Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T03:04:22.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Legislature and the Administration, II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

John A. Fairlie
Affiliation:
University of Illinois

Extract

Effective legislative supervision over administrative agencies depends on the means and methods employed. The main types of means and methods which may be employed include the following: (1) provision for securing adequate information concerning the work of the administration, by requiring records and accounts of administrative actions and financial transactions, regular reports of such actions and accounts, and requests for information on particular administrative affairs; (2) provisions for the examination of such reports, accounts, and other information, usually by means of legislative committees; (3) special investigations of a more intensive character of particular administrative services; and (4) impeachment and removal from office.

Records and Reports. Modern administrative agencies keep elaborate records of their acts and financial transactions, and publish a large volume of reports and documents, many of which are submitted to the legislative bodies. To a considerable extent, such records and reports are required by legislative provisions. But these legislative requirements vary widely with respect to different agencies; and the practice of the different agencies varies still more widely. The total mass of published reports and documents issued by national, state, and the more important local governments is so extensive, and presented in such a variety of form, that it is difficult to obtain a clear understanding of the general results. On the other hand, some administrative agencies and many of the minor local governments present such brief reports, or in some cases none at all, that no definite information is available to the legislative body nor to the general public.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

6 For a more detailed analysis, see W. F. Willoughby, Principles of Public Administration, Chap. 2, and Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration Chap. 12.

7 Pfiffner, John M., Public Administration (1935), Chap. 23Google Scholar; Municipal Administration Service, Publications, No. 9 (1928) and No. 19 (1931)Google Scholar; Public Management.

8 White, L. D., Trends in Public Administration, p. 229Google Scholar.

9 Rogers, Lindsay, “Parliamentary Commissions in France,” 38 Polit. Set. Quar., 413, 602 (1923)Google Scholar; Marin, Gascon y, “Le rôle des commissions parlementaires” (Spain), Annuaire de l'Institut Internat. de Droit Public (1932), 148Google Scholar.

10 Alexander, D. S., History and Procedure of the Hpuse of Representatives (1916)Google Scholar; Harlow, R. V., The History of Legislative Methods in the Period Before 1925 (1917)Google Scholar; Luce, Robert, Legislative Procedure (1922)Google Scholar; McCown, A. C., The Congressional Conference Committee (1927)Google Scholar; Winslow, C. I., State Legislative Committees (1931)Google Scholar; Fairlie, J. A., “Legislative Committees and Commissions in the United States,” 31 Michigan Law Review, 25 (1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Willoughby, W. F., Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration, 118132Google Scholar; Springer v. United States, 227 U. S. 189; People v. Tremaine, 252 N. Y. 23(1929).

12 McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U. S. 135 (1926); The Power of Congress to Subpoena Witnesses for Non-judicial Investigations,” 28 Harvard Law Review, 234 (1924)Google Scholar; Landis, James M., “Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation,” 40 Harvard Law Review, 153 (1926)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Power of Legislative Bodies to Punish for Contempt,” 74 Univ. of Pa. Law Review, 694 (1926)Google Scholar; 26 Michigan Law Review, 237 (1928)Google Scholar; Dimock, M. E., Congressional Investigating Committees (1929)Google Scholar; 21 American Political Science Review, 47 (1927)Google Scholar; 24 ibid., Supp., 83 (1930).

13 Weckel, Helen M., “Impeachments and Removals from Office by the Legislature in American States” (University of Illinois thesis)Google Scholar; Foster, Roger, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1895)Google Scholar, Appendix I on “State Impeachment Trials”; 22 American Political Science Review (1928), 652658Google Scholar; 24 ibid. (1930), 648; 48 Political Science Quarterly (1933), 184210Google Scholar; 3 Wisconsin Law Review (19241925), 155169Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.