The Cabinet
The whole cabinet system rests on usage.
The Cabinet.—The constitution makes no definite provision for a cabinet. Its framers expected that the President would appoint subordinates to assist him in the performance of his numerous functions and they made allusion to these officials; but there was no anticipation that the officials in charge of the various departments would be formed into an organized branch of the government. So the cabinet rests upon usage, not upon the constitution or the laws. The same is true of the cabinet in England. It has no legal status, exercises no formal powers, keeps no records, and has no fixed membership. The prime minister selects, for membership in the cabinet, whomsoever he pleases, the only restrictions being that they shall have seats in parliament and that the cabinet as a whole shall have the support of a majority in the House of Commons. The President of the United States has an even wider range of choice in the selection of his cabinet. He is not bound to choose a group of men who control a majority in either branch of Congress. His cabinet may be as large or as small as he chooses to make it. By usage, however, the American cabinet consists of the heads of the national administrative departments, these departments having been at various times established by law.[[132]] There are now ten such departments and hence ten members of the cabinet. The ten departments are as follows: State, Treasury, War, Navy, Post-Office, Interior, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. The head of each is appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Senate; but for more than eighty years this confirmation has never been refused. The heads of departments are responsible to the President alone and may be dismissed by him at any time. They are not permitted to have seats in either the Senate or House of Representatives.
The cabinet’s functions:
The Functions of the Cabinet.—In describing the functions of the cabinet it is advisable to make, at the outset, a distinction between those duties which are performed by the cabinet as a whole, and those which pertain to the members of the cabinet individually, as heads of their own departments.
1. As a body.
The cabinet as a whole has no legal authority.[[133]] It is merely a group of high officials which the President calls together once or twice a week to discuss such matters as he chooses to lay before it, or matters which he permits individual members to bring up. The President may follow its advice or he may not. He does not need the approval of the cabinet for any of his actions. At the same time it has become the custom to consult the cabinet on practically all important questions of general policy and to give considerable weight to the cabinet’s advice. How much this weight will be depends, in large measure, upon the temperament and attitude of the President himself.[[134]]
Meetings of the cabinet are not public; no records are kept or printed. Nobody knows what goes on at the meetings of the cabinet except those who are present. It is a point of honor among the members that no one will disclose the proceedings to outsiders. Thus the cabinet always presents an outward appearance of being unanimous. If any member cannot work in harmony with the President or with his fellow-members, he is expected to resign.
2. As individuals.
More vital than the functions of the cabinet as a whole are those which its members perform, as individuals, as heads of their departments. Every member of the cabinet, as has been mentioned, is the head of a department, and as such is given charge of some branch of the government’s work, subject at all times, however, to the direction of the President. The functions of each department are indicated, in a general way, by their respective titles.[[135]] These duties are so numerous and so varied that the various departments are divided into bureaus, each bureau having charge of a certain division of the work. On all routine matters the head of the department has practically independent authority, but questions of general policy and those which affect more than one department are either discussed at cabinet meetings or taken to the President for his decision.[[136]]
Should the Cabinet be Enlarged?—Proposals are now under consideration for enlarging the cabinet by the creation of a department of education and a department of public health. It is contended, and perhaps rightly, that the work of the national government in these two fields is sufficiently important to warrant their being placed upon the same footing as agriculture, labor, and commerce. As an alternative it has been suggested that education and public health might be combined into a single department of public welfare; but the objection to this is that the two things have no close relation to each other. There is a feeling, moreover, that the cabinet should not be made much larger than it now is. If every request for the creation of a new department were granted, the cabinet would soon become too cumbrous for the effective performance of its advisory functions.
American and English Cabinet Systems Compared.—The cabinet system in the United States is like that of England in some respects and different in others. These similarities and contrasts may be made clear by putting them in parallel columns.
| Similarities | |
| 1. The American cabinet system rests on custom or usage. | 1. The English cabinet system also rests on usage, having no basis in the laws of England. |
| 2. Members of the American cabinet are chosen by the chief executive—the President. | 2. Members of the English cabinet are selected in the name of the nominal chief executive—the king, by the actual chief executive—the prime minister. |
| 3. Members of the American cabinet are heads of departments. | 3. Members of the English cabinet are also heads of departments; but in England not all heads of departments become members of the cabinet. |
| 4. The American cabinet advises the President. | 4. The English cabinet, through the prime minister, advises the king. |
| Contrasts | |
| 1. Members of the American cabinet are not permitted to sit in Congress. | 1. Members of the English cabinet must be members of parliament. |
| 2. Members of the American cabinet are responsible to the President only; they do not have to resign if they fail to retain the confidence of Congress. | 2. Members of the English cabinet are responsible to the House of Commons and must resign whenever they lose the support of a majority of that chamber. |
| 3. The American cabinet does not prepare business for Congress nor assume any formal initiative in law-making. | 3. The English cabinet is the “great standing committee” of parliament, preparing all important measures for its consideration and assuming a definite leadership in the making of laws. |
Merits and defects of each plan.
