^; J^- Jr,'-;'ic^ 
 
 
'"^IffmMMi^'t^rl^i ■■to n , : i P i ' r ; • . •■ 
 
 iilftffiiniMlr;!^;^':H 
 
 Mf ! 
 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ON VARIOUS BILLS PROPOSING THE ESTABLISHMENT 
 OF A CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU 
 
 FEBRUARY 26 and 27, 1912 
 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPPICK 
 
 1912 
 

CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE "BtKEAtt. 
 
 Committee on the Library, 
 
 House or Representatives, 
 Washington^ D. C, Monday^ February 26^ 1912. 
 
 The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Representatives Slayden (chairman), Townsend, Evans, 
 Gardner, and Pickett. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, the committee has met this morning 
 to have what we call here in Congress a hearing on certain bills 
 that have been submitted for the purpose of establishing a Con- 
 gressional Reference Bureau. I am informed that a somewhat simi- 
 lar institution works in connection with the House of Commons in 
 Great Britain, and for some years there has been in connection with 
 the State legislature of the State of Wisconsin a similar institution, 
 and all reports from that State, Avith which we are much more 
 familiar than we are, of course, with those of Great Britain, indicate 
 that it is an institution of extreme usefulness. The committee has 
 felt that it is a matter of great importance, and feels gratified that 
 the distinguished gentlemen have come here from a distance, and is 
 particularly gratified to have here His Excellency the Right Hon. 
 James Bryce, ambassador from Great Britain, who has consented to 
 take some of his valuable time to tell this committee, out of his 
 abundant store of experience and wisdom, how these projects work 
 in his own country. 
 
 Mr. Nelson, who is the author of this bill, will speak for a few 
 minutes to the committee in a preliminary, explanatory way. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. NELSON, MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
 
 FROM WISCONSIN. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, there is pending before the Library 
 Committee a bill (H. R. 18720) to establish a Congressional Refer- 
 ence Bureau in the Library of Congress, to which I wish to direct 
 the committee's attention. I do not desire to speak at length upon 
 this bill at the present time, because I wish to give way to these 
 gentlemen who have come from afar, hundreds of miles, and some of 
 them as far a thousand of miles, to give the committee the benefit 
 of their study and experience along this line. 
 
 I will just briefly give an account of the origin and preparation of 
 this bill. For 10 years or more it has been my good fortune to 
 observe its practical operation in my own State. I live in the 
 capital city of AVisconsin, and I had frequent opportunity to see 
 how this legislative reference bureau supplements the work of the 
 legislator and how it gives him exact knowledge of conditions, rela- 
 
 3 
 
 736507 
 
4 CONGRESSIONAL BEFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 tions, and circumstances in any given field of activitj^ Avith which 
 he has to deal; how it enables him to apply to those conditions exact 
 economic, sociological, and political principles; how it enables him 
 to perfect the f oj-hi of legislation to fit the law into existing laws, to 
 utilise the success and failure of other States and countries, gives 
 him information as, to the constitutionality, State and national, of 
 the proposed law, and when I saw this operating in Wisconsin and 
 realized hoAv useful, how necessary, how exceedingly helpful an 
 agency it is, and then, after six years' experience in Congress with 
 our lack of these facilities, although we have the Library of Con- 
 gress, with its millions of books, periodicals, and magazines, that 
 might be made to focus upon the great questions before us, and real- 
 izing the wealth of information in the departments and bureaus of 
 Government, and that might be made more available for our needs, 
 1 determined to do all that in my power lies to see to it that their 
 Legislative Reference Bureau be established as an agency of help- 
 fulness for Congress, to enlarge our individual and collective 
 capacity for legislative service, to attain a maximum of legislative 
 efficiency. 
 
 I then went to the chief of our reference bureau of Wisconsin and 
 asked him if he would assist in the preparation of a bill which would 
 give us the benefit of this helpful agency. In consultation with Dr. 
 McCarthy and the secretary of the commission, Mr. Dudgeon, who 
 is nominally, at least, the chief of that bureau, we prepared a meas- 
 ure, which I introduced, and it is H. R. 4703. Senator Owen intro- 
 duced an amendment to the Senate along the same line, and it was 
 then our efficient Librarian of Congress, seeing that Congress was in- 
 terested in this matter, prepared a very good report, which gave a 
 survey of the field, to which tlie librarian will call attention. 
 
 Then I took this bill and sent it to all the experts, the legislative 
 librarians in the country, to university men who had given this 
 legislative agency scientific study, and to men who are familiar with 
 the needs of improvement of substance and form in legislation, and 
 I have here letters from them, from which I shall briefly read ex- 
 tracts, so that you can get an idea of how this strikes the popular 
 mind. 
 
 The Chairman. You want those to go into the record? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I want them in the record. Should I read them now? 
 
 The Chaieman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. T will just read one from especially noted men. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. A good man}^ are waiting to be heard. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I got this from Gov. Woodrow Wilson, of New Jer- 
 sey. [Reading :] 
 
 Cov. Woodrow Wilson (of New Jersey).: I was very glad to hear from yon, 
 and I want to assure you that I entirely approve of such legislation as is pro- 
 posed by bill H. R. ,31356. * * * i ean only say that it seems to me highly 
 important thnt a legislative reference department should be established In the 
 Congressional Library. The experience of sevei-al of our States in this matter 
 is CI Rcirsive • s to the great usefulness of such a department. Indeed, I think 
 if once established everyone who had any knowledge of it would deem it 
 indispensable. 
 
 T have letters from the president of Harvard University, from the 
 president of the University of Wisconsin, from former President 
 Roosevelt, and others along that line. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 5 
 
 The excerpts from letters submitted by Mr. Nelson are as follows : 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS FROM RECOGNIZEO EXPERTS. 
 
 President A. Lawrence Lowell. Harvard T'niversity: * * * The plan of 
 your bill for a legislative division in the Congressionar Library seems to me 
 an excellent one, for a great many mistakes may be saved and many useful 
 hints obtained by knowing what has been done under similar conditions else- 
 where, and at present there is a vast deal of such information of which we are 
 really wholly ignorant. It is not enough t.) collect it, it must be put in such 
 form that one can use it without enormous labor. The legislative bureau in 
 Wisconsin seems to me to have done excellent work in this direction. 
 
 President Charles R. Van Hlse, University of Wiscon.sin : * * * j au^ very 
 glad, however, to give my unqualified indorsement to the plan. All who know 
 the situation in Wisconsin before we had a legislative reference library and 
 since that time appreciate the superiority of the present condition. While the 
 ideas of the members are strictly carried out, the bills are framed in such form 
 
6 CONGKESSIONAI. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 reference bureau in the Library of Congress. The benefits of such a bureau can 
 hardly be overestimate<t. By means of it Members of Congress and national 
 officials are enabled to get material on any subject of legislative interest at any 
 time. I find that the greatest ditticnlty Members have in endeavoring to pre- 
 pare a bill Is to get the subject of their bill so well in hand that when they come 
 to explain its provisions before the other ]Members their arguments will carry 
 any weight. Some of the very best measures have been lost simply because 
 the Member introducing the bill has not been able to sufficiently explain it. 
 The legislative reference bureau furnishes the requisite information to any 
 Member who wishes to ascertain facts and thus saves him. perhaps, hours of 
 endless search for documents and reports. 
 
 Mr. John E. Briudlej% legislative reference librarian, Iowa ; * * * i cer- 
 tainly feel that a legislative reference bui-eau such as is contemplated by the pro- 
 visions of your bill would prove of great service to Congress. 
 
 Mr. George L. Clark, legislative reference librarian, Michigan : * * ""■ I 
 sincerely trust that you will be successful in securing the passage of your bill, 
 as I am sure that with the assistance of a Fetleral department of this nature 
 the state departments will be materially aided in their work. .*i 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 7 
 
 special committees call upon us for thorough reviews of important issues under 
 consideration, but we feel that the best results are obtained when we meet 
 individual members personally. 
 
 Finally, the main item is that we are holding the confidence of both parties. 
 The shifting tides of " politics " do not influence us. We stand on neutral 
 ground, and any material placed at the disposal of legislators, whether digest, 
 bill draft, or recommendation, is uucolored by personal or partisan opinions. 
 
 Mr. Charles Belden, State librarian Massachusetts: * * * j jmye read 
 your bill with care, and it seems to me admirable in every respect. * * * 
 The hearty support which has always been given to the State library of Massa- 
 chusetts — really a legislative reference library — and the many kind words that 
 are said to us by members of both houses, as well as by State officials, attest 
 to its worth and value. 
 
 Then, I took this bill up with the Librarian of Congress, because 
 this bureau was to be established in the Library, and he very kindly 
 went over the bill with great care with me so as to fit it into condi- 
 tions there, so that there would be no duplication and that it might 
 work harmoniousl}'^ with the Library; and adopting many of his 
 suggestions I introduced another bill. 
 
 Then I took the bill up with the leaders of all parties in the House, 
 so as to meet objections and satisfy demands, and after some helpful 
 criticism this bill finally resolved itself into H. R. 18720, which is be- 
 fore you for your consideration, so far as I am concerned. There are 
 other bills that I trust the committee will consider. 
 
 That is the history of the bill up to the present time. 
 
 I arranged for this hearing, with the courtesy of the chairman, be- 
 cause I believe that we ought to hear from these men who have had 
 experience with its practical operation, and there are a number of 
 experts from the bureaus — Dr. McCarthy, of Wisconsin, and Mr. 
 Brunchen, of Pennsylvania, who was five years librarian in Cali- 
 fornia, and we shall have various heads of departments who will 
 address us. I now wish to give way with great pleasure to the British 
 ambassador. I would not have ventured to invite the British ambas- 
 sador to speak to the committee, but the author of the "American 
 Commonwealth " I knew would not refuse to show us this great 
 courtesy, and I take great pleasure in calling on Ambassador Bryce 
 to tell us how Great Britain prepares her great statutes in substance 
 and form, so that we may profit by her experience. 
 
 The Chairman. We shall be very glad to hear from the ambassa- 
 dor at his convenience. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE RIGHT HON. JAMES BRYCE, BRITISH 
 
 AMBASSADOR. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is 
 perhaps rather unusual for the representative of another country to 
 appear before a committee of either House of Congress, but the cir- 
 cumstances are so exceptional that I do not think there is anything 
 in my appearing to which objection can be taken. When I received 
 the communications from you, sir, and from Mr. Nelson, inviting me 
 to come to this committee, and when you had both satisfied me that 
 this measure on this subject into which you are conducting your in- 
 quiries was one of entirely nonpartisan character, which did not raise 
 any domestic political issue upon which parties were divided in this 
 country, when it was in fact a matter deemed to be of common con- 
 cern, so that the opinions expressed by the representative of another 
 
8 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 country could not be thought to have any political tendency or bear- 
 ing, I saw no reason why 1 should not comply with the request. 
 
 I feel it to be an honor and a compliment to be invited, and my 
 desire will be to give you such information regarding our system in 
 Great Britain as may be serviceable to you. Mr. Nelson in the few 
 observations he has just made has indicated what is the gist of the 
 matter, viz, that anything I may say is not said by the British am- 
 bassador, but is said by one who has for many years endeavored to 
 study the political conditions of this country and especially those 
 political conditions which lie outside of party politics, and who is 
 therefore to state what is our system in England and endeavor to put 
 our English experience at your service. 
 
 I ought, perhaps, to begin, Mr. Chairman, by indicating what are 
 the fundamental differences between your system and that of Great 
 Britain that make the conditions under which British legislation 
 proceeds unlike yours. AVhat I shall say about our system must be 
 taken subject to the fact that these conditions are entirely different 
 in your country and in mine, so that our system could not be ap- 
 plied directly in any country whose principles of government are 
 dissimilar so far as regards legislative methods. The most impor- 
 tant difference is this : In Britain there is not that formal separa- 
 tion of the legislative from the executive departments which exists 
 in the United States. With us the executive of the country — that is 
 to say, the cabinet, the ministers of the Crown, who conduct the execu- 
 tive departments and administer the business of the country — sit in 
 Parliament, most of them in the House of Commons, some of them 
 in the House of Lords, and they are responsible for the conduct 
 of business in both houses. 
 
 The great bulk of legislation, including all the more important 
 bills, are introduced by the executive government. It is they that 
 prepare the bills; it is they that dispose of the time of Parliament 
 for the purpose of passing the bills ; it is they that conduct the bills 
 through the Houses of Parliament, and therefore the drafting of 
 legislation is primarily a business for the executive. Nevertheless, 
 the power of private members, members who do not belong to the 
 administration, to introduce bills remains quite unlimited both in the 
 House of Commons and in the House of Lords. That is an ancient 
 principle of our constitution, and every member of the House of 
 Commons and every member of the House of Lords is entitled to 
 present bills, but the rules which determine the procedure of the 
 House of Commons have latterly assigned the largest part of the 
 time of Parliament to Government bills. Thus it is only " Govern- 
 ment bills " that have any great political importance ; and four- 
 fifths of all the bills that are passed, nineteen-twentieths of those that 
 are of high significance, are passed at the instance of the executive 
 government. 
 
 There is {mother difference to which I nuist advert to in passing, 
 and that is the distinction that Ave draw between public bills and 
 private bills. The term ''private bills" means local or personal 
 bills, bills which relate to a particularly locality or bills which affect 
 a particular person or group of persons. These private bills are 
 dealt with under our sj^stem in an entirely different Avay from that 
 in which public bills are dealt with. They are dealt Avitli by Avhat 
 may be called a kind of judicial procedure — that is to say, they are 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 9 
 
 introduced by private persons or local authorities, and they are not 
 conducted by our ordinary methods by which we put public bills 
 through the two Houses of Parliament. 
 
 What I have to say to you. therefore, refers entirely to the public 
 bills, not to private. This system of dealing w'ith private bills is 
 in our country a valuable and practically useful system, and if that 
 were the question before your committee, I should be very happy to 
 give you an account of it, and to explain how it is that we, as we 
 believe, succeed in avoiding difficulties and dangers and the risks 
 of improper action Avhich may attach to the passing of private bills, 
 by subjecting our private bills to a species of judicial procedure. They 
 are sent to committees whose members make a solemn declaration 
 that they will not be affected by any private interest in dealing Avith 
 the bills. They are heard very much as a lawsuit is heard by counsel 
 who present the cas6 and who exauune witnesses, and no member of 
 either House of Parliament is ])ermitted to interfere in any way 
 Avith the conduct of these committees in dealing Avith private bills. 
 It Avould be a breach of our set rules for any private member, no 
 matter hoAv greatly interested his constituents might be in the bill, 
 to endeavor to influence the consideration of a committee on that 
 bill. Each committee is bound to deal Avith it fairly on the basis 
 of the evidence submitted and Avith a aIcav to the general public 
 interest. 
 
 I may say I have dealt Avith that subject in an address I delivered 
 three years ago to the Xcav York State Bar Association. If any mem- 
 ber of the committee Avould care to have a copy of that address I 
 shall be glad to send a copy to him, but as it is not the subject di- 
 rectly before you, I haAe merely indicated that the remarks I am 
 going to make relate exclusively to public bills — that is to say, to 
 these Avhich are of general application and aifect the general interest 
 of the country. 
 
 I need not go further back into the history of the matter than to 
 about the middle of the last century. In 18'')7, for the first time, an 
 official, being a barrister of experience, Avas appointed to draft bills 
 for the administration. Before that time each department had 
 either prepared its OAvn bills in its OAvn way or had employed .some 
 lawyer to draft them for it. Ultimately, in the years 1869 and 1871, 
 there was organized a permanent office wdiich Avas charged Avith the 
 preparation of all Government bills. Our practice in England, Avhen 
 we have no particular department under Avhich to place any branch 
 of work, is to put it under the treasury. The treasury is a sort of 
 general legatee of business that does not belong to any special de- 
 partment, for the good and obvious reason that the treasury is 
 the paymaster and has to provide for the payment of all Avork done 
 which does not belong to any special department. 
 
 This bill-drafting official Avas called at one time the '* counsel of 
 Parliament or counsel to the treasury." It is noAv generally spoken 
 of as the office of the parliamentary counsel. It consists of one 
 head — an experienced laAA^ver and practiced draftsman — Avho receives 
 a large salary. A large salary is necessary in order to secure the 
 highest legal talent. I am not quite sure Avhat the salary is, but my 
 impression is that it used to be £2.000 a year — about $10.000 — for the 
 head of the office, and is now a little more — $1-2,500 for the head and 
 $10,000 for the assistant counsel. ^Smaller salaries Avould not be suffi- 
 
10 CONGRESSIONAL BEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 cieiit to secure that tirst-rate legal talent which it is necessary to 
 have. This office accordingly consists of a head counsel and the as- 
 sist counsel, both barristers of talent and experience, thoroughly 
 trained in law and draftsmanship, and their business is to prepare 
 and put into form every bill which is to be introduced into Parlia- 
 ment by any department of the administration. They employ other 
 assistants, whose payment is fixed by them under the supervision of 
 the treasury, for any work which may be impossible for them in time 
 of pressure to undertake personally. The process which a bill under- 
 goes before being presented to Parliament is as follows: I had some 
 experience in the matter, because I have been in three or four differ- 
 ent departments of Government while I was in the House of Com- 
 mons, and in three of these departments I was the head of the de- 
 partment, and was therefore responsible for the legislation that was 
 introduced; and one of those departments, the board of trade, which 
 is wdiat you call the ministry of commerce and labor, Avith some of 
 the functions of your ministry of the interior, had a great deal of 
 legislation, and its function was not only to prepare legislation but 
 to watch the legislation that was introduced by private members. 
 
 When a bill is to be prepared, the first thing that the minister in 
 charge of the department does is to hold a sort of council of war of 
 his own department, and to consider what are to be the contents of 
 the bill he desires to introduce. When he is satisfied as regards the 
 substance of the provisions contemplated he sends for the parlia- 
 mentary counsel, who thereupon comes over to the department, dis- 
 cusses the matter with the minister and the heads of his subdepart- 
 ments and takes the instructions upon which he is to frame the bill. 
 If he finds that there are any technical legal difficulties connected 
 with the carrying out of w^hat the minister wants, it is his duty to 
 represent those clifficult-ies. Suppose the minister says, " I want to 
 have a bill introduced with provisions for doing so and so." The 
 business of the parliamentary counsel is to say, " How will you recon- 
 cile those provisions with those that exist in such and such an act ? Do 
 you want to repeal that act or to modify it? Hoav will you reconcile 
 your scheme with the doctrine laid down in such and such a decided 
 case? Do you or do j^'ou not mean to alter the law as declared in that 
 case ? " Or he may say, '' The plan you propose will be exposed to 
 such and such practical difficulties in its working. How do you 
 propose to avoid those difficulties?" Such criticisms are valuable, 
 because there may be objections to the minister's plans which will 
 not have occurred to his mind or to the minds of the members of 
 his department. It is the duty of the parliamentary counsel to pre- 
 sent these things to the minister and to give him a complete view of 
 the way in Avhich his bill, if it is introduced, will affect the existing 
 law, so as to be sure it will not do more than was intended, and above 
 all that it will not leave untouched various contingencies or legal 
 provisions of existing statutes which ought to be dealt with to make 
 the bill, when enacted, Avork in a satisfactory Avay. 
 
 I hope the members of the committee will folloAV Avhat I am en- 
 deavoring to state, because this is one of the most important parts of 
 the functions of a draftsman — preparing a bill — and the most helpful 
 to the minister. 
 
 W^hen this discussion is over the parliamentary counsel takes aAvay 
 his instructions and he prepares a draft of the bill and sends it to 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 11 
 
 the department. The department considers the draft bill, makes some 
 sug-gestions upon it for the consideration of the parliamentary coun- 
 sel, and probably requests the parliamentary counsel to come over 
 for another conference on the subject. If the bill is a bill of first-rate 
 importance, it is laid before the cabinet, and sometimes it is dis- 
 cussed before the cabinet at great length. I remember a case where 
 the cabinet spent six or seven successive sittings in discussing the 
 provisions of one particular bill, and sometimes, although very rarely, 
 it will happen that the draftsman of the bill, the parliamentary coun- 
 sel himself, is asked to come in and meet a committee of the cabinet 
 to discuss the provisions of the bill. I remember one famous case 
 in which a bill was redrafted 22 times and printed and circulated to 
 the members of the cabinet 22 times, with the different changes 
 which had been made in it by the parliamentary counsel, in order 
 to obey the directions of the cabinet. 
 
 When the minister is ultimately satisfied with the draft which the 
 parliamentary counsel has presented, and when the parliamentary 
 counsel has said all he has to sa3^ then the bill, having been approved 
 by the minister, will be brought by him into the House of Commons 
 or the House of Lords — usually into the House of Commons. 
 
 You will see from that how important a function the parliamen- 
 tary counsel performs. He is in no way responsible for the policy 
 of a bill. That is entirely a matter for the department or for the 
 cabinet. His function is merely to carry out their wishes, but he 
 has opportunities of the greatest possible value for representing to 
 them the difficulties which may arise in carrying out any scheme 
 which they propose to enact by a bill. If the bill proposes to create 
 new administrative machinery, it would be his duty to point out any 
 difficulties in the working of that machinery, and although the par- 
 liamentary counsel is entirely outside politics and is not entitled to 
 belong to a political party or to express any political opinion of his 
 own, and is, of course, forbidden to belong to a party organization, 
 still he is an important functionary, through his duty of calling 
 the attention of the minister or the cabinet to all questions whatever, 
 whether they involve political considerations or not, which the Ijill 
 may raise. 
 
 When the bill has been brought in, it goes through its usual stages 
 in both houses. It is read a first time ; it is read a second time ; it is 
 then, in the House of Commons, referred to one of the large com- 
 mittees (Avhat are called the " Grand committees ") or it is referred to 
 the committee of the Avhole. If it is a bill of first-class importance, it 
 goes to the committee of the whole. When it is in committee, 
 amendments are constantly moved by private members, whicli will 
 affect the substance and the form of the bill, and of course the 
 minister in charge of the bill is sometimes not enougli of a lawyer to 
 be able, offhand, to deal with the legal aspect of those amendments, 
 so we have made an arrangement, of late years, under which the 
 parliamentarj^ counsel is assigned a seat inside the room — the room 
 in which the House of Commons sits, though technically outside 
 the House — and where he can be easily got at by the minister. 
 So when an amendment is moved about the effect of Avhich the 
 minister is not quite clear or whose wording he does not quite imder- 
 stand, he can leave his seat in the House and go around a few steps 
 to confer with the parliamentary counsel and take his opinion about 
 
12 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 it. Tliat is R real convenience. Often, when an amendment has been 
 suddenly moved, vrhich I found it not very easy to deal with on the 
 spur of the moment, I have gone to the parliamentary counsel " under 
 the gallery " and consulted him about it and whether he thought we 
 could accept it Avithout harming the rest of the bill and, if not, 
 whether he could suggest any change in the Avording that would 
 make it possible for us to accept it. 
 
 Mr. ToAVNSEND. Mr. Ambassador, during that time what is the 
 legislative status of a bill to which an amendment has been offered — 
 is debate going on ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Debate is going on; and, of course, one can. if neces- 
 sary, put up some member on one's own side, wdio Avill get up and 
 talk for a fcAv minutes while one is conferring with the parliamentary 
 counsel and in that way the thing is always kept going. [Laughter.] 
 
 It is an interesting symptom when a minister is seen going to talk 
 to his parliamentary counsel : people knoAv that he thinks the amend- 
 ment of some consequence. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Does he announce he is going to consult with the 
 parliamentary counsel ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. No; it would be irregular to do that, because the 
 counsel is not supposed to be present. Neither is it necessary, be- 
 cause if the minister is seen leaving his seat to talk to the parliamen- 
 tary counsel, everybody understands the reason, and as the practice 
 is for the general convenience of all parties, nobody objects. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I was just getting at the status. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. In this way the bill goes through the House of Com- 
 mons. When it has been through committee, it, of course, comes up 
 in the stage of report. It is reported to the Avhole house, which con- 
 siders it again, usually making further amendments in it. Then it 
 comes on for third reading and then it goes to the other house. 
 
 The only other point I need mention upon this subject, is to emphasize 
 the need which Ave feel to exist for the most careful consideration for 
 the Avording of the bill from the point of A'ieAv of the laAvyer. The 
 minister, of course, is responsible for the substance, but we feel — in 
 order to make our legislation finished and proper and effectiA^e and 
 to prcA'ent difficulties from subsequently arising — the form of the 
 bill can not be considered too carefully, and that object Ave believe 
 to be attained by the employment of the highest legal talent in the 
 work of drafting. 
 
 If there are any points Avhich I have not succeeded in making 
 clear, perhaps some member Avill ask me a question. 
 
 The Chairman. The purpose of that great care in the committee 
 stage in the prej^aration of the form of the bill is, of course, to avoid 
 litigation subsequently, I suppose? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. That is so. Now let me attempt to sum up briefly the 
 advantages Avhich Ave in Britain belicA'e to have resulted to the con- 
 duct of legislation and the improA^ement of our statute laAv from the 
 institution of the office of parliamentary counsel. They are as 
 follows : 
 
 In the first place, it has secured much greater economy, because, 
 until this one office Avas created for the purpose of doing the Avork of 
 drafting, we had been obliged to pay much larger sums to the lawyers 
 than those which are noAv required for the payment of the permanent 
 officials. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 13 
 
 Secondl}', a harmony in legislation has been secured, which did not 
 previously exist. As all Government bills go through the same office, 
 there is a far less chance that measures inconsistent either in policy 
 or in matters of administrative machinery or as respects legal form 
 and expression will be introduced or passed. 
 
 Thirdly, the legal form in which bills pass into acts is a great deal 
 better than it used to be under the old system. Since 1870 the form 
 of our statutes has been far superior to what it was in earlier years, 
 and especially to what it was before 1850. The acts of Parliament 
 are shorter, they are clearer, they are better expressed, and less liti- 
 gation arises upon them. This is very largely due to the fact that 
 they are now prepared on uniform principles ; that certain forms of 
 expression have been carefully considered and settled and are ad- 
 hered to, and that all the work is done by persons carefully trained 
 and possessed not only of skill, but of long practical experience. I 
 may add that the office of parliamentary counsel has been turned to 
 account for three other purposes also. One of these is to give advice 
 to the Government upon questions arising upon the construction of 
 statutes which are not sufficiently important to be referred to the at- 
 torney and solicitor general, who are the regular law officers of the 
 Crown, and who are so much occupied with other work that they are 
 often unable to find time to advise upon minor questions, relating 
 especially to administration, which arise upon statutes. It is fre- 
 quently found — and this has been within my own experience — very 
 helpful to consult parliamentary counsel upon some question which 
 arises in the course of the administration of a department as to the 
 precise meaning and effect of a statutory provision which the depart- 
 ment is obliged to use. 
 
 Fourthly, the office of parliamentary counsel has been found very 
 useful in the work of consolidating statutes. We have been engaged 
 in England for a good many years in clearing off the statute books 
 obsolete or practically superseded statutes which have not been ex- 
 pressly repealed, and in publishing revised editions of the statutes. 
 We have also been employed in consolidating a large number of 
 statutes which deal with the same subject, and the superabundance of 
 which, as well as the occasional discrepancies between the provisions 
 of which, had given trouble in practice. For the purpose of dealing 
 with this work of statute consolidation there was appointed a good 
 many years ago a body called " the statute law ccnimittee,"" con- 
 sisting of a few members of Parliament possessing legal laiowledge, 
 and of a few high officials, such as the lord chancellor and the 
 attorney or solicitor general. The chief parliamentary counsel has 
 always been a member of this committee and it has managed the 
 work of consolidation under his direction. It is seldom possible 
 for him to give time from his other work to prepare consolidation 
 acts, but he has been able to chose competent draftsmen from n:em- 
 bers of the bar to do this work and he or his assistants have revised 
 it, thus securing an efficiency perhaps otherwise unattainable. As I 
 was a member of this statute law committee for a number of v^ears, 
 both when in office and cut of office, I had many opportunities of 
 seeing how valuable to its work was the presence on it of the head 
 of the parliamentary drafting cffice. He was a permanent eleuient 
 who became thoroughly conversant with all it had to do, and Avas 
 
14 CONGRESSIONAL EEPERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 able to keep the Avork of revision under his oversight, and he knew 
 how to choose the best men to carry it out. 
 
 Fifthl}^, sometimes the cabinet and sometimes a department found 
 it necessary either in considering changes in the law which they 
 desired to effect by legislation, or for the purpose of controlling the 
 work of the administration by their subordinate officials, to have 
 prepared for them a succinct and clear statement of the laws affecting 
 a certain branch of administration. Such statements were from time 
 to time drawn up at the request of a department by the office of the 
 parliamentary counsel and were found of great service to the de- 
 partment. 
 
 Sixthly, the ministers sitting in Parliament often find themselves 
 obliged to form an opinion upon bills introduced by private members, 
 and though thej^ could sometimes do so from their own knowledge 
 and sometimes could obtain information from their own subordi- 
 nates, it was often convenient to consult the parliamentary counsel 
 regarding some pending bill and have his opinion as to how far it 
 was compatible with the existing law or whether the changes that 
 it proposed to introduce would destroy the symmetry and harmony 
 of the law. The parliamentary counsel being a repertory of in- 
 formation upon the subject was thus sometimes consulted regarding 
 private members' bills and his advice was always found useful. 
 
 Seventhly, we have in England a great deal of what may be called 
 subordinate or secondary legislation — that is to say, we pass statutes 
 which empowered either the Sovereign by what is called an " Order 
 in council " or the council of the judges or some high official at the 
 head of a department to make ordinances or regulations upon some 
 special topic. These have the force of an act of Parliament, because 
 they are made in pursuance of the powers an act of Parliament con- 
 fers. This subordinate legislation is usually directed to be laid upon 
 the table of both Houses of Parliament for approval, and if it is 
 not disapproved it takes effect and becomes law. Although these 
 orders in council and statutory rules are usually prepared by the 
 department to which they belong, the more important of them are 
 sometimes referred to the office of the parliamentary counsel for 
 his opinion, or to be drafted by him, and he is always at hand in 
 case any legal difficulty arise. 
 
 Although I have set forth these different kinds of work which 
 the office does, for the sake of giving you a tolerably complete 
 account of its functions and place in our system, I am well aware 
 that many of these would not be applicable to such a system as 
 j^ours, where the ministers of the President do not sit in Congress 
 and bills are prepared and passed by individual Members of Con- 
 gress, and are passed by it and its committees without any inter- 
 vention by the administration. It is, of course, for you gentlemen 
 to consider how far any such advantages could be secured for Con- 
 gress or for the department by any legislative bureau or drafting 
 office which might, at any rate, have some of the functions that the 
 British office has profitably discharged in our country. 
 
 I need hardly say that our office is a branch of the permanent 
 civil service, and none of its members go in and out with the gov- 
 ernment. They are permanent officials who are entirely excluded 
 from party politics, and any participation by them in party politics 
 would lead to their immediate dismissal. It is one of the best tradi- 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 15 
 
 tions of the permanent public service in England that its members 
 serve every government with equal loyalty and zeal, and although 
 they know to a large extent what may be called the political secrets 
 of an administration they never betray these nor in any way suffer 
 whatever private opinions they may entertain to interfere with 
 their sense of duty to the executive government. 
 
 If I may, I will venture to say a word or two on two other topics 
 besides the parliamentary counsel's office because I understand both 
 are included in the scope of this bill now before the committee. The 
 one is as to the bureau of legislation which is proposed in the bill. 
 If I may be presumed to offer an opinion I would say that this 
 appears to me a proposal of the highest value. The age in which 
 we live, gentlemen, is an age in which more and more is demanded 
 of legislation. The people of this country and the people of every 
 free country are expecting much more from legislation than they 
 did formerly. They are asking the Government, both the Central 
 Government and their local governments, to undertake many func- 
 tions which were not attempted before, and the complex nature of 
 our civilization makes the discharge of these functions more difficult 
 than ever it was before. There is more intricacy and more detail in 
 statutes, and the economical and social problems with which legis- 
 lation now endeavors to deal become more difficult. There are raised 
 more questions of economic and legal principle upon which it is 
 difficult to form a sound opinion than happened in a previous age 
 of the world. It appears, therefore, to be more than ever necessary 
 to endeavor to accumulate all data that can possibly help us in the 
 framing of good legislation. The most important and obviously 
 necessary of those data are such as ai'e furnished by the experience of 
 the country itself. It is necessary to know what are the evils that 
 exist, to consider and weigh different remedies that are proposed for 
 those evils, and to consider how far legislation can deal with them. 
 
