This subject has been under consideration for over 20 years. It was
promised by both political parties in the recent campaign. It has been
repeatedly examined by committees and commissions--congressional,
executive, and voluntary. The conclusions of these investigations have been
unanimous that reorganization is a necessity of sound administration; of
economy; of more effective governmental policies and of relief to the
citizen from unnecessary harassment in his relations with a multitude of
scattered governmental agencies. But the presentation of any specific plan
at once enlivens opposition from every official whose authority may be
curtailed or who fears his position is imperiled by such a result; of
bureaus and departments which wish to maintain their authority and
activities; of citizens and their organizations who are selfishly
interested, or who are inspired by fear that their favorite bureau may, in
a new setting, be less subject to their influence or more subject to some
other influence.
It seems to me that the essential principles of reorganization are two in
number. First, all administrative activities of the same major purpose
should be placed in groups under single-headed responsibility; second, all
executive and administrative functions should be separated from boards and
commissions and placed under individual responsibility, while
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial and broadly advisory functions should
be removed from individual authority and assigned to boards and
commissions. Indeed, these are the fundamental principles upon which our
Government was founded, and they are the principles which have been adhered
to in the whole development of our business structure, and they are the
distillation of the common sense of generations.
For instance, the conservation of national resources is spread among eight
agencies in five departments. They suffer from conflict and overlap. There
is no proper development and adherence to broad national policies and no
central point where the searchlight of public opinion may concentrate
itself. These functions should be grouped under the direction of some such
official as an assistant secretary of conservation. The particular
department or cabinet officer under which such a group should be placed is
of secondary importance to the need of concentration. The same may be said
of educational services, of merchant marine aids, of public works, of
public health, of veterans' services, and many others, the component parts
of which are widely scattered in the various departments and independent
agencies. It is desirable that we first have experience with these
different groups in action before we create new departments. These may be
necessary later on.
With this background of all previous experience I can see no hope for the
development of a sound reorganization of the Government unless Congress be
willing to delegate its authority over the problem (subject to defined
principles) to the Executive, who should act upon approval of a joint
committee of Congress or with the reservation of power of revision by
Congress within some limited period adequate for its consideration.
PROHIBITION
The first duty of the President under his oath of office is to secure the
enforcement of the laws. The enforcement of the laws enacted to give effect
to the eighteenth amendment is far from satisfactory and this is in part
due to the inadequate organization of the administrative agencies of the
Federal Government. With the hope of expediting such reorganization, I
requested on June 6 last that Congress should appoint a joint committee to
collaborate with executive agencies in preparation of legislation. It would
be helpful if it could be so appointed. The subject has been earnestly
considered by the Law Enforcement Commission and the administrative
officials of the Government. Our joint conclusions are that certain steps
should be taken at once. First, there should be an immediate concentration
of responsibility and strengthening of enforcement agencies of the Federal
Government by transfer to the Department of Justice of the Federal
functions of detection and to a considerable degree of prosecution, which
are now lodged in the Prohibition Bureau in the Treasury; and at the same
time the control of the distribution of industrial alcohol and legalized
beverages should remain in the Treasury. Second, provision should be made
for relief of congestion in the Federal courts by modifying and simplifying
the procedure for dealing with the large volume of petty prosecutions under
various Federal acts. Third, there should be a codification of the laws
relating to prohibition to avoid the necessity which now exists of
resorting to more than 25 statutes enacted at various times over 40 years.
Technical defects in these statutes that have been disclosed should be
cured. I would add to these recommendations the desirability of
reorganizing the various services engaged in the prevention of smuggling
into one border patrol under the Coast Guard. Further recommendations upon
the subject as a whole will be developed after further examination by the
Law Enforcement Commission, but it is not to be expected that any criminal
law will ever be fully enforced so long as criminals exist.
The District of Columbia should be the model of city law enforcement in the
Nation. While conditions here are much better than in many other cities,
they are far from perfect, and this is due in part to the congestion of
criminal cases in the Supreme Court of the District, resulting in long
delays. Furthermore, there is need for legislation in the District
supplementing the national prohibition act, more sharply defining and
enlarging the duties and powers of the District Commissioners and the
police of the District, and opening the way for better cooperation in the
enforcement of prohibition between the District officials and the
prohibition officers of the Federal Government. It is urgent that these
conditions be remedied.