Which is the Better Plan?—The relative merits of the American and English cabinet systems have been much discussed by writers in both countries. The American plan enables the executive branch of the government to retain its independence and thus prevents the lodging of too much power in the hands of Congress. The English system makes the House of Commons the supreme governing organ of the realm, with no legal checks upon its omnipotence. It affords, moreover, a degree of leadership in legislation which the American plan fails to provide. The American system, on the other hand gives the individual member of Congress greater scope for independent action in that he is not confronted, at the beginning of each session, with a cut-and-dried program arranged in advance by the cabinet.
No one can say that either system is of itself better than the other. As well might it be argued that an elephant is stronger than a whale. The strength of each depends upon its environment. The American cabinet system fits into the American scheme of government; the English system would not do this unless our whole plan of government were greatly changed.
The arguments in favor.
Should Members of the Cabinet Sit in Congress?—The chief defect of the American cabinet system, as thoughtful men now realize, is the fact that while members of the cabinet and members of Congress are deeply interested in the same work, they are kept at arm’s length apart. Members of the cabinet have information of great value to Congress; and Congress is usually desirous of knowing their opinions on public questions. On the other hand the work of the various departments, over which members of the cabinet have supervision, depends largely upon the action of Congress. Congress votes them the money which they spend and makes the laws under which they spend it. Why not bring the two bodies into closer contact by permitting members of the cabinet to sit and speak, but not to vote, in both houses of Congress? This has frequently been proposed and it could be accomplished, if Congress so desired, by a change in the rules.
The arguments against.
There are practical objections, however, to any such arrangement. It would greatly increase the President’s influence over the work of Congress by giving him ten agents—usually men of ability and experience—in each chamber. They would have no votes, it is true; but their argumentative powers would count. The President would doubtless select as members of his cabinet persons who, by their abilities and logic, could exert a strong influence upon the lawmaking bodies. It is also pointed out as an objection that members of the cabinet already have enough to do in attending to the affairs of their own departments. Were they to spend their time in attending sessions of the Senate and the House, they could not give adequate supervision to their other work, and the administrative branch of the government would suffer in consequence. When Congress now desires information or an expression of opinion from any member of the cabinet, moreover, it is always possible to obtain what it wants by inviting him to appear before a congressional committee. This partly serves the purpose which would be attained by giving members of the cabinet the right to sit and speak in Congress.
General References
James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 38-96;
Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, pp. 242-293; Ibid., Constitutional Government in the United States, pp. 54-81;
W. H. Taft, Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers, especially pp. 1-28;
C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 166-230; Ibid., Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 154-213;
Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 140-270;
James T. Young, The New American Government and Its Work, pp. 10-44;
W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 88-145;
P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 1-78;
W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 178-195; 323-333.
Group Problems
1. The actual steps in the election of a President. The original plan of election. What the framers of the constitution intended. The early elections. Growth of a nominating system. The caucus. The convention. Presidential primaries. Factors affecting the nomination. Doubtful states. Functions of the electors today. Counting the electoral votes. The part of Congress in presidential elections. Suggested changes in the system. Should the electoral college be abolished? References: Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution, pp. 160-175; The Federalist, No. LXVII; J. H. Dougherty, The Electoral System of the United States, pp. 13-31; E. B. Stanwood, History of the Presidency, pp. 1-19; C. A. Beard, Readings in American Government and Politics, pp. 154-163; Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 140-167; Arnold B. Hall, Popular Government, pp. 98-119 (The Presidential Primary).
2. The increased powers of the President in war time. References: The Federalist, No. 74; W. F. Willoughby, Government Organization in War Time and After, pp. 1-21; W. B. Weeden, War Government, pp. 319-358; W. Whiting, War Powers under the Constitution, pp. 66-83; Emlin McClain, Constitutional Law in the United States, pp. 201-212; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 22-31; Allen Johnson, Readings in American Constitutional Law, pp. 474-481; Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 188-194.