 You have here an unequaled opportunity of doing that, because you 
 have 48 States beside the District of Columbia, and you have 49 
 legislative bodies at work annually turning out many thousands of 
 statutes. You have, therefore, a far larger amount of material for 
 considering the operation of legislative proposals than we have in any 
 European country, but at the same time the value of foreign ex- 
 perience is also very great. These problems which engage our atten- 
 tion and which engage your attention are problems which have come 
 up in European countries also and in the self-governing colonies of 
 Great Britain in various parts of the world. The legislation that is 
 passed in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand deals with problems 
 very much the same as yours, and the same is true of the legislation 
 passed in Germany, France, and other countries throughout conti- 
 nental Europe. A bureau, which could collect all the information 
 from your own States and from the other English-speaking countries 
 of the world and from the great countries of continental Europe, 
 could not fail to be of great value to all those who desire to introduce 
 legislative measures here. One can hardly overestimate the value of 
 knowing not only what has been done in other countries, but also of 
 knoAving how the experiments other countries have tried are working 
 out. As observed by Mr. Nelson, such a bureau as is now contem- 
 plated has been established in several States. I had the opportunity 
 some years ago of examining its working in Wisconsin, and the testi- 
 
16 CONGRESSIONAL BEFEKENCE BUREAU. 
 
 inony of persons whom I saw in Wisconsin appeared to be unani- 
 mously favorable, and I believe a bureau of the same kind exists in 
 New York— it has frequently supplied the einbassy Avith valuable 
 information— and also in the State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 There is one particular branch of information on which I wish to 
 say a word, and that is the changes that are being made in the laws 
 and constitutions of States by the direct action of the people as voters 
 on questions submitted to them. The method of direct popular legis- 
 lation has noAv become very frequent in many of your States. It be- 
 gan, as you all know, of course, w^ith the amendment of constitutions 
 by direct popular vote. It then went on into the form of permitting 
 statutes passed bj'^ the legislatures to be referred to popular vote for 
 approval or disapproval, and it has further developed into the form 
 of allowing in some States a certain number of citizens to propose 
 laws which are to be passed, not by the legislatures, but by the direct 
 vote of the people. I can assure you — perhaps you know this your- 
 selves — that there is much difficulty in ascertaining what enactments 
 are being passed in the different States by this method. I have had 
 occasion in endeavoring fi'om time to time to revise the book to which 
 Mr. Nelson referred to try to make out what amendments to the State 
 constitutions had been passed in the several States — what votes had 
 been taken upon the referendum and what votes had been taken upon 
 the initiative, and at the present time there seems to be no means of 
 ascertaining the facts on this subject, except by Avriting to the gov- 
 ernors or the secretaries of the several States and putting them to the 
 trouble of sending information to a private person. Surely it is a 
 matter of great concern to all of you here in Congress, in this central 
 heart of the Nation, to be able to obtain full information with regard 
 to all that is passing in the several States. Might it not be a proper 
 exercise of the powers of Congress to create a bureau or department 
 here which should keep record of all that is being done by direct 
 popular vote in the States? 
 
 In the volumes of the State statutes passed by the legislatures, of 
 course, which are published every year and which are in your 
 Congressional Library, you have that, but do you not also want to 
 know what are the changes being made from month to month by 
 direct popular legislation in the States? Might there not be a 
 separate branch of whatever bureau of information you may create, 
 whose sole business it would be to keep track of all that is being 
 done in the States and to have a central reference library in which 
 anyone could ascertain at once what the action of the people of the 
 States has been upon every constitutional amendment and upon 
 referendum and initiative propositions? Such a matter would be 
 entirely outside of controversial politics; it would be for the com- 
 mon benefit of everybody; and it would be, once established, not a 
 very difficult thing to do, because no doubt the officers of the various 
 States would be very happy to furnish information to you upon 
 those subjects. I need hardl}'^ say, Mr. Slayden and gentlemen of 
 the committee, that if you would like, for the purposes of your in- 
 quiry, to have a more detailed and more explicit account on paper 
 of any of the points which I have tried to call to your attention, 
 either with regard to the office of the parliamentary council or 
 Avith regard to the methods that we adopt for endeavoring to collect 
 information and to make it useful to every one, I shall be very happy 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 17 
 
 to endeavor to supply it to you or to obtain from England any infor- 
 mation you may desire. 
 
 The Chairman. I will say, Mr. Ambassador, that I know that the 
 committee will be glad to have that and with the idea of incorporat- 
 ing it into the hearings on this bill, if convenient to you. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. I ought to say one single word upon the private 
 calendar. I have been speaking entirely of what is done in respect 
 of the public bills. What is the private member to do? The prac- 
 tice hitherto has been for the private member to either draw his bill 
 himself, if he is a competent lawyer, or to get some competent lawyer 
 to draw it for him; but it is very common for the private member 
 to ask the advice of some minister upon the subject of his bill. A 
 private member's bill can not pass except with the consent of the 
 administration, for it always commands a majority of the House of 
 Commons, and if they dislike a bill they can urge the nuijority to 
 reject it. If the administration thinks a bill is pernicious, it is their 
 duty to stop it. I do not sa}^ they always do stop it ; sometimes they 
 let a bill which they do not altogether approve go through for the 
 sake of avoiding trouble with some of their supporters. 
 
 It is a very common thing with us for the private member to go 
 to a member of the administration and shoAv him his bill and say 
 to him, " This is a bill I am introducing, I hope you w' ill agree with 
 it and approve it. If you are not prepared to approve of it at once, 
 will you take it home and look at it, and will you show it to your 
 departmental advisers and show it to the parliamentary council?" 
 Well, the member of the Government will always do that. We are 
 all — ministers and private members — sitting together in the same 
 House. 
 
 Ministers are in the House of Commons all the time and their ob- 
 ject, of course, is to have the best possible personal relations with the 
 members of the house, and not only with those on their own side, but 
 those on the other side also. We have a great deal of friendliness in 
 the House of Commons. We have very few animosities, and any 
 member, whatever side of politics he belongs to, feels himself free to 
 go and talk to a minister. In that way a great deal of work on bills 
 of private members is done. A member asks the minister his views and 
 the minister takes it and shows it to his own advisers, and the minister 
 comes back and says, "Make such and such amendments and I will 
 help you to pass your bill." If the amendments do not go to the heart 
 of the bill and destroy the main purpose he has in view the private 
 member assents and introduces the amendments which the minister 
 asks for and the bill may be passed, supposing, of course, that there 
 is time to consider it. 
 
 In that way we do a great deal incidentially to improve the quality 
 of our private members' legislation. Let me add that although we 
 have no parliamentary bureau of information, there is a great store- 
 house of information in the different administrative departments on 
 the subjects with which they respectively deal. Wlienever any pri- 
 vate member asks the minister to put him in touch with the officials 
 of his department and to put the resources of the department as re- 
 gards information at his disposal the request is never refused. A 
 private member can always go to the officials of any department and 
 say to them, " I think of bringing in a bill on such or such a topic 
 
 40435—12 2 
 
18 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 and I want to have the information which you possess in order to 
 enable me to intelligently do so," and unless the information is of a 
 highly confidential character, which, of course, it very seldom is, the 
 information in the department is always put at the disposal of the 
 private member. So that, although we have not such a bureau of 
 information for Parliament as you propose to have for Congress, we 
 attain very nearly the same object through the departments, because 
 they are put at the service of the private members in the way I have 
 indicated. 
 
 If there are any other points, Mr. Slayden, which you would like 
 to ask me any question about I should be only too happy to answer. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I should like to ask you — you have suggested that we 
 consider information on European practice. Have they anything 
 similar to this in European countries ? Has not France some bureau 
 that helps in the substance and form of legislation; likewise Ger- 
 many ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. I really do not know that there is any French bureau. 
 I knoAv that the French system is unlike our own in giving very great 
 power to committees. A bill goes to a committee and there it is 
 carefully considered, and I fancy that the committees call in the 
 departments and consult them about the bill, but whether there is 
 an^T^ such bureau in France and Germany as you desire to create here 
 I do not know. I think you may safely assume there is something 
 of the kind in Germany, because they are practical, careful and exact, 
 and elaborate in all their administrative arrangements, but whether 
 they put their information at the disposal of the Eeichstag I do not 
 Imow. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Gardner, a member of the committee, would 
 like to ask a question for information. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. What proportion of the ministry are lawyers? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. It would not be very easy to say, because a certain 
 number of them might be nominally lawyers but who have never 
 practiced; but I should say, speaking from recollection, that the 
 chances are that four or five at least would be lawyers. Of course, 
 the attorney general and solicitor general and the Scotch and Irish 
 law officers are all lawyers, but they are not members of the cabinet. 
 In the cabinet probably four or five at least would be lawyers. If I 
 were to take a little time I could think over the members of the cabi- 
 nets to which I belonged and I could tell you. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. The British Parliament in general contains a com- 
 paratively small proportion of lawyers as compared with our Con- 
 gress ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I suppose four-fifths of our House are lawyers. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. I should say a much smaller proportion with us — much 
 less than a half. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Of course, anybody who has noticed the English 
 statutes can see that they are much better drawn than ours. One 
 reason, I think, is because in England you do not attempt to go into 
 details as we do. You leave so much more to the executive officers. 
 I know you have written upon that subject, because I have read some 
 of your statements. Have you ever examined the question as to how 
 the inconsistencies and crudities creep into our statutes? Have you 
 
CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 19 
 
 noticed whether they are in bills as originally introduced or whether 
 they result from amendments or from conference agreements ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. I have not gone so far as to know whether they come 
 in in conference, but I presume I should be correct in saying they 
 largely come by way of amendment, 
 
 Mr. Gardner. In amendment? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. In amendment — coming by way of amendment in one 
 or the other House — and that is exactly the same with us. The things 
 that do give trouble are the results of the amendments moved in the 
 House. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. As a matter of fact, is it the rule in the British 
 House of Commons to give notice of amendment ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. And that is printed on the orders of the day ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You see we have no such system as that. It seems 
 to me that our errors mosth" occur not from a faulty original draft, 
 but in consequence of plausible, hasty amendments oifered on the 
 floor of the House or the Senate. An amendment offered to one 
 section often conflicts with the provisions of some other section. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. That is true, Mr. Gardner; man}^ errors may come 
 with amendments, but I must frankly confess that the thing some- 
 times happens with us, too, because, although we require notice to 
 be given of amendment, we very often modify an amendment on the 
 spur of the moment and introduce other words. It may be after 
 that amendment is moved that the house or the Government is not 
 willing to accept the amendment in the form in which it is moved, 
 but a change of expression may be suggested, and it may be accepted 
 as so changed. Moreover, it is permitted to move amendments which 
 are not on the notice paper, though this is not done to any large 
 extent. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I suppose amendments to amendments are made. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes; amendments to amendments are constantly 
 moved, and the difficulties often arise from this cause. Any error 
 ought, of course, to be removed in the other house. If error has 
 arisen in committee of the whole, it ought to be corrected by the 
 house on report, and if it has not been noticed then it ought to be 
 corrected in the other house. It is the duty of the parliamentary 
 counsel to examine the bill carefully when it leaves the house in 
 which it was introduced and to tell the minister in charge what 
 alterations, if any, are required in order to bring it in proper form 
 and correct any errors that have crept into it. Then the minister 
 ought to arrange that such errors be corrected in the other house. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You know we have no stage between the third read- 
 ing and engrossment of a bill. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You have some sort of a stage between the third 
 reading and whatever you call it — the " passage," I think. 
 
 Mr. Bryce. No ; we do not have it unless we especially ask for it. 
 But we can always do that; we can add words or make amendment 
 by the process which we call " recommitting " the bill. And this can 
 be done up to the stage of the third reading and engrossment. The 
 only way to make a correction after that would be to do it in the 
 
20 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 other house. If it came from the House of Lords it could be done in 
 the House of Commons; and if it came from the House of Commons 
 it could be done in the House of Lords. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I am wondering whether the superior Avording of 
 your legislation did not arise from the fact that you do not try to 
 legislate for all details as we do. We legislate down to every detail. 
 We have always taken all discretion possible away from the Execu- 
 tive. In examining your statutes I have often found that you give 
 the maximum discretion to your executive officers and pay but slight 
 attention to details. Do you not think that is one of the reasons why 
 your laws are so much better drawn than ours ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Doubtless that is one reason. Our statutes are shorter 
 and go less into minute details. We are able to make them shorter 
 because we are accustomed to confer by statute large powers in mak- 
 ing rules and orders to various governmental authorities. Parlia- 
 ment was at first very jealous of doing that, delegating anj'' of its 
 powers, but it was found so convenient to relieve the legislature of 
 minor details that we noAV frec|uently give powder to an executive 
 department to make rules or orders. Sometimes power is given to 
 the Crown to make Avhat Ave call orders in council, i. e., rules or regu- 
 lations which are framed by a department and declared effective by 
 the CroAvn at a meeting of the Privy Council, then legal effect, hoAv- 
 ever, being cleriAed from the power giA^en by the act of Parliament 
 to enact them. In this case it is usually provided that the rides or 
 orders so made shall be presented to both houses of Parliament, and 
 that shall lie upon the table, both in the House of Commons and iii 
 the House of Lords during a certain number of days. During that 
 number of days any member can move a resolution disapproving 
 that rule or order, and if the resolution is carried the rule or order 
 ceases to have any effect. In that way the authority of Parliament is 
 preserved secure and intact, and the susceptibilities of Parliament 
 are respected because the rule or order never becomes law, except 
 by the consent of Parliament. It is issued in pursuance of the 
 authority given by a statute, and if subsequently disapproved by 
 either house of Parliament — — 
 
 Mr. Gardner. It takes positive action to disapprove of it? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. It takes positive action to disapprove of it, and this 
 seldom happens, because the administration seldom attempts to enact 
 by this method anything regarding which serious differences of 
 opinion could arise. In every country and under every government 
 there is a A^ast deal of entirely uncontroversial business, and it is 
 a great advantage to be able to dispose of such matters in this way. 
 I need hardly say that the matters so dealt with are matters of de- 
 tail; we would not attempt to handle by such methods questions of 
 principle. The details are very large. The number of rules and 
 orders published every year make a volume a good deal larger than 
 the volume of the statutes passed directly by Parliament. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Mr. Ambassador, I would like to ask who appoints the 
 parliamentary counsel ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. He is appointed by the administration — ^by the prime 
 minister. 
 
 The Chairman. But he is nonpartisan? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes; he is selected in respect of his legal abilities and 
 experience. He is appointed, like all the rest of our civil-service 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 21 
 
 appointees, to be a permanent official, and he is bound to strip him- 
 self of his political predilections, whatever they may have been, when 
 he enters the permanent civil service of the Crown. He would not 
 be allowed to make a public speech upon any subject of a party na- 
 ture or to join any political organization. Anything of that kind 
 would lead to his being censured, and probably to his being dismissed. 
 
 The Chairman. Is his appointment for an indefinite time? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. For an indefinite time : practically for life — i. e., until 
 he reaches the age at which civil servants retire. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. In Great Britain, Mr. Brvce, there is no written con- 
 stitution, and therefore no appeal to the courts on the ground of the 
 constitutionality of an act of Parliament. What is the eti'ect of an 
 incongruity by subsequent act of Parliament ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. It is a patent incongruity — that is to say, if the second 
 act is clearly inconsistent with the first, the later is deemed to re- 
 peal the earlier. If, on the other hand, the two could be possibly 
 reconciled, then it becomes a question whether the second was in- 
 tended to repeal the first ; and this would be a question of legal con- 
 struction Avhicli the courts Avould deal with just as they would with 
 the interpretation of a statute. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. In this country, with our constitutions, State and 
 National, do you not deem it therefore much more important, com- 
 paratively, that our laws be worded carefully on that account? In 
 the British Parliament there is no danger on the constitutionality; 
 here we have a danger. "NA^iat is your opinion ? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. I could certainly assent to that proposition. It seems 
 to me that this is one of the facts that makes legislation need so much 
 care in the United States, because with us you have only got to con- 
 sider whether a law is wise in substance and whether it is properly 
 drawn, but here you have a question to consider in addition, namely, 
 whether it is compatible with the Federal Constitution or that of the 
 State, as the case may be. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Another question we would like to have the opinion 
 of the ambassador on is : Does this parliamentary counsel change 
 with parties or does he remain? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. He remains permanent, but then that is the general 
 rule of the civil service in Britain. The civil service does not change 
 at all upon change of administration, and we have, I think, speak- 
 ing roughly, something between 30 and 40 people, all of whom are 
 in Parliament, who, when one minister goes out and another comes 
 in, change, and all the rest of the civil service remains unchanged; 
 and he remains from one administration to another. I recollect one, 
 a great personal friend of mine, and one of the ablest men I ever 
 knew, who was parliamentary counsel 20 years or more. I really 
 do not think there was anybody the country was more indebted to 
 during those years than that parliamentary coinisel. He was a man 
 of such extraordinary talent and knowledge of the law and so much 
 sound judgment that every minister who he had to deal with respected 
 and trusted him, whatever party the minister belonged to. As he 
 was my personal friend, I happened to Imow he had political opin- 
 ions, but nobody would have known it unless intimately acquainted 
 with him. The same was true of his successor, who retired some years 
 ago, but is happily still living and serving his country with distinc- 
 tion in another capacity. 
 
22 CONGEESSIONALr REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Of course, what is true of the chief is also true of his 
 assistant? 
 
 Mr. Bryce. Yes ; it is true equally of the assistant counsel. As re- 
 gards the officials, let me take the instance of such a department as 
 the board of trade. I was for a time president of that department, 
 and I and the parliamentary secretary were the only persons on it 
 who came in and went out with an administration. All the other 
 officials — there were more than 300 — remained. In the treasury 
 department the only people who changed were those four or five who 
 sat in the House of Commons, and all the rest of the staff of the 
 treasury, just like all the staff of the board of trade, except the par- 
 liamentar}^ secretary and the president, remained unchanged. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, we are greatly obliged to you 
 for this most able statement of the practice in the United Kingdom, 
 to which we owe so much, and we will be happy to have you remain 
 as long as you please and come as often as you like. I want to say 
 to Mr. Nelson, at whose instigation this committee was called, that 
 if he wants to have some other gentleman address us before we take 
 a recess we will be glad to hear them now. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Dr. Cleveland, the chairman of the Committee on 
 Economy and Efficiency, has another appointment, and I would like 
 to hear from him as soon as possible ; but first I would like to have 
 a statement from the Librarian of Congress, Mr. Putnam. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT PUTNAM, LIBRARIAN OF 
 
 CONGRESS, 
 
 Mr. Putnam. At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I shall simpl}^ ask that 
 the record shall note the report to which Mr. Nelson referred, sub- 
 mitted by me on April 6, 1911, to Congress on the general subject 
 of legislative reference bureaus. That report is available as Sen- 
 ate Document No. 7, Sixty-second Congress, first session, and I do 
 not recommend that it be reprinted in full, but I should be glad if 
 the committee decide it feasible to reprint the first four pages as part 
 of the record of this hearing. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. I move that we comply with the Librarian's re- 
 quest that the first four pages be reprinted in these hearings. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Merely that the first four pages of this report may 
 appear in the printed hearings on this bill. 
 
 The Chairsian. That will be granted. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. It seems extravagant to reprint it entirely, as the 
 whole is available. The report pointed out what we understood to be 
 the functions of a legislative reference bureau. It quotes the State 
 statutes creating such, and some opinions as to their service ; it dis- 
 tinguishes certain of the work commonly performed by such bureaus 
 in the several States as already undertaken in a measure by the 
 Library of Congress in its present operations, but it points out that 
 to accomplish what legislative reference bureaus seek to accomplish ^^ 
 a whole must require a new and especially an elaborate organization, 
 elaborate also beyond any undertaken in any State of the Union, 
 because the problem here would be more elaborate and more complex. 
 It distinguishes the function of bill drafting from the other work of 
 such a bureau, which consists chiefly in collecting the data, organ- 
 izing, digesting, and concentrating it upon 9, particular problem. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE. BUREAU. 23 
 
 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, 
 
 Washington, April 6, 1911. 
 Mr. President : The introduction at the second session of the Sixty-first Con- 
 gress 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 accoiui)anying 
 documents are submitted as contributing preliminary information which may be 
 of service. They are: 
 
 " legislative reference work. 
 
 "1. Memorandum as to the functions of such a bureau. 
 
 "2. New York State: Two decades of Comparative Legislation. Extract 
 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. 
 
 " S. 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 appro- 
 priation 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. Stimsou'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 legisla- 
 tion,' proposing (for each State and the United States) a 'joint standing com- 
 mittee (of the legislative body) for the revision of bills,' with power to employ 
 experts. 
 
 " 13. Extract from Dr. Paul S. Reinsch 'American legislatures aud 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 Ubert. 1901, and from the 
 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, volumes 1-2, and new series, 
 volumes 1-2. 
 
24 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 (_■ r " 'j ,' ■ ■-■:"■;" ■-;■(■■''"'■■. . 
 
 " STATISTICS. 
 
 "3 7. Rills and joint resolutions introduced in Congress und laws jiassed 
 (56th to (!lst Conjiresses. inclusive). State and Fe<leral Ijegislation, 1906-7 
 and 3907-8. 
 
 "BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE SIXTY-KIRST CONGRESS. 
 
 "IS. 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 eons i derations. — 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 sta- 
 tistic, 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 par- 
 ticular query, whether from Congress as a whole or any conmiittee of Congress 
 or any individual Member. Lists of references to the material (whether docu- 
 ment, monograph, society publication, or periodical) bearing upon particular 
 topics under discussion in Congress — exactly such lists ;is 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 com- 
 mittee 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 biI)lographic nature. 
 
 A legislative reference bureau goes further. It uudert.'ikes not merely to 
 classify and to catalogue, but to draw off from a general collection the litera- 
 ture — that is. the data — bearing upon a particular legislative i)roject. It indexes, 
 extracts, compiles. It acquires extra copies of society publications and periodi- 
 cals 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 compila- 
 tions, the articles, and the clippings in scrapbook. or portfolio, or vertical file, in 
 such a way that all material relating to that topic is kei)t 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 corre- 
 spondence with experts. 
 
 The above work, which t)rganizes 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 inidertake 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 I^aw, r>ocuments. and Bibliography, and in addition the 
 creation of a new division under the title of a Legislative or Congressional Ref- 
 erence Division. 
 
 Inde.res, dif/ests. and coniiiilations of Unr. — As to the utility of such, and the 
 qualifications requisite. I have no reason to modify the opinions submitted with my 
 estimates of 1012. The ensuing experience with the index to the Statutes at Ijarge 
 but confirms the opinion that the work (»f indexing the statutes, even the Fedei'al 
 statutes of this country, requires scientific treatment by a corps of exi)erts with 
 a substantial general education, legal training, and experience in this class of 
 work, and selected with regard solely to these iiualiflcations. 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 accompli sheil. 
 
 Such a corjis 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 accom 
 plishm'ents 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- 
 
COKGEESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 25' 
 
 tries (the interest of which is of relatively small concern to State legislators, 
 but is of increasinj; concern to Congress). The organization suggested in my 
 estimates of 1002 might be suitable as a beginning; the salaries would, how- 
 evier, be altogether too small. The conduct of the work in particular shouhl 
 require a salary of $5,000. 
 
 Bill drafting. — The drafting of bills, or the revision with reference to form 
 of bills drafted and othei'wise ready for enactment, certainly requires experts 
 educated to an accurate use of the English language, trained in the law, compe- 
 tent to ascertain and compare precedent legislation, and, so far as practicable, 
 exactly familiar with this. (See various appendixes, including the memoran- 
 dum of our law librarian, 1907.) The familiarity with antecedent and compara- 
 tive 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 him- 
 self have produced these results in order to utilize them properly. 
 
 Assuming therefore that the work of a legislative reference bureau (in addi- 
 tion to that part of it which is already being undertaken here) should be un- 
 dertaken by the Library of Congress, and that the work of indexing, digesting, 
 jind 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 
 efiiciency 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, stenograph- 
 ers, etc. 
 
 Even then it is clear that the service of such experts should not be dissi- 
 pated 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 
 shonld be at the disposal of any committee considering or proposing to report 
 a bill. Beyond this they ought not to be called upon, imless 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 
 siich ends in view; or in addition to both the above, (3) the drafting and re- 
 vision of bills. 
 
 In any ease it must be emphasized — - 
 
 1. That the organization must be elaborate beyond that provided by any 
 State, since the subjects to be dealt Avith 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, 
 a " lump sum." 
 
 .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. 
 
 Herbert Putnam. 
 
 Librarian of Congress. 
 The President of the Senate. 
 
26 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 _ , ., . "Ti 
 
 We are heartil.y in sj'mpath}^ with the general purpose of such a 
 measure as this, distinguishing what we believe to be of essential im- 
 portance as an outcome of our ordinary work as a library in its 
 particular relation to Congress as a legislative library, distinguish- 
 ing 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 under- 
 take in precisel}^ the same way as we were ready to undertake the 
 index to the Statutes at Large. 
 
 And, finall}^, the report concludes with emphasis upon the need 
 that such a bureau, if established, should be truly scientific and non- 
 partisan ; and I therefore regard it as a happy augury that this hear- 
 ing 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 em- 
 bodied 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 in- 
 clude 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 care- 
 ful 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 accumulat- 
 ing the data necessary to the consideration of policies which are to 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 27 
 
 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 Presi- 
 dent'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 adminis- 
 tration imder 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 Avork shall be undertaken (as in the plan- 
 ning 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 pul)iic re- 
 quires 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 (.he organi- 
 zation and the equipment in the most effective and economical way. 
 The whole subject of administration carries with it a very liighly 
 intricate and involved technique, and in a Government such as the 
 United States it involves practically all of the technique and com- 
 plex problems of private business. That is, Avhat 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 Govern- 
 ment may be found the same technical questions that must be con- 
 sidered 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 relalion 
 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 re- 
 quired 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 th^ 
 
28 CONGRESSIONAL IIEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 policy of the (Tovernment without impairing the efficiency of officers 
 who are charged with the exercise of cliscretion in directing the work. 
 
 It is in these relations that I think Members of Congress can find 
 much that is worthy of consideration. Many bills are drawn which 
 do not properly take into consideration either the proper organiza- 
 tion to be provided; the equipment necessary to make it effective; 
 the funds needed in order to provide for current expenses and 
 maintenance; the discretion Avhich should be left to the officer, and 
 for the exercise of which he should be held responsible. Further 
 than this, very frequently the administrator finds that he is so 
 thoroughl}^ handicapped by a new duty added or a new provision 
 made which he must carry into force that it not only makes him 
 inefficient in doing the new work, but the character of this new work 
 is such as to render him less eflficient in doing the work wiiich he 
 already had in hand. 
 
 We find many instances in the service here of work assigned by 
 Congress that is diametrically opposed to the main purposes of the 
 organization. This puts an administrator under the burden of work- 
 ing at cross purposes. His chief duty, we will say, is to foster or 
 promote the economic welfare of the people. He may be charged 
 with the promotion of agricultural or mining or other interests. At 
 the same time he may have imposed on him the duty of repressing 
 or regulating it in such a manner as to prevent it from developing 
 along the most profitable lines. 
 
 As a matter of Government policy it is needful that agricultural 
 l^roduction be promoted, and to this end the Government point the 
 way to profitable returns. As a matter of policy it is needful to 
 protect the public health, and as a means to this end inspect and 
 regulate agricultural production — if need be prohibit processes which 
 are highly profitable. Since the one policy is going to stand in the 
 waj^ of the other policy, however, it is not the part of wisdom to 
 place the administration of these two policies in the same hands. 
 If you do, you are either going to have a fight on your hands, or else 
 one of the policies is going to suffer; one administrative agency is 
 going to become inefficient and ineffective — is not going to perform 
 its functions efficiently. Either one agency under the executive head 
 is going to lie down before the other, which represents the major 
 interest, or a conflict must ensue, which will mean very large ex- 
 pense, very gi-eat w^aste of time and resources, and corresponding 
 inefficiency in the service. 
 
 A proper correlation of the considerations which come before the 
 legislator and the administrator is the answer to your questions. An 
 agency which can get before the legislator the facts pertaining to 
 the needs of the people as a basis for the determination of policy to 
 be executed into law, also one which may take into account the con- 
 ditions under which the administration must labor in executing pro- 
 visions of law to meet the needs of the people— what conditions must 
 be reckoned with in ordei- to make that organization effective and 
 accomplish a result efficiently, these are relations that should be con- 
 sidered scientifically; the conclusions reached should be availed of 
 for the purpose of advising legislators professionally. 
 
 Q. In your opinion, should this department be nonpartisan in 
 every way, or are questions of legislation in your opinion such as are 
 necessarily partisan in character? — A. Whatever be the partisan 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 29* 
 
 character of a measure in its initial stages, whatever the partisan or- 
 ganization which accepts responsibility for promotion, Avhatever the 
 partisan agency which avails itself of the opportunity to advocate a 
 measure which is based on a much-felt social want, whatever the 
 motive that demands enactment into law, it is evident that the con- 
 siderations which should come before Congress, as a whole, should 
 be based on general welfare, and general welfare is nonpartisan. 
 The welfare of the country not only demands that Congress, but also 
 the people, should know the truth before conclusions are reached 
 which may involve the country in policies that may require large 
 expenditures. To my mind, there can be no question that such an 
 agency as is proposed should be scientific and professional, and that 
 whoever is in charge of such a work should lose his partisan identity, 
 if he has any, and should devote himself intelligently and dispas- 
 sionately to the consideration of the subject of legislative inquiry — 
 to a careful study of the conditions which lie back of each measure. 
 
 Q. You have employed experts in your work for some time past; 
 would it be difficult to get experts in this work? — A. This question, 
 perhaps, might be considered in relation to the next. What do j^ou 
 think real experts could be secured for who would know something 
 about this business? There is no doubt about the difficulty of get- 
 ting the right kind of a man for doing the kind of work which has 
 been described, but I think that the conclusion can be just as certainly 
 reached that whatever the cost of the Government Congress could 
 not err in obtaining the right kind of man at whatever cost. It would 
 be an expenditure which the Government and the people could not 
 afford not to make. This necessarily raises the question as to what 
 is the kind of a man that must be had in order to make such an 
 agency most efficient. Ambassador Bryce has called attention to the 
 professional character of the British agency — that it is very largely 
 advisory to cabinet ministers as leaders of the majority in Parlia- 
 ment, and that it awaits very largely the request of a minister before 
 opinion is expressed or cooperation is given. I understand that in 
 this country we have developed legislative agencies which have com- 
 bined with this professional aspect another work that to my mind 
 is of quite as great if not greater importance. I refer to the work 
 which looks toward the prospective needs of legislation in a session 
 about to convene. In a country so large as this, and with so many 
 varied interests, it is very evident that no man can render an offhand' 
 opinion about any question of public policy or reach scientific con- 
 clusions concerning the facts involved in any piece of legislation; 
 nor can one within a few days, or for that matter in many instance 
 within a few months, accumulate the data necessary to lay the foun- 
 dation for intelligent legislative action. I understand that in Wis- 
 consin especially the legislative reference bureau has gone a step 
 further; it has interested itself quite as much in what are the big 
 things that the people of the State are interested in, and thereby 
 attempts to foresee what it is that the legislator, as the representa- 
 tive of the people, is going to make issue on when the legislature 
 meets as a body. In guiding his inquiries, the technical head of this 
 bureau not only has the record of legislation back of him to indicate 
 what the questions of the next legislature will be, but he also inter- 
 views members of the legislature (whether they be old members or 
 new members) to ascertain what will be their prospective interests. 
 
30 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Let me ask you a question. Dr. Cleveland, and see 
 if I undersand you there. Take a concrete example : We have legis- 
 lation proposed here to create what is usually called a Children's 
 Bureau. 
 
 JVIr. Cleveland. Yes. 
 
 Mr. TowKSEND. You are probably familiar with it in general? 
 
 Mr. Cleaeland. Yes. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. That is, you would have this bureau created under 
 this act capable of supplying Members of Congi^ess with informa- 
 tion with respect to that subject; is that not a concrete example of 
 what ^'^ou mean ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. True. In other words, let us assume for the pur- 
 poses of this very inquiry that the head of such a bureau would find 
 that a number of Congressmen would be interested in promoting a 
 measure which looked toward organizing a children's bureau. With- 
 out waiting until some one had submitted a memorandum for advice 
 as to how a bill should be drafted in order to fit it to other legisla- 
 tion, and properly provide for the administration of such a service; 
 without even waiting till Congress convened — during the summer 
 months, perhaps, while Congress is not in session — -such a bureau head 
 would busy himself with getting together the information which 
 probably would be called for, and when the Member came to Con- 
 gress and began to ask him about the data of the subject he could 
 malie this available to him. He would have a ready-made brief that 
 would place Congress in possession of facts that would be impossible 
 if he waited until the session began before the inquiry was begun. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Eight there, do you mean to say that Congress has 
 no such agency now? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I do not know of such an agency. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. T supposed that Mr. Griffin was in the habit of pre- 
 paring bibliographical compilations of all the references which were 
 necessary for us on all current questions. Am I not correct? 
 
 JNTr. Putnam. Bibliographical statements. I think Mr. Cleveland 
 meant something more than that. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I would like to ask Dr. Cleveland this question: Has 
 he thought on this question from this standpoint, whether it would 
 reduce the number of bills offered or not ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. It seems to me it would materially reduce the 
 number of bills offered. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. And, more than that, it would reduce the amount 
 of time of Members of Congress devoted to special and personal 
 inquiry and questioning about facts. 
 
