The first four pages of Mr. Putnam's report referred to are as follows: LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAUS-LETTER FROM THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TRANSMITTING SPECIAL REPORT RELATIVE TO LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BU REAUS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, OFFICE OF THE LIBRARIAN, Mr. PRESIDENT: The introduction at the second session of the Sixty-first Congress of several bills looking to the estblishment of a legislative reference (and bill drafting) bureau at Washington indicates an interest in the subject which will induce discussion and perhaps specific action. The accompanying documents are submitted as contributing, preliminary information which may be of service. They are: 66 LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE WORK. "1. Memorandum as to the functions of such a bureau. Extract "2. New York State: Two decades of Comparative Legislation. from an address by Dr. Robert H. Whitten, librarian New York Public Service Commission, first district, at joint session of National Association of State Libraries and American Association of Law Libraries, July, 1909. "3. Wisconsin: Extract from a paper by Dr. Charles McCarthy (read before the Portland conference, 1905, of the American Library Association) descriptive of such functions and the requirements, based particularly upon the experience in Wisconsin. "4. Comparison of New York and Wisconsin plans for legislative reference work. Extract from an address by Mr. Johnson Brigham, State librarian of Iowa, before the National Association of State Libraries, May, 1907. "5. Compilation of laws establishing legislative reference bureaus in various States. "6. Legislative reference bulletins published in the various States. 7. Subjects treated in the reference lists issued by the Library of Congress. "INDEXES AND COMPILATIONS OF LAW. "8. Extract from Librarian's letter of estimates of October 6, 1902, and a communication to the subcommittee on appropriations, December 3, 1902, with reference to a permanent corps for such a purpose. "9. Memorandum prepared in 1907 by Dr. George W. Scott, law librarian the Library of Congress, on statutory law service. [The work of preparing an index to the Statutes at Large, since completed by the issue of the second volume in January, 1911, was then in operation at the law library, under appropriation by Congress. The memorandum proposed that the corps of experts organized for this purpose should be continued and enlarged as a permanent corps for the preparation of other indexes, digests, and compilations of law.] "BILL DRAFTING. "10. Extract from an address by Hon. James Bryce (British ambassador) before the New York State Bar Association, January 24, 1908. "11. Extract from F. J. Stimson's Popular Lawmaking,' 1910, entitled 'The need of parliamentary draftsmen.' "12. Extract from Recommendation of a Committee of the American Bar Association (headed by Judge Baldwin), 'On improving methods of legislation,' proposing (for each State and the United States) a joint standing committee (of the legislative body) for the revision of bills,' with power to employ experts. 13. Extract from Dr. Paul S. Reinsch 'American legislatures and legislative methods,' 1907. "14. Statutes and rules relating to bill drafting-New York and Connecticut. "15. Extracts from the messages of the governors of Connecticut; 1907, Gov. Woodruff; 1909, Gov. Lilley; 1911, Gov. Baldwin. "16. Bill drafting in Great Britain and the British colonies. Extracts from Legislative methods and forms,' by Sir Courtnenay Ilbert, 1901, and from the Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, volumes 1-2, and new series, volumes 1-2. 66 STATISTICS. "17. Bills and joint resolutions introduced in Congress and laws passed (56th to 61st Congresses, inclusive). State and Federal Legislation, 1906–7 and 1907-8. 66 BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS. "18. Proposals for a national bureau: Bills introduced at the second session, Sixty-first Congress; also amendment to the sundry civil bill adopted in the Senate, but not included in the bill as enacted." General considerations.-The main object is the improvement of legislation. The means proposed are 1. Improvement in substance by the assurance of adequate data. 2. Improvement in form through the employment of experts considering form alone. The data. In so far as these consist of printed literature in its regular forms, they are already available to Congress in the Library of Congress, its collections (of statutes, decisions, commentaries, and the miscellaneous literature of statistic, theory, and discussion) being already one of the largest in the world and undergoing improvement without stint. All of the above is classified, catalogued, and made to respond to any particular query, whether from Congress as a whole or any committee of Congress or any individual Member. Lists of references to the material (whether document, monograph, society publication, or periodical) bearing upon particular topics under discussion in Congress-exactly such lists as are issued by certain State legislative reference bureaus-are issued by the Library of Congres (for examples see Appendix No. 7). Other such lists exist in typewritten form and are freely supplied upon request. A request, whether from Congress or a committee or a Member for similar references to topics not so broadly treated, is always met by the Library within its abilities. The staff of the Library includes men highly expert in the preparation of such lists, so far as this is within the scope of bibliography proper or research work of a biblographic nature. A legislative reference bureau goes further. It undertakes not merely to classify and to catalogue, but to draw off from a general collection the literature-that is, the data-bearing upon a particular legislative project. It indexes, extracts, compiles. It acquires extra copies of society publications and periodicals and breaks these up for the sake of the articles pertinent to a particular subject. It clips from newspapers; and it classifies the extracts, the compilations, the articles, and the clippings in scrapbook, or portfolio, or vertical file, in such a way that all material relating to that topic is kept together and can be drawn forth at a moment's notice. To printed literature it often adds written memoranda as to fact and even opinion as to