3. The American and English cabinet systems. References: James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 85-96; John A. Fairlie, National Administration, pp. 54-69; C. G. Haines and B. M. Haines, Principles and Problems of Government, pp. 259-279; H. B. Learned, The President’s Cabinet, pp. 9-43; Jesse Macy and J. W. Gannaway, Comparative Free Government, pp. 81-95; 395-402; 421-446.
Short Studies
1. The personality of Presidents. T. F. Moran, American Presidents, pp. 9-115.
2. Why great men are not elected. James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 69-76.
3. The Hayes-Tilden contested election of 1876. E. B. Stanwood, History of the Presidency, pp. 356-393.
4. The President’s veto power. Allen Johnson, Readings in American Constitutional History, pp. 370-379; E. C. Mason, The Veto Power, pp. 24-140; H. J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics, pp. 175-187.
5. The President’s control of foreign relations. E. S. Corwin, The President’s Control of Foreign Relations, pp. 84-125; Allen Johnson, Readings in American Constitutional History, pp. 393-404.
6. The President’s appointing power. Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 181-188; L. M. Salmon, “The Appointing Power of the President”, in American Historical Association, Annual Report (1899), Vol. I, pp. 67-86.
7. The President as a party leader. C. L. Jones, Readings on Parties and Elections, pp. 205-211; Jesse Macy, Party Organization and Machinery, pp. 25-42.
8. Daily life in the White House. Benjamin Harrison, This Country of Ours, pp. 159-180.
9. How a cabinet is formed. H. B. Learned, History of the President’s Cabinet, pp. 110-134.
10. The cabinet’s relation to the President. Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 207-217.
11. Is there need for a readjustment between the executive and legislative branches of the government? F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 423-445.
12. The actual work of the administrative departments. F. J. Haskin, American Government, pp. 14-26 (The State Department); 27-39 (The Treasury Department); 78-90 (The Department of the Interior).
Questions
1. Study carefully Article II, Sections 2-7, also Amendment XII, of the constitution, and then answer these questions: (a) In what respects was the method of election changed by this amendment? (b) In case no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes how is the President chosen? The Vice President? Explain how it would be possible to have a President from one party and a Vice President from another. (c) If a retiring President or Vice President, immediately after election in November, should desire to have his successor take office at once, without waiting for the regular inauguration date in March, how could this be done?
2. Explain how a candidate for the presidency may obtain a majority of the people’s votes at the polls and yet not be elected. (This has happened on more than one occasion.) Do you think it a fair arrangement?
3. What are the qualifications for the presidency: (a) legal requirements; (b) practical requirements? Compare them with those for the vice presidency under both heads.
4. Make a list of the qualities which you think a President ought to possess, placing them in order of their importance. Name the President whom you would regard as having each of these qualities in the highest degree. What qualities do you associate with the names of Madison, Jackson, Buchanan, Cleveland, Roosevelt?
5. Explain the veto and the pocket veto. Would you be in favor of abolishing either? Ought the opinion of a single man to prevail against the decisions of a majority of the senators and representatives?
6. Ought the President to give up all connection with his party on assuming office and be a non-partisan, representing all the people?
7. Explain why the President has so much greater power in war time than in time of peace.
8. Do you think that a President, in choosing members of his cabinet, should be guided by any of the following motives and, if so, how much weight should he give to them: (a) to have all parts of the country represented in the cabinet; (b) to obtain men of long political experience; (c) to reward those who have supported him; (d) to strengthen himself for re-election; (e) to give representation to both the radical and conservative elements?
9. Since the Attorney-General is always a lawyer, the Secretary of Agriculture usually a farmer, and the Secretary of Labor usually a member of a labor union, why should not the Secretary of War be a soldier and the Secretary of the Navy a sailor?
10. Look up in the Congressional Directory and tell what department has jurisdiction over the following matters: consular service, pensions, the mint, animal industry, child labor law enforcement, education, forestry, the census, Indian affairs, lighthouses, rural free delivery, relations with the Philippine Islands, inspection of drugs, payment of interest on Liberty Bonds, naturalization, passports, dredging of harbors.
Topics for Debate
1. The President should be ineligible for re-election.
2. The following new departments should be created and given representation in the cabinet: (a) Public Health; (b) Education; (c) Public Welfare.
3. Members of the cabinet should be permitted to speak, but not to vote, in Congress.
CHAPTER XVI
THE COURTS, THE LAW, AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.
The purpose of this chapter is to show how the courts are organized and what systems of law they administer.