 The Chairman. How would it reduce the number of bills ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. It would provide to those persons who are inter- 
 ested in a particular matter information which would enable them 
 to see better what the conditions are, what the facts are, and should 
 reduce the wide range of guesses which are incorporated in bills 
 bearing on the same subject; it would also tend to prevent useless 
 and harmful legislation based on wrong theories. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. And possibly a Member might sometimes err in 
 drawing a bill to remedy a condition he was dissatisfied with, and 
 if he should go to this bureau he should find there was a statute on 
 the law already. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 31 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. Possibly; and if not, he might find that the condi- 
 tions were somewhat different. He might also find that what he 
 had assumed to be the condition from personal experience was purely 
 local, and that the subject was not a matter for national legislation. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. For a number of years I indexed in the session laAvs of 
 Wisconsin after I started to practice law, and I would like to ask 
 if this is not your experience — at least, it was mine — that the multi- 
 plicity of legislation, especially in the State legislatures, is due in 
 large part to the present, hasty, crude method of preparation, whereby 
 lawmaking becomes a matter of amendment and repeal because pre- 
 vious legislation was not grounded on fundamental principles ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I might cite some illustrations in your own law 
 that would carry the point. We find in going into the question 
 of reporting on subjects of business — what we might call financial 
 "reporting" — laws which contain prescriptions requiring depart- 
 ments to submit financial data to Congress, that there are some- 
 thing like 90 such laws on the books at the present time, requiring 
 something like 200 different kinds of statements to be made, no two 
 of which run along the same line; that is, reports on the same sub- 
 ject, required to be made by different branches or divisions of the 
 service, are so far different in character that they may not be brought 
 together or considered in relation. One properly drawn statute 
 would cover all this in a much better way. That is an illustration of 
 what might happen if you had some systematic means for finding 
 out first what the need is, then what the law is; the remedy might 
 be repeal of all existing miscellaneous statutes and the passing of 
 another law which would enable you to get a comprehensive view 
 of the financial situation, thus making unnecessary new special laws 
 at every session. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I ask a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Just to bring out that point, because it is very im- 
 portant : Of course, we do not want a bureau that will multiply laws 
 needlessly, but is it not your experience and belief, Mr. Cleveland, 
 that if a bill, for instance, on child labor, is scientifically prepared, 
 all the facts are gathered and the best possible bill prepared, that 
 will eliminate largely further legislation in that line ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. True. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. And that consequently the multiplicity of law will 
 decrease in State and national legislatures. Do you not think that 
 is true? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I do. 
 
 Returning to the point, if we are to concede that we will not only 
 have at the head of such a bureau a man who is competent to think 
 in terms of law and give professional advice to legislators with re- 
 spect to existing law, but also one who sees in a large way the 
 problem of Government — one who appreciates its purpose and its 
 bearing and who comprehends the needs of Congressmen, who are to 
 represent these interests in different districts, and who will come for- 
 ward with measures — it goes without saying, that we must have a 
 pretty large-calibered man, a man difficult to find. Moreover, it 
 means that he must have a corps of experts that are competent to 
 support his effort; and, therefore, one can not very well guess what 
 in the competition for brains of this kind it might cost. I would 
 
32 CONGBESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 say it would be a mistake to think of less than $10,000 a j^ear, and 
 that it would be money well spent whatever the cost. 
 
 Q. If an expert body of this sort existed for the gathering of 
 legislation and legislative material, and possibly we had another 
 expert body here for general research into admmistration, do you 
 think that it would be an economical thing for the Government — that 
 is, going over a period of 5 or 10 years, or probably more? — A. I 
 think that there can be only one answer to this question — yes; the 
 reasons have been already, in a meansure, stated. 
 
 Further, it must be said, speaking of the possible economy, that 
 the possible economies as we view the situation here lie : First,, 
 in the character of organization Congress provided, which must 
 be determined by the legislature; second, in the character of equip- 
 ment provided, which, again, is in large measure a matter for legis- 
 lative consideration ; third, in the efficiency of the personnel, which^ 
 in turn, depends upon the conditions under which employees must 
 work, again very largely a matter of legislation; fourth, in the 
 technical processes employed in the conduct of the business, for 
 which, in large measure, the executive is responsible ; fifth, the economy 
 with which equipment and personnel are used, very largely a matter 
 of executive responsibility; sixth, the economy and efficiency with 
 which contracts and purchases are made, again largely a matter of 
 executive responsibility. In these we have some of the large aspects 
 of legislative and executive discretion. But executive discretion is 
 always limited; it is necessary constantly to adapt those processes 
 and the use made of properties and personnel to requirements of 
 law, in many instances making it impossible to employ technical 
 processes or use equipment and personnel in a manner which would 
 make for economy and efficiency, because of some statute in the way. 
 For example, the illustration I just gave you, the prescriptions given 
 on the keeping of accounts. You can not imagine any situation that 
 would be more wasteful in the keeping of accounts than to compel the 
 administration to try to comply with 90 different statutes on the 
 subject of the data to be reported, many of these laws conflicting in 
 their classification and requirements. So we may take up questions 
 of purchase, questions of the utilization of property — a great many 
 questions that are closely related to the subject of the technique of 
 business. Each of these is necessarily dependent on the kind of law 
 which lies back of the creation of the service or Avhich is promulgated 
 for the regulation of the service. It seems to me, therefore, in answer 
 to this last question, that if we were to go over a period of 5 or 10 
 years, were to look forward to the possible economy which may be 
 realized by careful, systematic attention given on the one side to 
 legislation and on the other side to administration, that this is the 
 only solution : A legislative body can not take into consideration the 
 details of administration ; an administrative bod}^ can not spend the 
 time nor can it have before it the subjects of public policy which 
 legislators must consider before enactment of laws. These two 
 groups ought to be provided with two technical or scientific and 
 professional agencies, which are at the service of these two distinct 
 constitutional branches of the Government; furthermore, in my 
 opinion, there ought to be another scientific or professional group 
 placed back of your courts, in order that the rules of equity and legal 
 procedure and the other questions which do not depend on evidence 
 
CONGEESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 33 
 
 taken in course of a trial may be considered scientifically. To state 
 the view in a summary form, in my opinion the Government should 
 have back of each one of its three branches a scientific agency which 
 would be nonpartisan and which would provide those persons who 
 are responsible for the duties of the office the information needed for 
 the most intelligent discharge of their responsibilities ; that with the 
 many and increasing intricate questions presented this is the only 
 solution which comports with the attainments of highest efficiency. 
 
 The Chairman. What do ^'ou mean by having something back of 
 the courts? 
 
 Mr. Clevelaxd. I mean a scientific agency. 
 
 The Chaiioian. You mean to review their decisions? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. Not at all: no more than would this agency review 
 the decisions of the legislature; but to prepare for them such data 
 that they might need to promulgate better rules of procedure and 
 provide for themselves a practice which would tend toward the 
 facilitating of their business. Also to look into questions which may 
 be entirely outside of the evidence submitted, but which are neces- 
 sary to the consideration of a cause raising great constitutional ques- 
 tions that come up for interpretation, the proper determination of 
 which, in many instances, requires a dispassionate, impartial inquiry 
 collateral to the briefs of attorneys submitted for the information of 
 the court. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not think that the courts would resent the 
 suggestion that they are not better qualified to do that for them- 
 selves ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. The Supreme Court, for example, wants to fix its 
 own rules of procedure. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. The Supreme Court is at work on that subject 
 now, and I think they have also asked for special appropriation for 
 that purpose. Mr. W. J. Hughes, by special assignment, is devoting 
 practically all of his time to that work. 
 
 The Chairman. But he is a part of the court. 
 
 INIr. Cleveland. But he is specially detailed to do this expert work 
 which members of the court could not hope to find time for. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is very interesting. We would like to have in- 
 formation upon it. What is it the Supreme Court does? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I am not here to argue or present a brief on the 
 subject ; I am responding to a request for an opinion with respect to 
 the need for scientific agencies in Government as an aid to officers 
 responsible for the work of each branch. The opinion given is not a 
 new idea. It is the German idea, of having a scientific staff back of 
 the line ; and to my mind it is the one thing that has made Germany 
 more proficient than any other nation in its governmental processes. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Administration of justice and scientific fortification 
 back — are you not mixing your figures ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I think not. I think that there are scientific as- 
 pects to the administration of courts. 
 
 jNIr. Evans. Your idea is that courts are not doing their duty, 
 which seems to have a little popularity just now in some quarters, 
 and you attempt to assist them by creating a scientific board of some 
 kind back of them? 
 
 40435—12 3 
 
34 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. Not for the consideration of evidence in cases. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I may be mistaken, but I understood you to say that. 
 
 Mr. Clevel.\nd. Simply in the matter of procedure and the col- 
 lateral data needed by the court in the administration of justice — the 
 application and interpretation of laws which are the expression of 
 the policy-determining body, or which have been evolved as a part of 
 the institutional life of the people. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I understood you to say "equity." Let me laiow 
 where you are going to divide the jurisdiction between the courts 
 and the scientific rules back of them. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I simply said " rules of equity procedure." I did 
 not intend to suggest we would have a scientific agency for weighing 
 the evidence or the determination of causes. We have a judicial 
 body to do that. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. That has been suggested by even a greater person 
 recently. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I am not arguing the point which you have in 
 mind, Mr. Townsend. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. Precisely, what do you mean? Now, take the 
 Supreme Court 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. Perhaps we are getting sidetracked here. 
 
 The Chairman. Precisely, what do you mean by having something 
 back of the Supreme Court to aid it to what I presume a better ad- 
 ministration of law ? 
 
 Mr. Cle^teland. The same sort of an agency or collateral staff that 
 they are now utilizing for a collection of data and the submission of 
 recommendations pertaining to the present equity procedure. 
 
 The Chairman. Are they doing anything more than endeavoring 
 to formulate rules of procedure to facilitate business ? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. That is just the point ; their inquiry is very much 
 facilitated by detailing men to give scientific consideration of the sub- 
 ject. Men who are busy with cases every day in the week can not 
 very well devote themselves to the consideration of the practices and 
 rules in a hundred different courts throughout the United States 
 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice; each court 
 builds up its own rules; the result is a medley instead of a scientific 
 result. With respect to the administration of legislation, it would 
 be the same thing as the development of an administrative procedure 
 or code governing the conduct of nonjudicial business. There is the 
 same need for developing an administrative procedure for the con- 
 duct of business on the executive side. This would be simply an- 
 other form of administrative code. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you finished. Doctor? 
 
 Mr. Cleveland. I have. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, I think, perhaps, it will be well for 
 us to take an adjournment for luncheon now. Mr. Nelson has had 
 to go away. Mr. Putnam, have you any idea which witnesses wish 
 to be heard first? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Some of these gentlemen from a distance. Mr. 
 McCarthy is here and Dean Lewis, of Philadelphia, and others. 
 
 Mr. Lewis. I have to go away. I can stay until 4 o'clock. 
 
 The Chairman. Would a quarter past 2 suit you ? 
 
 Mr. Lewis. Entirely. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 35 
 
 The Chairman. We will now adjourn until quarter past 2 and 
 then resume the sitting. 
 
 Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 
 2.15 o'clock this afternoon. 
 
 AFTER RECESS, 
 
 The committee met at 2.15 p. m. 
 
 Present: Eepresentatives Slayden (chairman), Townsend, Evans, 
 Gardner, and Pickett. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM DRAPER LEWIS, DEAN OF THE 
 PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, who is to be heard first this after- 
 noon? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Dean Lewis, of the Pennsylvania Law School. 
 
 The Chairman. All right. Dr. Lewis, we will be glad to hear from 
 you. We are ready to be convinced. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, I feel that the issue before your com- 
 mittee is a very practical one. It is, as I understand it, whether 
 this proposed bureau will be of any practical assistance to Members 
 of Congress. ^Vhile it may be of assistance to other persons, the 
 real question is whether it is going to be of assistance to Congress. 
 
 The position which the dean of the modern law school finds him- 
 self in very often is the exact position which you gentlemen, as mem- 
 bers of committees of Congress, are often in. Not a month goes by 
 but some philanthropic organization, or some group of individuals 
 who wish to present to the next State legislature in their respective 
 States a statute on some subject, comes to me as dean of the law 
 school of the State and asks me to prepare for them that statute or 
 suggest some one who can do so. In other words, the dean of a 
 modern law school is brought, if he does any public work at all — ■ 
 and from my own point of view he ought to do a certain amount 
 of public work — in the position of having to prepare acts in which 
 he may not be personally interested. He is in the position of having 
 to draft acts to present to the legislature. I think that perhaps the 
 only useful thing I can do for you, sir, is to tell of the very great 
 assistance which I have received from an organization incorporated 
 under the laws of New York, which has been in active operation 
 for about a year — that is, the Legislative Drafting Association. This 
 association was founded some two years ago b}^ some persons who 
 were interested in scientific legislation. They organized and placed 
 in the hands of trustees, of which I now happen to be one, some 
 $20,000 a year, to be expended in improving the scientific drafting of 
 legislation in the United States. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it purely nonofficial? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. It is purely nonofficial. They are private funds. We 
 are merely trustees. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Is that connected with Columbia University in some 
 way ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. It is, in part, the fund supports the Legislative Draft- 
 ing Research Fund of Columbia University. The trustees should 
 
36 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 control the fund I have mentioned for the purpose of improving 
 legishition in the United States, and have the right to support work 
 done in a university. My personal experience, prior to the forma- 
 tion of the Legislative Drafting Association with tlie various bills 
 for philanthropic organizations, and in work for the commercial 
 law committee of the Conference on Uniform State Laws— -Avith 
 the work of which you gentlemen are familiar — convinced me that 
 the right way to use that monej' to the best advantage was to divide 
 the various fields of law and, to take the branch in which I per- 
 sonally am especially interested, the branch of commercial law, and 
 put that under the general direction of some one person. As I was 
 more familiar with that branch, I did it myself. I have under me 
 two men now who are devoting their entire time to gathering the 
 information and to helping me to express the law in statutory form. 
 The detail is about as follows : The Conference on Uniform State 
 Laws, through their commercial committee, ask the Drafting Asso- 
 ciation, through me, to prepare a report on statute upon — I will use 
 an actual illustration — a proposed uniform act for the incorpora- 
 tion of smaller business associations, an act between common-law 
 partnerships on one side and cori^orations on the other. Now, 
 from my prior experience of work for that committee, and for the 
 legislature of Pennsylvania, I would have refused to undertake that 
 work for them unless this Drafting Association had been in existence. 
 With that association in existence, I can turn to m}' two assistants 
 and say to them : " I want this and that information." They gather 
 the information, along the lines I indicate, while I am doing some- 
 thing else. 
 
 I may use but a very small portion of what they prepare. I 
 discuss the material with them, and they prepare a first rough draft 
 on memoranda which I give them. This memoranda is the result 
 of their first having furnished me with information, duly digested, 
 as to what has been done in foreign countries, and what is the exist- 
 ing legislation on the subject of the proposed act; in short, to carry 
 out the original illustration, on partnership associations and joint- 
 stock companies all over the United States. 
 
 The Chairman. In other words, your purpose was to be a legal 
 entity wdiich would be able to conduct private business without the 
 odium attached to corporations? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I think that is correct. I prefer to put it in this way : 
 The idea back of the suggestion of the commercial-law committee 
 of the conference on uniform State laws which led them to employ 
 me and the association to do this preliminary work is that the same 
 sort of business organization, with limited liability, should be pro- 
 vided for small business needs, as distinguished from one needing 
 large capital or which is affected with a public interest. 
 
 The Chairman. You take partnership and add to it the advantages 
 of a corporation, such as the one that death does not terminate it ? 
 
 Dr. Leavis. Yes. Not all of the information is used in the prep- 
 aration of the rough draft which will be submitted to me, but I 
 want to say this, that I have now reached a point in personal ex- 
 perience where I do not undertake for a legislative committee or 
 for any committee, such as the commercial-law committee of the con- 
 ference on uniform State laws, the preparation of a draft of an act 
 to submit to them for their discussion, whether they give me a 
 
CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 37 
 
 general line on which that act should be drawn or not, unless I am 
 put in the position of being able to turn to some such assistance as 
 I have in connection with the act I mention from the Legislative 
 Drafting Association. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, of course you can judge from your own personal 
 experience very much better than I can whether my position when, 
 for instance, I am asked by a group of philanthropists who wish to 
 establish a public institution, such as a reformatory for drunkards, 
 to draft an act on the subject, is similar to the position which one of 
 you may find yourself in when some of your constituents ask you 
 to prepare such an act, and whether it would be of any advantage 
 to you to be able, as a matter of right, to turn to a bureau which 
 would, first, on one side, give you the information — have a man in 
 that bureau told to get the information out for you and not merely 
 hand you a lot of books and say, "You can find it in there," but 
 digest that information ; and, second, after you had made up your 
 mind what the general feature of that legislation should be, to pre- 
 pare for your inspection and use, in so far as you thought it valu- 
 able, a rough draft of an act. 
 
 So far as my observation goes in preparing acts for submission to 
 committees of legislatures or committees of bar associations or com- 
 mittees of philanthropists or reformers of one kind and another that 
 may turn to a law school to help them out in the drafting of legis- 
 lation, I find that the assistance of a bureau such as the Legislative 
 Drafting Bureau is of very great advantage. This is simply from a 
 limited personal experience, but I am quite certain that if you are 
 as individuals put in a similar position as Members of Congress, as 
 I understand you very often are, you would find great assistance from 
 this bureau, if it were organized on a scale to suit the broad problems 
 that confront you. 
 
 I appreciate that the collection of a vast amount of information 
 on law all over the LTnited States and its indexing and having it 
 ready for use is going to be of great good, but I beg to submit that, 
 while the reference bureau established by this bill will be a good 
 thing, it will only be so wdien the material gathered is available for 
 the actual thing for which the material is consulted — the criticism of 
 legislation proposed by others or the expression of your own ideas in 
 statutory form. 
 
 The Chairman. Your idea is that information now collected by 
 the individual Members of Congress would not only be collected but 
 it would be digested for him to save him the trouble 
 
 Mr. Evans. In tabloid form. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Yes; in tabloid form; and that, Mr. Chairman, could 
 only be done with real use by having at the head of the bureau a 
 man who has more than a mere academic interest in collecting a 
 great mass of material, but a man of vision, who will look ahead 
 and see what is likely to be the line of information along which the 
 Members of Congress will need assistance — on which they will re- 
 ceive t-equests from their constituents and back of which there is 
 some public discussion^ — and be prepared when Congress convenes to 
 take the information already prepared on that subject and hand it 
 out to the Members of Congress, and then, when Members of Con- 
 gress or a committee say that they wish a bill on that subject, and 
 wish it drawn along certain definite lines, there shall be in existence 
 
38 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 a man who is a trained lawyer and a permanent employee of the 
 bureau, who will give them assistance by supplying to them, in ac- 
 cordance with the memoranda submitted, a draft of the statute. 
 Not unless that last thing is done will there be great use in the mere 
 collection of the material itself. 
 
 If, Mr. Chairman, I have made that point clear 
 
 Mr. Evans. The question seems to be entirely practical. I do not 
 think the theory of the thing meets any opposition. How do you 
 get these men you speak of? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. 1 can answer that. In the first place, of course, as dean 
 of a law school I have a knowledge of those who are men of real 
 ability. I can offer them a living salary, which, to be concrete, is, 
 m Philadelphia, for a single man, about $900 to $1,000. I have no 
 trouble in securing for two or three years a man who will be very 
 glad to work under me, not only as a graduate student in the law 
 school, but as an employee of the Legislative Drafting Association. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you not suppose that a man wdio has had any kind 
 of practice at the bar for, say, 20 or 25 years needs the assistance of 
 a $900-a-year man like that? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Yes, sir ; I do. 
 
 Mr. Evans. As a stenographer or clerk, but not as a lawyer ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Perhaps I can make myself clear on that. It is like 
 this: I have been at the bar for the time you mention and I have 
 been in the business, more or less, of preparing acts. I need, for 
 any serious piece of work, the assistance of a thoroughly good man. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Can you get one for $900 ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I would a great deal rather have a man who has just 
 come out of one of the great law schools of the country, who had 
 stood practically at the head of his class in competition with a hun- 
 dred men and who was entirely willing, while using his brain, to do 
 exactly as I told him, than I would to have an older man working 
 under me who would rather do his way than mine. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. I think it would be false to have this $900-a-year 
 man reduce the law to tabloid form, and the Congressman swallow 
 it. I say that advisedly, because it is the objection we have got 
 to meet on the floor of the House. Most of these legislative schemes 
 do not recognize its importance. Some one will say, " You are going 
 to have congressional digesters." I am just weeding out this view 
 if it is to be met. You will never meet it with a $900 man. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Perhaps we are talking to different ends 
 
 Mr. Townsend. I ask a practical question. What do you pay 
 the men you use ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. About a thousand dollars, but I never get an old man. 
 
 The Chairman. Do I understand you to say. Dean, that you are 
 able to get first-class men because you take in men who have just 
 graduated — men who would prefer to pursue their studies further 
 in some set line — and they do it at this low salary with that idea? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Yes, sir. The head of the bill-drafting bureau is a 
 different proposition ; but his actual assistants in that bureau would, 
 it seems to me, be men who wished to make a specialty of this or 
 that subject. There is a difference between my position when work- 
 ing, for instance, for the committee on commercial law of the 
 conference on uniform State laws and the head of this proposed 
 bureau. The committee on commercial law. of the conference, 
 
CONGEESSION.VL REFERENCE BUREAU. 39 
 
 say: "We want a certain act; will you draft it? " With practically 
 no suggestion to me or any other person they may select they turn 
 over the entire business of drafting the first draft of that act to 
 their draftsman. Of course, they may, and do, change the draft 
 after it is submitted. Now. the head of the bureau, proposed in this 
 act, must take a wholly different position. He must be a man of 
 skill and experience, but he must not be a man who is expected to 
 initiate ideas. You will, as Members of Congress, bring to him your 
 ideas as to what should go in a bill. He, having requests from many 
 Members of Congress, can not devote his whole time to that particu- 
 lar bill, and one of his assistants (this is the $1,000 man we are talk- 
 ing about) draws up under his direction a first draft. I do not say 
 you could get an efficient assistant here for a thousand dollars. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. On that Brother Evans and T understand you dif- 
 ferently, I think. Xow. for instance, section 3 of the bill speaks of 
 three different classes of assistants to the chief of the bureau : 
 
 That there shall be in such biu'eau such legal, technical, and clerical assist- 
 ants as, etc. 
 
 I understand Dr. Lewis to refer now to clerical assistants — that is, 
 bright young lawyers who can render competent clerical assistance. 
 You are not referring now to either legal or techincal aids of the 
 bureau, are you Doctor ( 
 
 Mr. EvAXS. He referred to the men he called in for drafting this 
 partnership bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Dr. Lewis, you heard Mr. Bryce's address this 
 morning. He put stress on the wisdom and importance of the gen- 
 tleman he called parliamentary counsel, a man of high legal train- 
 ing. Xow. the kind of work you anticipate — that you will expect 
 from these young men — is not the sort of work that a parliamentary 
 counsel of that standing would do, is it ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. The parliamentary counsel is the head of the bill- 
 drafting bureau in your bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Not according to Mr. Bryce — the British part of it. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. He is never the man who takes any initiative. He 
 draws bills for one Government and then for the opposition Govern- 
 ment, and. one year, Avill be drawing a bill to accomplish certain 
 results and next year drawing a bill to undo it. In other words, 
 he always does what the committee tells him to do. That seems to be 
 the real position of that head, if he is to be of any use. Mr, Bryce 
 suggested he was assisted by seven persons. I assume that those im- 
 mediately around him are not thousand-dollar-a-year men. I think 
 they are lawyers of skill and ability. Also, in that bureau are the 
 class of minor assistants which in your bill here are designated as 
 clerks. 
 
 Mr. ToAVNSENi). Not as legal or technical assistants. 
 
 Mr. Eaans. As I understand your illustration, you secure some 
 young graduates in your law school for a year or two. You do not 
 sugsjest Ave could get that kind for any such sum. do you? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I will answer your question. As a drafter of an act for 
 a committee of the conference on uniform State laws. I am in the 
 position of the head of that bill-drafting bureau myself, but T am 
 also something more than he would be, therefore the parallel is not 
 complete. There is a difference, but in so far as the head of that bill- 
 
40 CONGRESSIONAL KEFEiiEXCJi BUREAU. 
 
 drafting bui-eau would be a man who did Avhat I should do if the 
 committee on commercial law I am doing work for directed me to 
 prepare a bill and put in certain features, he is like me in that he 
 would do that without question. In the actual drafting- I get prac- 
 tical assistance from a corps of assistants under me. 1 do not think 
 we should push the parallel further than that. 
 
 Mr. Gakdnek. You say you prefer the younger men Ijecause the 
 older ones would be unlikely to meet with your ideas \ 
 
 Dr. Leavis. I mean this by that : That if you get a law ver and want 
 him to do special work for you, you want a num who is going to 
 devote his whole time to what you want done, and you are usually 
 in this position: You will have applications from older men who 
 have had some practice before the ,bar and are not getting along 
 very well, and you will have applications from younger men with a 
 greater native ability. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I understood you to say that one of the reasons 
 why the older men would not fit in was because they would not do 
 things your way. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Of course, that is my view. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. In that respect, do you not think that Congressmen 
 would find the same fault in the head of the bill-drafting bureau as 
 that head would find in some of his older assistants '. 
 
 Dr. Leavis. That will be true if you select the wrong kind of man, 
 and the quicker such a man would be dismissed the better. I can not 
 imagine a man holding such a position feeling for a moment that 
 he was the originator of legislation. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I was wondering if that was not human nature. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Take the case which the ambassador, Mr. Bryce, 
 quotes 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Suppose this force at the library were asked to 
 di'aft a bill repealing a laAv — if there were such a laAv — for the re- 
 tirement of civil-service employees, do you think Congress w^ould 
 get purely sympathetic work out of them? 
 
 The Chairman. What was that question, sir? 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I was wondering if Congress would g<^i purely sym- 
 pathetic work out of the bill-drafting force, if it were required to 
 collect data violently opposed to its own interests. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. Dr. McCarthy can tell you better than I can. No bill 
 would be drafted by the drafting section — simply by Members of 
 Congress or the committees saying to the bill-drafting section : 
 " Draft a bill on that subject." It would always be required that the 
 features which are desired in the bill be written out by the committee 
 or person who desires the drafting bureau to draft the bill, and the 
 memorandum would have to be signed by a Member ; in other words, 
 the committee would draw the skeleton, based on the supposition 
 that the actual work of the bureau is that it works only as it is 
 told to work. You can guard against the bureau taking the initia- 
 tiA-e simply by requiring the Congressmen to indicate Aery clearly 
 more than the general nature of the bill. He should be required to 
 indicate the kind of a bill and the essential provisions of the bill. All 
 that the draftsman does is to saA^e the rather weary work, from my 
 personal experience, of getting the first draft in discussable shape. 
 
 The Chairman. Does that Avork come from the o-athering of 
 the data — the editing and preparatic ii of it — or the mechanical labor 
 
CONGRESSIONAL KEFERENCE BUREAU. 41 
 
 of drafting the bill? You laj^ so much stress on the drafting of bills 
 that the question has come to my mind, "Which is more im[)ortanl, 
 the gathering, editing, and supplying data and information about 
 other Governments and what they have done in this or tliat line, or 
 the drafting of the bill to embody the ideas of the proponement of 
 the measure ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. It is like the three dimensions of space. Which is the 
 most important? In one sense, the question can not be answered. 
 The bureau can not be of any real assistance unless it supplies the 
 information — that means the collection of material and digesting 
 it — and also helps on the drafting side from the memoranda. In 
 quality of work — if that is the meaning of j^our question — it is the 
 digesting of the data and, after the memoranda is written out, the 
 expression of what is required in good statutory form. Now, I do 
 think that back of your question there is a matter of great importance. 
 What is the type of man to be at the head of the bureau, because 
 imder him will come both things — the reference bureau and the 
 drafting department. If I was in the position of the Librarian I 
 should lay emphasis on a man of legal ability and a man Avho would 
 be capable of directing the bill-drafting bureau primaril)\ In other 
 words, frankly. I think the practical thing which the bureau would 
 do to help Congress is to help in the preparation of the legislation, 
 and that legal ability is vital to the work; and, therefore, if I were 
 selecting the head, or my advice asked as to the character of man to 
 be selected, legal ability would be a necessary thing. 
 
 The Chairjuan. As I followed Mr. Bryce this morning, my mind 
 was distinctly impressed with the idea that the greatest work done 
 by parliamentary counsel — the most important work done by pai'- 
 liamentary counsel — was in pointing out the essentially legal facts : 
 What acts were repealed; what modified and what undisturbed. It 
 seems to me that the mere mechanical drafting sinks into unimpor- 
 tance. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I agree with that. I will take an illustration from my 
 own State. Unfortunatel}'. I undertook the digest of the laws of the 
 State (Pennsylvania), and since then, to my financial disadvantage, 
 I have carried the work on. Xow. the confused condition of the 
 laws of Pennsylvania, and many other States, is due entirely to the 
 passage of acts, or amendments of prior acts, without any concep- 
 tion b}^ the persons who passed the legislation of the effect of that 
 which the}^ were doing on prior legislation. The great value of our 
 present bureau is to prevent that very thing. I think Dr. McKirdy, 
 who is here, will testify to the same effect. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Dr. Lewis, were any of these bills we have been con- 
 sidering to-day drawn by any of these bureaus ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I do not know: I was simply asked to appear before 
 your committee 
 
 ]\fr. Evans. I suggest we have a bill drafted and see how it hxiks. 
 
 ^Ir. Gardner. One of these bills certainly seemed to me to raise 
 some surprising constitutional points. 
 
 Dr. Leavis. I have not read the bill. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You realize that in the British Parliament the 
 Treasury Bench is composed of a limited numl)er of men, some 
 lawyers and some not, none of them specialists. The Treasury Bench 
 introduces practicalh' all important legislation Avliieh is to be passed. 
 
42 CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Our committees draft our laws. Our committees become experts and 
 specialists. On all our great committees there are sure to be Members 
 more familiar with matters pertaining to that committee than any 
 general bill drafter could possibly be. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I would like to answer that by relating a personal ex- 
 l>erience of mine in the last six months. I shall not mention names, 
 because I am going to criticize the situation 
 
 The Chairman. Go ahead; we are accustomed to that. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. We had a committee of expert lawyers from all over 
 the country, some of them, one or two, judges of the highest repute, 
 who had under consideration a corporation bill. The bill had been 
 under consideration for two or three years and had been discussed 
 from time to time with no definite result, but they had most thorough 
 ideas as to what they wanted in the bill clearly in their minds. Thej^ 
 had never spent any money to secure the entire time of one person to 
 submit to them a draft of that corporation bill, and during the two 
 days we were discussing that bill we constantly got into a discussion 
 of language which we did not understand; one man had one inter- 
 pretation and the other another, and, as a result, we wasted all of 
 two days and got no further than when we started on that bill. 
 
 It was the opinion, I believe, of many of those present that the only 
 sensible way out of that situation would be to get some one man who 
 Avould take enough time — and it would have to be all of his time on 
 an important piece of legislation of that kind — to put the ideas ex- 
 pressed in a series of r&solutions at the meeting into succinct shape. 
 
 And I will say this, also, in further reply : The fact that the bulk 
 of English legislation is not prepared by specialists, as our is in 
 committees, makes our legislation compare very favorably with the 
 P^nglish, though the English is in better form. At the same time, 
 in spite of the fact that you are experts on immigration (was it 
 not?), you would find, I think, considerable practical assistance if, 
 before that meeting, the bills had been gone over by expert drafts- 
 men. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You are aware, of course, that bills affecting immi- 
 gration, for instance, are usually referred to the Department of 
 Commerce and Labor before action is taken in committee? 
 
 Mr. Evans. You have read this bill? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I have read the last one. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You are perfectly satisfied with it? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. The only thing that occurs to me is that it makes the 
 bill-drafting a part of the library. I think there is some doubt as to 
 that, and it also, as expressed, makes it doubtful whether the real 
 business to be carried on is not merely to collect material. 
 
 Mr. Evans. In your experience, you are satisfied the language ex- 
 presses itself clearly? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I have not read the bill carefully at all, with a view 
 of mere technical criticism. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I thought we were having a hearing on this bill. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. You mean the meaning of it? 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I was not present during all of your statement. Are 
 you the head of some bureau of this kind ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. No; I am merely- trustee of the Legislative Drafting 
 Association, which is a purely philanthropical association. It is 
 nlloAved certain money to benefit legislation, and my work has been 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 43 
 
 occasionally to prepare bills at the request of philanthropic and other 
 persons as dean of a laAv school, and I have, since the establishment 
 of this association, gotten a great deal of assistance from it. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. The reason I ask is that it seems to me there are 
 other features of importance as well as bill drafting. 
 
 Mr. ToAvxsEND. Mr. Lewis, several questions have been asked 
 which relate to this language in section 4 of the bill, which gives the 
 duty of the bureau, in lines 8, 9, 10, and 11 ; " and make available in 
 translaticms, indexes, digests, compilations, and bulletins, and other- 
 wise, data for or bearing upon legislation and to render such data 
 serviceable to Congress." 
 
 I have in mind that that should be rather more comprehensive 
 than that. They should gather and classify, not only data "for 
 bearing on legislation" but general information and data bearing 
 upon public services of the various departments of the Government. 
 To make a concrete example : We have now a Tariff Board, which is 
 being subjected to a great deal of criticism, favorable and otherwise, 
 lately; would it not be desirable for such bureau as may be estab- 
 lished in connection with the Library of Congress to take advantage 
 of the enormous volume of material the Library affords to secure the 
 data serviceable to Congress — not alone single bills but all public 
 questions Congress has to discuss ? 
 
 Dr. Lewis. If I understand correctly 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. It seems rather limited, I think. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. You think that this bill directs only the collecting of 
 data upon legislation actually in contemplation by Congress — — 
 
 Mr. Townsend. Exactly. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. While it should include legislation that might be the 
 outgrowth of such a board as the Tariff Board in its recommenda- 
 tions ? 
 