merit, which it secures by correspondence with experts. The above work, which organizes and concentrates all the data pertinent to a question in such form as to be readily responsive, is beyond the abilities of the Library with its present organization. The Library would gladly undertake it; it could undertake it without additional appropriation for the material itself, so far as this is in printed form; but it would require for it an enlargement of its present Divisions of Law, Documents, and Bibliography, and in addition the creation of a new division under the title of a Legislative or Congressional Reference Division. Indexes, digests, and compilations of law. As to the utility of such, and the qualifications requisite, I have no reason to modify the opinions submitted with my estimates of 1912. The ensuing experience with the index to the Statutes at Large but confirms the opinion that the work of indexing the statutes, even the Federal statutes of this country, requires scientific treatment by a corps of experts with a substantial general education, legal training, and experience in this class of work, and selected with regard solely to these qualifications. It confirms also the expectation that where the Library was charged with such a task the men would be so selected and the work would be scientifically accomplished. Such a corps once organized and experienced, the economy of continuing it as a permanent bureau is obvious, as, on the other hand, is the extravagance of dispersing it. The corps which handled this particular work on the Federal Statutes would not of course be sufficiently large, or contain the varied accomplishments requisite for indexes, digests, and compilations of the various material of concern to Congress and to the Federal authorities; especially would it be lacking in experts qualified to deal with the legislation of foreign coun tries (the interest of which is of relatively small concern to State legislators, but is of increasing concern to Congress). The organization suggested in my estimates of 1902 might be suitable as a beginning; the salaries would, how- ̧ ever, be altogether too small. The conduct of the work in particular should require a salary of $5,000. Bill drafting.-The drafting of bills, or the revision with reference to form of bills drafted and otherwise ready for enactment, certainly requires experts educated to an accurate use of the English language, trained in the law, competent to ascertain and compare precedent legislation, and, so far as practicable, exactly familiar with this.. (See various appendixes, including the memorandum of our law librarian, 1907.) The familiarity with antecedent and comparative legislation gained through the indexing, digesting, and compiling of it, would doubtless be a valuable auxiliary qualification in any bill drafter. It can not, however, be said that for the drafting of bills the current association with such other work is indispensable. The bill drafter should have its results at hand; should be expert in the use of them; but he need not necessarily himself have produced these results in order to utilize them properly. Assuming therefore that the work of a legislative reference bureau (in addition to that part of it which is already being undertaken here) should be undertaken by the Library of Congress, and that the work of indexing, digesting, and compiling laws should be part of it, it does not necessarily follow that the drafting or revision of the bills themselves should be associated with it. That Congress should employ a corps of bill drafters is obvious; that these should be experts and nonpartisan, whose purpose would be purely scientific, is equally obvious; but these considerations ought not to imply that. the qualifications could be secured only by the selection and maintenance of a corps outside of the legislative establishment. Congress might well prefer otherwise; and there seems no necessary obstacle to the creation of a corps of experts as part of the organization of Senate and House, provided Congress itself really desires that the sole considerations in the selection of the men shall be those above noted. Wherever the work is to be placed, the provision for it should be ample. Its efficiency will depend not upon a large number of routine workers, but upon the high qualifications of a few. No expert adequate to such a task could be secured for less than a salary of $5,000, and at least four or five experts of this grade should be requisite, aided by an auxiliary corps of clerks, stenographers, etc. Even then it is clear that the service of such experts should not be dissipated needlessly. To invoke them at the initial stage of every bill introduced would be extravagant and cast upon the corps an overwhelming burden (this will appear upon consideration of the number of bills introduced into a single Congress during the Sixty-first, for instance, some 44,000). The drafters should be at the disposal of any committee considering or proposing to report a bill. Beyond this they ought not to be called upon, unless in connection with some projected bill of interest to a considerable group. The organization requisite to a congressional (legislative) reference bureau will therefore depend upon the functions proposed for such a bureau, whether (1) merely the acquisition of the data, the organization of these to respond to the legislative need, and the aid to their use; or in addition to this, (2) the preparation of indexes, digests, and compilations of law not having directly such ends in view; or in addition to both the above, (3) the drafting and revision of bills. In any case it must be emphasized 1. That the organization must be elaborate beyond that provided by any State, since the subjects to be dealt with are far wider in scope, the material more remote, more complex, and more difficult, and the precedents less available. 