CHAPTER XV
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET
The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the President of the United States is chosen, what his powers are, and what functions his cabinet performs.
The President
The Man and the Office.—Forty years ago, an eminent English writer on American government spoke of the presidency as the greatest secular office in the world “to which anyone can rise by his own merits”.[122] In view of this fact, he asked, how does it come that the position is not more frequently filled by great and striking men? There have been twenty-nine presidents since the constitution went into force in 1788. Of these at least three, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln have won an assured place in world history. Five or six (including Adams, Jackson, Grant, Cleveland, and Roosevelt) displayed during their respective terms of office some qualities which marked them as men of uncommon force or ability. Three others are still living and their achievements cannot yet be fairly estimated. But taking all these together, and even adding a few more for good measure, would it not still be a fair statement to say that at least half the presidents have been men whose names would be entirely forgotten nowadays were it not for the fact that they occupied the presidential chair?
Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, John Marshall, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun are great and striking figures in American history although they never reached the presidency; on the other hand the nation has, at various times, bestowed its highest honor upon men of commonplace qualities. This, of course, was not what the Fathers of the Republic expected. It was their anticipation that the presidential office would always be filled by men of “pre-eminent ability and virtue”.
Why has this expectation been in part disappointed? That is a question which can only be answered by a study of the methods by which presidents are chosen, the relations between the office and the party system, and the duties that presidents are required to perform.
How the President is Chosen.—The Articles of Confederation did not provide for a President; executive functions were performed by committees of the Congress. But this plan was found to be altogether unsatisfactory and the framers of the constitution decided in 1787 that the new federal government ought to have a single executive head. How to choose this head, however, was a problem which gave them great difficulty and they debated it for a long time. They did not approve a plan of election by direct popular vote, for they feared that this might result in the choice of men who were personally popular but had no other qualifications. Their study of ancient and mediaeval republics made them averse to choosing the head of the nation by direct popular vote. They were not prepared to trust the people; in those days the risk seemed too great. On the other hand they did not desire to have the President chosen by Congress because this would give Congress control of the office, whereas their aim was to make the presidency a check upon Congress. So they finally decided upon the expedient of direct election by means of an electoral college.[123]
The Original Plan of Election.—Stated briefly the plan which they agreed upon and inserted in the constitution was as follows: Each state shall choose, in such manner as its legislature may determine, a number of electors equal to the state’s combined quota of senators and representatives in Congress. A state having, for example, two senators and twelve representatives, is entitled to fourteen electors. On a definite date, once in four years, the electors meet in their respective states and give in writing their votes for President and Vice President. These votes are sealed up, sent to Washington, counted, and announced. This plan did not contemplate that nominations should be made in advance, or that political parties should have anything to do with the election, or that the various states, in choosing their electors, should pledge them to vote for any particular candidate. It was expected that the electors would meet, discuss the merits of all the available men for the position, and give their votes accordingly.
The Actual Methods of Election Today.—At the first two elections this plan was followed. There were no nominations and no campaign preceding the election. But at the election of 1796 it was well understood, even before the electors met, that the contest would be between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. And as time went on the actual practice drifted further away from the original plan of free choice by unpledged electors. Political parties grew up; the electors were chosen with the definite understanding that they would vote for a particular party candidate, and their share in the election became purely nominal. In 1804 some changes were made in the method of election but they did not affect the general plan or the current practice. Gradually the people took into their own hands the function of choosing the President; everywhere the state legislatures turned the work of choosing the electors over to them, so that the presidential elections became, in everything but name and form, direct elections by the people.[124]