 Mr. Townsend. Yes. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. You are correct that it should be sufficiently broad to 
 enable the head of this bureau, anticipating any question of legis- 
 lation, to collect material, not only in the shape of laws but in the 
 shape of testimony in regard to the working of existing laws and 
 also purely economic data bearing on legislation. As I understand 
 this word "legislation" here, that would include that, would it not ? 
 It is legislation in its broadest sense ; not pending legislation. That 
 is what it means, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. TowNSEKD. That is what I thought. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I have not given any careful special duty to the exact 
 wording of this bill. 
 
 Mr. Townsend. The reason I ask is that there is another bill be- 
 fore the committee. The Wilson bill (H. R. 11581) seeks to create 
 a division of this bureau which should make readily available for 
 Members of Congress data on all sorts of economic, industrial, com- 
 mercial and shipping subjects, and I was wondering if you gentle- 
 men who had given special study to this question might not think 
 it would be advisable to enlarge Mr. Nelson's appropriation in 
 that respect so that a division of this bureau should have the special 
 duty of gathering and putting into available form that Avide range 
 of commercial and economic data. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I think I should not reply to that question, because 
 my own personal experience has been confined to the looking up of 
 
44 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 data on a particular subject, the digesting of that data, and the 
 drafting of an act based on the data digested. My experience (I 
 once was a professor of economics in my younger days, but it has 
 been a good many days since I studied an economic subject) is such 
 as to make me tend to sympathize with your view 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I respond^ 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. You gentlemen are considering this, and are natu- 
 rally the ones to say what the words shall be, but in preparing the 
 bill we have had many good suggestions and criticisms, and we have 
 thought that that section would accomplish what you desire, but in 
 order that it should not be academic merely — if it is to be a useful 
 thing — it should have some direction toward some useful informa- 
 tion. It is for the purposes of legislation, therefore it is either pros- 
 pective or present, and fixed data on legislation. It is very compre- 
 hensive, if you will read : " Gather, classify, and make available in 
 translations, indexes, digests, compilations, and bulletins, and other- 
 v^•ise, data for or bearing upon legislation." It is as wide as lan- 
 guage can make it on the gathering of data, but shall bear on legis- 
 lation and not be merely academic. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I suggest we shall be called for roll call, and that 
 if the committee is through with Dr. Lewis, Mr. Nelson call some one 
 who has had experience with the actual working of a bureau of this 
 kind. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand Dr. McCarthy is here and can be 
 called, if Dr. Lewis has finished. 
 
 Dr. Lewis. I have finished. i 
 
 The Chairman. Are there any more questions for Dr. Lewis? 
 
 There were no more questions for Dr. Lewis, Avhereupon he was 
 excused. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES McCARTHY, WISCONSIN LEGISLA- 
 TIVE REFERENCE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I take great pleasure in calling upon Dr. McCarthy, 
 of our library, because I think the records will show he is the orginal 
 reference library man, in so far as making it available for practical 
 legislation. He has no set speech, but he will be glad to answer any 
 question about the drafting work of a bureau of this kind. 
 
 The Chair:man. We would like to hear from the Doctor. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I am not an expert in this work, and I do not be- 
 lieve thei'e are any such experts. I have been, however, for 11 years, 
 drafting bills for my State as chief of the legislative reference de- 
 partment. Now, in that time I have tried to assist the State legis- 
 lature, and I have drafted a great many bills for Congress, and so 
 have some little experience in these matters. 
 
 I have studied in foreign countries, actually at first hand, the 
 work Mr. Bryce has told you about this morning. I have seen the 
 workings of these bureaus and compared them with ours. In our 
 State we have a small appropriation of some $20,000, which is very 
 meager and aifords comparatively poor resources for this work, but 
 I want to say at this time that you gentlemen will find a pretty gen- 
 eral appreciation of the work by members of the Wisconsin Legis- 
 lature and those who are now your associates here in Congress. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU, 45 
 
 It simply comes to this: Mr. Brvce was telling this morning about 
 the English draftsmen. Now, they are men of very high standing 
 and very highly paid. They are not merely lawyers, but do a great 
 deal of gathering of material of all sorts in working up their bills. 
 Sir Courtney Ilbert Avas for a great many years the English drafts- 
 man. He says in the drafting of many statutes the usual process is 
 to set some committee of Parliament at work upon any agreed subject 
 and then this committee forms what is known as a blue book. 
 This blue book is the result of the investigations of the committee. 
 Now. after Sir Courtney Ilbert got to work to follow the instructions 
 of the men for whom he was Avorking. he would take the statutes of 
 England upon the particular subject and cut them up and put all 
 the other material he could get together in one place, so that he could 
 have in conA'enient form the material which must be readily aA^ailable 
 to go into the new bills. I do not think, in the formulation of a great 
 statute, there is any other way to do it. Over there they have been 
 greatly handicapped in the past by the fact that they have no ma- 
 chinery to get that data. There is a movement on foot now to form 
 what is known as the permanent staff of the royal commissions. 
 This would create, then, practicalh' a department similar to the de- 
 partment I have in Wisconsin — the same as is contemplated in this 
 bill — so that they Avill have the whole machinery soon to help in 
 working out of that classified and condensed comparative material 
 which should be in the hands of the draftsmen as soon as he receives 
 his definite instructions and sets out to draft a bill. 
 
 Gentlemen, I recognize that institutions grow and become mighty 
 dangerous sometimes. You have got to have everything of this sort 
 checked in every way. It must be checked so it will not go to sleep 
 and become a great big bureau full of red tape and checked so that 
 it can not be made a football of politics. To work out the plans I 
 have laid in Wisconsin I have studied out how these things had been 
 worked out in foreign countries. It is absolutely essential that you 
 have a high type of nonpartisan bureau so that no one can say it is 
 working for some particular politician or set of politicians. It must 
 be checked up to see that every piece of work that goes out will be 
 high class, and yet the draftsmen and all connected with such a de- 
 partment must be absolutely the servants of the legislature. Xo i:»iece 
 of work goes out of our department that is not carefully laid down 
 first by the legislators in carefully worded written instructions. The 
 draftsman is purely the servant of the Wisconsin Legislature. He 
 would be a danger if he were not. 
 
 ]\Ir. Xelsox. He is a collective secretary. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. I want to describe the kind of work we go 
 into — I will give a few illustrations 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Would you not prefer to trace the groAvth of your 
 department and tell exactly how you met the demands ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I shall try to gi^-e some illustrations of the method 
 of doing business. The legislature in the State of Wisconsin wished 
 to have railroad-commission and public-utility bills. The first thing 
 they thought of doing in the public-utility matter was to get the gas- 
 cojnmission act of Massachusetts, but after a meeting they determined 
 that was not the thing to do. Some of the members of the legislature 
 met me and asked me to get information upon the subject of public- 
 utility control to show how this works elsewhere. I enlisted the 
 
46 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 State Department at Washington and similar departments all over 
 the world. I got a certain professor of languages at the Uni- 
 versity of Wisconsin to make translations for me of different 
 documents bearing upon the subject. The result of that Avas, 
 in the end, after going over this for six or seven months, we 
 were prepared by the coming of the session of the legislature. 
 There was, for instance, a little collection to show how depre- 
 ciation funds were kept in different countries; how sliding-scale 
 schemes were worked out; administrative devices were used, etc. 
 Finally these members of the committees agreed upon the system 
 used by the Sheffield Gas Co. in England, and said that was the 
 thing fit for Wisconsin conditions, and for me to get my draftsmen 
 to make some rough drafts. After laying down the principles, these 
 rough drafts were submitted to the committee. The committee took 
 them, criticized them, and told me to do them over again. That was 
 done over twenty-two times in the case of one bill, involving three or 
 four months' hard work. 
 
 I have five draftsmen. They are well paid ; not as well paid as 
 they should be. I invite any man to say that any political party 
 in the State of Wisconsin has any criticism to make of this bureau 
 of ours. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Was not the final result of that treatment of the 
 bill that the legislators and public companies affected virtually 
 agreed that that was a practical and fair way of treating all inter- 
 ests alike? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Absolutely; in that they are unanimous. Since 
 that time the citizens of Wisconsin are very favorable to it. The 
 public-utility act was the basis of 10 or 15 laws now existing in 
 other States throughout the United States. 
 
 You see, in that way you put efficient machinery in the hands of 
 the legislators. My men do not have anything to say about the 
 policy. They are servants. It is true, after training, the}^ become 
 expert servants; so expert, gentlemen, that some of them can get 
 work from all over the country drafting bills. I can not hold them 
 steadily at work for the State as our legislature meets only once in 
 two years. 
 
 The committees of the legislature should have some of these men 
 Avorking with them constantly. The question is, Who are these men? 
 One of these men (once in the legislature) was an attorney in Madi- 
 son. He came up to me and said, " I Avould like to come up and give 
 my services free." He is now an assistant professor at the univer- 
 sity. He came in and started out and after awhile became a very 
 scientific man. There is not a man in this country better than he is 
 on this matter of drafting. He ranks, I believe, with the best Eng- 
 lish draftsmen. Another man was a student of mine while I was a 
 lecturer in political sciences in the university. He went out, prac- 
 ticed law, and came back. They are men who have Avorked up. 
 There was no other way to teach them or no other place but in our 
 department. There are also clerks or junior draftsmen who we 
 do not trust with anything important, whom we give a chance occa- 
 sionally to draft a minor bill. I should say we draft about nine- 
 tenths of the bills in the State of Wisconsin. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 47 
 
 We had a workmen's compensation bill before a committee of the 
 legislature. There did not seem at that time to be any way of 
 getting around the constitutional provisions relating to it. Finally 
 these men hit upon the device of taking away the connnon-law de- 
 fenses and then saying to the employees, '' You can get in under the 
 compensation plan as we have it here." Now, then, the committee 
 needed to find out actually how this would Avork out. We found 
 out how that actual experience came in. I went over to Europe my- 
 self and spent three months going through hospitals and factories 
 and listening in courts where these cases came up — in Germany 
 and England especially — and kept sending that material I got over 
 to men who were meanwhile working out this material here. Sec- 
 retary Knox gave me all kinds of help. I sent the data as I found it. 
 The translators who work for the committee handled it. The result 
 of it was, if you will notice in the Wisconsin law, in the procedure, 
 the provision for the arbitration court. This was a German pro- 
 cedure, and I do not suppose any of us would know that that condi- 
 tion existed in Germany unless we had looked it up. The committee 
 had thought to adopt the English act. After I had gone over there 
 I found we could not, because the third party — the insurance com- 
 pany — made the arrangement a bad one. The German system had 
 been worked out by great experience and study, resulted in greater 
 economy and greater humanit}', and our committee adopted it with- 
 out question when it had the evidence before it. Of course, here in 
 Washington a great part of this would be done differently, but in 
 Wisconsin our legislative reference department helps whenever it is 
 called on. 
 
 All of this material in the library must be made available. It can 
 not be left in a Spanish book, a German book, or any other foreign 
 language. It must be collated, so that Avhen a committee comes into 
 the room the members can take up the data wanted at first hand. 
 
 Now, as Mr. Gardner says, some committees and some departments 
 know all that. Sometimes some one in a department knows all that, 
 and such men can be of great service to you, but there are two things 
 you have to look out for. The men of these departments may not 
 care to go ahead always and work at it — they have other work — and 
 it would be a good thing sometimes for the legislature to have some- 
 thing to say about a department without going to it at all. We 
 have not a German Government, depending upon bureaus; we have 
 an American Government, dependent on legislators. Often there 
 is no department dealing with new subjects before the legislature. 
 For instance: Where could we go in Wisconsin before we got the 
 railroad commission? There was not anything of real scientific 
 importance in the experience of the different States of the Union 
 which could really help us with the working out of new adminis- 
 trative devices. In these new problems you often have to get ex- 
 perts from all kinds of places. An insurance man who has made 
 a specialty of some actuarial matters will have to be brought in here ; 
 a chemist who may know another Idnd of scientific fact brought 
 in there. No; the departments can not get just this kind of material 
 and have not men who make a life work of gathering it. It is a 
 profession by itself. The whole study of statute law, comparative 
 law. and jurisprudence, is a -cience of itself. 
 
48 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I understood you to say you found the English pro- 
 vision would not do 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Evans. How did you present that? Was it a digest of the 
 English act and the German act set down conveniently for com- 
 parison ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Suppose it is a (juestion of insurance — as to the 
 cost of certain kinds of insurance. I can go into the German and 
 P^nglish and other insurance departments and get their facts and thus 
 <ligest them. Suppose it was to compare the lumber risks in Eng- 
 land Avith the Woodworkers' Insurance Co. in Germany. I go there 
 and get the material and send it over to America, and that is the 
 kind of material I secure. Of course, one of your investigating 
 (•(mimittees might get material like this much more completely, but, 
 perhaps, not with the standpoint of comparative law in relation to 
 the drafting of a particular bill for a committee. 
 
 JSIr. E^■A^s. I was wondering in what form you passed that in- 
 formation on. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I think any institution that is merely academic 
 is not going to serve your purpose. It must have your data ready for 
 you, and you gentlemen all know that the books on legislation are all 
 Avritten after the legislation is passed, while you want the data while 
 you are working on the bill. Such a department would cull it out 
 everywhere and have it at your service any time. You Avant not 
 onlj^ the laws from all over the world, but you want most of all at 
 liand, in convenient form, data which show you how they work. The 
 (h'aftsman working under your supervision and direction will find 
 his work greatly helped if he has a scientific body of trained workers 
 collecting such comparative data and doing the work quickly, ac- 
 curately, and always to the point. 
 
 Gentlemen, I believe — yes, I know — the time is coming when you 
 are going to demand that there shall exist here in Washington as 
 your servants a body of men trained in the technique of statute law, 
 who will be comparable with the men on the Supreme Bench itself in 
 ability and learning, and you will have those men always at your 
 command to help you as highly trained and well-paid servants to put 
 into shape statutes which you wish to enact. 
 
 The Chahoian. AVhy? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. You have before your committees and other com- 
 mittees the investigation of the trusts. Now, where are there bills in 
 (^ongress to-day that satisfy you gentlemen at the present time? 
 How many men are working on these bills to-day, notwithstanding 
 the great amount of discussion before committees? It is a hard thing 
 to work out, and if there was a body of men you could use — 10 men 
 we will say — of the type of the Supreme Court justices and your 
 committee there woidd say to them : " Now, we would like to have a 
 draft along the line of Federal incorporation." The committee could 
 write out its ideas into a rough memorandum and sign their names 
 to it. and the drafting bureau would proceed. When that draft is 
 finished the committee will probably want another draft along that 
 line, and so draft after draft will be made, so that the committees will 
 finally say : " That is about what we agree on, so put it into shape." 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Do you not think the Library would rather become 
 the home of that bureau? 
 
^ 
 
 CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 49 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Now, as to whether the Library does it or not, I 
 do not care. But the Library is a complete institution already. It 
 has the hooks and all the data and is convenient to you, and it is a 
 question of efficiency and economy if you want this thing put there. 
 As to the English department, as Sir James Bryce was telling you, 
 this was started in the treasury department over there. So govern- 
 ment grows. If this was a separate department you would have to 
 have it near you here anyhow. There are already 70 libraries in 
 Washington. Do you Avant to create another one? Where can you 
 put it? You do not want to duplicate, as you have all that plant 
 ther'e. Yes ; it seems to me it should be in the Congressional Library. 
 It has every facility and splendid collections already. It is con- 
 venient in every way and nonpartisan. 
 
 I am a clerk in the free library commission in Wisconsin, and that 
 looks after the traA^eling libraries sent out to the little towns in Wis- 
 consin. I was up at the University of Wisconsin and found out they 
 wanted a document clerk at the free library commission. This is a 
 nonpolitical institution. I went down to get this position, and the 
 legislators just naturally took me up and asked me if I would stay 
 down there. From that time to this we have not asked the legislature 
 for any money to run it. This shows you in what an irregular and 
 yet perhaps effective way institutions grow. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You originated it? — . 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. Something was started in New York in \ 
 1890, but that was a general sociology library. When I started in \ 
 1901 there was not anything like what we have now, and the only -^ 
 precedent I have gone by is the experience I have studied in foreign ' 
 
 countries, with visits and talks with legislators, and a general study 
 of statute law, and political institutions and the technique of 
 drafting. 
 
 The Chairman. Are there any other States where similar institu- 
 tions are maintained? 
 
 Mr. Town SEND. There are 25. more or less. Wisconsin, Indiana, 
 Pennsjdvania. and New York are leading, with the others rapidly 
 developing. The difficulty is Dr. McCarthy has had to train men to 
 take charge of these libraries. In New York, one of his men is in 
 charge. 
 
 ]Mr. Pickett. While this bill drafting is important, there are 
 other important features. To illustrate, there is a committee of the 
 House having hearings on the right of the United States to discrimi- 
 nate as to tolls on the Panama Canal. The Members will be divided. 
 How would a bureau of this kind treat that question so that the 
 Members of the House could get information in a condensed form — 
 that is, both sides — so we could give it our study prior to the report of 
 the committee? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Is it a question of tolls ? 
 
 Mr. Pickett. It will involve the right of the United States to dis- 
 criminate in favor of our ships. I simply use it as an illustration. 
 How would a bureau such as you suggest treat it? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. There is one of those complicated questions. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. How would you treat it? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I can not say offhand how I would treat that ques- 
 tioiL I would like to study it awhile. There are, of course, questions 
 
 40435—12 4 
 
50 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Avhich are a matter of policy and about wliicli there is no great 
 amount of available data. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. That is what I am getting at. On the one side it 
 will be urged that under the terms of the treaty and the precedents 
 that our Government can not favor our ships, while on the contrary 
 the opposite view will be urged. Will it be the function of this bu- 
 reau to do as a lawyer's assistant does in his office, make a brief on 
 both sides of the question? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I do not like that word "brief." We never make 
 any such briefs. There is no reason why the experience of other 
 countries could not be presented and put into a little pamphlet. 
 There is no reason why any arguments or data could not be fairly 
 summarized and presented in some little pamphlet. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. The point is, would this bureau collate the authori- 
 ties and references on both sides and have them for the use of the 
 Members of the House? 
 
 Dr. McCakthy. That is the way it will work out. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Ordinarily we do not get the reports of committees 
 until a short time before we are required to act. I would like to read 
 or study both sides in advance, before we are called upon to vote. I 
 am seeking to ascertain if this bureau will perform that function. 
 
 Mr. TowKSEND. As I understood the doctor, in answer to Mr. 
 Evans's objection to a clerk — here for six months, of course, he knows 
 that this question of canal tolls — the man in charge knows this ques- 
 tion is coming up, and he starts his force collating information from 
 every possible source, so that in the fall, when Congress comes here, 
 it has a mass of information which no committee clerk could collect. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. That is a perfectly reasonable thing they could do. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I do not think that the canal question is a fair one. 
 Suppose you were asked to report on contributory forms of old-age 
 pensions — they are contributory or noncontributory — or something 
 of that sort. What would you do in that case? Perhaps you have 
 already done something on that in AVisconsin? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, I have. There are different systems for dif- 
 ferent parts of the world. These things could be digested in some 
 Avay so that they can be useful. In these great German reports, there 
 are things which come to the point on the things which arise in 
 America. It would be good to have some digest made of these things. 
 If I were in Congress, I would go to such a department and ask them 
 to do it. I would select and take the material I wished. I do not 
 think there would be any danger in getting the facts and data to- 
 gether in a convenient form. At least we have never found any such 
 danger and I do not remember of any protest against it. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. You translate and digest? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. The function of the bureau in Wisconsin has never 
 been to give an opinion for or against anything. It is to collect the 
 scientific data and let the legislature draw its own conclusions? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. I suppose you collate arguments. Suppose the 
 question not only was how old-age pensions had worked out else- 
 where, but whether or not it was wise to have them at all ; you would 
 collect the arguments of both sides, would you not ? You would not 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 51 
 
 do Avhat Mr. Nelson said, keep the arguments of one side entirely, 
 but you would keep the arguments of all sides fairly? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. On the questions of the rules of the House — the mo- 
 . ment a speech is delivered by Mr. Gardner on one side that would 
 be collected. There would be Gardner's speech and other speeches 
 and they all would be there. These things are collected irrespective 
 of the side, so that the exact point can be known without waste of 
 time and work? 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Is there not danger of your giving biased informa- 
 tion? 
 
 Ur. McCarthy. I can conceive of it, but my experience in Wis- 
 consin has been that the professional spirit of trained workers makes 
 them eager to get the facts Avithout bias. No doubt there will be 
 accusation of bias, but I am not afraid of that, because I have an 
 abiding confidence in the fairness of the average man. I do not 
 remember that in all of the 11 years in Wisconsin anv such accusa- 
 tion was ever made against my workers. 
 
 Now, the liquor dealers are anxious to send material to my library, 
 and so are the prohibitionists. I tell them both if they want ma- 
 terial put in my library to digest it and it will be put there. 
 
 You said this morning, Mr. Gardner, that sometimes the books 
 are not the things a Congressman wants. Now, there is an immi- 
 gration question in Wisconsin — immigrants go over into Canada — ■ 
 and we want that immigration question fixed in the northern part 
 of our State, and I know it is coming. Right in my department are 
 men now collecting data relating to the settlement of cut-over lands. 
 This may include laws or letters or date or reports from the State 
 Department at Washington, or data from wherever immigration 
 bureaus have Avorked all over the country, or from countries like 
 Australia or Canada. There may be a situation in Australia similar 
 to what we have in Wisconsin about which we gather facts that will 
 be arranged by a cataloguer and indexer, so that by fall I will have 
 the best collection of data on immigration in relation to cut-over 
 lands that exists in this country. That will be ready for the legisla- 
 ture, and there is no other way it could be gotten. 
 
 Mr. Cleveland, of the President's Efficiency and Economy Bureau, 
 has been Avorking on the question of the budget — aa'c started in Wis- 
 consin a similar investigation at the same time 
 
 Mr. ToAVNSEND. What^ is that, Doctor? 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Revenue bills and appropriation bills? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. The budget system is the system in 
 vogue in most countries. Noav, in the last tAvo or three months, I 
 have given attention to that. I was talking AA'ith Dr. ClcAelahd 
 this morning about certain French material I had sent to him, 
 giving an entirely ncAv light oit Iioaa' the French budget Avorks out. 
 Now, when Ave start the budget in Wisconsin next Avinter we aaIU 
 know a good deal about it in the light of budget systems of different 
 States and countries. So subject after subject is taken up, and if 
 the legislature Av^ishes to go on and make a bill on the budget system, 
 the chances are the legislature Avill call on some of my men — the 
 committees will — and say, " This is what we want. We do not 
 know hoAv it is going to Avork, but Ave Avill try it — noAV, get it read3^" 
 
62 CONGRESSIONAL. EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 He "will make a rough draft and more drafts until they get what they 
 want. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. How many members are there of the Wisconsin 
 Legislature ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. One hundred and thirty-three. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. How many make use of your department? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. We keep statistics — all but two. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. One hundred and thirty-one. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I want to laiow how much is " McCarthy " and how 
 much is bureau. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I am trying to standardize that work as much as 
 possible. We do not want anything dishonestly or carelessly done 
 by my men, so every piece of paper comes in there signed with a 
 legislator's name. If there is a bill drafted the man who drafts it 
 has his name on it, etc., so that we can trace down to every person 
 who put his finger on that piece of paper. Every investigation I 
 make in Wisconsin I have a carbon copy made of, and this is put in 
 our catalogue, so that if I die or leave or get sick everyhing is in 
 the catalogue — the whole machine is there if I leave, so that some 
 other man can take it up. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you training some more " McCarthies " ? 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Yes; I am training some boys; but they are in 
 demand, and I can not keep them. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. They come from the university and work for noth- 
 ing — just for the training. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I have men from foreign coimtries also. Go to 
 Tokyo and you will find one of our men there. I have boys from 
 different States. I have a waiting list who are glad to work for 
 me for nothing. It is a school for them. After they leave me they 
 go all over the country and are eagerly picked up to do similar work 
 at the different libraries of the country. In a way, the little work 
 we have started in Wisconsin has had a decided effect upon the 
 library work of the country; besides, it has had some effect upon 
 the political science of the country, and it is going to have some effect 
 upon the statute law of the country. 
 
 The Chairman. You spoke of liquor laws. That is a very lively 
 topic in many States. Suppose you have such a measure in Wis- 
 consin — just for illustration — suppose you have a member who wants 
 to introduce a local-option law, county unit law, or county precinct 
 unit law, does he introduce the bill in the house or senate, embodying 
 his view, or does he come to your bureau first and ask you to lick 
 his bill into shape ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. If there is an organized society such as a labor 
 union or a prohibition society, the chances are they would have some 
 attorney draft the bill in pretty good shape for them. When the 
 bill comes up the chances are the legislator will submit it, with his 
 instructions, to my department before it is presented, in order to 
 have it put into the best form. 
 
 The Chairman. Before it is presented? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Not before it is presented by the association to the 
 legislator ? 
 
CONGRESSIONAIi REFERENCE BUREAU. 53 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. No, no. The association takes it to some legis- 
 lator before it can possibly come to me. I do not deal with any 
 association. I work for the legislature only. Members of the leg- 
 islature come up and say they want it modified. Probably 90 per 
 cent of the bills at the legislature come to my department for modi- 
 fication. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Is there any provision in the Wisconsin laws that 
 this work shall only be done for the members of the legislature ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. That is the rule. 
 
 The Chairmajst. Is it merely your practice or is it the law? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. It is a rule of the legislature, and I have made it 
 a rule of my department. Here is a rule which I have laid down 
 for the draftsmen : 
 
 RULES FOE THE DRAFTING ROOM. 
 
 1. No bills will be drafted in the reference room. A separate drafting room 
 and a separate force have been provided. 
 
 2. No bill will be drafted nor amendments prepared without specific detailed 
 written instructions from a member of the legislature. Such instructions must 
 bear the member's signature. 
 
 3. The draftsman can make no suggestions as to the contents of the bill. Our 
 work is merely clerical and technical. We can not furnish ideas. 
 
 4. We are not responsible for the legality or constitutionality of any measures. 
 We are here to do merely as directed. 
 
 5. As this department can not intx'oduce bills or modify them after intro- 
 duction, it is not responsible for the rules of the legislature or the numbering 
 of sections either at the time of introduction of on the final passage. 
 
 Every member sees these rules also. 
 
 A country member of our legislature came up to me once. He wished 
 to make an issue of the appropriations, and wanted to cut them down 
 for certain departments, so he came up to us and wanted to do this. 
 On the list was the appropriation for my department. He came up 
 to my department and looked at it, and said : "This is a good depart- 
 ment, and will you help me out ? " The bill provided for the repeal 
 of our department. We drafted, without question, just the way he 
 wanted it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. We have had a good many investigations here during 
 the past year and have had many hearings — take the sugar inquiry, 
 for instance. If abstracted this would be about three or four hun- 
 dred pages. It is impossible for the Members of this House to read 
 the hearings we have had during the past year. Bills will be intro- 
 duced and read, and we are not sufficiently advised about them, and 
 it has occurred to me that we might be advised by utilizing the bureau 
 for the purpose of abstracting these hearings. 
 
 The Chairman. These gentlemen spoke of preparing masses of 
 data. Of course, if presented in that form, it is not of much value, 
 but my understanding is that it shall digest and present in what 
 you call tabloid form the information you desire. It is impossible to 
 read four or five hundred pages of any hearing. I do not intend to 
 do it. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Would it be possible for you to simplify these things. 
 Do you present your digests in Wisconsin in the form of documents, 
 or do you have a statement which says : " The general authorities on 
 this side are, etc., and on the other side, etc."? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. We have all kinds and forms. 
 
54 CONGRESSIONAL. EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Can you not send us down a sample of your goods 'I 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes ; I will. On a great many of our bills I have 
 prepared books [shows small flexibly bound book, in size about 2^ by i 
 31 by i inch] containing about 30 pages, printed in big type. For 
 instance, on tlie question of exemptions from garnishment there was 
 the law of England summarized briefly, and after that the laws of 
 the different States on that subject, with references as to where the 
 full authority could be found. 
 
 Mr. TowjsSEND. In your department? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. Other members wanted something on this 
 bill, and just wanted to get the authorities of the other States with 
 laws just like them. You will find men in the Legislature of Wiscon- 
 sin constantly pulling these books out of their pockets. We can not 
 print many of them, because it takes quite a lot of clerical help 
 to get them out. They are of great service. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I think we have plenty of printed matter ; we have 
 reports on pretty nearly every bill, majority and minority reports. 
 I am afraid that people do not always read them, 
 
 Mr. Evans. I know we have majority and minority reports 
 
 Mr. Nelson. If the committee asked that that abstract be made, 
 the chief would doubtless set some one to do the work. It is the col- 
 lective secretary of Congress. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. A water-power bill came up in our State 
 and we raked Europe for that water-power legislation and actually 
 got hold of a bill that the Prussian Government was about to intro- 
 duce over there to change the water-power legislation. We got hold 
 of it and it was digested for the legislature, and when the bill came 
 up we had that information. We have a great many instances where 
 we are gathering material of that kind. The material from Wash- 
 ington is of great service to us. We keep track of your bureaus all 
 the while. Mr. Meyer sends me quantities of material and Mr. Put- 
 nam send quantities of it. He must have sent me fifty or a hundred 
 volumes in one year. We use the library of foreign law at the North- 
 western University. We keep indexes not only of books, but we know 
 men all over the country — experts — and we have indexes telling 
 where the books are and the men are. Books are sent up to us from 
 here and we make a card for each book m the index, and on the bot- 
 tom of the card show " Congressional Library, Washington," etc. 
 A couple of weeks before a bill comes up we have people working at 
 that bill altogether. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you the university library at your disposi- 
 tion, or one of your own ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. We have but a very small library of our own. 
 We do not want to duplicate. I keep only what I want for my 
 bureau, and then I try to send the material I get out to the histori- 
 cal society and the university library and have them take care of it. 
 They can get it back to me, if wanted, in a quarter of an hour. They 
 take care of the material, and my people do the supplementary work, 
 such as the data for the budget investigation, etc. We get supple- 
 mentary information. For instance 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Just indicate how you handle the newspaper clip- 
 pings — how they are pasted on sheets and indexed so that everything 
 is listed down and you can give the latest thing on any article. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL EEPERENCE BUREAU. 55 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Take the primary-election law. When the pri- 
 mary-election bill went into force in Wisconsin I do not think there 
 was a good book on that subject. Take the initiative and referen- 
 dum — there is no really good book on that. We must gather the 
 data and find out how it works. It is a good thing to gather this 
 information before you come to the actual consideration of bills on 
 such subjects. How was the State to get a collection of primary- 
 election laws? We cut up the election laws of different States. It 
 may be a question of open or closed primary. We rake in all the 
 information and laws and clip, paste, and digest it and have it 
 printed in small books, marking on the outside of one '' Open pri- 
 mary " and on the other " Closed primary." 
 
 Mr. Pickett. As soon as the opinions of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States are published you would have them cut out? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Oh, yes. There may be a man coming in de- 
 manding it to-morrow. There are all kinds of questions coming 
 along, and the legal, comparative, and statistical data must be all 
 classified together and readily accessible. 
 
 The Chairman. Your bureau is supported by a direct appropria- 
 tion by the legislature of $20,000 a year, is it not? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes. If this bureau was located anywhere else 
 it would be different, but I am able to get the university students 
 and professors out there for research work. We know where there 
 are a great many subjects being worked out at the university, and 
 we know who is the man doing the work, and we can get his help — 
 he is interested in the work, and when the committee meets they will 
 want him before it. If I ran it any place else, or ran it upon a com- 
 mercial basis, I would want $40,000 for it. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I should rather anticipate this danger — for in- 
 stance, that the material might get too voluminous, and the con- 
 denser or digester be either unfair or biased. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. You are absolutely right. That is the hardest 
 thing I have had to do — to keep the dead stuff' out and the live 
 stuff in. 
 
 I can not find anybody to take my place on this work ; that is the 
 truth of it. It takes intelligent consideration of all this material 
 to make it valuable. Anybody in this work will agree with me. It 
 takes a great deal of training. The new library of to-day is trying 
 to get at the value of things. It is now a question of selection rather 
 than one of mere collection. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. If you take all our statutes, there is the same diffi- 
 culty as there is in searching the Congressional Record. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Has there been any diminution of bills intro- 
 duced or passed in the Legislature of Wisconsin since 1901? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Since 1901 there has been a slight increase in 
 Wisconsin. If you go back of that time you will find that we had 
 at one time annual sessions and had private bills for the incorpora- 
 tion of churches, cemeteries, etc. There you Avould find a great 
 many more bills than now, but you will find an increase at present 
 in every county and in every State. The Fifty-sixth Congress 
 passed upon 20,000 bills ; the Sixty-first Congress, 40,000 bills. In 
 England the bills have increased fourfold. There it is simply be- 
 cause Lloyd George and his followers are trying to tear up the 
 
56 CONGRESSIONAL. EEFEBENCE BUREAU. 
 
 statutes. Compared^ with Massachusetts last session Wisconsin has 
 greatly decreased its output. We have probably one-half the bills 
 of Massachusetts. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Dr. McCarthy, you have been training young law- 
 yers and getting their services free. Now, what do you have to pay 
 them after they are experts? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. My men are now paid about $100 a week when 
 working for a short time. In the sessions of the legislature I get 
 them for $200 to $300 a month. The way I have worked it, gen- 
 tlemen, is I have taken them and given them a training, and now 
 they are getting well paid for it, 
 
 Mr. Nelson. What is the competition you have to maintain with 
 the business world now that there is outside demand for their 
 services ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. My men are eagerly sought by all sorts of private 
 institutions. I myself have been offered salaries many times my 
 present salary, and my men have, I know, had similar experiences. 
 You have got to pay a man a good wage to keep him in the service. 
 There is a limited number of men who do work of this kind, and 
 the demand for them has been so great that they can demand their 
 price. We can not pay over a certain amount. You see, the gov- 
 ernor of the State only gets $5,000, and you certainly can not go 
 much above that. I think, gentlemen, our men are all poorly paid 
 in comparison with the pay of private institutions, considering 
 things are the same as in our State — on a high grade, with stiff civil- 
 service law. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Are you under the classified service ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. No, sir. My department, on the whole, is, but I 
 am not. When I went to work for the legislature I went on the 
 basis that they would allow me to take the men I wanted, without 
 regard to politics, and I was allowed to do so; then, after the civil- 
 service law become effective the legislature exempted my department 
 from the civil service. The reason they gave was that they did not 
 know how the civil-service law was going to operate, but they did 
 know my bureau was a good institution. I am appointed by a board 
 consisting of the president of the university, the superintendent of 
 public schools for the State, and the head of the historical society, 
 and two others, appointed for long terms. The department is non- 
 partisan. 
 
