Two kinds of long-range considerations are of special pertinence and importance for major problems of governmental organization. One is reflected in the general evolution of the world situation; it was discussed in chapter I. The other arises from the nature of the American government and its special characteristics. Considerations of this sort are given attention in chapter III which follows.

CHAPTER III

KEY ELEMENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE FOR MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL UNITS

In recent years each of the major units of the Government has been the subject of much discussion and analysis as to its functions, responsibilities, and place in the scheme of government as a whole. Such discussion is crystallized from time to time in concepts that tend to be accepted as authoritative by those charged with making major administrative decisions.

The importance of the concepts that are so accepted is very real. They underlie the thinking of experienced legislators in the development of legislative provisions on administrative matters. They are taken for granted in the central offices of the government where the texts of executive orders and administrative directives are drafted. They are referred to as basic in the discussions that occur among administrative officials as the work of the Government goes forward. The fact that such concepts as to the organization, jurisdiction, and interrelations of major units may become established and widely accepted does not necessarily demonstrate that any one concept is the only workable or possible concept in a particular case. Alternatives are usually available, at least in theory, and are often cited in the struggle for agency preferment. But when a particular solution has been proved workable and has been generally accepted, the affairs of government are immensely facilitated.

On the other hand, when there is fundamental cleavage of opinion. within the government on major points of administrative doctrine, the effect is to retard greatly the speed and efficiency with which the governmental mechanism can be adjusted to new requirements. Jurisdictional bickerings impede concentration on substantive issues. Uneasy compromises are the rule and questions of authority are constantly reopened.

As previously noted, almost the entire Government has become. involved in the administration of foreign affairs. This seems likely to continue to be the case. But the situation is far from stabilized as to where the various responsibilities shall rest, the relationships between major governmental units, and the general pattern of organization. Many fundamental issues of administration currently arise in their most acute form in connection with foreign affairs and overseas operations.

The purpose of the present chapter is to examine briefly certain key elements of administrative doctrine with respect to the President. the Congress, and the various executive departments and agencies. The questions are explored mainly from the point of view of the governmental practitioners. Problems of administrative theory are brought into focus only to the extent that they have become matters of concern in practice; no attempt is made here to summarize the voluminous professional literature in the field of public administration. The key elements of administrative doctrine obviously cannot be treated completely in any brief compass, but the present discussion is intended to provide a broad background against which to examine the major problems of agency jurisdiction and organization that are taken up later in the report.

THE PRESIDENCY

The President stands in the central position in the conduct of foreign relations because of his multiple functions as the head of the Nation, as the Chief Executive, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. His constitutional prerogatives have been repeatedly affirmed by the courts and in most respects can be taken as settled. The field of foreign affairs is distinguished from other phases of government in the extent to which it has been set apart constitutionally in a special executive category.

What is unsettled administratively as concerns the President lies mainly in three areas: (1) His relations to the Congress, (2) his relations to the heads of executive agencies, including the Secretary of State, and (3) his relations to his staff agencies in the Executive Office of the President. In each of the three areas the uncertainty relates mainly to what is wise or practical rather than to what is legal or constitutional.

In the case of Congress, the problem from the President's point of view is mainly one of how to obtain advice, consent, and assurances of support to the extent necessary without prejudicing unduly his own freedom of action. The problem has assumed new forms as the necessity increases for Presidential action in the field of foreign affairs that may later require specific congressional cooperation in the form of legislation and appropriations. It has therefore been necessary to experiment with new patterns of advance planning and consultation between the executive and legislative branches, but no pattern of cooperation between the President and the Congress on foreign affairs which would be completely satisfactory to each of them has so far been found because of the natural desire of each to maintain the freedom of action inherent in the separation of powers.

In the case of the heads of executive agencies, the President's problem is largely one of where to look for advice, where to delegate

responsibility for action, and how much responsibility to delegate. The Secretary of State is equipped through his Department with special resources of information and experience and has the general statutory duty of assistance to the President on matters respecting foreign affairs. A delegation to the Secretary of State on all questions of foreign affairs may therefore seem the obvious answer to the President's problem, but few Presidents have found it possible to accept completely so simple a solution. It becomes less possible to do so as other heads of executive departments become increasingly responsible for activities affecting foreign relations.

There is no question as to the authority of the President to take direct charge of any aspect of the conduct of foreign relations at any time if, in his own opinion, it is desirable to do so. He may meet, or communicate directly, with the heads of other governments, and has repeatedly done so, particularly in recent years. In important instances the Constitution requires him to act personally and not by delegation. He receives and thereby recognizes the representatives of other heads of state; with the advice and consent of the Senate, he appoints American representatives abroad and concludes treaties with other nations.

The heads of the nine executive departments are known collectively as the Cabinet. The practice of holding meetings of the Cabinet is historic, and at times such meetings have been the scene of important discussions of foreign policy and of great decisions. But the Cabinet is a purely Presidential institution with no collective governmental responsibility, and discussions in the Cabinet have only such importance as the President chooses to give them. The experience of recent decades indicates that under modern conditions, the Cabinet is not necessarily a useful place for the making of policy. Nevertheless, the fact that it is called to meet regularly suggests that it does have value as a place for informal communication of presidential views to the members of his administration and for related discussions that tend to unify the thinking of the group as a whole.

In the case of the President's relations to the staff units and agencies in the Executive Office of the President, the problems are various and complex. In view of the rapid growth of special Presidential staffs in recent years, the whole question of the functions of such staffs versus departmental staffs is reaching the point where it needs reexamination. Some of the complexities are indicated in the section of this chapter on the Executive Office of the President, which has been. placed after sections on the other executive departments and agencies in order to have the benefit of that discussion for background purposes. The heavy burdens that rest upon the President are often remarked upon. The sheer magnitude of the workload in terms of the personal time and labor required to handle it is more generally forgotten, and