In the choice of a President there are now five steps, but only two of these are of any practical importance. First, each political party nominates its candidate at a national convention, as already described.[125] |1. The nomination of candidates.| Second, in each state the political parties nominate, either by primaries or state conventions, their respective slates or groups of electors. |2. The nomination of electors.| Third, the voters on election day decide which group of electors shall be given the formal function of electing the President. This the voters do on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November every fourth year. |3. The polling.| Each voter marks his ballot for a group of electors but what he really does is to indicate his preference for one of the candidates already nominated at the party conventions. This means, of course, that one or the other group of electors is chosen as a whole and the state’s vote cast solidly. It rarely happens, for example, that a state casts ten electoral votes for one candidate and five for another; if it has fifteen votes they all go to one candidate. For this reason it sometimes happens that a candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes although not a majority of the popular votes, taking the country as a whole. |4. The action of the electors.| Fourth, the electors meet in their respective states and cast their votes. Fifth, these votes are opened in Washington and counted in the presence of Congress. |5. Counting the votes.| Among these five steps the first and third are the important ones. The last step is nothing but a formality unless it appears that no candidate has received a majority. In case this happens the House of Representatives proceeds to choose a President from among the three candidates who have stood highest. In the case of the Vice President the choice rests with the Senate.[126]
Factors which Influence Presidential Nominations and Elections.—As matters have worked out it is not possible for anyone to be elected President without first obtaining a nomination from one of the two leading political parties. The party organizations and the party conventions are influenced by groups of political leaders and these leaders are often more interested in a man’s strength as a candidate than in his personal qualifications for the work which a President has to do. The consequence is that candidates have sometimes been nominated by party conventions because they were compromises on whom opposing factions of the party could agree, or because they could be counted upon to carry some important state at the polls, or for some other reason having nothing to do with the executive capacity of the individual concerned.
A big national convention, comprising more than a thousand delegates, cannot be expected to do its work with calm deliberation or to weigh carefully the personal qualifications of all those who seek to be nominated. If there is a prolonged contest between two or three strong candidates, no one of whom can obtain the requisite number of votes in the convention, the delegates in their impatience are likely to turn to a “dark horse”, that is to someone less prominent on whom there is a chance of agreement.[127] This has often happened.
The real work of nominating candidates is not done on the floor of the convention. The plans are laid and put into operation by groups of leaders in private conferences, the delegates following these leaders when called upon. And the fact that a candidate possesses “great and striking qualities” does not always commend him to these party leaders. On most occasions they are likely to prefer a man who, if elected, will work in harmony with the party organization rather than take the reins of office wholly into his own hands.[128] By various combinations of circumstances, therefore, men of mediocre quality have sometimes been nominated.
Narrowness of the People’s Choice.—A nomination by one of the two leading parties is in some cases almost equivalent to election. There are times, of course, when the election turns chiefly upon the merits of the two leading candidates; but more often the result is determined by other factors entirely. Each candidate embodies the strength of his party as well as his own, and each political party is for various reasons stronger in some years than in others. When a party has been in power for a term of years the people usually grow disgruntled with its policy and refuse to support the candidate of that party at the next election no matter how capable he may be. There is every reason to believe that the Democratic candidate was doomed to defeat in 1920 no matter who he might have been. When one political party remains in power for eight or twelve years it makes many enemies; people find fault on one score or another and decide that they will vote for a change. Even a strong candidate in such circumstances has very little hope of winning.
Public opinion is a very fickle thing. It exalts a public man as a hero today and execrates him tomorrow. It is strong for one policy this year and often veers around to something quite different a year or two later. Men are borne into the presidential office on this surging tide, sometimes without much reference to their individual qualifications. They are nominated because they are acceptable to the party leaders, or because they come from some strong and doubtful state, or because they are agreed upon by compromise, or for any one of a dozen other reasons. The capacity of the man is not always, and indeed not usually, the chief factor in determining a presidential nomination.[129] Under the circumstances the wonder is that the country has obtained, in the presidential office, such a high general level of personal capacity and character.
Powers of the President.—The actual powers of the President are greater than those of any other ruler in the world, whether hereditary or elective. He is the chief engineer of a great mechanism which controls an army, raises several billion dollars a year in taxes, enforces laws, regulates commerce, and employs the full time of more than half a million public officials. Congress makes the laws, it is true; but were it not for the President and those whom he appoints, the laws would not be enforced. Congress decides what taxes shall be levied; but the President and his subordinates collect them. Congress appropriates money out of the treasury; but the executive branch of the government, of which the President is the head, spends the money. The President, in other words, is the nation’s chief executive—he is charged with the duty of executing the laws. This is a large responsibility and a good deal of the work is necessarily entrusted to subordinates whom the President appoints.
The appointing power is, then, an important phase of the President’s authority. He names all the higher officials of the Government subject to confirmation by the Senate as has already been explained. He has the power to remove any national official. In the case of minor officials he may, and usually does, depend upon the advice of senators or congressmen both as regards appointments and removals; but in the case of all high officers these things must have the President’s personal attention. Naturally they take a great deal of his time.
In relation to Congress the President has the right to make recommendations and to veto any measure which he does not approve. These recommendations he may make either by written message or by appearing before Congress in person. The veto power places a powerful weapon in the President’s hands. Every bill or resolution which passes both Houses of Congress must be laid before the President. If he approves, he signs it. If not, he is entitled, at any time within ten days, to return the bill or resolution without his signature, giving his reasons for the refusal to sign. |Scope of the veto power.| When the President vetoes a measure in this way Congress reconsiders it and a vote is then taken to determine whether the action of the President shall be sustained or overridden. If two-thirds of the members present in both the Senate and the House vote to override the veto, the measure becomes effective; if less than two-thirds so vote, the measure becomes null.
But suppose the President neither signs nor vetoes the measure within ten days after it is sent to him, what then? The constitution provides that in such case the measure shall become a law. If Congress adjourns before the ten-day period has expired, however, the bill does not become a law. It is not necessary for a President to veto any measure that may come to him during the ten days immediately preceding the adjournment of Congress. If he does not approve the measure, he merely withholds his signature and it dies on his table. This is known as the “pocket veto”.
The veto power has been used very little by some presidents and a great deal by others. During the first forty years of the Republic only nine bills were vetoed. But during the past forty years presidential vetoes have been very common. When a measure has been vetoed there is great difficulty, as a rule, in obtaining the necessary two-thirds vote to override the veto; but vetoes, nevertheless, are occasionally overcome. The use of the veto, although it is an exercise of executive power, makes the President a vital factor in legislation. Under ordinary circumstances he can defeat any measure that is not acceptable to him.[130] There are exceptions to this rule, to be sure, but it is valid in the main.
Although the power of appointment and the veto power in normal times the two chief sources of the President’s authority, he has others of considerable importance. He conducts relations with foreign governments and negotiates all treaties. Treaties do not become valid, however, until ratified by the Senate. He decides whether ambassadors and other diplomats sent to Washington from other countries shall be formally recognized. He has power to pardon offenders sentenced in the federal courts. He is commander-in-chief of the military and naval forces. All these functions are vested in the President by the constitution and the laws.
Other powers have been acquired by usage, for example, the right to have a large voice in controlling the policy of the political party to which the President belongs. The President is a party man, a party leader. He is elected on a party platform. The people expect the President to carry out the pledges which this platform contains. To do this the President finds it necessary at times to take the initiative in securing the passage of laws by Congress and also to bring influence to bear upon the members of both Houses. Strictly speaking, the President has no formal share in the making of the laws; but as a matter of usage he has a highly-important influence upon legislation.
Succession to the Presidency.—In case the President should die, or resign, or be removed by impeachment, or be otherwise incapable of performing his duties, the Vice President succeeds. In the absence of the Vice President it has been provided by law that the members of the cabinet, beginning with the Secretary of State, have the right of succession according to the seniority of their offices.[131] No President has ever resigned or been removed from office. On several occasions, however, a Vice President has succeeded by reason of a President’s death. Some presidents have been seriously ill during their terms of office, and President Wilson was absent in France for several months during 1918-1919; but in no case has the Vice President been called upon to exercise the presidential functions.
The office of Vice President, apart from the right of succession which it carries, is not of much importance. In selecting their candidates for the office the two leading political parties have usually given very little thought to the problem of getting the most capable man. By the time the great task of nominating a candidate for the presidency has been finished, the delegates are in a mood to get home. They will not spend hours and days taking ballot after ballot for the second place on the ticket. Apart from presiding in the Senate the Vice President has no regular official duties, but there is the ever-present chance that he may have to step into the chief executive position. For that reason the work of selecting candidates ought to be done more carefully than has usually been the case.
The Cabinet
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 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.
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.
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.