 The Chairman, Has there ever been any effort to bring politics 
 into appointments to your bureau? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. At one time seven senators told me that 
 they would drive me out of the capitol if I would not take certain 
 men in my department. I did not take them. This is the most 
 serious thing that has ever happened to me since I have been there. 
 
 The Chairman. Did they undertake to carry out their threat? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. No, sir ; that was only a bluff. I want to say, gen- 
 tlemen, that for years — ^ight years, at least — there has been no at- 
 tempt to sway me one way or another politically, and I think any 
 attempt to do it at any time would be found out. 
 
 The Chairman. The introduction of partisan politics into such a 
 bureau as yours — such a bureau as is proposed in this bill here-^ 
 would be fatal, would it not? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Absolutely disastrous. 
 
CONGRESSIOaSTAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 57 
 
 The Chairman. What about having it bipartisan ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I do not believe in any such arrangement. 
 
 The Chairman. I asked because the suggestion has been made, not 
 by a Member of Congress, but by a man interested in the measure. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have the committee 
 hear from a man who has had five years' practical experience 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, if Mr. Mann and Speaker Clark are 
 coming over in the morning, would it not be well to hold some of 
 3^our speakers for the morning session to-morrow ? 
 
 The committee thereupon, on motion of the chairman, at 4 o'clock 
 and 30 minutes p. m., adjourned to meet at 10 o'clock a. ni. to-mor- 
 row, February 27, 1912. 
 
 Committee on the Library, 
 
 House Office Building, 
 Washington, D. C, Tuesday, February 27, 1912. 
 The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. 
 
 Present: Representatives Slay den (chairman), Townsend, Evans, 
 and Pickett. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, Mr. Mann will make a statement in 
 reference to these bills now. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. MANN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
 
 FROM ILLINOIS. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat embarrased in making 
 this statement, because, like all of the rest of you 
 
 The Chairman. Pardon me, would you like to have a copy of the 
 bill? 
 
 Mr. Mann. I have a copy in my pocket. I do not know whether I 
 have it in my head or not. 
 
 The Chairman. I dare say you have it in your head. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Like all the rest of us, we are groping somewhat in 
 the dark on these propositions. I listened yesterday with consider- 
 able interest to the statement of Ambassador Bryce, but I beg to 
 suggest that in the consideration of this proposition it should be 
 kept in mind all the time that the situation as to legislation in this 
 country is entirely different from that as to legislation in those coun- 
 tries which have a responsible ministry. Here the executive does 
 not prepare bills for consideration, as a general rule, and our Senate 
 has gone so far as to indicate a desire that the heads of the depart- 
 ments should not be permitted to send to committees of the Senate 
 the draft of bills which they desire to have considered. Personally, 
 I have always thought, and still think, that it is quite desirable to 
 have any of the departments of the Government which proposes 
 or recommends legislation to put that in the form of tentative draft 
 of a bill, thereby expressing in the concrete an abstract proposition, 
 which is usually much more difficult to express in the concrete than 
 it is in the abstract; and sometimes when you come to express it 
 in the concrete it changes the opinion of the man who has an abstract 
 j)rinciple in his mind. 
 
 However, it is perfectly patent, I think, to anyone who has much 
 the experience in any legislative body in this country that the great 
 lack that we have is scientific procedure in legislation. That is more 
 
58 CONGEESSIONAL EEFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 SO probably in the State legislatures than it is in Congress, because 
 there the members of the local legislatures vary and change more 
 often than they do here; committees are more the result of contest 
 over the organization of the legislative bodies than they are here. 
 In the House, of course, the complexion of committees changes when 
 the party in the control of the House changes, but, as a rule, in the 
 House a man who goes on a committee remains on that committee 
 as long as he is a Member of the House and desires to remain on 
 the committee, except for the change in party, where the minority 
 party necessarily loses some members, but even that does not often 
 remove a Member from a committee. It would be very desirable, in 
 my opinion, to have some one connected with the House in some Avay 
 who will examine bills. At least it must be the constant experience of 
 all Members of the House who endeavor to prepare bills themselves, 
 oftentimes without much experience in the preparation of bills, that 
 they do not feel qualified to follow- the regular forms in regard to leg- 
 islation, and it is perfectly apparent to anyone, I think, that where 
 you enact a number of legislative acts someAvhat along the same 
 lines it is desirable to use the same form, because that requires 
 less difficulty of construction of the act itself. Certain forms come 
 to be accepted as having certain meaning, and it is desirable in that 
 direction. 
 
 As an illustration in a way of that proposition, when I came into 
 the House and went on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
 Commerce, a committee which deals with the reporting of bills con- 
 cerning the construction of bridges and dams across interstate navi- 
 gable waters, it was then the custom for some one interested in a 
 proposition, usually probably the attorney of the company which 
 was interested, to prepare a bill. Sometimes those bills would be 
 one section a page long ; sometimes there would be ten or a dozen sec- 
 tions, and a number of pages long — their being no variation, in fact, 
 in the principle involved, so far as the control was concerned. I 
 conceived the idea that in granting permits for such purposes that 
 it was desirable to use the same form and grant them upon the same 
 condition, unless unusual circumstances had arisen, and we passed 
 what is known as the general bridge act, and then again, afterwards, 
 the general dam act, for the purpose of putting everybody upon the 
 same plane. That goes to the matter of form, and everybody con- 
 cedes that that was a step in the right direction both in the matter 
 of saving time in the House and saving time in committees and 
 taking a form which, after once being construed, would be under- 
 stood by all parties concerned. 
 
 I do not quite agree, though I do not say I disagree, with the 
 proposition of the bill under consideration, that 15 Members of the 
 House should be entitled .to call upon the person appointed for the 
 preparation of a bill. It is just as easy to get 15 Members to make 
 a request in the House as it is to get one, because among good-natured 
 gentlemen if one person desires something which he thinks proper 
 and the others do not think it is improper they are always willing 
 to join him in making a request. 
 
 T also doubt the desirability of having the body that is proposed 
 gather information from the four quarters of the earth as to the 
 legislative experience of other peoples nnd other legislatures con- 
 cerning every proposition that may come up. We have now in the 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 59 
 
 Bureau of Labor a bureau that attempts to collect all available in- 
 formation concerning legislation which affects labor. We have other 
 bureaus of the Government which attempt to do the same things 
 along special lines. But I think there can be no question that it is 
 desirable to have somebody connected with the legislating functions 
 of the Government, either directly under the control of the House or 
 the Senate or indirectly responsive to the will of those bodies or their 
 committees, who will remain permanently, who will acquire knowl- 
 edge in reference to the form of drafting bills, who will be qualified to 
 go over bills after they have been passively or tentatively agreed to 
 by committees, for the purpose of correcting errors, pointing out 
 difficulties, and in A'arious other ways assisting the committees. 
 
 Under our form of government, I think that in the main the legis- 
 iative Avork comes through the committees. In England or the 
 United Kingdom the Government proposes the legislation, and nec- 
 essarily proposes it in the form in which they desire it to be enacted. 
 That is not practicable here. Propositions come before Congress 
 from every quarter, but the committees, in the first instance, must 
 necessarily put that legislation in such form as they desire to have 
 it presented to the House or the Senate. We all know very well that 
 the consideration of such propositions by bills in the House, while 
 not an ideal ceremony by any means, is largely dependent upon the 
 Avill of the committee. E^'^ery Member of the House is called upon 
 constantly to rote upon propositions concerning which he does not 
 pretend to be informed at all, and in such cases, if he is on the 
 majority side of the House, usually votes with the committee, and 
 properly so. If upon the minority side of the House he feels less 
 responsible; sometimes he does and sometimes he does not vote with 
 the committee. 
 
 If we can organize a body of some form which would act for the 
 House as the clerk of the Committee on Appropriations, for instance, 
 acts for the committee, and also for Members of the House, it would 
 be extremely desirable. Mr. Courts is now the clerk of the Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, and Avas placed in that position in the first 
 instance by a Democrat. At one time, when a Republican was made 
 chairman of that committee, the Republican chairman named an- 
 other man for the place, and the committee declined to agree to the 
 neAV clerk and retained Mr. Courts. Since that" time he has been re- 
 tained by Republican and Democratic chairmen, and I think no one 
 would dispense with his services. I do not knoAV what the present 
 Speaker of the House would have done if Mr. Hinds, the parlia- 
 mentary clerk of the House, had not himself chosen to try for mem- 
 bership in the House and been elected a Member of the House. 
 
 Speaker Clark. I would have appointed him parliamentary clerk 
 without any hesitancy Avhatever. 
 
 Mr. Mann. I have always supposed that, and I advised Mr. Hinds, 
 when he talked to me about running for Congress, that of course that 
 was his privilege, but in my judgment if he desired to remain par- 
 liamentary clerk of the House he would retain that position, whoeA^er 
 was Speaker or whicheA^er party was in control, as long as he desired 
 to and kept out of politics, and that Avas because of his known fair- 
 ness and his ability, his experience, and his knowledge of parlia- 
 mentary law. 
 
60 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 If we had some one either under the provisions of the pending bill 
 or in some other way to whom committees could go for guidance or 
 aid, it would be of great assistance. But, bear this in mind, gen- 
 tlemen: We are the legislative bodies; we are responsible for our 
 legislation. With a membership that has been constantly enlarged 
 for many years, the tendency in our own legislative body as now con- 
 stituted is to shift responsibility, is to escape the burdens of legisla- 
 tion, is to let some one else do the legislative work. I would not 
 want to see any movement which would make committees feel less 
 responsibility for the work that they do so that a committee would 
 be able to say, " This is recommended by the parliamentary adviser 
 or the congressional adviser, and therefore it should be accepted." 
 All that the adviser can do is to advise as to form and effect. We 
 had a case in the House the other day where a bill was proposed on 
 the Unanimous Consent Calendar, where I objected to the then con- 
 sideration of the bill. It was the fourth attempt, three laws having 
 been passed prior upon the same subject, to grant relief to something 
 less than a hundred people who at one time settled upon what they 
 supposed was the public domain, but which was afterwards declared 
 to be railroad propert3^ If the first bill had been drafted by a com- 
 petent official in the Department of the Interior and had been recom- 
 mended by the head of the department as being sufficient to meet the 
 emergency, they would probably have so construed the law after it 
 was passed. That department ought to have in its service a com- 
 petent parliamentary assistant, fully familiar with the rules of the 
 House, fully familiar with the forms of legislation and the pro- 
 cedure in reference to legislation, because they are co constantly 
 called upon. 
 
 We have rules under which we proceed in the consideration of ap- 
 propriation bills; we have rules under which bills coming before 
 Congress are referred to different committees. The proposition 
 involving, for instance, authority to construct a new lighthouse 
 goes to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce ; an ap- 
 propriation for the construction of a new lighthouse comes through 
 the Committee on Appropriations; and although I have labored for 
 years to teach the old Lighthouse Board and the present lighthouse 
 commissioner the fact that they ought always to keep in mind the 
 separate jurisdiction of those committees, they do not know the dis- 
 tinction yet, and probably never will learn it. The same is true of 
 every department of the Government. It makes a great deal of 
 trouble and often defeats what they wish. It is a constant ex- 
 perience in the House that departments which wish some new au- 
 thority put it in the estimates of appropriations. Those estimates 
 are sent to the Committee on Appropriations which has no juris- 
 diction on the subject, there being no authority of law for the making 
 of such an appropriation, and they having no authority to recom- 
 mend an appropriation unless it is authorized by law, whereas if 
 the departments would recognize the distinctions of jurisdiction as 
 laid down b}^ the rules they would properly address their requests 
 so that they would be referred to the proper committees. 
 
 A few years ago — I hope I won't become too garrulous — I became 
 interested in the subject of excluding smoking opium from the coun- 
 try. A gentleman connected with tlie Department of State brought 
 me a bill to introduce, having prepared it partly at my request and 
 
CONGRESSIONAL EEFEKENCE BUREAU. 61 
 
 partly at his own suggestion. I am so constituted that I dislike to 
 examine any bill until it is in bill form and very rarely look at a 
 typewritten copy that I do not prepare myself. I introduced that 
 bill. It had been prepared after the plan of Canadian laws and our 
 jurisdiction is quite different than the Canadian Parliament. I 
 had a hearing upon the bill in the committee and the hearing had 
 not proceeded, I think, more than two minutes before some of the 
 very bright men on our committee discovered that we had absolutely 
 no jurisdiction over most of the features of the bill. I called atten- 
 tion of the State Department to the fact and asked them if they 
 would not draw a bill that would at least be constitutional. The bill 
 was brought to me a second time. I asked whether the head of the 
 department had passed upon it and was given — I will not say I was 
 " given to understand " — I understood, however, that he had, and I 
 looked at that bill, and it was equally bad with the first one. I then 
 tried my own hand at preparing a bill, and while I was not fully 
 convinced, afterwards, that Mr. Payne, of New York, was correct, 
 I was not convinced that he was incorrect when he found that just as 
 full of holes as I had found the other. [Laughter.] 
 
 I do not know whether a congressional adviser would have pre- 
 pared a bill in proper form or not. It is quite likely that a force of 
 men who were in the habit of preparing bills and picking out the 
 flaw^s in propositions would have drawn a bill properly. 
 
 I do not loiow whether the adviser should be under the control of 
 the Librarian of Congress. I have considerable doubt whether an 
 adviser to committees should not be appointed directly by the House 
 itself. 
 
 The Chairman. An advisory committee? 
 
 Mr. Mann. An adviser to the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Mann. If it could be understood that such a person would 
 not change with a change of parties in the House, where the work 
 was satisfactory. Of course, it often happens that confidential work 
 is done by committees in the House, and a committee would want to 
 know that the man who was advising as to form would not disclose 
 the information. When I was chairman of the Committee on In- 
 terstate Commerce in the House and the last railroad bill was up for 
 consideration — possibly giving a little experience would be of some 
 value — I had myself asked the President that the Attorney General 
 should put in concrete form certain recommendations of various com- 
 mercial organizations for amending the railroad law or the com- 
 merce act. That Avas done. I believe Brother Nelson and some of 
 the other gentlemen criticized them for doing it, but I thought it w^as 
 proper. That form was presented to me, or the draft of that. I did 
 not entirely agree with the propositions in it, even in the concrete 
 form, and I drafted a bill of my own. In drafting a bill of that kind 
 one gathers together all the information he can upon the subject, 
 and that information will consist very largely not only of his knowl- 
 edge of the principles involved but knowledge of all bills upon the 
 subject which have been introduced. When that bill came up in the 
 committee many amendments were proposed. We took the method of 
 having every amendment printed before it was finally passed upon 
 by the committee. Amendments were presented, printed, and laid 
 before the members of the committee, and every step that we took 
 
62 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 where any change was made in any section of the bill that section was 
 at once printed with the change which was made and where changes 
 w^ere suggested by amendments we printed that section to show the 
 section as it was, to show the laAV as it existed that the section pro- 
 posed to amend, and to show the change that would be made by the 
 amendment that was proposed. In connection with committee work 
 it is very essential on important bills. 
 
 Before that bill came up I had asked the then district attorney of 
 Chicago, Mr. Sims, and the present district attorney at Chicago,'Mr. 
 AVilkerson, both of whom were engaged more or less in enforcing 
 provisions of the interstate commerce act, to go over various phases 
 of the proposed changes and give me information in regard to it. 
 Of course they were not obliged to do that, but both being personal 
 friends of mine and having information before them they did that, 
 so that when the bill came up for consideration I had a brief pre- 
 pared on most of the subjects that were in the bill. When that bill 
 passed the House I asked the Attorney General of the United States 
 to detail Mr. Wilkerson, who was then an acting Assistant Attorney 
 General, located at Chicago, to Washington under my supervision 
 and control; and, after some question in reference to it, that was 
 done. Mr. Wilkerson, coming here, made a brief for me upon every 
 controverted proposition in the bill or every proposition that was 
 likely to be controverted between the House and the Senate — such 
 things as the long-and-short-haul clause — and various other pro- 
 visions that we had inserted in the bill. It was invaluable assistance 
 to me, knowing that probably I would be at the head of the 
 House conferees if the bill went into conference and while the bill 
 was in conference, although certain gentlemen in town were here t( 
 aid the conferees in behalf of some of the railroad companies, I die 
 not require their assistance, because I had a very competent man, 
 entirely disinterested, at my service, who was willing to -work, both 
 night and day, to acquire information upon any proposition involved 
 in dispute. A parliamentary assistant or a congressional adviser 
 who can help in matters of that sort is invaluable. Of course, in this 
 particular case, I had secured a man who was competent to help me ; 
 but it is not always ]Dossible to do that. 
 
 I drew the white-slave law that is upon the statutes. I asked these 
 same gentlemen, in Chicago — they having prosecuted a number of 
 white-slave cases under the old law, which was declared unconstitu- 
 tional by the Supreme Court — to give me suggestions in reference to 
 a bill upon the subject under the commerce clause of the Constitution. 
 Those gentlemen prepared for me, I think, three different drafts of 
 a bill, and while I did not use any of them to introduce the last draft 
 that was prepared for me, and the others for that matter, were be- 
 fore me and, after a stud}^ of those, I prepared the bill that was 
 finally enacted different in form from any of the drafts which had 
 been presented, but it would have been very difficult, I think, for me, 
 or anyone else, to have prepared the bill which was finally enacted 
 without the assistance of these other gentlemen in making their sug- 
 gestions, bringing into the consideration of the preparation of the bill 
 different minds, looking at the proposition at different angles. Every 
 committee of the House, as a rule, refers bills that especially relate 
 to the jurisdiction of the different departments to departments for 
 opinions, and you gentlemen understand that I am inclined to be 
 
CONGRESSIOISrAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 63 
 
 very insistent that a bill relating to the public lands shall be referred 
 and be reported upon by the Commissioner of Public Lands through 
 the Department of the Interior ; that bills relating to Indian affairs 
 take a similar course; and that various bills that come before the 
 committee, involving in any way the jurisdiction of different de- 
 partments or the work in different departments, shall go to those 
 departments. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Mr. Mann, may I ask you a question ? As far as the 
 general purposes of this bill are concerned, I believe the committee 
 are well agreed, but just how to draw the bill itself without having 
 this already established — this reference bureau — is just now before 
 us. I want to ask you concrete questions. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Just let me finish my statement about this other point. 
 I do not wish the impression to go into the record that I give too 
 much influence to a report of a department in reference to a bill. 
 While I want the reports of the departments upon the bill I do not 
 want them to control me or anybody else. That is simply for in- 
 formation; that is all any adviser can do — is to give practical in- 
 formation. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do you believe that it would be advisable to have the 
 head of this bureau appointed by the Speaker or Librarian — to get 
 right down to " brass tacks " — or by any other person ? Wliat would 
 be your suggestion ? 
 
 Mr. IVIann. Wliichever way you do, a matter of this sort is neces- 
 sarily a matter of growth. You can plant a seed in the ground and 
 it develops and comes into a plant, and after while bursts into bloom, 
 but legislation does not proceed in that way. You have got to build 
 one thing upon another before you attain any final resiilt. I do not 
 think it is so very important whether this congressional adviser 
 should be appointed by the Speaker or by the Librarian, in the first 
 instance, because we shall soon ascertain in regard to that. I should 
 be inclined to favor the appointment of such an adviser in the first 
 instance by the Speaker, but it depends upon how far it is to go and 
 what it is to do. 
 
 Mr. Evans. "What you said a moment ago is the next thing we want 
 to ask you about, in regard to the confidence that you may have or 
 any one party may have in some one of this department whom they 
 would employ. For that purpose, would you advise that each party 
 in the House have control of a certain number of appointments 
 among the assistants to the chief of this bureau, so that you could 
 say, for instance, " Xow, so and so is a Republican over there : go and 
 get him " ? 
 
 ^Ir. Mann. Well, I should not think that necessary at all. I think 
 that any organization of this sort, if it is to be of an}^ value, will be 
 practically nonpartisan. I can see no reason why the minority, under 
 the theory that I have in my head, should have anything to do with 
 having special persons employed, and I do not believe that in matters 
 of this sort any majority in the House would be inclined to make 
 partisan appointments. Of course, if that were done, it would de- 
 strojT^ the efficiency of such a service. 
 
 Mr. Eaans. Then, to what did you refer when you spoke of the 
 confidence that you would have to have in some one drawing these 
 bills that they would not disclose the information ? If not disclosed 
 to the opposite party, what had you in mind ? 
 
64 CONGRESSIONAL. EEFEBENCE BUEEAU. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Unless such a party when organized can be treated 
 ■with absolute confidence 
 
 Mr. Evans. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Mann. By the majority party with the power and responsi- 
 bility and legislation will not be effective. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand what you mean — that it must not 
 be bipartisan, but should be absolutely nonpartisan, if it is to be 
 effective. 
 
 Mr. Mann. It should, certainly; and it should not attempt to dis- 
 pose of those matters which are partisan. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is the question we had before us, because we have 
 two bills, one proceeding on one theory 
 
 Mr. Mann. I did not know 
 
 Mr. Evans. And one by which each party in the House names so 
 many assistants to the chief of the department. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Well, of course, that is an entirely different theory. 
 Take the minority at present — oh, it might be very comfortable for 
 the minority leader to have somebody who would hunt up informa- 
 tion to bother the majority, but I can see no reason why that should 
 be done. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Evans. You have stated the case. 
 
 Mr. Mann. The committees as a rule, outside of the Ways and 
 Means Committee in reporting a tariff bill, where necessarily they 
 act in a partisan capacity under the existing theory of tariff' legisla- 
 tion — as a rule the committees are not partisan. Sometimes the ma- 
 jority members of a committee may meet together and agree upon 
 something. That usually comes through either lack of experience 
 or uncertainty in reference to the proposition; but a committee 
 usually, with members from both sides, treat many matters in confi- 
 dence in the consideration of bills. They are quite competent to do 
 that. 
 
 Is there any thing further, Mr. Chairman? I have taken up more 
 time than I intended. 
 
 The Chairman. I want to ask you one question. It may have 
 been asked by some gentleman during the few minutes I was called 
 out. You heard Mr. Bryce's speech yesterday ? 
 
 Mr. Mann. I did. 
 
 The Chairman. And you heard him tell about the functions of 
 the parliamentary counsel, the most important of which, it seemed 
 to me, was the advice that he was able to give, speaking in the Eng- 
 lish sense of the word, as to the probable effect of any proposed bills, 
 what laws it would repeal, what it would modify— legal counsel, in 
 other words. Do you not think that that would be an extremely 
 desirable feature to have in such a bureau as is contemplated? 
 
 Mr. Mann. Oh, well, that is necessarily the part of any legisla- 
 tion, and every committee considers that. This should be remem- 
 bered in connection with the English proposition: First, that their 
 situation is entirely different as to the method of legislation: and, 
 second, that they have comparatively little legislating to do. Their 
 country is not vast like ours; they do not have the problems of a 
 new community like we have. Three-fourths of our laAvs relate to 
 matters which the English Government have nothing to do with at 
 
CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 65 
 
 all or anything similar to do. Take, for instance, the matter of 
 private bills. They have a very simple method, but absolutely 
 inapplicable to our country, owing to tKe extent of the territory. It 
 would be quite silly to say that somebody who wanted to construct 
 a bridge across a stream in the State of Washington would have to 
 send somebody down here to appear before a committee and make 
 an argument in favor of it when no one was opposed to it; and 
 yet that is their system. ^ 
 
 Mr. Nelsox. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. In trying to follow up the nonpolitical, scientific 
 idea of getting an assistant of Congress who would help and not 
 be swayed by partisanship we tried to figure out in some way his 
 appointment. The Speaker then could not appoint without the 
 Senate having something to say. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Why is that necessary unless you are going to con- 
 tinue to play second fiddle to the Senate, as we have for a great 
 many years? 
 
 Mr. Mann. Well, of course, if the body was for the House only 
 the Speaker could appoint. If this adviser was to be for the House 
 and the Senate, of course, the Speaker could not make the appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You know the other suggestions — they are that the 
 Chief Justice appoint and that the President appoint. Those are 
 all the suggestions we have before us. 
 
 Mr. Mann. I should not be in favor of the President appointing 
 or the Chief Justice appointing, although the President appoints the 
 Librarian. I do not think he ought to appoint; I do not think he 
 ought to rest under the charge that at any time he was endeavoring 
 to influence legislation. 
 
 Mr. Evans. The Chief Justice ought not to appoint for more 
 important reasons. 
 
 Mr. Mann. And he ought not to appoint either. I will say this: 
 I do not think any Speaker we ever have known in the House in 
 making appointments for positions of this sort would at all violate 
 the proprieties of the occasion any more than in the appointment of 
 stenographers in the House. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you want to ask him another question, Mr. 
 Nelson ? 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Just one other question. Could not this be arranged 
 this way, Mr. Mann — I just want to get the practical worldng of it: 
 If the librarian, who is out of politics and is in a nonpartisan posi- 
 tion, appoints, in the first place, could not the Speaker designate 
 some one assistant out of the corps of experts to assist the House, 
 and some functionary in the Senate secure a special expert to assist 
 the Senate, and in that way work it out? I just want to get your 
 ideas on the best method. 
 
 Mr. Mann. I have a good deal of doubt about the advisability, 
 myself, of having the House and Senate use the same people. 
 
 The Chairman. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Mann. 
 
 Mr, Mann. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have detained you. 
 
 Speaker Clark. That is all right. 
 
 40J35— 12 5 
 
66 CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. CHAMP CLARK, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE 
 OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 Speaker Clark. Mr, Chairman and gentlemen, the reason I wanted 
 Brother Mann to go ahead is because he is an absolute master of 
 details, and is one of the ablest and most painstaking Members of 
 Congress that I have ever known. I am in favor of the principle 
 of this bill, because we need experts to draw bills, and then it would 
 be a labor-saving contrivance. Hunting up facts, and verifying 
 bills and collating data is simply a work of drudgery. It may in- 
 volve a good deal of intelligence, but, nevertheless, that is exactly 
 what it is. I know that one time at home, in my own library, which 
 is a prety good one for a countr}^ place, I wanted to use the exact 
 words of the Wilmot proviso, because I was writing an article in 
 which I desired to lay down this proposition : That Wilmot made a 
 greater reputation out of a fewer number of words than any other 
 man Avho has figured in American history. I had something like 
 50 books in that library which gave the substance of the Wilmot 
 proviso. Of course, I knew what the substance was before I began. 
 It took me a half day to verif}^ and get the exact quotation that I 
 wanted. 
 
 Practice makes perfect, and men come to be experts and the experts 
 are the most valuable part of society. Brother Mann cited the case 
 of Mr. Courts. I do not believe that any man could be appointed 
 chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that would think of 
 dispensing with Courts. 
 
 If Mr. Hinds had not been elected to Congress I would have un- 
 hesitatingly appointed him parliamentary clerk, as it is called, for 
 two reasons : He knows more about parliamentary laAv than any other 
 man in America, and I had perfect confidence in his integrity. I 
 was really sorry when he was nominated for Congress, because I 
 believed then we were going to carry the House and I would be 
 elected Speaker. ^¥hen I found I was going to be elected I began 
 hunting up a parliamentary clerk, because I supposed that the par- 
 liamentary experts on the Republican side Avould give me a good 
 deal of trouble, which they have not done and for which I am truly 
 grateful. Naturally, in making an appointment in the first instance, 
 if you can find a man of your own political complexion, you would 
 take him. So I undertook to find out what Democrats in the United 
 States had had any considerable experience with the rules of the 
 House. Of course, you could find multitudinous persons who had 
 had to do with State legislatures, but that is not at all parallel. I 
 could only find two; one of them was disqualified partially by his 
 physical condition. I inquired into the character and habits of 
 Judge Crisp. I knew him when he was a good deal younger here, in 
 my first term. I found that he was sober, that he had been a judge 
 down in (ieorgia for a good while, and I appointed him. Now, he is 
 rimning for Congress with pretty fair prospects of being nominated, 
 as I luiderstand it. 
 
 Mr. Mann. He is a good parliamentary clerk? 
 
 Speaker Clark. Yes ; he is a most excellent one and a very fine man. 
 If he would take my advice— if he would ask — I would tell him to 
 stick to this job that he has, and the chances are that whoever suc- 
 ceeds me would appoint him, because he is a most estimable, active, 
 
CONGRESSIONAL. EEFERENCE BUREAU. 67 
 
 and careful, painstaking gentleman, kind, polite, and accommodat- 
 ing. I think he could be parliamentary clerk as long as he lives. 
 
 In addition to this, I kept another employee, and that is Neal, the 
 Speaker's messenger; and while no man in this world is indespen- 
 sible, Neal is almost invaluable. Of course, I had to have faith in his 
 integrity, and I consulted Speaker Cannon about it and he said he 
 was absolutely reliable. A good many things go on in the Speaker's 
 room which should not be blazoned to the world — confidential con- 
 versations in working for the public good. He is just as careful as 
 he can be. Mr. Speaker Randall brought him here, and every 
 Speaker has had him since, and he told my son one day, a year or two 
 ago that as long as an old Member of the House was elected Speaker 
 he did not have much doubt about keeping his place; that the only 
 fear that he had was that some brand new Member would get elected 
 some day that " did not know Joseph," and that would be the end 
 of it. 
 
 The law provides that those stenographers over there shall not 
 be discharged except for cause; and that is a very good provision, 
 too. Nobody thinks about those men exercising any partisan feeling. 
 
 As to the matter of this bureau, I agree with brother Mann on 
 another proposition, that there ought to be one for the House and one 
 for the Senate, if you are going to have one. I do not want to mix 
 up with the Senate in such matters. My own judgment about it is 
 that the manager of the bureau ought to be appointed by the House 
 or the Speaker — I do not care anything about appointing him my- 
 self. He ought to be responsible to the House. It is the business of 
 the House. I would not think for a minute of allowing the President 
 or the Chief Justice to appoint him. That would be out of the ques- 
 tion and surely he ought to be appointed by either the House or the 
 Librarian of Congress. 
 
 I have had 19 years' experience in legislative bodies- — 17 in the 
 House and 2 in the Missouri Legislature. The power of accurate 
 definition is one of the severest tests of a well-trained mind. There 
 is no question about that in the world. Take a man who has an 
 idea of a law on a certain subject, but without the power of accurate 
 definition, and he will draw it up in such a loose way that any law- 
 yer of ordinary intelligence can pick it to pieces in court. There is 
 no sense in passing that sort of a law. Six or eight years ago there 
 was one committee in the House which had a great many bills, which 
 drew them in a very slovenly manner, and I fell afoul of one of 
 them one day and made 25 verbal changes in that one bill. Every- 
 body agreed to the amendments as soon as I would suggest them for 
 the purpose of clearing up the obscurities of the language. Some 
 people's minds are muddled anyway. I got started on that com- 
 mittee on that bill, and for three or four months I made it my habit 
 just simply to pick their bills when they come in and go after them 
 about these obscurities. 
 
 A bureau of this sort properly conducted would be of very great 
 value to Members of the House. They should do what a lawyer 
 does, make up the briefs; and the division of labor has come to be 
 one of the greatest features of our civilization. 
 
 There was a very bright young man from my congressional dis- 
 trict who graduated at the Harvard Law School, and then went to 
 New York and there was very lucky in getting employment at $1,500 
 
68 COisTGHESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 a year, Ayhich was a vei\y good start for a youngster, in one of the 
 biggest law offices in New York. In two or three years they raised 
 Kis salary to $2,000, and in two more years to $2,500; and, very much 
 to my surprise, he resigned from that place and set up a practice for 
 himself. I asked him one day wliat made him do it. He said they 
 turned over to him all that big firm's negotiable paper. That was 
 his sole business; that was all he had to do; and that he might stay 
 there for 40 years under that arrangement and not be fit to be a gen- 
 eral practitioner. 
 
 Take the most active Member in the House, and he gets to be a 
 sort of an expert in his own committee work — Mr. Sherley, for in- 
 stance, and members of the Appropriations Committee. I would be 
 very much puzzled if somebody asked me to draw an appropriation 
 bill, but two years ago, when tlie same was fresh in my mind, I would 
 not have had any hesitancy whatever in sitting down at a table Avith 
 the books I could gather and draw a tariff bill there for any one of the 
 14 schedules, or one for the entire 14, with some hope of the people 
 considering it a consistent or symmetrical bill, because I had studied 
 about that thing so long that I had all the facts and figures at hand. 
 So that the valuable legislator comes to be an expert. My judgment 
 about it is that the men in this bureau, if established, would soon 
 get to be experts in the drawing of bills and in the collating of the 
 precedents about the bills and so on, and relieve the Members of the 
 House of a vast amount of work. For those reasons, I am in favor 
 of some kind of a bureau of this description. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You then would believe that the head of the bureau 
 should be a man of experience as a lawyer and of legislative expe- 
 rience, if possible, and what is called a high-priced man? 
 
