Postal Riders and Raiders

by W. H. Gantz

Following is the essential part of the President’s message. The italics are the writer’s:

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I ask that you include in the sundry civil bill an appropriation for $75,000 and a reappropriation of the unexpended balance of the existing appropriation to enable me to continue my investigation by members of the departments and by experts of the business methods now employed by the government, with a view to securing greater economy and efficiency in the dispatch of government business.

The chief difficulty in securing economy and reform is the lack of accurate information as to what the money of the government is now spent for. Take the combined statement of the receipts and disbursements of the government for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1910—a report required by law, and the only one purporting to give an analytical separation of the expenditures of the government. This shows that the expenditures for salaries for the year 1910 were $132,000,000 out of $950,000,000. As a matter of fact, the expenditures for personal services during that year were more nearly $400,000,000, as we have just learned by the inquiry now in progress under the authority given me by the last congress.

The only balance sheet provided to the administrator or to the legislator as a basis for judgment is one which leaves out of consideration all assets other than cash, and all liabilities other than warrants outstanding, a part of the trust liabilities and the public debt. In the liabilities no mention is made of about $70,000,000 special and trust funds so held. No mention is made of outstanding contracts and orders issued as incumbrances on appropriations; of invoices which have not been vouchered; of vouchers which have not been audited. It is, therefore, impossible for the administrator to have in mind the maturing obligations to meet which cash must be provided; there is no means for determining the relation of current surplus or deficit. No operation account is kept, and no statement of operations is rendered showing the expenses incurred—the actual cost of doing business—on the one side, and the revenues accrued on the other. There are no records showing the cost of land, structures, equipment, or the balance of stores on hand available for future use; there is no information coming regularly to the administrative head of the government or his advisers advising them as to whether sinking-fund requirements have been met, or of the condition of trust funds or special funds.

It has been urged that such information as is above indicated could not be obtained, for the reason that the accounts were on a cash basis; that they provide for reports of receipts and disbursements only. But even the accounts and reports of receipts and disbursements are on a basis which makes a true statement of facts impossible. For example: All of the trust receipts and disbursements of the government, other than those relating to currency trusts, are reported as “ordinary receipts and disbursements.” The daily, as well as the monthly and annual statements of disbursements, are mainly made up from advances to disbursing officers—that is to say, when cash is transferred from one officer to another it is considered as spent, and the disbursement accounts and reports of the government so show them. The only other accounts of expenditures on the books of the Treasury are based on audited settlements most of which are months in arrears of actual transactions; as between the record of cash advanced to disbursing officers and the accounts showing audited vouchers, there is a current difference of from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000, representing vouchers which have not been audited and settled.

Without going into greater detail, the conditions under which legislators and administrators, both past and present, have been working may be summarized as follows: There have been no adequate means provided whereby either the President or his advisers may act with intelligence on current business before them; there has been no means for getting prompt, accurate and correct information as to results obtained; estimates of departmental needs have not been the subject of thorough analysis and review before submission; budgets of receipts and disbursements have been prepared and presented for the consideration of Congress in an unscientific and unsystematic manner; appropriation bills have been without uniformity or common principle governing them; there have been practically no accounts showing what the government owns, and only a partial representation of what it owes; appropriations have been overencumbered without the facts being known; officers of government have had no regular or systematic method of having brought to their attention the costs of governmental administration, operation and maintenance, and therefore could not judge as to the economy or waste; there has been inadequate means whereby those who served with fidelity and efficiency might make a record of accomplishment and be distinguished from those who were inefficient and wasteful; functions and establishments have been duplicated, even multiplied, causing conflict and unnecessary expense; lack of full information has made intelligent direction impossible and co-operation between different branches of the service difficult.

I am bringing to your attention this statement of the present lack of facility for obtaining prompt, complete, and accurate information in order that congress may be advised of the conditions which the President’s inquiry into economy and efficiency has found and which the administration is seeking to remedy. Investigations of administrative departments by congress have been many, each with the same result. All the conditions above set forth have been repeatedly pointed out. Some benefits have accrued by centering public attention on defects in organization, method, and procedure, but generally speaking, however salutary the influence of legislative inquiries (and they should at all times be welcome), the installation and execution of methods and procedure, which will place a premium on economy and efficiency and a discount on inefficiency and waste must be carefully worked out and introduced by those responsible for the details of administration.

Does that broad accusation of the President approve or disapprove our previously expressed opinion of governmental department service in general and of the postoffice department in particular? Notice the statements I have taken the liberty to italicize. Permit me to repeat a few of them: