CHAPTER II

EXPOSITION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

BY HON. JOHN G. SAXE

[On June 24, 1915, the Constitutional Convention Committee on the Governor and Other State Officers held a hearing on the two amendments, No. 510 and No. 555, contained in Chapter I. Hon. John G. Saxe, who introduced the amendments, appeared to explain their provisions and the following discussion ensued.]

HON. FREDERICK C. TANNER, chairman of the committee, presided.

THE CHAIRMAN-Senator Saxe, you have two proposed amendments, introductory No. 498, print No. 510; introductory No. 540, print No. 555. Which do you care to take first?

MR. SAXE-Both together, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN-Will you tell us where they differ?
MR. SAXE-In the course of a few moments.

MR. BALDWIN-What is the first number?

MR. SAXE-NO. 510 and No. 555.

THE CHAIRMAN-Introductory No. 498, print No. 510.

MR. SAXE-Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I came before the Finance Committee at this table this morning intending to speak for five minutes, and I spoke for an hour. I was to come here this afternoon expecting to speak for an hour, and I am going to try to speak for five minutes.

I have offered in the convention these two amendments to the constitution, which were prepared by the Bureau of Municipal Research,

In the case of the bill which I introduced on their behalf, which we drew jointly, I stated to the Committee on Finance this morning that I endorsed every word of it, the cross of every T, and every comma, and every punctuation point.

THE CHAIRMAN-Which is that?

MR. SAXE-That is not before you, the finance bill. Some of

those provisions are in this bill, but that is for reference. The matter will be decided in the Finance Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN-510 or 555?

MR. SAXE-Both. Let me say here for the benefit of the committee that the only difference between these two bills is that the one which is four pages shorter than the other, in defining the divisions of the state, defines them by functions, whereas the bill which is four pages longer goes into detail and indicates to the committee the position which we have taken as to the various departments which are to be enumerated under the divisions of the state. It will be a question for this committee to decide, whether they will be satisfied to have eleven divisions, and leave the matter of departments to the general definition which we will give the legislature, or go a step farther than that, and actually create the departments in the constitution, because there will have to be more than eleven departments. There are eleven logical divisions but there may be forty or fifty departments.

Now, I started to say before the question was asked, that so far as the financial bill was concerned, I stood sponsor for every line.

So far as this bill is concerned, I want to say this: It is a bill very elaborate in its details. It is a matter which I could hardly ask any one member of the committee to accept in all its detail. It is a matter which must be worked out by this committee, and which this committee expects to work out, and therefore, in the brief remarks I shall make, I want to point out what I deem to be the fundamental idea of the bill, and let the committee work out the other details of the bill in any way they see fit.

Now I have been asked over and over again, since I was a candidate for election to this convention, whether I was in favor of a conservative convention or a progressive convention or a stand-pat convention, a conservative constitution or a radical constitution, and I think in every case I have given the same reply, that I thought nearly all the propositions which may be classed as conservative or as radical, on which there is that issue between different factions in the state, were subordinate, and that what I favored was a constructive convention and a constructive constitution.

In other words, most of the matters which the papers have debated up to date I regard as subordinate, and I should like to

see such constructive matters go into the constitution as the full state budget system, as the defining of the right of suffrage, so that we can have twenty years of peace and a fair and decent home rule for our cities.

And this brings me to this bill, that we may enumerate in our constitution the different divisions, the logical divisions of state government, and place them in the constitution, and thereby not only effect a tremendous saving in the work of administration, but also in the expense of administration, and at the same time accomplish one of the great reforms which we have a chance to accomplish the doing away with continuous "rippers."

Now, if we can accomplish this particular constructive suggestion which I am bringing to your attention this afternoon, I care very little indeed about detail.

I have seen this bill referred to as a bill to make the governor I have seen various provisions of it hotly criticised. I have heard it called a bill to "kill the boss." And all those different criticisms related to some particular detail of the bill which does not affect in any way the main principle which the draftsmen of this bill had in mind.

In other words, this is a committee on governor and other state officers, and the main objective of the draftsmen of this bill is not the governor, but the state officers. We want to see the state officers classified according to reason in some way, shape or manner. According to your own classification, I mean, not ours; we merely give you our suggestions.