 Speaker Clark. Why, certainly I do. If you are not going to 
 have that kind of a man you had just as well not have the bureau 
 at all. 
 
 Mr. Evans. We have bills here presented to us for low-priced men. 
 
 Speaker Clark. Oh, once in awhile you come across a man of the 
 very highest capacity who is so in love Avith the particular kind of 
 work that he will -work at it for the love of the thing. Mr. Dill, a 
 laAvyer in New Jersey, who made a million dollars out of draAving 
 corporation papers, who had an enormous practice, and Avho made 
 $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000 a year, deliberately gave up 
 that Avork to accept a judgeship in New Jersey that only paid him 
 $10,000 a year. That Avas because he loA^ed the work he was going 
 into. My own opinion about it is that the cheapest man you can get 
 is the most expert one, and, so far as the politics of it is concerned, it 
 ought to be absolutely diA^orced from politics. 
 
 Mr. Ea'ans. The point you raised, I should appreciate, is that if 
 that man is to be paid a salary, of $10,000 a year there Avill be a fight 
 OA^er in that House on that proposition so sure as Ave report it. 
 
 Speaker Clark. I Avould not pay him any $10,000 a year. I do 
 not think anybody around here ought to be paid more than a Mem- 
 ber of Congress is paid except the judges of the Supreme Court and 
 the President. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I do not know as you can get that ability for less, if 
 it has not the honor attached to it that is to being a Member of 
 Congress. 
 
 Speaker Clark. I am not sure whether that is true or not. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 69 
 
 Mr. Evans. I do not believe the salary brings anybody here. 
 
 Speaker Clark. Salaries do not bring most of the Congressmen 
 here. 
 
 Mr. Mann. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that whoever they get for 
 this work will have to be trained in the work? 
 
 Speaker Clark. Why, certainly he will. 
 
 Mr. Mann. There is no one — you could not employ anybody in 
 the United States to-day that I know of who could start in and 
 be qualified without considerable training. 
 
 Speaker Clakk. No; but I can pick out five or six men in the 
 House, if they would accept the place, who would soon develop into 
 experts sure enough. Of course I would not think of taking Brother 
 Mann out of the House, but he is qualified right now. [Laughter.] 
 And if you could get Mr. Hinds to turn his mind onto this kind of a 
 thing instead of parliamentary procedure, he would soon become an 
 expert; and I can name a dozen others who would become experts; 
 and this business is a very rare kind of business. 
 
 I have to go now, because I have another engagement. 
 
 The Chairman. AYe are very much obliged to you. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Mr. Sherley, who has an appropriation bill on hand, 
 is here, and I would like to have him say something before he has 
 to go. 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. SWAGAR SHERLEY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
 
 FROM KENTUCKY. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately did not hear the 
 testimony before the committee yesterday, and so do not know just 
 what range it took, and may omit some matters the committee is in- 
 terested in and also duplicate some that have been discussed. Per- 
 haps it is needless to say to this committee that all of us having had 
 any experience in legislative Avork realize the need for some agency 
 of some sort to help Congress in its now multifarious duties. It was 
 my lot, along with other members on the joint committee of the House 
 and the Senate to codify all of the penal laws of the United States 
 and to also codify what is known as the judicial title. Xo man could 
 have gone through that work without being impressed with the ab- 
 sence of any scientific method in the wording of statutes: with the 
 frequent repetition of matters; with statutes enacted in direct con- 
 flict with existing earlier statutes, and yet without any desire or 
 knowledge on the part of the makers of the later statute of having 
 repealed or modified the previous one. I was so much impressed 
 with that situation that I introduced a resolution in the House some 
 years ago and reintroduced it at this session, authorizing the Speaker 
 to appoint a clerk that should correspond to substantive law as the 
 parliamentary clerk does to the parliamentary law. Xow, it seems to 
 me from what little of the discussion I have heard to-day. that there 
 are ideas embodied in these various bills that present somewhat dif- 
 ferent considerations. 
 
 One is the idea of such a clerk who shall aid Congress in the forma- 
 tion of the language of statutes; who shall be an expert on form. 
 The other is a reference bureau that shall gather together for the 
 use of Congress and its membership information on A-arious subjects 
 that are to be legislated on. While those two objects merge, they yet 
 represent somewhat different matters that should be treated some- 
 
70 CONGRESSIONAL REFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 what in a different way. As to the reference bureau, there should be 
 no great difficulty. You simply want here a corps of men sufficiently 
 trained to give to Congress, or to a proper number of Members on 
 request, data touching any particular question. In a sense the 
 Library of Congress is supposed to supply that thing now. Prac- 
 ticalh' it does not supplj^^ it at all. It may be somewhat the fault of 
 Congress and the Members of Congress, but by having a small corps 
 of men, whose duties pertain only to the demands of Congress, I 
 think you could create a body that could gather together data — could 
 be not the mind of Congress, but, so to speak, the hands and the eyes 
 and the ears of Congress, because all of us, as our work increases 
 Avith longer tenure, realize the impossibility of making the investiga- 
 tion that we would like to do before coming to a conclusion. No one 
 desires to have Congress have some other body doing its thinking, 
 but all of us would like to have the data collected that would enable 
 us to arrive at better conclusions. 
 
 Mr. TcwNSEND. May I interrupt a moment? That is a point I am 
 ver}^ much interested in. Does this provision satisfy you on that 
 point — it is section 4 of the bill, page 2 ? I will read it [reading] : 
 
 That it shall be the duty of the said bureau to gather, classify, and make 
 available in translations, indexes, digests, compilations, and bulletins, and . 
 otherwise, data for or bearing upon legislation, and to render such data 
 serviceable to Congress. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. I am inclined to think that language is compre- 
 hensible enough, but I think this is apparent : You are not going to 
 be able, by any law that you pass here, to properly define the duties 
 of any such body. It is going to be a matter of growth, and I do 
 not give a " rap," if I may use the expression, for the particular lan- 
 guage creating the corps, provided it is created with enough leeway 
 to do the work that shall develop jfrom year to year. It is absolutely 
 impossible for us here to so forecast the future as to write into rigid 
 law the limitations on a reference body of this kind. Create it — 
 create it of men that shall be competent, and forget the politics 
 of it. I do not care whether every one of them are supposedly Re- 
 publicans or supposedly Democrats, provided they are men of such 
 type of mind as will make them seek the truth and give the truth to 
 Congress, and the idea of having a bipartisan commission is, to my 
 mind, fatally defective. The very moment you classify the member- 
 ship of such a corps by political designation that moment yoli appeal 
 to the partisan spirit of the two sides in Congress to use the men of 
 their persuasion in that corps to offset any contention that may be 
 made by members of the opposite political party, and if the corps 
 is to be'of the slightest value on earth it must stand forth as a non- 
 partisan body, presenting simply information and not conclusions. 
 We do not want a body that will find for Congress conclusions, ay 
 such, in my judgment. You want a body that will classify and 
 digest and bring in a practicable, usable form the information that 
 we, as individuals, have not the time and sometimes not the talent 
 to gather. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Or opportunity. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Sherley, you say you did not hear the discus- 
 sion yesterday. That discussion contained precisely the two ideas you 
 now "submit— that is, for the form and then for the preparation of 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 71 
 
 data for the information and not for conclusion. Those are the two 
 general conclusions that have been covered by everybody here. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. As to the form of legislation, it seems to me that at 
 least one man should be on the floor of the House during sessions, 
 and always subject to call of committees that are reporting bills, or 
 conference committees, that we may establish a proper, clear form 
 for the law. after the policy that the law is to indicate has been 
 agreed upon. For instance, it happened yesterday on the fortification 
 bill, and will probably happen to-day, the offering of an amendment 
 by a gentleman to the bill. He is desirous of accomplishing a par- 
 ticular thing. The House may or may not agree with that, but cer- 
 tainly if the House agreed to it it ought to want the accomplishment 
 of that particular thing to be worded in language that would leave 
 no question of doubt, but in the hurry of preparation on the floor 
 that is almost impossible. Now, you could gradually train a man 
 to be something of a " wing shot " in work of this kind. It is surprising 
 how my little Avork of codification taught me the use of certain 
 phrases, and unconsciously I use those phrases where they are appli- 
 cable. The same thing would happen to a man who was in this ref- 
 erence bureau, just as we realize the wonderful expertness that Mr. 
 Hinds had as parliamentary clerk and that Mr. Crisp now has. 
 
 Such a man could aid Congress during its session simply by en- 
 abling a Member who wanted to offer a resolution to submit it to 
 such officer, and he could indicate, frequently in a moment or two, 
 what some of us sometimes do on the floor, the changes that ought 
 to be made in order to make it clear. 
 
 I have tried to think of some process by which we could, before 
 a law became final, submit it to a committee, so to speak, on "style," 
 but I have seen no plan that is practicable. I wish that such a plan 
 was possible under our system of Government. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I interrupt to ask a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Nelson, I would simply say that that point was what I tried 
 to cover in the bill, by saying: "That space and equipment for the 
 bureau shall be provided in the Library Building, in addition to such 
 space and equipment as may be desirable in the Capitol and Senate 
 and House Office Buildings," thinking that the branches of the refer- 
 ence bureau and the representatives of the drafting department 
 ought to be in each branch at once available for Congress instantly. 
 
 The Chairman. At hand? 
 
 Mr. Nelson, At hand, but in connection with the main branch in 
 the Library, so that there would not be the duplication, because 
 what affects one branch would have to be used in the other on the 
 same bill, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. Mr. Chairman, I am more particularly concerned 
 in the reform of the form of our law than I am in the reference 
 bureau, although that may not seem a proper position. I realize 
 the need of greater information on the part of Congress before it 
 legislates, but I realize more than that the absolute necessity of so 
 wording statutes that they shall be understandable. Half of the 
 attacks that are directed against the courts of the land to-day are 
 made possible because of the crudity of the laws that are sent into 
 the courts for adjudication and consideration. Practically everj'' in- 
 
72 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 stance where a court has been accused of writing something into the 
 law, is a case where the legishxture has crudely and inadequately ex- 
 pressed a purpose, and unless we can do something to make the 
 expression more accurate under our system of Government, we are 
 going to more and more throw upon the court the onerous duty, and 
 at times the unpopular duty, of d.eclaring what a law is or rather 
 what it is not, and thereby bringing upon it the odium of the 
 thoughtless, who, assuming that a law means something when it does 
 not mean it, or has not said it clearly, think that the court in de- 
 ciding otherwise has usurped the function of the legislative branch. 
 And, therefore, I am particularly desirous that whatever program 
 mRj be suggested shall carry with it the idea of having some one 
 man, or a corps of men, whose duty it shall primarily be, perhaps, 
 exclusively be, to aid Congress in the form of its law; and while I 
 am in accord with the idea of having also a corps that shall aid us 
 in information and in gathering facts for the use of Congress, the 
 other is, to my mind, very much more important. One of the dis- 
 graces of the legal profession of the country is that half the litiga- 
 tion is because of the crudity of wording of statutes, and nearly the 
 other half is due to the ignorance of members of the legal profession 
 in the use of the tools of their trade; in other words, in procedure 
 and the rights that their clients have under the law as established. 
 That is a reproach to our civilization, and something ought to be 
 done looking to correct the one branch of it that we are in a sense 
 responsible for. 
 
 I have not examined in detail these bills, and had no opportunity 
 to do it, being very busy in appropriation work, but I should hope 
 that this committee will see fit to report some measure carrying out 
 these ideas. 
 
 If there is any particular matter that I can express an opinion on 
 for the benefit of the committee I will be very glad to do it ; other- 
 wise, I thank you for the opportunity. 
 
 The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, there are two heads of depart- 
 ments 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Nelson, permit me to suggest, before you call 
 another witness that the committee has other engagements, and it 
 should be on the floor of the House at noon, and there are other 
 committee hearings ahead; and with every desire to hear these gen- 
 tlemen just as elaborately as they would care to speak, it is hardly 
 practicable to do so, and if they can condense their remarks into a 
 comparatively brief space of time it would be a desirable thing to 
 do. I think I voice the sentiment of the committee in that. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I shall ask, then, that the speakers Avill limit them- 
 selves to 10 minutes and that will give us 30 minutes before 1-2 o'clock. 
 
 The Chairman. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I would like to hear from Mr. E. Dana Durand, 
 Director of the Census, who I believe Avas trained in one of these 
 reference bureaus somewhat, and who can make this point clear, 
 which I have thought very important: That the vast resources of in- 
 formation at hand in these departments might, through a clearing- 
 house idea like this reference bureau, be at our service without any 
 expenditure of energy or time, and I would like to have Mr. Durand 
 and Mr. Neal talk on that subject. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 73 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. E. DANA DURAND, DIRECTOR OF THE 
 UNITED STATES CENSUS. 
 
 Mr. DuRAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as 
 has been suggested, I had at one time some experience in work of 
 this character in Albany, where the plan of collecting information 
 for convenience of the legislature had recently then been introduced. 
 I may say that it was such a new plan that it did not cover any- 
 thing like as wide a field as it now does or as is proposed in this bill. 
 The main function at that time was making a complete index of the 
 statutes passed each year by the various States in order that the 
 Legislature of the State of Is'ew York — and for that matter others, 
 for we published the results — would have a way of finding out what 
 had been done on each particular subject. 
 
 The index stated the substance of the legislation but of necessity 
 in such brief form that it would be quite necessary for one who 
 wanted to know thoroughly what was going on to look up the full 
 statutes, but it was at least an index by which the information could 
 readily be found. 
 
 Aside from the desirability, in my opinion, of similarly indexing 
 the most important legislation- — not necessarily all of the legisla- 
 tion — of the leading foreign countries, and aside from other, it 
 has seemed to me functions that such a proposed bureau could 
 perform could be very useful to Members of Congress in enabling 
 them to get promptly and fully the information Avhich is already 
 available in the posesssion of the different Government departments 
 in their reports and in their files. 
 
 The departments and bureaus of the Government are somewhat 
 intricate in organization. One can not always be sure, from the 
 mere n-ame of a bureau, just what subjects it covers and what differ- 
 ent classes of information it may possess, and Members of Congress 
 and others are very much at a loss often to know where to get infor- 
 mation on a subject, although they know that that information prob- 
 ably exists in some bureau. 
 
 At the Census Bureau we get from Members of Congress practi- 
 cally every day requests, sometimes for information for their own 
 personal use in connection with legislation, in other cases merely for 
 the convenience of their constituents. Frequently these requests are 
 for information which our bureau does not possess, but which the 
 Member of Congress assumes that we probably do possess or can re- 
 fer him to. We have requests for information that ought to go to 
 the Bureau of Labor or Bureau of Statistics or Bureau of Manufac- 
 tures or to the Geological Survey or to the Department of Agricul- 
 ture — all coming to us. We either look up the information from the 
 reports of the proper bureau as best Ave can or more often we refer 
 the Congressman to the proper bureau. 
 
 Now. that wastes time, and if, perchance, we do not happen to 
 know — and we do not pretend to be infallible — where that informa- 
 tion exists we may make incorrect reference or may suggest that the 
 information does not exist when it does exist. 
 
 It seems to me that an organization of the sort that is proposed in 
 this bill could keep an index — not an exceedingly detailed index, but 
 
74 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 an index of main subjects^ — of each of the reports issued by Govern- 
 ment departments and bureaus, and also more or less of an index of 
 the current activities of each of the bureaus, not yet appearing in 
 their published reports. It would then be in position, when any 
 question arose as to information likely to be possessed by the Gov- 
 ernment, to refer at once to the proper bureau. It is, of course, de- 
 sirable that so far as possible such information should be actually in 
 the possession of this legislative bureau, so that it could be at once 
 handed out to the person inquiring ; but that is less important on the 
 whole than merely knowing where it exists ; having an index, in other 
 words, of all important information in the hands of the Government 
 department. That alone, in my opinion, would be of immense value. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Is it not possible, Mr. Durand, that they would 
 find all of that information in the Library, in all these reports ? 
 
 Mr, Durand. The great bulk of it would be there even now. 
 
 Mr. ToAVNSEND. So that the great majority of all that data would 
 be there, and that this bureau we have reference to here could, per- 
 haps, have room in the Library to collect that — maybe in some part 
 of the Library where it would be more than commonly available to 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Durand. And it perhaps might go further. It might take 
 some of the reports of the departments and bureaus which consist 
 of a large number of separate subjects put together in one volume, 
 and tear the volume apart and subdivide it and put the sections in a 
 proper subject file which could easily be gotten at. I feel sure that 
 in various ways such a bureau could make the existing governmental 
 information much more available. 
 
 Besides that, it could collect valuable information from sources 
 outside of the Government, or at least familiarize itself with the 
 sources of such information, so that it could promptly refer to it and 
 compile it in the way and along the line which the Members should 
 desire. 
 
 I speak of this Avith some feeling of enthusiasm, because we in the 
 Census Bureau here are called upon so much to give information and 
 we can do it so inadequately. I feel sure that a body which had more 
 time for doing such work than we have and which had a more widely 
 trained corps of specialists could be of much more assistance to Con- 
 gress than we can, even along the lines of inquiry that now come to 
 us. Of course there are a great many interrogatories that do not 
 come to the Census Bureau at all, but which go to other bureaus and 
 departments, which again could be probably handled much more 
 expeditiously and satisfactorily through an organization of this sort. 
 It could become, as has been suggested, a kind of clearing house for 
 the great mass of information that exists in scattered form in the 
 Government service already. 
 
 I think that is all, unless somebody has some questions. 
 
 The Chairman. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Durand. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I would like 
 
 Mr. Evans. I desire to thank Mr. Durand for telling us what he 
 has said in such a condensed manner. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I should now like to present the Commissioner of 
 Labor, Mr. Neill, who has also kindly consented to speak. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 75 
 
 STATEMENT BY HON. CHARLES P. NEILL, COMMISSIONER OF THE 
 BUREAU OF LABOR. 
 
 Mr. Neiix. Mr. Chairman, I can only supplement what Mr. Du- 
 rand has said. We have a precisely similar experience. I might 
 classify my experience under three heads : Frequently we get letters 
 and not infrequently personal calls from Members of Congress or 
 the representatives of a committee interested in a bill or in a report 
 looking for certain information. Now, only part of the information 
 that is needed in that study for the preparation of that bill or the 
 making of that report is in our bureau. 
 
 The Chairman. May I interrupt you, Mr. Xeill, with a question 
 right there ? 
 
 Mr. Neill. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it not true that there is considerable duplica- 
 tion of work in the departments? 
 
 Mr. Neill. I think there is a very much exaggerated notion of 
 that, Mr. Chairman — very much exaggerated. There are a great 
 many topics 
 
 The Chairman. That has nothing particularly to do with this 
 hearing, except it adds a little to the difficulty of getting information. 
 
 Mr. Neill. I was going to cite this case : For example, a Member 
 comes in and he has a certain bill or a certain report in mind. It 
 may be part of that information would have to be supplied by the 
 Census, part would have to come from tlie Bureau cf Labor-^we 
 can furnish you that — and part must come from the Bureau of Manu- 
 factures. He does not know where that is. We attempt to help 
 him out, with the feeling that he does not know just what he wants 
 out of our bureau. I do not know what he wants for his bill. We 
 both of us blunder along quite a while convinced that we are both 
 wasting a good deal of our time — he wasting his time and I wasting 
 my time. 
 
 At other times I get requests for information by letter, say. We 
 prepare information in precisely the form that it is asked. In 
 three or four days later we get another request from some other 
 Member for the same data in a different form. We found in the first 
 form it does not give the information wanted ; and sometimes two or 
 three different requests come in a period of 30 or 60 days, for almost 
 the same information, presented in an entirely different way. Two- 
 thirds of that work has been wasted. 
 
 Frequently we have furnished information, and until I read the 
 report I had no adequate idea of what was the purpose of the infor- 
 mation or what particular subject was under discussion ; and upon 
 reading the report realized that the material used was very in- 
 adequate, that a much better explanation and a much better report 
 could have been prepared by the use of more full information which 
 might have been had right in our library. I did not know the pur- 
 pose of it, and even if I had known it I might not have felt the pro- 
 priety of suggesting that they use it. 
 
 But my own experience of six or seven years has been that a very 
 large part of the work, at least of our own bureau, in fun>isliing in- 
 formation to Congress has been thoroughlv unsatisfactorv to those 
 
76 CONGRESSIONAL REFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 to whom it was furnished and more unsatisfactory to us in the 
 method of furnishing it, simply because there was no clearing house. 
 Members have not knoAvn clearl}^ what we had; we haA-e not known 
 the purpose for which the information Avas Avanted ; and as ^\e have 
 blundered along a large amount of work has been expended Avith 
 very small percentage of it yielding actual return. 
 
 The Chairman. We are greatly obliged to you, Mr. Neill. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, your time is limited. Will you sit 
 this afternoon at all? 
 
 The committee and others present here informally discussed the 
 plans for further hearings. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I am going to interrupt even a member of the com- 
 mittee just a moment, because the gentlemen have come to serve us, 
 and I would like to have them given an opportunity to print state- 
 ments in the hearings along this line. 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Middleton Beaman. of New York, Avill noAv ad- 
 dress the committee. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MIDDLETON BEAMAN, OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. Beaman, I represent the same association as does Dr. Lewis, 
 who addressed you yesterday. I haA^e, perhaps, a further claim to 
 take up your time from the fact that I Avas for over five years serving 
 you here in the laAv library of Congress, during the greater part of 
 that time having in charge the preparation of the index to the Stat- 
 utes at Large ; and I may say, probably, that I am one of the few men 
 in this country who has read all the legislation of Congress. In the 
 -work of indexing we read every line. 
 
 The Chairman. You deserA'e consideration. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. So that I feel at least I can lay some claim to know- 
 ing the defects in the legislation of Congress, and therefore feel that 
 possibly I understand your needs pretty well. 
 
 There has been considerable discussion here as to " legislative refer- 
 ence Avork " and as to " drafting Avork," and the impression, from 
 what I have heard, seems to be that there is a clearly defined distinc- 
 tion. It seems to be the idea in any CA^ent that the legislative reference 
 work should be in the Library, but there has been intimation from 
 various people that possibly the drafting work, or that part of it 
 which is spoken of as " form," might be connected with the House 
 or with the Senate. It seems to me that if such a distinction Avere 
 made it would be most unfortunate. In the gathering of information, 
 as Dr. McCarthy Avell says, Ave should have everything together on a 
 shelf, and that is a A^ery desirable thing; but the trouble is. What is 
 on the shelf Avhen you get to the shelf? 
 
 In other words, information can be gathered in a good many dif- 
 ferent ways. It can be gathered by some one Avho does not know 
 much about the subject, and therefore is not likely to be so gathered 
 as to be useful ; or it can be gathered by a person expert in the sub- 
 ject, in which case it is more likely to be useful. In either event, not 
 only must it be gathered, but it must be interpreted, in order to be 
 of use in legislation. 
 
 Mr. Evans and seA^eral others spoke of passing out information in 
 " tabloid " form. That is a A^eiy good thing, possibly, for the pur- 
 
CONGKESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 77 
 
 poses of writing a speech or enabling a Member to understand legis- 
 lation coming up on the floor, and can easily be done; but the idea 
 that a legislative reference bureau, no matter hoAV well organized, 
 can gather the stuff and put it in tabloid form and give it to the 
 drafter and say, " You draft the measure according to these lines," 
 is, to my mind, something that can not be done. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I think, Mr. Beaman, if you will permit me, that what 
 I said was not quite that. I was referring entirely to the desire of 
 certain Members to have it in that tabloid form, rather than the pos- 
 sibility of any commission being able to produce the capsules of infor- 
 mation. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Beaman. The point is, it is likely to be indigestible. In other 
 words, the drafter, in order to draft a law, must know something 
 about the subject matter. No man, no matter of how great ability, 
 can take the results of the labor of somebody else and, knowing noth- 
 ing about the subject himself, express it. 
 
 Mr. Sherley has spoken about the importance of form. I thor- 
 oughly agree Avith him. No one better than myself knows the lack 
 of form in the statutes of Congress; but the trouble is that form 
 depends not alone on accuracy in phraseology. A statute may be 
 worded so that it is perfectly clear; anybody can understand it, but 
 unless a man knows something about the subject on which he is draft- 
 ing a bill, he may not say what ought to be said. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. It might be like Browning's poetry, very well 
 said, but not say something. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. It may say something, it may be beautifully ex- 
 pressed, but it ma,y not cover the point; it may not say what ought 
 to be said. And if the man who is drafting the law does not know 
 the subject in some measure, why, he can not draft a law, no matter 
 how expert he may be in form — and substance has got to have form — 
 but the form is only for the purpose of carrying out the substance 
 of the law. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. And if error has not been eliminated, if that has not 
 been covered thoroughl}^, the form will do little good. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. May I make a suggestion here, because if the state- 
 ment is unchallenged it will give a false impression of w^hat my view- 
 point is, and I think the error is due to the gentleman's absence of 
 legislative experience. 
 
 We want knowledge of the subject matter, but practically when we 
 are legislating on the floor and bills are put into their final form, 
 there is no opportunity to refer; and under our system there is not 
 any advisory scheme I know of whereby you could refer the matter 
 to any board to see whether we have sufficient knowledge or not. 
 But what we could do, and ought to do, is to have then and there 
 available some one sufficiently versed in form j)ure and simple to 
 enable the substance, as disclosed by the bill and the report and 
 speeches and action of the Members on the floor, to be embodied in 
 a law that would be intelligible ; and that is the crying need, it seems 
 to me, and the reference aid ought to be now possible under the ex- 
 isting organization of the library, if it carried out the purposes 
 for which it was originally created. 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that Mr. Sherley 
 would 
 
78 CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 [Mr. Sherley at this point was about to leave the room.] Wait a 
 minute. I am going to talk about you. [Laughter.] With his 
 experience would have no idea contrary to that expressed by Dr. 
 McCarthy yesterday, and I am sorry you did not hear him; and 
 that is the occasion of my asking the present speaker. For instance, 
 Mr. Sherley, a legislator contemplating legislation about public- 
 service utilities: Under the provisions of this bill that I read you 
 they would have available for the committee preparing that very 
 public-service law, passed not only by this country but the States of 
 this countr}^ and foreign countries, and they would have material 
 there to give them the best substance as well as the best form. 
 
 ]Mr. Sherley. Not only that, but the man who is looking to form 
 purely on the floor would supposedly have some information gath- 
 ered through this other source and through the debates in Congress ; 
 but when you, for instance, are providing for a public-utilities act 
 and use the phrase " any person," whereas the phrase " whoever " 
 would be a better phrase, it would not require a gi'eat amount of 
 information outside for a man to suggest " whoever " in place of 
 " any person." 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I do not want to be misunderstood. You have had 
 practical experience in codifying laws, and therefore the form has got 
 very prominently into your mind, but you do not undervalue the 
 substance. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. I do not at all, but I do not want any man in this 
 practical work to overvalue substance. We compile now masses of 
 information that convey nothing to anybody, for there is a tendency 
 of some men delving into a subject to give undue importance to a 
 particular arrangement of information on a given subject, whereas 
 the crying evil now is in the expression of our laws ; and you can not 
 by anj system of reference take away from Congress the necessity 
 itself of arriving at a conclusion on the substantive proposition. 
 
 The Chairman. May I interrupt you just one moment? That 
 particular point was spoken of yesterday by Mr. Bryce, the British 
 ambassador, and he said that they kept accessible on the floor of the 
 House of Commons a parliamentary expert in form and that if an 
 amendment were offered and the prime minister or the minister in 
 charge of the bill were in doubt as to how it would affect the bill or 
 whether it was desirable to accept, he would put some other man on 
 the floor to talk five or six minutes while he went out and consulted 
 with the parliamentary expert and came back ready to express him- 
 self upon the amendment. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. It is just that practical reform I want to see upon 
 the floor of the House. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. But that man in England who is on the floor is the 
 man who has been drafting the bill and knows something about it. 
 In other words, it seems to me that it is impossible, in the hurry of 
 legislative necessities, for a man to appreciate the significance of an 
 amendment that is offered or a word or suggestion unless he knows 
 its relations to the other parts of the bill. I think we are differing 
 in terminology ; that is all. 
 
 Mr. Sherley. I grant you that such a man must not be absolutely 
 ignorant of substance and know only form, but presumabl}^ such a 
 man will keep himself advised as to substance that may be provided 
 through another source. The point I want to emphasize is that a 
 
CONGRESSIONAL KEFERENCE BUREAU. 79 
 
 practicable thing that we can put through Congress now and get 
 results from it is to put on the floor of the House a man who shall 
 correspond to substantive law as the parliamentary clerk does to 
 the parliamentary law, and then I think it ought to be possible, 
 without much enlargement or change, to make the Library of Con- 
 gress perform one of the functions that it was created for — of fur- 
 nishing, in proper, usable form, information on the substance of mat- 
 ters. I am sorry to have to so hastily make these statements. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. The reason I bring up this point is that I am afraid 
 in your consideration of the bill you might be led to separate the two 
 functions in that way, and to my mind, if you separate them, you will 
 not get tlie value of them. In other words, here is a lawyer trying a 
 case. He gets the evidence; he gathers that evidence. He may have 
 employed a statistician or an economist or anything else, but he sees 
 what is needed. It is the same way in legislation — someone has got 
 to direct the gathering of the evidence so that it may be focused and 
 concentrated on the right point. Mere information gathered and 
 not gathered proper!}^ niay not be of much use, and it is the same way 
 when the information is interpreted to the legislature. That has got 
 to be done in the same way as a lawyer does in court. In other words, 
 it is the lawyer who has to be at the head of the thing, and for that 
 reason I think that the head of the bureau should be a man Avho is, 
 not necessarily a practicing lawyer, but a man of legal education, a 
 man of sound ideas on the law, who knows the law and appreciates 
 what is necessary ; and all information should be gathered that way, 
 and if you separate the two ideas you are going to get into trouble. 
 
 In the same way, there has been some talk about the assistants. To 
 my mind it is going to be perfectly impossible for any one man, no 
 matter how able he is or how industrious, to carry all of this work. 
 The chief of the bureau must have at least four or five other trusty 
 lieutenants, and they must be men of almost the same caliber as him- 
 self. For that reason I take it that one of the objections you will 
 have to meet from Members of the House, if you report a bill of this 
 character, is as to the size of the appropriation. They are going to 
 say, " Why can not j'ou appropriate a few thousand dollars ? " The 
 answer to that is that you can not get the men. Another thing I 
 think is important 
 
 Mr. EvAMS. Can you give us some of the details? What would 
 jT^ou suggest? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Oji that point 
 
 Mr. Evans. We know a good many men have to be employed. A 
 " good manv " is not definite enough for the men who are drawing 
 the bill. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I insert this in the record right there and I will 
 just hastily read it. It will not take long. It is a very careful esti- 
 mate, and a rather low estimate from the prices Dr. McCarthy has 
 got to pay for men. We may find we may not get these [read- 
 ing] ^ 
 
 Mr. Evans. Who made the estnnate? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. It is the result of going over the matter with the 
 Librarian of Congress and others who have to administer your law. 
 
 Mr. Evans. You will put that in the record? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Yes. 
 
80 CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 IjCfiishitire Rcfci'cncc Bureau. 
 
 Chiof of bureau $7,500 
 
 Assistant chiof 4, 000 
 
 4 expert draftsmen, at $5,000 each 20,000 
 
 2 experts, at $2,500 each 5, 000 
 
 Chief of indexes ami digests and editing 3, 000 
 
 1 assistant 2, 000 
 
 4 assistants, at $1,800 7,200 
 
 2 assistants, at $1.500 3,000 
 
 Chief translator 2, 500 
 
 2 translators, at $1.800 3,600 
 
 1 translator 1, 500 
 
 2 cataloguers, at $1,500 3.000 
 
 2 high-grade stenographers, at $1,500 3,000 
 
 4 stenographers, at $1,200 4.800 
 
 4 stenographers and copyists, at $900 3,600 
 
 6 clerks, at $900 5,400 
 
 4 clerks, at $720 2, 880 
 
 2 messengers, at $840 1,680 
 
 4 junior messengers, at $480 1> 920 
 
 Special, temporary, and miscellaneous service 5,000 
 
 Purchase of material 20,000 
 
 Stationery and supplies 4,000 
 
 Equipment 5,000 
 
 Travel, trans])ortation. postage, telegrams, and incidentals 6,000 
 
 126^500. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I think tliere slioiild be a good leeway made for"" 
 getting men outside of Washington for temporary service. ' 
 
 Mr. TowNSEND. Saving thereby travel. 
 
