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.