2. That (the field being unique) the needs (in the way of organization) can be ascertained only by experiment. The first appropriation should be, therefore, lump sum." a 3. That for the work to be scientific (i. e., having only truth as its object) it must be strictly nonpartisan; and that, therefore, whatever the appointing or administrative authority, the selection of the experts and the direction of the work should by law and in fact be assuredly nonpartisan. Respectfully submitted. The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. HERBERT PUTNAM, We are heartily in sympathy with the general purpose of such a measure as this, distinguishing what we believe to be of essential importance as an outcome of our ordinary work as a library in its particular relation to Congress as a legislative library, distinguishing that from the function of bill drafting. The first we should heartily welcome an opportunity to do; the function of bill drafting, if it should be attached to the bureau, we should cheerfully undertake in precisely the same way as we were ready to undertake the index to the Statutes at Large. And, finally, the report concludes with emphasis upon the need that such a bureau, if established, should be truly scientific and nonpartisan; and I therefore regard it as a happy augury that this hearing has begun with the testimony of one whose sole interest in the matter is scientific. The earlier of the several bills introduced were reprinted in my report. The bill 18720, introduced on January 25, 1912, I had been consulted upon, and I am free to say that it embodied my best opinion at that time as to an efficient form of a bill as a foundation of such a bureau, if it should be decided upon, and include the bill-drafting feature. Mr. GARDNER. A question Mr. PUTNAM. It was merely to this purpose that I was to be heard now, otherwise I would cheerfully answer any questions that you desire. Mr. GARDNER. I shall accommodate myself to Mr. Nelson's wishes. Are we going to sit during the session of the House? Mr. PUTNAM. I understand that some of the other witnesses come from a distance. Mr. GARDNER. I should like to ask some questions later. Mr. NELSON. The librarian will again be with us; but there are some gentlemen who come from a distance and who must go again, and you and I had an understanding that we would sit after dinner, I believe. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. NELSON. Dr. Cleveland has to get away, and I should like very much if the committe will hear from him. He has made a very careful study of our laws and our departments, and can give us, I think, some helpful suggestions that will make for efficiency in economy and in legislation generally. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be glad to hear Dr. Cleveland. STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK A. CLEVELAND, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in order that I may speak directly to the point and not lose time, I will answer the questions which have been handed to me by Mr. Nelson. Q. What, in your opinion, would a legislative bureau add?-A. It seems evident to us all, I think, after listening to the remarks of Ambassador Bryce, that it would add two elements or services that are not at the present time adequately provided for. In the first place, it would add a scientific agency for the purpose of accumulating the data necessary to the consideration of policies which are to be incorporated in legislation; in the second place, it would add a professional agency competent to advise and counsel legislators. Q. How would it relate to your work?-A. The work of the President's commission has to do with subjects of administration. As I understand, the work of Congress has to do with the determination of policies and the enactment of policies into law, while the administration under the President has to do with the execution of policies which been determined by Congress. In both of these fields there are very large technical problems. Necessarily the questions which go to the determination of policies decision as to whether or not laws are needed-whether work shall be undertaken (as in the planning for work in making the budget), what organization shall be provided, what shall be the funds made available-all of these are questions that are quite apart from those relating to the subject of administration. Administration necessarily deals with the economy and efficiency with which the machinery of Government devoted to the execution of policies is used. In the consideration of subjects of policy-the planning of work to be done and the organization to be provided-the Congress must necessarily take into consideration the needs of the people. The question before Congress is, What is demanded of the Government in order that it may serve the people by doing for them what no private organization can, with the same facility, justice, or cost? What are the public welfare interests which demand governmental action? On the other hand, just as soon as funds are provided and an organization placed in the hands of the executive for carrying out an established policy or legislative determination, it becomes a question of business. From this point on service to the public requires the disciplining, directing, and controlling of an organization for the purpose of getting a result; the use of money to provide the means for accomplishing results; and the use of funds for the organization and the equipment in the most effective and economical way. The whole subject of administration carries with it a very highly intricate and involved technique, and in a Government such as the United States it involves practically all of the technique and complex problems of private business. That is, what would engage the attention of a president of a railroad, of the head of a manufacturing establishment, of the head of a university, of a research laboratory, in every one of the thousand different undertakings of the Government may be found the same technical questions that must be considered in the administration of each of the similar undertakings conducted as a private enterprise. This is what is involved in the execution of the policies which have been determined on and enacted into law by the Congress. I would say, therefore, that the relation of such an agency as the one here proposed, a legislative reference bureau, to the administration, would be (1) to ascertain what are the conditions under which the administration must work before a. bill is drawn and before Congress places upon the administration the duty of executing a policy; (2) to ascertain what is the best form of organization, the best machinery to be provided by Congress for doing this work; (3) to find out what amount of funds will be required currently in order to enable the administration to carry on the work effectively, and what restrictions or what conditions should be attached to the spending of these funds in order to control the |