 Mr. Evans. These four expert draftsmen will not be needed at 
 once. Members are not in the habit of using them. They will gradu- 
 ally get to using them. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. May I say there that I should think that that was a 
 pretty good statement of what was needed. You asked me to give 
 details. I should say that that would about represent my ideas on 
 the subject — something like that. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I think, Mr. Beaman, when you should come to get 
 this into practice, if we had four draftsmen, that for the rest of tliis 
 session those four draftsmen would be sitting around smoking good 
 cigars from early in the morning until late in the afternoon. Mr. 
 Sherley and my good friend, Mr. Mann, would use them, but as to 
 the great bulk of the Members, it would take time to get them in the 
 habit of utilizing the services of these draftsmen. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. There are two ansAvers to that, Mr. Evans. The 
 first is that if they would sit around and smoke cigars over in the 
 Library of Congress they would not hold their jobs very long. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I do believe the Librarian has a rule of that kind. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Beaman. In the second place. I think the situation you spoke 
 of is necessary for the proper establishment of this bureau — in other 
 w^ords, these men would need time to fit themselves. There is at 
 present nobody in this country who is fit for this job — in the ideal 
 sense. Some men are better than others, but you can not expect any 
 results from this bureau for several years. I think that is a thing you 
 have got to impress upon Members of Congress in regard to this bill. 
 That has to be said right now. You are going to get the help, but 
 you can not get the help that you wnll get eventually, and these 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 81 
 
 draftsmen have to be trained. For that reason I think the way to 
 start this thing is to get capable young men and to train them up, 
 men who will be interested in making this their life work, and to 
 let them grow in experience. Reference has been made to Mr. Courts 
 and to Mr. Hinds and other valuable assistants. That comes chiefly 
 from the fact of their long experience, and that is the only way a man 
 is going to amount to anj^thing in this work — long experience and 
 careful, hard work. 
 
 The Chairman. It is now 12 o'clock and I know something about 
 your engagements. 
 
 Gentlemen, the committee stands adjourned until '2 o'clock this 
 afternoon. 
 
 Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m.. the committee stood adjourned 
 until 2 o'clock this afternoon. 
 
 AFTER RECESS. 
 
 The committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Mr. Chairman. I would like to have Mr. C. B. Lester, 
 of the Legislative Reference Bureau of Xew York, make a statement. 
 
 ^Ir. Evans. Mr. Lester, will you kindly make a statement? This 
 hearing is not formal, and we want to get at the real facts. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. C. B. LESTER. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if you will pardon me, I want to start out with a 
 little personal statement which will show the basis for the practical 
 experience that I want to present to you. I was one of McCarthy's 
 boys out in Wisconsin ; Avent there as a graduate student in 1905, and 
 in 1905-(j worked in his bureau ; and I went from there in the 
 latter part of 1906 to Indianapolis and installed there the first legisla- 
 tive reference bureau in that State. I inaugurated a new department 
 in the State library, and was chief of that until I went to New York, 
 in 1908. The Indianapolis work Avas instituted very closely along 
 the lines which I had seen in Wisconsin. 
 
 In XeAv York, as Dr. Durand has told you this morning, there had 
 been a reference department specializing on legislative lines for 
 something like 20 years. Beginning in 1890, this reference depart- 
 ment indexed all general legislation for all the States. This is the 
 only index of the kind in this country, and in printed form has been 
 made widely available. As time Avent on the Avork expanded and 
 other series of bulletins were added. 
 
 You Avill note that the Xew York department emphasized the ref- 
 erence side, the collecting and making available of information, and 
 did not include at all the bill-drafting side. Bill drafting in the 
 State of X^eAv York is under the control of a bill-drafting commis- 
 sion. That commission is under the appointment of the majority 
 leader of the senate and the speaker of the assembly. 
 
 Mr. EvAxs. Let me ask you this : The bill-drafting commission, 
 then, is really a bipartisan affair? 
 
 ^Ir. Lester. It is a bipartisan affair. 
 
 ;Mr. Evans. Each side appoints some one? 
 
 -1(143."— 12 (i 
 
82 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Lester. Well, there are, of course, the more prominent men, 
 and particularly Mr. Gumming; he is appointed right along, no mat- 
 ter which side is in control in either house. He is one of the best men 
 in the State, but, of course, the clerical force will undergo changes as 
 the political complexion of the two houses changes. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Oh, I did not mean that. Is the appointment of these 
 men made part to one party and part to the other? 
 
 Mr. Lester. It is a joint appointment. 
 
 Mr. Evans. A joint appointment? 
 
 Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Evans. And the practice is to have one man whom the Demo- 
 crats refer to and another to whom the Kepublicans refer? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I do not know very much about that detail of the 
 work at all. That is the unfortunate thing about it, that the two 
 things are not united at all in New York, the legislative reference 
 and the bill drafting. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, we have had here before us two propositions : 
 one bill provides that each party shall appoint its own members ; and 
 we want to know the conditions in New York; you have said enough 
 to make me think that that might be the method in New York, and 
 I simply wanted to know about that. 
 
 Mr. Lester. I understand your question, but I am unable to 
 answer it. The legislative reference work there is under the State 
 library, and all employees are under civil-service appointment. Now, 
 the thing that comes to my mind, that I can present to you from 
 the experience that I have thus had on the two sides of that Avork is, 
 first, and perhaps most important, that the two things to be suc- 
 cessful can not be separated. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, now, they seem to be separate in England and 
 in New York. 
 
 Mr. Lester. They are separate in New York, and I do not think 
 that the result is successful. 
 
 Mr. Evans. In what places are they united? I want this for the 
 record. I am not making any controversy with you. 
 
 Mr. Lester. They are united in Wisconsin; they are united in 
 Indiana, and I understand they are united in Pennsylvania. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Is there any other gentleman who has a suggestion to 
 make? Mr. Beaman, you had a suggestion. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MIDDLETON BEAMAN. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. I would just like to say this: Mr. Lester, is it not 
 a fact that the bill-drafting bureau in New York is very little use? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I do not think that that is the fact. I believe it is 
 used a good deal. The application to the bureau is directly by the 
 member who desires amendments, perhaps, or resolutions, and for 
 the more important bills, unless those more important bills have been 
 pi'epared for him elsewhere. But there is no connection, no organic 
 connection and no practical connection, between the work of the bill- 
 drafting bureau and the work of the reference section of the State 
 library. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. In other words, the bill-drafting bureau is not used 
 as an agency to interpret and make useful the work of the legis- 
 lative reference bureau? 
 
CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 83 
 
 Mr. Lester. Not at all. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. And your opinion, I understand, is that that is due 
 to the separation into two distinct departments 'i 
 
 Mr. Lester. What is due? 
 
 Mr. Beaman. The fact that it is not used is due to the fact that 
 there are two separate and distinct institutions, which would work 
 better together? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I think so decidedly; yes. Xot necessarily in the 
 State library, but simply that those two lines of work ought to be 
 done together. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. You mean they ought to be under the one and the 
 same head, so that that head can require the expert in the substance 
 to work with the man who is expert in the form ? 
 
 Mr. Lester. Exactly. The work of the reference bureau, perhaps, 
 in bringing together information and giving information of one sort 
 or another, is not called for by the Member to be put into the hands 
 of the man who prepares the form — prepares the bill. In Wisconsin 
 and in the States that have modeled their work on the Wisconsin 
 scheme those two things necessarily work together, and the bill draft- 
 ing is the thing that vitalizes the other side and saves it from be- 
 coming academic. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. May I say a word here? How that works out is 
 shown by the following instance : A man comes in and wants a bill 
 to establish a domestic-relations court in the city of Milwaukee. He 
 comes in first and asks what cities have domestic-relations courts. 
 He goes into the legislative reference department, and there that is 
 all put together, and he gets the material and perhaps looks it over, 
 and then he makes up his mind that there is one particular law that 
 he wishes, or perhaps there are several that he wants to look over. 
 He takes that material, then, to the draftsman right across the way ; 
 ne sits down with that draftsman and they talk it over, perhaps. 
 That is one way they get it; or perhaps he came to the draftsman 
 first, and the draftsman might say, " Well, let us go into the legisla- 
 tive reference department and see whether they have those laws " ; 
 and they sit down and perhaps discuss it several hours together. 
 That is the way that works in Milwaukee. 
 
 Mr. Beaman. If I may depart from the form of the procedure and 
 ask Dr. McCarthy a question: Is it not true. Dr. McCarthy, that 
 when the subject of inquiry is on some large subject the draftsman to 
 whom the man goes is usually a man who has specialized in that sub- 
 ject? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes ; that is so. Our men gradually become pretty 
 well expert along certain lines. One man in our department has 
 specialized for several years along the line of local government. 
 Another man has done a great deal for public utilities and adminis- 
 trative law ; and so, as far as possible, we direct the member to those 
 men who have made specialties of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Lester. The result of the separate system that we have in New 
 York is that the bureau is not used by as large a proportion of the 
 members as it ought to be, and, as a matter of fact, as similar bureaus 
 under the other plan are used, so far as I have seen them. The New 
 York bureau is used by a small number of men who want to go into 
 questions rather thoroughly, and of course it does a great deal of 
 work through correspondence, not merely with members of the State 
 
84 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 government, but with various administrative bureaus of the Govern- 
 ment in other States all over the country. This index of legislation 
 which I have spoken of, which is one of our big pieces of Avork, is 
 the onh^ thing that is done of that kind in the country, and other 
 States have depended upon it as an accessory to their work. On the 
 other side of the work, as I have actually seen it in Wisconsin and in 
 Indiana, the men who come to the legislative reference bureaus 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I interrupt right there? Did you state how 
 long you had served in Indiana ? 
 
 Mr. Lester. From the summer of 1906 until the latter part of 1908. 
 XoAv that you have asked me that question, perhaps I may say in re- 
 gard to the institution of tlie department there that that is a State 
 which has a biennial session of the legislature, in the odd years, as so 
 many of the States do, and I went there in the summer of 1906 on a 
 purely temporary appointment, to outline this kind of work and 
 make it appeal, if possible, to the members of the legislature and to 
 see whether this kind of work was needed in that State. 
 
 Mr. Evans. But that does not help us, Mr. Lester 
 
 Mr. Nelson. It does, Mr. Evans, if I may interrupt you, by saying 
 that the thing to remember is that it is working in the various States. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I don't think there is any doubt about that. I think 
 we are devoting a great deal of attention to things that seem to me 
 about as clear as that 2 and 2 make 4. I do not believe, as I 
 said this morning, that on the part of the committee there is any ques- 
 tion that the whole idea is along the right line and is practicable. 
 Whether we will make it so by our bill is the proposition before us. 
 We find on one side that it is practicable in England. We find it 
 practicable on both sides in Wisconsin, and therefore that is the 
 nature of res adjudicata. We want to find out something about how 
 to accomplish this useful aim here, and you are trying to qualify as 
 an expert witness to this end. I can say it is unnecessary ; in a court 
 it would all be very proper. But I hope you will devote j^ourselves to 
 the question how we can adopt this valuable aid to legi.slation here. 
 That is the question. 
 
 Mr. Lester. But, if I understand you, Mr. Chairman, then there 
 are two points that, perhaps, I can finish up Avith, saying that from 
 my experience 
 
 Mr. Evans. I am glad to hear you ; I am very much interested ; but 
 I assure you that if you make a record here that consists of personal 
 experiences 3^ou will not throw much light on the question. 
 
 Mr. Lester. I understand perfectly, sir. I simply thought that 
 my statement would have the effect — Mr. Xelson suggested it just 
 now 
 
 Mr. Evans. We are quite advised that you are. of all the people in 
 the country, best qualified to know about it. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Of course, Mr. Evans, I defer greatly to your judg- 
 ment in the matter. 
 
 Mr. Ea'ans. I only speak of that because Mr. Townsend and Mr. 
 Pickett, and all the gentlemen, except Mr. Gardner — and he did so 
 yesterday — said that they wished that we could get some suggestion 
 about what we should do on this bill. There is no question about 
 the advisability of the idea. All of the gentlemen on the committee 
 having told me that, it seems to me that it immediately gets down to 
 the point 
 
CONGRESSIONAL. BEFERENCE BUREAU. 85 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I beg 3^0111- pardon; but after conferring on the mat- 
 ter Avith 200 Members of the House, at least, I find that the (luestion 
 we liave had to meet right along is: How does it work in Wisconsin? 
 How does it work in Indiana? Is it practicable? 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is the kind of thing I want. The experiences of 
 the witnesses, and all that kind of thing, in Indianapolis, and the 
 legislature now sitting 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I see you are objecting to the amount of time it is 
 taking. But we can show them the practical side of this thing, be- 
 cause the same things that are working out in Wisconsin and in 
 Indiana will work out likewise in Congress. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That has been practical. Dr. McCarthy has shown 
 what was done in Indiana, and to use the language of a lawyer, I 
 would rest the case on his testimony as to conditions in Wisconsin; 
 I would then try to show that it is practicable here. I assure you 
 we are pretty busy. You know yourself, Mr. Nelson, that Ave can not 
 begin to do all Ave have — on this committee, I mean, Ave can not be- 
 gin to get through with these bills here ; and the Military Committee 
 is in just the same condition. 
 
 Mr. Lester. I would close, then, by emphasizing, first, the fact that 
 to make it practicable for Congress the Iavo lines of Avork should be 
 closely connected under the same general leadership and not cA^en 
 separate, as, if I understood him correctly. Mr. Sherley suggested 
 this morning; and, secondly, that it should be absolutely nonpartisan 
 from top to bottom and not at all bipartisan. 
 
 Mr. Ea'ans. Let me ask you this question: A^Hiio should be at the 
 head of all this? If you haA^e a unified bureau, to which department 
 should the man at the head of this bureau belong, the drafting de- 
 partment or the reference dejjartment ? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I am inclined to think that the man at the head should 
 be one Avho had more experience in the drafting side of it. But of 
 course it is at once understod that the proper appointee is the man 
 who can look at both sides of that question. I believe that the actual 
 experience that he has had should be more on the drafting side. Per- 
 haps he should be understood to be a trained laAvyer. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Have a^ou anything else to present, Mr. Nelson? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Noav,^ Mr. Chairman. I Avould like to call Mr. Mc- 
 Kirdy 
 
 Mr. Evans. Pardon me. I Avould like to ask Mr. Lester, in order to 
 bring out the point that Avas brought up this morning, is the Library 
 of Congress, in your judgment, a proper place for it? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I think it is, decidedly. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. For what reason ? 
 
 Mr. Lester. Because it keeps it absolutely out of political appoint- 
 ment. I do not think the appointment of a person to attend to one 
 side by the Speaker and a person to attend to the other side by 
 the ^ 
 
 Mr. Ea'ans. You are getting off the question. The question is not 
 one of locality at all. 
 
 Mr. Lester. Well, I understand that to be Avhat Avas meant by the 
 place, as against the other method that Avas spoken of. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. A ncAv administration? 
 
 Mr. Lester. A new department of the library. 
 
86 CONGRESSIONAL EEFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Evans. There is a confusion about all this. Now you are go- 
 ing on to another side, also important, but not connected with this. 
 I asked. Should this bureau be located in the library? Your answer 
 is yes. 
 
 Mr. Lester. You mean, for instance, rather than in the Capitol or 
 in one of the office buildings : is that it ? 
 
 Mr. Evans. Why, no; that is a matter of detail. An outside build- 
 ing would not be as good as ours. I am trying to find out what you 
 mean by the place. That is all I asked you — what place you thought 
 it should be? 
 
 Mr. Lester. Of course my experience of Washington affairs is 
 nothing at all: and I do not know of any place better than the 
 Library of Congress for that work. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I ask him a question? The first question is the 
 appointment — by whom appointed. An appointment by the librarian 
 would bring the chief entirely out of politics, would it not ? 
 
 Mr. Lester. I believe so. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, now, Mr. Nelson, j'^ou are asking for a conclu- 
 sion there that we might not agree to. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I am asking for his opinion as an expert, Mr. Chair- 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is an opinion upon which he is not an expert. 
 That is a question that would have to be determined by the future, 
 after he has been there. You know as well as I do that politicians 
 as frequently put people into nonpartisan positions as if they were 
 absolutely partisan. Gentlemen, that is not going to the merits and 
 not going to help us at all. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I would like to call Mr. James McKirdy, assistant 
 director of the Legislative Reference Bureau of Pennsylvania. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES McKIRDY. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, inasmuch as you 
 have rather limited the scope of the investigation, I feel at a loss as 
 to what to say. I came here to testify as to my experience and the 
 experience of my bureau in Pennsylvania during the last two years. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is what we want, but not a specially long exami- 
 nation as to 5^our qualifications. We accept you as a competent wit- 
 ness. Go ahead, then, and tell us what is practical about this thing. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, if you will kindly indicate now the change 
 that you have made along your line of questioning or along the line 
 of investigation since yesterday, I will be glad to follow you. I 
 understood that we were to tell just exactly the practical workings of 
 the legislative reference bureau, not alone in the States, but as applied 
 to Congress. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is exactly what we want. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Now, as I understand, you want to limit it to show 
 that it should be either under the direction of the Librarian of Con- 
 gress, or else under the President of the Senate or the Speaker of 
 the House of Representatives. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I assure you there is no Avarrant for that assumption 
 of yours, none whatever: I have said nothing of that kind. I use 
 the English language to say exactly what I mean, and that does not 
 permit the inference of something else outside of it. I mean just 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 87 
 
 what I say. I want to know how this scheme, or this theory or idea 
 of a reference bureau and a bill-drafting bureau may be applied 
 here, and for that purpose I want to know what the experience is 
 in its application elsewhere. Now, that is certainly simple. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, in order to that, let me 
 tell you that our bureau is about two years old. We started in a 
 little before the last session of our legislature in Pennsylvania. No- 
 body knew anything about it. We tried to follow the lines that Mr. 
 McCarthy had laid out for us, and the result, in a few words, was 
 that we had an unqualified success. Out of 257 men in our legisla- 
 ture T doubt if there were more than 11 that did not at different 
 times make use of our bureau — not alone for the purpose of getting 
 information, but also and mainly for the purpose of having us draft 
 bills, resolutions, and amendments for them. I feel sure, so far as 
 Pennsylvania is concerned — I can not speak for anything outside of 
 that — I feel sure that so far as Pennsylvania is concenied the future 
 of our bureau lies along the line of bill drafting. 
 
 We can see now, within the short time of our experience, that it is 
 going to render incalculable service to the members. 'J.^hese men 
 came from diiferent walks of life. They did not know much about 
 laws. They came to Harrisburg as ignorant of legislation us I am 
 of the practice of medicine; and we tried to act toward them ns spe- 
 cialists along that line. The same thing applies to Congrossmcn. 
 Congressmen are men just the same as the legislators in Harrisburg. 
 They are not a bit higher, if I may say so. They, ])erhaps, have a 
 larger percentage of attorneys, and know something about the mak- 
 ing of laws ; but I have found, even in the short experience Lliat we 
 have had at Harrisburg, that lawyers do not know how to draft bills. 
 I have had bills brought in to me by members that have been di'afted 
 by some of the best lawyers in Pennsylvania; and I have had bills 
 brought in that have been drafted by judges. I must say that they 
 were very crude specimens of bill drafting; very crude specimens, 
 indeed. Now, then, is it not fair to presume, Mr. Chairman, that 
 the same conditions will obtain in Congress? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I interrupt here to bring that point out so that 
 it will not be misunderstood? A lawyer has had practice in the in- 
 terpretation of law and in the application of it. His mind has not 
 been trained in the technique of law forms. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I do not think, Mr. Nelson, that exception can be 
 taken ; he says by men of experience. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. They are generalities, Mr. Evans, of course. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Every man of experience and every practicing lawyer 
 knows that that is true. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. "Well, then, let us come down to the question as to 
 the person under whom this bureau should be placed. Judging from 
 our experience, to keep it absolutely out of politics is the only way. 
 You can not do it, Mr. Chairman, if you make it appointive by the 
 Speaker and by the Vice President or the President protempore of 
 the Senate. You can not make it so if he is appointed by the Presi- 
 dent. You must put it under a man who is absolutely devoid of any 
 political affiliations. I am not speaking here for the Librarian, of 
 course. If you can find some other medium, all well and good ; but 
 to render such a bureau absolutely effective you must keep it out of 
 any complication whatever of politics. 
 
88 CONGEBSSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 We have been vei\y fortunate in Pennsylvania. Our State, of 
 course, has a very strong Republican organization; but I will say 
 in all fairness to them that they have made no attempt whatever to 
 hamper us. We had two or three ditferent elements. We had the 
 Republicans and the Democrats, we had the so-called Keystone 
 Party, and we had the Socialists. At the end of the session they all 
 united in passing a resolution thanking us in the highest terms for 
 our absolute fairness. That could not have been done if there had 
 been any suspicion at all of partisan bias on our part. 
 
 To go back for a moment, I can not insist too strongly on that one 
 feature of bill drafting. It is the life, it is the vitality of this whole 
 thing. You can collect statistics — and Mr. Meyer there in the 
 Library of Congress has collected statistics for us and he has col- 
 lected them for Congress, and all that, and in Pennsylvania we have 
 had the greatest help from our State librarian in gathering informa- 
 tion for us — but it is nonsense; it is useless, if you can not put the 
 information into something concrete. If a Member of Congress 
 wants statistics for the purpose of making a speech, that is one 
 thing. But to put that down in concrete form, in preparing to make 
 a law for the United States, is an entirely different thing, a very 
 much more difficult thing, and it should be put into the hands of a 
 practical force of men. 
 
 If there is anything, Mr. Chairman, that you Avould like to ask 
 along the lines that you have indicated, I should be glad to give you 
 the result of our little experience. It is small, I admit. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Ha^e you read the bill? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Yes; I read it very carefully, 
 
 Mr. Evans. Now, the question of the appointment is, after all, a 
 mere means of reaching an end, and this bill will probably be 
 amended after we pass it ; it will be amended Avithin two or three 
 years ; and it would not be natural or healthy if it Avere otherwise. 
 Sections 2 and 3 are realh^ one idea; section 2 mentions the compen- 
 sation. The compensation had probably better be fixed by statute. 
 
 Mr. McKiKDY. Mr. Evans, if you will permit me to interrupt just 
 a moment, I think you are mistaken on that point. If you, perhaps 
 from a spirit of economy or something else, should fix the compensa- 
 tion to be paid to these men. the chances are that you would fix it 
 too low to get the right kind of services. You have got to pay a man 
 more than a good salary ; you have got to pay him a high salary to get 
 the right kind. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, you would accomplish by indirection what you 
 can not do directly. The chances are that some one on the appro- 
 priations bill would come in and he would limit the appropriation. 
 The best thing to do is to meet the issue squarely. Explain to the 
 Socialists and the insurgents in Congress the necessity of having a 
 man of brains, ability, and experience, and I do not believe that they 
 will object to paying good salaries. I confess I was surprised to 
 hear a speaker this morning object to $10,000; I do not see hoAV we 
 can get a man to do the Avork that I want him to do for $10,000. You 
 know there is not the same honor attached to this that there is to a 
 congressional position. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I agree with you that it Avoidd be very desirable to 
 fix salaries beforehand if it Avere practicable. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL BEFEKENCE BUREAU. 89 
 
 Mr. Evans. I mean just the head of the hiireaii : we can not fix 
 the salaries of the others. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Yes: because they require expert skill. 
 
 Mr. Evans. The reason I want a good salary put in the hill is to 
 make people see that it amounts to soniethinj2:. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. And I suofirest, Mr. Chairman, that 1 think the 
 salary in the schedule submitted this morning Avas too low. Six 
 thousand dollars is not enoup;h. 
 
 Mr. McKiKDY. That was not official. Mr. Chairman. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Anythinsf less than $7,.")00 would certainly be too 
 low. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Of course, we mig-ht raise it. It is very hard to get 
 those things raised, however. Avith a falling revenue. Of course. I 
 think the rational thing is to start all these salaries lower than we 
 expect, because they will not be very efficient at first. The smartest 
 man in Wilwaukee would not be very efficient the first year. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Mr. Chairman, you recognize that this is purely an 
 experiment, so far as Congress is concerned. It could be remedied 
 at the next session. Why not let it go as it is with a lump sum and 
 put it under the Librarian of Congress^ Leave it to his discretion, 
 and if he abuses that discretion then change it. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. ]Mr. Chairman. I call your attention to the fact that 
 this is put under the control of the Committee on Appropriati(!ns. as 
 the librarian must submit estimates and explain to them in detail 
 what this fund is used for, and after we get it fixed and he knows 
 what he can get those skilled men for, then the salaries can be fixed. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Mr. Chairman, it is my observation that in spite of 
 all these considerations the salary of the chief of that bureau may, 
 according to legislatiAe policy, have to be specified in the bill. It is a 
 different matter with the subordinate positions. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Quite right. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. That is my experience of the Appropriations Com- 
 mittee. In the case of one or two small lump-sum appropriations we 
 have in the Library. I am asked at any time to get the pay roll and we 
 always do it. I am a little apprehensive about the changing of the 
 schedule that went in this morning, which seems to commit the pro- 
 ponents of the bill to a salary so low as $6,000, and if there is any 
 way of making the record clear and showing that that is too small, it 
 should be done. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Are you satisfied with the wording of section 4? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. You mean technicalh'? 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, satisfied is a broad term. You can express your 
 dissatisfaction in any way, substantially or technically, as you wish. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, of course, I do not suppose there is anybody 
 that could draw a bill to suit me exactly, unless it would "lie myself. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I should be sorry to think that. I don't think you 
 mean it. 
 
 Mr. ISIcKiRDY. Every man wants to make a little bit of a change, 
 of course. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, is not that an evidence of littleness — the desire 
 to make changes for the sake of doing something is an evidence of 
 littleness ? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. It is a human trait. 
 
90 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Evans. No: there are human beings without it. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, we Avill pass that point. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I want any real suggestion that goes to the merits. 
 For instance, it says it shall be the duty of such bureau to make avail- 
 able any translations, and you have not said what languages — there 
 is an inference there that a good bill drafter (Avith apologizes to my 
 Brother Xelson) would not have left ; there is a reference, and it is 
 not shown that there is anything to be submitted. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. I am against the categorical enumeration of things 
 to be done in any bill. 
 
 Mr. EvAMS. You mean on the principles of bill drafting? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I don't think there is any objection to that. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I interrupt. Mr. Chairman? I know that you 
 heartily desire the language to carry out the purpose of the bill. 
 Now, it appears to me that it is not necessary to specify the German 
 or French language ; and when you say '" said bureau shall gather, 
 classify, and make available any translations" 
 
 Mr. Evans. Yes; that means translate the English things into 
 German. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is perfectly consistent with what it says. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Well, would it not be interpreted reasonably; would 
 it not be foolish to say that we were to translate from English into 
 German ? 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, you have spoken of no foreign language. You 
 are to gather, classify, and make available an}^ translations, indexes, 
 digests, compilations, bulletins, " and otherwise." How about the 
 words " and otherwise"? You mean other data, don't j^ou? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. No; here are certain things specified. To gather, 
 classify, and make available any translations, indexes, digests, com- 
 pilations, and bulletins, '' and otherwise " ; that is a grab-all clause. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. It should not be in. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Make available otherAvise, or perform the duty other- 
 wise ? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. No; there is a comma in there; make aA^ailable in 
 such form — any translations. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, that is the Avay I read it ; but that " otherwise " 
 ought to be left out. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Why not use the word " information " instead of 
 "data"? 
 
 Mr. Evans. I think Mr. Nelson Avill have to redraw that para- 
 graph. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. May I interrupt right here? I do not claim infalli- 
 bility as one of my virtues ; but this bill is the concensus of the best 
 thought that I could gather from experts over the country, both 
 as to substance and as to language. Now, the committee is the 
 final judge, and if it sees fit to make any change, Avhy it will be 
 most cheerfully accepted by me. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I was simply arguing to see what the witness's idea 
 was of good bill drafting. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. I will be glad to give it to you in the concrete, Mr. 
 Chairman, subject, however, to your criticism. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL BEFERENOE BUREAU. 91 
 
 Mr. Evans. Your principle is absolutely right. Have you any 
 other questions, gentlemen? Have you any (question, Mr. Pickett? 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I might ask, on section 5, if you are going through 
 the bill seriatum. What do you say as to the limitation of 15 Mem- 
 bers of the House? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. I think it is absurd. As Mr. Mann stated this 
 morning, if a man is at all popular in the House, the getting to- 
 gether of 14 other men to sign his application would be a matter 
 of great ease. I understand, now, in some of the foreign countries — 
 I believe Germany — you can not introduce a bill unless 14 other men 
 join with you ; but in order to make this bureau a really efficient and 
 effective bureau it should operate directly between the bureau and 
 the individual Member. 
 
 Mr, Pickett. I agree with you. The reason I had in mind for 
 asking you the question, was this: Sometimes there is a little rivalry 
 with respect to the introduction of measures of public importance. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Very often. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Frequently a Member spends considerable time and 
 work in figuring out a measure along certain lines; now, then, if it 
 is discovered, somebody else may take advantage and introduce the 
 bill. That has been done. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. If you will allow me I can cite an experience of 
 that kind during the last session of the legislature in Pennsylvania. 
 More than once a member would come in and ask me if there had 
 been anything new " on deck," as he would say. In other words, 
 whether there was new legislation being proposed, his idea being, 
 of course, to forestall some other man in introducing it. That is 
 a very common thing, as I understand it. Of course, my own ex- 
 perience only dates now from the last two years. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Did I ask somebody this morning — you, perhaps, 
 would know better than I would— how many public bills are intro- 
 duced during a session of Congress? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Has anyone that information here? Have you, Mr. 
 Putnam ? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Well, the acts and joint resolutions introduced in 
 Congress during the Sixty-first Congress were 44,000. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. That includes private bills. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Yes; it is a little difficult to separate the public and 
 private bills; but the statistics of laws passed, of course, are sepa- 
 rated out. In the same Congress there were 525 acts passed. And 
 the same proportion probably might hold between the public and 
 private bills introduced. That is to say, during the Sixty-first Con- 
 gress there were enacted 594 public bills and 288 private acts or reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I think the number of private bills is greater. That 
 would be my assumption. Of course, there are many bills introduced 
 on the same subjects — frequently mere duplication. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. If I might say a word. In a way, when you start 
 out this bureau that limitation of 15 members would not be a bad 
 thing, because when you get it started it would be better for your 
 men to have a limited number of bills to draft, and if a bill is so 
 important 15 men will unite in support of it and, at least, for several 
 
92 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 years to come that might be a good thing for your bill draftsmen and 
 for your bureau. Otherwise, I would be afraid the service might 
 be too flooded by cases of a trivial nature. I only suggest that as, 
 perhaps, some argument in favor of the 15 limitation. 
 
 Mr. Evans. The next thing in paragraph 5 that strikes me as 
 remarkable is, what power under the Constitution the President of 
 the United States has as regards legislation? This gives the Presi- 
 dent power to suggest public bills and amendments to be drafted. 
 I am a little at a loss to understand what that means. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. I would like to explain. The President of the United 
 States is very much interested, as I am informed by his former secre- 
 tary, Mr. Norton, in the establishment of something of this kind, as 
 he has been interested in the matter of economy and efficiency in the 
 various departments, and I believe at one time contemplated a rec- 
 ommendation along this line to Congress. This bill was drafted 
 with the thought of 1)eing also of service to the executive depart- 
 ments; but in conferring with leading Members of Congress they 
 took the position that this ought to be a congressional service, and 
 so many of those provisions were modified, as you will see by con- 
 sulting other bills. But the President has presented in concrete 
 form some of his recommendations, and when specially desired, we 
 see no reason Avhy he should be denied the right of having the service 
 of the experts; but if you feel that you wish to limit this wholly to 
 Congress, as the author of the bill I have no objection to your- strik- 
 ing that out. But it appears to me that we are shutting the door 
 entirely to the President. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Well, I thought that the Constitution did that in re- 
 gard to bills. I thought the Constitution did that in regard to 
 legislation. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Is not this function served by the Attorney Gen- 
 eral ? 
 
 Mr. Evans. The language states that public bills or amendments 
 to public bills shall be drafted by the bureau Avhen the President of 
 the United States shall make request therefor, and that he is to fur- 
 nish instructions thereon. The President of the United States is 
 authorized to have this bureau draw for him public bills or amend- 
 ments to public bills, and I think that Congress would very respect- 
 fully resent interference on the part of the President in having a bill 
 drawn up and pre])ared, or an amendment to one, by the President. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mann stated to-day that he be- 
 lieved that that would be a wise thing; that when the Executive 
 or some head of a bureau makes an abstract recommendation it 
 should be put into some concrete form. 
 
 Mr. Evans. AVe are the ones to do that under the Constitution. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. And the President — well, he referred to me at the 
 same time as one of these gentlemen objecting, which may be largely 
 true. But, after all, these bills have got to be introduced by a Mem- 
 ber; and this provision is simply for our convenience. It is simply 
 to relieve us from so much work. But, as I say, if the committee 
 desires to strike out that provision I have no objection. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. It is a frequent practice for the departments, as 
 you knoAv, to put their suggestions into the form of a bill ; but it is 
 understood to be purely suggestive. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 93 
 
 Mr. Evans. The President could hand you the whole thing under 
 this provision all laid out, saying. " Gentlemen, pass it.'' We had 
 better not make a law like that. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Take, for instance, the Commissioner of Immigra- 
 tion. My impression is that I have seen tentative drafts of laws 
 in some official reports of his. Of course Ave all know that laws are 
 very often drawn by the departments. 
 
 ^Ir. Evans. AVe had better not make a law recognizing it. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. You will find in a previous draft that it was pro- 
 vided that the heads of departments might do this, which, along 
 the lines you mention, was left out. The only provision left now is 
 that the President, in a case like this, may avail himself of the expert 
 draftsmen. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. ^Nlr. Chairman, the Aveakness. I think, is attributable 
 to the fact that this bill has been modeled after one of the State bills. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I do not think there is any weakness in it. I am just 
 trA'ing to find all the fault I can now. in Mr. Xelson's presence and 
 your presence. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. That is Avhat I desire. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. If you will allow me to make another suggestion, in 
 regard to section .5. the last sentence should be made fuller and a 
 separate section drawn up. It reads now : " In all cases such instruc- 
 tions shall be considered confidential until the bill shall have been 
 presented to Congress.*' I think it should read : *' That all matters 
 brought before the bureau by any person shall be considered confi- 
 dential unless released by the Member bringing it before the bureau. "^ 
 It should be in some such terms, I think it should be fuller. 
 
