments and other estimating agencies is weighed, and the cutting and pruning begin. Two factors must be kept in mind: The estimates of the departments must be brought within the total revenues, because increased taxation or new loans for running expenses are entirely counter to the present economic needs or desires of the country. The second factor to be considered is the minute examination of such estimates as are to be forwarded to Congress to see that they are no more than reasonably sufficient to accomplish the purposes for which the money is to be asked.

The allotment of revenue is made to each department and establishment, and the tentative estimates submitted are returned to the heads of departments with a fixed total, beyond which they can not go in making their formal and final submission to the President. Appeals may be made; and if a serious mistake has occurred in fixing a department's total, it is rectified upon a proper showing; but if one department's allotment has to be amended upward, that increase must be deducted in other places so that prescribed relationship between total receipts and expenditures will not be disturbed.

The process thus goes on until the needs of the year's program are worked out in a harmonious and balanced program upon which the President and his advisors are willing to stand as representative of their views of the needs of the Nation, so far as those needs may be reflected by the many activities in which the Government is engaged and the anticipated condition of the Treasury.

The second of the factors in the preparation of the Budget estimates requires a painstaking examination into the details of costs and pur

poses,

No two departments must be allowed to embark or continue upon an identical line of work. Duplication of effort is wasteful and confusing to those who utilize the results. A considerable amount of guessing must enter into these calculations. The period which elapses from the time the estimates are approved for submission to Congress to the final days of the period in which the money is to be expended is about 18 months. It is indeed a farsighted individual who can with accuracy predict what economic conditions will be during this time. The bulk of the money in the typical Budget estimate is expended for salaries, traveling expenses, materials and supplies, and the hundred

and one items that are usually employed in the average business. What will passenger and freight rates be in a year? What will be the cost of subsistence, fuel, building materials, clothing. trucks, and the in numerable articles which the Government will need? If a fair guess

can be made upon those items, how much work will a given bureau have to perform? If, for instance, it is a regulatory bureau, will the business or activity which it regulates be expanded or contracted during this period? Will the bureau need more or fewer employees? The best judgment that can be brought into play must be applied to the solution of these difficulties.

ESTIMATES SHARPLY TRIMMED.

Two sets of Budget estimates have been prepared since the new system went into effect. The best metering of the restraint which the law has placed upon the submission of estimates to Congress can be obtained from the bare statement of the results. The first set of Budget estimates which came to the President was reduced by him in an amount exceeding a hundred million dollars. The second set of Budget estimates which he sent to Congress was approximately three hundred million less than the total of the original requests that wer presented to him. Surely it is worth while to have the heavy hand of the Chief Executive placed upon the enthusiasm of those who are spending Federal funds. Where he leads they will follow, and if uneconomical expenditure incurs his displeasure, rash and precipitate indeed will be the administrator who ventures too far into that for bidden field.

The second duty placed upon the President-that of coordinating the everyday business activities-is not ostentatious. It is drudgery of the most tedious sort. Here, again, he utilizes his Bureau of the Budget, and operating with it at his direction are a number of coordinating boards. These boards are composed of representatives from each of the 43 executive departments and independent establishments which have two or more common problems for solution. Their tasks concern the larger classes of expenditure and deal principally with methods of procurement, disposition of surplus materials and property, standard contracting, printing, standard specifications, traffic, real estate, hospitalization, rentals, warehousing, and kindred activities. It is their constant endeavor to have the entire machinery, represented by all departments and establishments, handle each of these problems as they would be tackled by a well-organized industrial enterprise, instead of attacking them as a large number of separate corporations each acting independently of the other, often competing in the same field under different methods and price conditions, though they are all financed from the same treasury and working for the same set of stockholders. I know there is a general aversion to Government boards. A prominent official once defined one as a body that is long, wooden, and narrow. The definition can not be applied to these coordinating agencies. They are mutual-benefit organizations which are simplifying, unifying, and improving their own methods.

One illustration of the practices of the days before the Budget system may help to clarify. The Government is a large purchaser of typewriters. The Committee on Appropriations in going through the department requests for funds found that almost as many different prices were being paid for machines as there were different Govern ment buyers. The purchases for a year totaled about 3.500 machines, yet there was no concerted action anywhere to obtain a uniform price to the more than 40 agencies that were procuring them. Some departments were paying as much twelve and a half dollars more than others for the same make and model of a given machine. There was no executive agency to bring about uniformity in a practice of this sort. The only remedy was legislation, and Congress acted to stop that par ticular piece of bad business. But that applied only to typewriters

and could happen again and again in the multiplicity of purchases that had to be made. It can not happen so easily now under the better methods of coordinating purchases. One department had 26 purchasing agencies and another 18. and few, if any of them, acted in concert to obtain the best price for the needed articles.

tax collector's office.

THE PROPER SPIRIT.