Now, I am going to be a moment longer to let you know exactly what I mean. One of the propositions which has been debated from one end of the state to the other is the question of the short ballot. On that question of the short ballot I have my convictions. But I don't care what the question of the short ballot is on this bill. I regard it as absolutely secondary. If you will create these or some other eleven logical divisions of the state administration, and place them in the constitution for that purpose, that primal purpose, I don't care whether the whole eleven of them are elected or appointed. I have my convictions as to how many should be elected and how many appointed. I regard that as secondary if we can get the enumeration into the constitution itself.

And also we have here a provision that the governor may pro

rogue the legislature. I am not in favor of that proposition in my own bill, though I don't care whether you take the more progressive or radical views of the Bureau of Municipal Research in this bill on that point, or my own conservative view. That I regard as secondary. I want to see these state departments enumerated in the constitution. Now, if you will turn to bill 510 at page 23, you will see the substance of what I want more than anything else. That is the substance of the proposition that I am here to advocate. Starting at the top of page 23:

"And for this purpose there are hereby established the fol"lowing eleven administrative divisions of the executive "branch, other than the executive department and bureau of "administration described in Section 1 of Article IV."

Then it details in the next twenty lines the different eleven divisions; and then in line 20, we take up those eleven divisions, one by one.

First we say the Secretary of the Treasury shall have under his jurisdiction so and so.

MR. BLAUVELT-Which bill is that?

MR. SAXE-Bill No. 510, page 23.

Now, those of us who have worked on this bill, including the Bureau of Municipal Research, which has spent a great many months working this out-Mr. John H. Delaney, who had ideas of his own, and who has had two years of very intimate acquaintance with state affairs, and myself-we make these as suggestions. They are the best we could do. Very possibly you could do better in one way or other, but the point we make is to get the eleven divisions, or whatever the logical number is, into the constitution. And if you differ with us in any way outside of these fundamentals, I think, on behalf of those of us who drafted this bill, if the committee wants us to go to work on it again, after you have made up your minds, we are willing to start again and give you any assistance we can in drafting. The Bureau has facilities which even this committee has not.

If you will tell us what you want along those primary divisions, we will give you any assistance we can in drafting.

MR. CULLINAN-Where does this committee meet?

MR. SAXE-The Bureau of Municipal Research, 261 Broadway, New York. They have a whole floor there. They are the ones

who drafted these two bills, at my suggestion. I made the suggestion myself to put it into two bills because I have not the slightest idea whether the committee would want to make divisions, or make actual departments. We have 152 conflicting departments to-day, and when you come to reduce them you probably cannot reduce the actual departments much below forty or fifty, whereas the divisions of the state administration can be less. We did not know quite what word to use, as the word for which we have now selected the word "division." We did not want "department" because there may be a sentiment about many of the existing departments, and they will want to be retained.

And if we retain those departments, they must fall in their proper place under the general scheme, but for the natural classification higher than the department, we thought probably the best word was "division." It took a day or two to find that word.

I don't think I had better take any more of your time. I could spend an hour or two here on the question of "ripper" legislation, and give you interesting history of it, going back many years to show you the great evil that must be corrected. And the further classification of departments on a sound basis is something which does not need any argument at all. Every member of the committee has that in mind, and would like to see something done about it; and the other idea, the saving of expense which would follow from more systematic classification. That does not need argument. It is too obvious for words.

But the reason I wanted to talk at the commencement of the hearing on this proposition of mine is that I wanted to state to the committee my view on the proposition; that the big thing was to classify the departments in whatever way this committee thinks reasonable, following our suggestions or not, although we have done well on it, we think, and then let the other matters be debated as they will. To our mind they are all incidental.

And with that I will ask Dr. Cleveland to follow me. MR. E. N. SMITH-When you name a department, do you think it is wise to stereotype the functions of that department? MR. SAXE-In order to make a classification we must make a definition as to general classifications.

Now, we have tried to help you out on that proposition by giving you one proposed form of amendment in which we give a very general classification, and another which will be more apt to meet.