tioned, but they offered many little perquisites and honors for home consumption. Only those who have experienced the difficulties in the way of similar reforms in the state legislatures can fully appreciate the senate's action. The war brought the business methods of the government under severe

scrutiny and congress has reacted to the ridicule and criticism heaped upon it from new quarters the past few months. If the result of the senate's action is to exalt committee work we shall have an improved legislative product.

H. W. DODDS.

To the Editor,

National Municipal Review:

SIR: One wonders what your correspondent, B. E. Arthur, expected to find "behind the scenes with five state budgets."

The outstanding complaints against the state procedure reviewed appear to be these:

1. In New Jersey the governor, instead of preparing the budget alone, called in some prominent members of the legislature to advise him, "thereby shifting or diffusing the responsibility." 2. In Maryland, since restrictions were placed on the legislature amending the budget, the governor yielded to the demands of the legislature and submitted supplementary budgets embodying its suggestions.

3. In Ohio the governor did not consult with the leaders in the legislature as was done in New Jersey, and an appropriation committee, consisting of a horse doctor, a farmer, a florist, two lawyers, a bee keeper, a merchant, a druggist, a real estate agent, a broker, an insurance agent, an automobile dealer, an electrician, a dentist, and a dog fancier, with the help of other committees, upset the budget apple cart of the executive. 4. In Massachusetts "the governor did not assume leadership, but left the determination of the budget program largely in the hands of the legislature.'

::

::

::

::

::

But what light do the researches of the author throw upon the question of what should be a sound state budget procedure?

The writer of this letter ventures no

opinions, but does venture some questions concerning this point.

In New Jersey, as in Ohio in 1913, the governor, by co-operation with legislative leaders, got his budget program by the legislature without material change. The author criticises this as a dissipation of authority. Recently, in Ohio, due to the absence of such co-operation (probably owing to differences in political faith) the governor's budget went to pot. The author criticises this natural interference of the legislature.

Query: Shall, or shall not we have co-operation between the governor and the leaders of the state in formulating the state's program of work?

In Maryland, whose budget procedure was drafted by admitted authorities, and the virtues of which were

tion of the standardization plan, however, will become the duty of the civil service commission.

The findings of the congressional joint commission are not essentially different from those of other agencies that have made similar investigations in other jurisdictions. The "lack of a comprehensive and consistent employment policy, and of a central agency fully empowered to administer it"; the inequalities of pay for similar work; the multiplicity and the misleading character of pay-roll titles, and the failure of public salaries to keep pace with the rapid increase in the cost of living; these are all conditions that exist not only in the federal civil service in the District of Columbia but in practically all other branches of the public service in which standardization has not yet been brought about. Nevertheless it will surprise many persons to learn that since 1893 the average annual salary of government employes in the District of Columbia has been increased only 40 per cent whereas the cost of living since that date has gone up 159 per cent!

In the character of the classification of the service recommended in the congressional commission's report one cannot help observing a marked breaking away from the Chicago type of classification with its broad grouping of positions and the adoption of a classification plan more nearly resembling the New York type with its restricted vocational groupings. The use of a wholly different nomenclature, however, still tends to cancel somewhat the fundamental similarity between the congressional commission's classification and the New York type of classification.

It is gratifying to note an almost complete absence of the general definition of duties and the general statement of appointment qualifications intended to cover a group of related

positions, and to find that in nearly all cases the individual standard position is separately defined and governed by a specific statement of appointment qualifications applying to that standard position alone.

The problem of proper compensation was approached by the commission with a great deal of timidity. Although it was furnished by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics with standard budgets showing the amounts necessary for a single man, a single woman, and a family of five persons to maintain life in health and decency, yet the commission does not seem to have made any specific application of these budgetary studies. Neither did the commission accept the increase in the cost of living as shown by the price index numbers of the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a uniform guide in making its salary recommendations. Efforts were made to ascertain the market value in private establishments of services corresponding to those rendered by different classes of government employes and the information thus obtained appears to have been used to a greater extent than any other data. For many classes of work, especially in the higher grades, no salary recommendations at all were made. It is estimated by the commission that its suggested salary schedules will call for an increase of only 8.5 per cent in the appropriation for personal service. When one recalls the enormous rise in the cost of living in the last few years, and the inadequacy of previous adjustments in compensation by congress, one cannot help wondering how so mild an increase as that recommended in the commission's report can really meet the fair requirements of our federal employes.

The problem of advancement from lower to higher rates of pay within a range of compensation is handled in

the usual manner, i.e., efficiency records are recommended. Systems for recording and reporting such records are to be worked out under the supervision of the civil service commission.

Among other things, the congressional commission suggests an enlargement of the powers of the civil service commission and the creation of an advisory council to the civil service commission composed of twelve mem

bers, six to be appointed by the president of the United States and six to be elected by the employes themselves. This council is to have power to make recommendations only, but its representative character ought to give considerable prestige to whatever it recommends.

The report now awaits the action of congress. What that action will be time alone can tell.

THE July issue of the NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW of last year contained an article by Mr. Thomas Adams, Housing and Town Planning Adviser to the Canadian Government entitled "Canada's Drive for Better Housing." Mr. Adams described the Canadian housing policy as tentative and experimental and admitted that it involved almost revolutionary changes in housing methods. It had to meet and overcome the powerful objection that hitherto the provision of houses had been regarded as the prerogative of the building industry and any government action was an interference with private enterprise.

The answer to this objection was obvious and conclusive. It was that private enterprise had practically ceased to operate in the construction of workmen's dwellings and any further reliance upon the supposed potency of the law of demand and supply was perilous and impossible. Accumulated evidence showed that the housing conditions of most towns and cities were a menace to the health and welfare of the people and, in the interest of the race, the housing of the working classes must be accepted as a national respon

sibility. Private enterprise had abandoned the task because there was no money in it.

The Canadian Government decided to inaugurate a loan of $25,000,000 for the purpose of national housing. This money was to be distributed among the nine provinces, pro rata to the population. The money was loaned at 5 per cent interest and the provinces were to accept the responsibility of the administration of the loan. The project represented a co-operative effort among federal, provincial and municipal governments. The federal responsibility consisted in supplying the capital, in establishing certain general principles for better housing and in keeping a general oversight of the provincial housing schemes, which had to receive the approval of the Federal Housing Committee. The indications are that the whole of the loan will be taken up during the present year.

MUNICIPAL HOUSING

The significance of the movement is contained in the term "municipal housing." The final executive is the local municipal housing commission