 ]Mr. Evans. Are there any other questions to be asked by any of 
 the gentlemen? Have you anybody else to call. Mr. Xelson? 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Well, now, just before this gentleman goes — I did 
 not hear his testimony, but I should like to ask him a question. I 
 take it in connection with his remarks that he is at the head of one 
 of these bureaus. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Xo ; I am the assistant director, Mr. Gardner. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. In Pennsylvania. I suppose that there are two 
 branches to your bureau — one a bureau of reference and compilation 
 and the other a bureau of bill drafting? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Yes. sir. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Which do you find most useful ? 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Drafting. The future of the bureau in our State 
 lies along the lines of bill drafting. Mr. Gardner. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Xow. is that because the members get lazy or is 
 it 
 
 ]Mr. McKiRDY. They do not know hoAv. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. It seemed to me that Avith all the hiAvyers that we 
 have here that the reference branch AAOuld be much the more valuable 
 feature: that the bill-drafting end Avould probably result in our fol- 
 loAving the line of least resistance and relieving ourselves irom the 
 necessity of doing something that Ave ought to do ourseh'es. The ref- 
 erence bureau might give to men Avho are not lazy and AAho are really 
 determined upon legislation just the material on which they could 
 AAork. It seems to me that very likely the greater use might be made 
 
94 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 of the drafting bureau, just as I have noticed that in public libraries 
 the greatest use is made of the most useless books. That is following 
 the line of least resistance. Now, in your opinion, apart from the 
 question of saving legislators from doing the troublesome drudgery 
 with which they are charged, which is of greater value to the State 
 as a whole, which is of greater value as to results, your reference 
 bureau or your drafting features ? I am not speaking now as to the 
 convenience of the legislators, but as to the result in the laws. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Mr. Gardner, the one can not work without the 
 other ; absolutely, it must be together. But if you are going to limit 
 me to which of the two is the more important, then, of course, I must 
 say the bill drafting is. I presume you are a lawyer. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. That presumption is often incorrectly made. I re- 
 but it. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, let me make this remark : That statutory con- 
 struction is a very, very important element of the law. It is entirely 
 analytic. But just as important is the reverse, the synthetic, the 
 building up; because you have to use exactly the same rules; you 
 have to keep them in mind when you build up laws, and the average 
 man who goes to Congress or the legislature has not that ability; 
 he is not a specialist. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. It is rather my observation, in regard to Congress, 
 that a Member becomes a specialist in the work of his committees 
 more than any general bill drafter or investigator could be. I used 
 the illustration of the Committee on Immigration yesterday. I have 
 noticed that we always have had on that committee some member 
 who was a good deal more familiar with legislation on the subject of 
 immigration than many of the immigration officials themselves. We 
 always have some member who knows the court decisions as well as 
 the laws and regulations. I am rather of the opinion that you will 
 always find among us — unless you install a legislation plant — that 
 you will always find among us committeemen much more expert in 
 their particular lines than any general drafting board could be. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. As a general proposition, Mr. Gardner, I think 
 you are mistaken; assuming that you are making the comparison 
 with a board of experts; that is, expert draftsmen, I think you are 
 mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I am making the comparison between a board of 
 general experts ; that is, of men who belieA'^e themselves experts on all 
 sorts of legislation on the one hand, and on the otlier hand with a 
 less generally expert Congressman who is exceedingly familiar with 
 immigration legislation and with the decisions of the courts on that 
 class of questions. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Mr. Gardner, let me illustrate this point: Sup- 
 pose we had a man who has devoted a considerable part of his life- 
 time to synthetic legislation; that is, synthetic consideration of hiAvs, 
 who knows the rules both from an analytical and synthetic point of 
 view. Do you mean to say that the best lawyer in Congress could 
 cope with him on even terms in the drafting of a bill ? 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Well, I think, for instance, that if you take a 
 pretty expert man from your force and let him draft a bill affecting 
 the admission of aliens "into the United States, he would make a 
 number of mistakes that would be picked out by the committee at 
 once. If he was like other permanent Government officials, he cer- 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 95 
 
 tainly would have overlooked this or missed the point of that. You 
 would find more mistakes in that expert's bill picked out by the Com- 
 mittee on Immigration than he could pick out in the final bill the 
 Committee on Immigration would draft. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, but don't overlook this very important point. 
 It is not a question of the substance of that bill. That can be 
 gathered by some of the clerks that would make a brief for him. 
 But it is putting that one particular idea into such form that it 
 will stand the decisions of the courts in construing it. It is not the 
 getting of this information. The draftsman knows nothing about 
 immigration. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I was talking purely about the decisions of the 
 courts. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Yes; but a brief will furnish him all that infor- 
 mation. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Very imperfectly. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. I think perhaps there is this distinction between the 
 work at Harrisburg and in Congress. I am not, of course, familiar 
 with the history of Pennsylvania in the respect you are speaking of. 
 But ordinarily in our State members of the legislature do not serve 
 many terms. In other Avords, their length of service does not com- 
 pare with the length of service here. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Now, then, along the line that you are suggesting, 
 take ihe Committee on Public Lands. I believe Mr. Mondell knows 
 more about the public land laws of this country, the decisions and 
 the construction that has been placed upon various acts, than anybody 
 else in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You can not get at it all by a mere brief. Every 
 brief leaves out something material. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Very true. It would almost require one man to give 
 his entire time to study of the public-land laws to be perfectly 
 familiar with them. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Well, gentlemen, allow me to say that, admitting 
 all that to be absolutely true, still that gentleman, Mr. Mondell, per- 
 haps can not draw a bill that would in clear language express just 
 exactly the idea that is in his mind when he draws it ; he should seek 
 the advice of a man who is skilled in applying language and the 
 rules of statutory construction to lawmaking. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Might I interrupt to bring out this thought : With 
 this expert on the technical form, an expert, like Mr. Gardner, in 
 immigration, or Mr. Mondell, in land laws, would be able to supple- 
 ment that and see whether he had covered the special field of infor- 
 mation that a Member had gained by long service. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Of course, those cases are not very numerous. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Pardon me, in the general debate here, but Mr. 
 Mondell, if Mr. Mondell were in that position and were the very 
 best sort of a draftsman, yet, with the numerous duties that he has 
 here, if the bill happened to be a bill of 50 sections, or 60, or 80, a 
 tremendous long bill, it would be of gi'eat service to Mr. Mondell to 
 have two or three men who had specialized for a long while in draft- 
 ing a bill to prepare the drafts for him to go over and criticize and 
 redraft over and over again. It is the redrafting over and over 
 again, under the direction of a very able man like Mr. Mondell, which 
 
96 CONGBESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 I think is a very valuable thing, and which has been so valuable in 
 England, where the same thing exists. Very able men of the type of 
 Gladstone or Lloyd-George and others have employed these men, 
 who were for years working at that, and these men then make over 
 and over again, for months sometimes, these bills until they get them 
 so clear that they stand up as monuments. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Well, is it not true that they have no standing com- 
 mittees of Parliament? 
 
 JNIr. McCarthy. No ; they have what are known as the "" grand 
 committees." 
 
 Mr. Gardner. These grand committees are merely sections of the 
 House ; but they have no standing committees where the membership 
 extends through a session from Parliament to Parliament. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. Not to the same extent as they have here. But 
 you would find that not only a great convenience, but a necessity, in 
 that way. I know from my own experience that in two or three 
 of the great acts that we have had to do with in Wisconsin — of course 
 they are only small things as compared with a great many that you 
 have here 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Of course, but the members of a committee do not 
 care to go to one of their number for the service. I am simply 
 citing that as an illustration. I think it would be necessary to have 
 exceptionally well qualified men to perform this function. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. AVell, on that point, Mr. Pickett, I have a constituent 
 who has written me, who desires to recover moneys that he paid for 
 certain lands fraudulently sold him. The Government has his 
 money. I am at a loss to know just how to prepare that bill — and 
 in my ignorance of that particular field I have gone to Mondell,^ 
 and Monclell now is doing for me that which I would like to have an 
 expert do for me. 
 
 Mr. McKiRDY. Is that all. Mr. Chairman? 
 
 Mr. Evans. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Ernast Bruncken, who was for five years con- 
 nected with the legislative reference bureau of California, is here, 
 and I would like to have him give us some suggestions as to the 
 practicability of this. 
 
 The Chairman. How it works in California. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST BRUNCKEN. 
 
 Mr. Bri'ncken. How it works in California ; yes. But if you will 
 permit me. Mr. Chairman. I should like to say just a few words in 
 connection with this last thing that Avas broached by the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts. I think it will become plain to him why we 
 advocate a bureau of this kind — that is, the bill-drafting side of it — 
 if he takes this into consideration : Undoubtedly, the members of 
 these various committees are much more expert on the subject-matters 
 with wdiich they deal than any member of the reference bureau, either 
 in the bill-drafting or in the reference department proper, can ever 
 expect to be, because they have so many things to do, assuming even 
 that they have the same ability that the distinguished men in these 
 committees may have. But have you ever thought that a man who is 
 very nnich interested in a subject matter is the very last one to see the 
 many objections which may arise in the minds of others, including 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 97 
 
 the attorneys who will attack those bills in a court and, possibly, the 
 judges? That is human nature. Not only the men themselves who 
 are on these committees are deeply interested of necessity or they 
 would not be the experts which they are in the matters which come 
 before their committees, but also the men who appear before these 
 committees to advocate this bill or another bill. That was what Mr. 
 Gardner mentioned yesterday ; in some particular case he referred, I 
 believe, to some lawyer from New York, who was very expert in that 
 matter and had all the cases at his fingers' ends which had reference 
 thereto. Undoubtedly true. But all that is not at all the proper work 
 of the man who drafts that bill finally. The advantage that he has 
 is that he is not, so to speak, interested in that particular subject. He 
 is interested in the question how that particular subject, which has 
 been laid before him by the committee, can be put into the form of 
 a bill in which there is the least possible chance for an attorney, who 
 is hired to prove to a court, if he can, that that bill means something 
 which it did not mean, or that that bill is unconstitutional, or what- 
 ever other objection he may be able to find to that bill — now, I have 
 lost the thread of that sentence ; at any rate, he is interested in draft- 
 ing a bill that will prevent that attorney from gaining his point. 
 
 The Chairman. You made that point with absolute clearness. 
 
 Mr. Brungken. It is a psychological law that you must not be 
 interested in a subject if you are to see all sides of it. Now, w^hat 
 will this draftsman do ? If he does work in the way I have done it 
 under the difficult circumstances in which I was called upon to do it 
 in California, where I did not have a large staff of competent assist- 
 ants, but had to do most of the work myself, and as I often did it 
 of necessity, not as perfectly as it should have been done — I would 
 take the bill after I had made a rough draft of it, I would take it 
 clause by clause and try to get the cases that I could find in which 
 the meaning of that particular form of words, that particular clause, 
 or that sentence, and sometimes that particular word had been called 
 into question, and find out what the courts decided upon it. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Now, right there, will you pardon an interruption? 
 Supposing that you found two lines of authorities. For instance, 
 suppose the courts of New York and Michigan and Wisconsin and 
 Kansas and Nebraska had had that question before them and they 
 had followed one rule of construction, whereas the courts of New 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and some other States had followed 
 another rule of construction. Now, would you pass upon that when 
 you submitted the bill to the gentleman who brought it to you, or 
 would you submit also to him the authorities so that he could also 
 pass judgment upon the question? 
 
 Mr. Brungken. I intended to come to that very point in a moment, 
 and I might just as well do it right now. It is this : Whenever I 
 had the time to do it — I have not done this in all of those cases 
 because of the limited time — they called upon me to draw an im- 
 portant bill in the evening and wanted it the next day. Of course, 
 I had to tell them I could not do it; so many of those bills I had 
 to draw in a hurry, and if this bill passes, no Member of Congress 
 will call upon the bureau or allow them to do it in that hurried 
 fashion. Now, in the few bills where I had the chance to do it. 
 when I had my bill finished I presented with it to the member ask- 
 
 4043.^—12 7 
 
98 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 ing for the bill — Avell, you might call it a brief or a statement of the 
 reasons why I had adopted a particular form of words rather than 
 another, and where there was any doubt about it in many cases — in 
 some cases, I should say — I presented the alternative and the reasons. 
 I did give him nw opinion, as you say. but I also gave him the 
 opportunity to look up the cases himself. Now, I say — that is 
 similar to what is being done in your department, Mr. McKirdy — 
 in that connection I might call attention to this: If this more sys- 
 tematic manner of drawing bills is adopted by Congress they will 
 find that they will follow very largely the rule or the system which 
 is being followed in France and Germany, where with every bill 
 introduced comes a pamphlet called the '' motives " : in other words, 
 comment or explanation of the bill, which is not merely a general 
 treatment or report such as, of course, would be made by any com- 
 mittee reporting the bill to Congress, of the reasons for the bill in 
 general, but which deals, paragraph by paragraph, section by sec- 
 tion, or clause by clause, with the reasons, just as I stated just now, 
 why that particular form of words was adopted rather than another. 
 Now, that is distinctly, as I conceive it, the advantage which even 
 your expert committees will get from the bill-drafting features, sys- 
 tematized and put into the hands of a group of experts such as this 
 bill contemplates. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Well, is not the French procedure a little bit differ- 
 ent from that? 
 
 Mr. Brunckex. The difference is this, Mr. Gardner: That in 
 France and Germany, as in England, all the important bills come 
 from the Government and ha^e been worked out in the executive 
 departments. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. In France they send projects of laws, do they not, 
 to bureaus which have been selected — the bureaus are drawn by lot? 
 The "'motifs" are the equivalent of a bureau report, are they not? 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Yes ; that is the same as the report of a committee 
 in a way. But it seems as if — of course, I do not know all the details 
 of the inner workings of the German or French departments, but I 
 dare say also the man Avho draws the bill and submits it to his chief 
 or the man who works out the motif, the committee report, as you 
 would call it, makes this statement in detail of his reasons for adopt- 
 ing one form rather than another, and Avith the modification neces- 
 sarj^ under our system of legislation, it would naturally go directly 
 to the committee from this draftsman. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bruncken. may I ask you if the motifs sub- 
 mitted with the bill when sent from the bureau or department of 
 the Government are not also a plea for the substance of the bill as 
 well as the form? 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. They are also that; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. They are intended to set forth the reasons why 
 the legislation should be enacted and then suggest the form? 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Yes; but so much as relates to the form is equiva- 
 lent to what I have suggested the draftsman would submit to the 
 member of a committee who had engaged his services. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. But the bureau is not a Government bureau ; the 
 bureau is an artifical division of the Chamber of Deputies. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I beg your pardon; you are speaking of the bu- 
 reaus. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 99 
 
 Mr. Gardner. A bill is often practically a dummy when it is in- 
 troduced, and it goes to the bureau and the bureau prepares it on the 
 lines that the ministry lays down. 
 
 Mr. Brucken. I am more familiar Avith the German procedure 
 than with the French. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. At the beginning of every session in the Chamber 
 of Deputies, they divide by lot, or alphabetically — generalh^ by lot — 
 the w^iole Chamber of Deputies into bureaus. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I don't think, Mr. Gardner, that that is the pro- 
 cedure. The executive department draws up a bill. That bill, ac- 
 companied by this pamphlet of motives, or the motif, is introduced 
 in Parliament. It is already finished — ^both the motif and the bill ; 
 in many cases it is first published, before it is introduced, and sub- 
 mitted to the criticism of the public, and the newspapers and tech- 
 nical magazines are usually full of discussion of these bills. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. As I understand a bill is not before the French 
 Chamber of Deputies for its readings until after it has left the bu- 
 reau and gone into '' commission." 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Well, the commission is a large committee in 
 which 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I remember a few years ago the procedure in the 
 bills known as " LTmpot sur le Revenu " and " Le Rachat de I'Ouest." 
 I watched it very carefully, and my impression is that you rather 
 distorted the order in which the thing happens. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. But I am pretty certain that I am right. I am 
 quite sure that I am right as to the German procedure. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Very likely I may be mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. At any rate, the point which I make is that under 
 the different procedure in this country it would be the natural time 
 to have these motifs as to form submitted Avhen the draftsman sub- 
 mits the bill. 
 
 Now, I wish to say a few words on some features of this bill, 
 and particularly on the way in which this bureau on its reference 
 or compiling or collecting side will dovetail, so to speak, with 
 the present work of the Library of Congress. Of course, the Li- 
 brary of Congress at the present time does all it can do to assist 
 in furnishing material and information to the Members, as, I dare 
 say, all of you gentlemen know; at least I judge, from what I hear 
 from my associates, that they are kept pretty busy supplying such 
 information to Members. But the Library of Congress has not now 
 the means of undertaking the particular detailed work of putting 
 this — if I may use the gentleman's term — into tabloid form. In other 
 words, it can not digest these things. I believe that occasionally 
 members of the Library staff have undertaken outside of Library 
 hours to make translations of matters which Members would like to 
 have that had been gathered from foreign countries and matters of 
 that kind, but officially the Library has not been able to undertake 
 this. Now, the work which the Library does at the present time in 
 the way of bibliography and the like will not only continue as be- 
 fore — will not by any means be superseded, if t understand the 
 policy; and if I am wrong, of course, the librarian will correct me — 
 will not by any means be superseded, but will rather have an oppor- 
 tunity to enlarge its activities, which will be the basis and founda- 
 
100 CONGBESSIONALi REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 tion of the more detailed Avork which the reference department will 
 do for Congress and the various committees. 
 
 Now, to come back to the experience Avhicli I had in California. 
 There also the connection between the reference bureau and the 
 library is as close as possible. As a matter of fact, it was established 
 without any express authority or appropriation from the legislature, 
 simply by the trustees of the State Library, who have a lump sum at 
 their disposal. Therefore it was possible to make the entire staff 
 of the library subsidiary in part to the work of the legislative refer- 
 ence department, and it would be impossible to say just how much 
 of the work of the library was directly legislative reference work 
 and how much was general reference work of which the legislature 
 availed itself. But the point which I wish to make in that connec- 
 tion is that it would have been entirely impossible for myself and 
 my assistant to do this work of bill drafting, if we could have con- 
 fined our attention to that, if we had not had that library at our 
 back — not merely as anyone else has a collection of books of which 
 he could avail himself, but as being part of that library, so that we 
 could suggest what the library might do in order to help our work, 
 and so that we could call upon any of the staff of the library when 
 necessary to help us in our own work. 
 
 As to the connection required between the bill-drafting side and 
 the reference side, I do not go so far as some of my friends and for- 
 mer associates have gone, in saying that it is absolutely necessary 
 that the two should be combined ; but I can readily see how, without 
 a very close connection of the two, the work of the draftsman would 
 be decidedly hampered, and therefore I think it is wiser to adopt the 
 system suggested by the present bill. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, on that point what I would like to 
 ask Mr. Bruncken is this, whether, if the draftman's work would be 
 hampered by lack of information, would not that information end 
 of it become largely academic, without having a thought of being 
 focused upon legislation, and would you not be collecting material 
 there that would be merely collected for its own sake ? 
 
 The Chairman. Raw material. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Of course I have no experience of any place where 
 that has been done, but I can very readily see how the people that were 
 doing the collecting, if they were not in constant touch with the 
 people who must directly utilize the work, would very likely succumb 
 to that temptation without being conscious of it. Yes ; I can imagine 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. What is your experience with the members of the 
 California Legislature ? Do they only bring in bills for you to draft 
 that they can not draft themselves, or is it the tendency of a man, 
 finding sombeody else to do his work for him, to shirk it ? 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I do not think that the average member of the 
 legislature, any more than the average Member of Congress, is at all 
 disposed to shirk any duty which 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Leave us out, because if we can we always get some- 
 body else to do things for us rather than do them ourselves. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I do not think that that has been true at all 
 among the members of the Legislature of California, from my obser- 
 vation. But my experience is this : Remember always that we were 
 
congressionaij eefeeenoe bureau. 101 
 
 doing the work under difficulties, on account of the lack of funds 
 and the lack of a large staff of assistants, so that it would have been 
 a physical impossibility for the two men who could do an V' bill 
 drafting at all — myself and a young assistant, such as 'Mr. Dean 
 Lewis yesterday described, just from the law school^ — to do •)riorc 
 than draft a very small percentage of these bills. Nfew, my experi- 
 ence was this: That there were a number of important measures 
 which had been before the people for discussion, which everybody 
 knew were to come up for passage that had been drawn outside. 
 Sometimes they had been drawn by the attorney general. Sometimes 
 they had been drawn by one of these associations of public-spirited 
 people like the California Club — the Commonwealth Club, I mean — 
 and sometimes they had been drafted, as perhaps you have found 
 occasionally to have been done here — by a business man who was 
 specially interested in having the bill passed, and had an interest 
 more special than the rest of the people. Well, these bills rarely 
 came to me. The men who had drawn those bills had presumably 
 drawn them well; sometimes I had occasion to point out, when I 
 was consulted, that here and there there was something that had 
 better be changed, something that was obscure, ambiguous. But 
 there were a large number of members who were precisely in this 
 
 Eosition, that they knew what they wanted, but they did not know 
 ow to get it. Oi course, the legislatures are in a somewhat differ- 
 ent position in that regard from Congress, for the reason that has 
 been stated here. The members do not come back very often, and 
 there is always a very large percentage of entirely new members, who 
 sometimes are quite helpless at first. They come to me. 
 
 During the first session, when the work was new to me and to 
 them, there were comparatively few who came. The second session 
 I had a great many more, and the third session it was very evident 
 that unless I had considerably more assistance than I did have I 
 simply could not keep up with the demand. It became evident to 
 everybody. So that it was very apparent that there was a constant 
 demand for this work from members who were exceedingly anxious 
 to do the work well and do it themselves. I remember cases where 
 private members have sat with me evenings after the legislature 
 adjourned, and sometimes until the wee small hours, discussing par- 
 ticular bills. After I had drafted them we went over them together, 
 and very often we redrafted them, because they had not quite ex- 
 pressed the meaning or purpose which the member had in view, or 
 else because in discussing it he had changed his views as to the details 
 of the bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bruncken, was it your experience that a mem- 
 ber who had applied to your bureau for assistance and received it 
 was apt to come back? 
 
 Mr. Bruncken, Yes; well, that is a personal question that might 
 imply that my work was not satisfactory. 
 
 The Chairman. Oh, no. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. But it was decidedly my experience. It was es- 
 pecially noticeable in the third session. You, of course, understand 
 that one-half of the senators hold over, and the hold-over senators, 
 with one or two exceptions — for which there were special reasons, 
 which we understood well — it was especially the hold-over members 
 
102 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 who not only came to me during the session but long before the ses- 
 sion opened began writing to me asking for whatever assistance I 
 could give them. 
 
 i'hc Chairman. My question was perhaps rather awkwardly 
 .framed. Wlikt I had in mind was the probability that any member 
 -finding that he could get assistance and a short cut to results, would 
 be very apt to go after that short cut and those results, in that way 
 following the lines of least resistance. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Why, I do not know what I would call that the 
 line of least resistance. 
 
 The Chairman. For him, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Only in the sense that he presumably found a way 
 which facilitated his work. 
 
 The CHAHniAx. ^Xe\\, I Avould call that the line of least resistance. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. This gentleman asked me if I was a lawyer, and I 
 said, no; I was not. Well, if we iiad had a system like this when I 
 was in the State legislature, and all the time since I have been in 
 Congress, I would be a good deal less of a lawyer than I am now. 
 I had a very complicated bill to treat the other day, with regard to- 
 the United States taking part in the International Council for the 
 Exploration of the Seas, a matter that interested me because I repre- 
 sent a fishery district. If I could have put the drafting of that bill 
 oif on some one else, I should have done so. It was a great deal 'netter 
 for the bill and its chances of passage that I should puzzle it out 
 myself. 
 
 The Chairman. Wouldn't you learn a few things that are im- 
 portant, but not so much about many things that way, digging it 
 out yourself? 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Yes; and that is why I believe we are all, sooner 
 or later, bound to be specialists here. That is the way legislation 
 has got to be carried on, more or less. For instance, I make a 
 specialty of the fisheries. AYhen I explain the International Council 
 for the Exploration of the Seas. I knoAv what I aui talking about. 
 That is the only way that I can see in which legislation can be 
 carried on. Smatterers are absolutely useless except to vote and to 
 make speeches for home consumption. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Mr. Gardner, may I give you an explanation? 
 Undoubtedly you would make an expert in that particular work, 
 but would you at the same time become familiar with the decisions 
 which are digested in the three heavy volumes of Sutherland on 
 Statutory Construction in the same way that this expert draftsman 
 ought to have become, or would you be so familiar with all the 
 decisions — now, in this particular case I suppose there would be 
 comparatively few decisions — but could you have an expert on im- 
 migration or fisheries who would be acquainted at the same time 
 with the statute laws of the United States in the same way that 
 a man would be acquainted with them whose particular business was 
 to be acquainted with them ? I do not think that is physically pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I will admit at once that there are a great many 
 cases where I can see the usefulness of this bureau. I am very much 
 afraid that it would be abused, and would result in Members being 
 less familiar with the matters on which they are legislating than 
 they ought to be. I am differentiating now between the drafting 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFEEENOE BUREAU. 108 
 
 bureau, which seems to me to be probably a short cut to work which 
 Members ought to do for themselves, and the reference bureau. In 
 many instances if Members could have their bills drawn for them, 
 they would know so little about them as to imperil their passage. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. Mr. Gardner, if you will allow me, I think ex- 
 perience such as I have had in the limited time that I was in work of 
 this kind contradicts that. Now, for instance, to give you an illus- 
 tration : There was a gentleman, a farmer, not conversant with legis- 
 lative matters, but a very intelligent man, who was particularly in- 
 terested in the game laws. He was not a sportsman, and he was 
 rather inimical to the men who were agitating stricter game hiws, 
 and so on. Well. Avhen he came to the legislature somebody told him 
 that if he wanted any bills drawn he could come to the State library. 
 He came. He seemed to have a very definite idea as to some change he 
 wanted to make in the existing game laws. He came to me and 
 asked me to draw a simple bill repealing a particular section of the 
 penal code. Very well; I drew that bill for him. Then he oame 
 again, and so did most of the other members, for whom I drew bills. 
 He sat down with me in my room and he began discussing that bill. 
 He very soon branched out into asking me about other bills, and I 
 showed him about other statutes or acts relating to the game laws. I 
 showed him Avhere the statutes Avere. Occasionally there was a 
 phrase which he. not being a lawyer, did not understand, and I ex- 
 plained it to him. It was not very long before he wanted to know 
 what they Avere doing in other States, Avhich I explained, and by the 
 end of that session I do not think there Avas much about the game 
 laws that the gentleman did not know. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Did he have much else to do? 
 
 Mr. Bruxcken. Yes. He happened to be in the minority, but he 
 happened to be a very energetic gentleman and A'ery active in a great 
 many ways, opposing Avhat the majority Avas doing. So he certainly 
 had considerable to do. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. AVell, I Avas trying to put myself in that position. 
 In my place, if this bill-drafting plant had existed in the Massachu- 
 setts State Legislature Avhen I Avas there I certainly never should 
 have learned to draft bills. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. No ; that is, of course, one of the difficulties of this 
 kind of Avork. I Avant to say frankly that any man whom you ap- 
 point to the head of this office or any of the more important subor- 
 dinate positions, if he is Avorth the salary he is paid, and if he is 
 competent to do the work, he Avill have opinions of his OAvn, vicAvs 
 of his OAvn, and it is simply a question to get a man of sufficient per- 
 sonality to not only have opinions and views, but also be able to 
 suppress them Avhen it'is not the time for him to express them. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. That is rather contradictory to Avhat you said be- 
 fore ; you said that if a man was very much interested in the subject 
 matter he Avas the Avorst person to draAv the form. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I did not mean to say that he Avould be inter- 
 ested in all these subjects upon which he Avas to draAV a bill. He 
 would certainly be a man Avho Avould have his own vieAvs on a great 
 many things, and he would often be called upon to draAv bills Avhich 
 he himself, if he Avere a Member of Congress, Avould oppose. But 
 he must be a big enough man to suppress his own A'ieAvs, his likes 
 and dislikes. 
 
104 CONGRESSIONAL, REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You do not understand ni}'' criticism. A little while 
 ago, when you Avere speaking about committees, you said that a man 
 very much interested in the subject matter of immigration would be 
 the very worst person to draw a bill on that subject, as he would 
 probably overlook all the difficulties that would face the bill in the 
 courts and all the attacks from hostile attorneys. Now, if that is 
 true, the man who is personally interested in a bill — in this case the 
 drafting clerk, who is drafting a bill which meets his ideas — ought 
 to be the very worst person to draw it. It would be a disadvantage 
 to have a bill drawn by a man in sympathy with it. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. If I were the head of that bureau and had to dis- 
 tribute the various bills to the various draftsmen under me, I think 
 that I should not pick out, as a general thing, the man to draft a bill 
 whom I knew to be particularly interested in that subject. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Most people would rather go the opposite way. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. On the other hand, if I had to direct one of these 
 subordinates in the compiling department, the reference department, 
 I would pick out the man who knew most about that subject. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Gardner, do you think it would be humanly 
 possible to have a man capable enough to do that sort of work who 
 would not have a view, and a strong view perhaps, on any question 
 important enough to become the subject of general legislation? He 
 might not have the ability to suppress his personal interest in it. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. That is a very rare quality. 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. I beg your pardon. When I was in England the 
 draftsmen were engaged in drawing the bill for the veto of tKe 
 House of Lords, and some of the draftsmen there evidently hated 
 that bill; they hated it partly from the difficulty in drawing it, go- 
 ing away back into the basis of English constitutional law, and they 
 hated the subject. They had been there for a long while under the 
 Conservative administration. But they were doing their very best 
 to carry it out. Men talking to me privately acknowledged that they 
 did not like it, but they were doing their best, and did produce good 
 work. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I do not think I should employ a liquor dealer to 
 enforce the jDrohibition law, 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. I hope, Mr. Gardner, that the men in this bureau 
 will not be of the type of a liquor dealer; I hope they will be better 
 men. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. It comes to this: When you employ a man who 
 agrees with 3^ou, you get the work of his head, his heart, and his 
 hands. If he does not agree with you, you usually get the work of 
 his hands only. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken. But, Mr. Gardner, you forget this, that these meji 
 will make this work their profession, their life profession. Thev 
 will have a pride in that work, a greater pride in doing that work 
 well than in seeing any particular opinion of theirs put into eftVct. 
 
 Mr. Gardner, f think you are probably right. I think the chances 
 are that a man could, with fair success, sink his individuality in the 
 pride of his job. 
 
 ]Mr. Nelson. I would not like to have Brother Gardner draw a bill 
 for me where he was for it, because I have found him so exceedingly 
 fair that he leans over backward. 
 
CONGBESSIONAIi REFERENCE BUREAU. 105 
 
 Mr. McCarthy. May I suggest something? I nave had the argu- 
 ment that Mr. Gardner put forth several times to me in the last 
 few years. I think the best answer to it is this : If you had a skilled 
 clerk here, with all the duties that you have, there is no doubt that 
 that skilled clerk could help you a good deal in your work at the 
 present time. Now, this man is, in a way. a skilled clerk; after a 
 long experience, a highly skilled clerk, and his work therefore releases 
 your energy for many other things. 
 
 Mr. Evans. The only trouble Avith Mr. Gardner is that he is afraid 
 he will grow lazy if this goes through. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. That does not seem to worry the other members of 
 the committee. I was thinking, along the line of your suggestion, 
 how frequently you find a very strong Eepublican writing editorials 
 on a Democratic paper and a strong Democrat writing editorials for 
 a Kepublican paper. If a person has the true professional instinct 
 he can overcome his personal feelings. It would be necessary, it 
 seems to me, to have men of the highest professional instincl in this 
 bureau. 
 
 The Chairman. Are there any further statements? 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Berger was asked to appear as representing a 
 third party, but he had an appointment and he could not wait any 
 longer. May I file his statement? 
 
 Mr. Evans. Insert it in the record. 
 
 STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VICTOR L. BERGER. 
 
 Mr. Berger. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, every workshop needs 
 tools, and the tools of a legislative workshop must be books, docu- 
 ments, and papers containing economic, political, and legislative data. 
 But very few legislators have the leisure and opportunity to gather 
 these data as needed for every question that comes up. 
 
 Legislation is very serious business and should be prepared very 
 carefully as to form, wording, and especially as to constitutionality. 
 
 The advantages of a legislative reference library for Congress are 
 therefore obvious. A legislative library and its staff would do all 
 that. They would do more. They would also put us into instant 
 touch with all that has been done on a certain question of legislation 
 not only in our country, but in other countries, and what is contem- 
 plated by other countries in the future. 
 
 A Congressman will be in a position to find out whether a certain 
 question is within the reach of Congress under the Constitution and 
 whether the people, through the press and through organizations, 
 are demanding certain legislation. 
 
 The legislative reference library would prepare us witli argu- 
 ments to defend our position — or to intelligently attack bills with 
 which we do not agree— by supplying information for either side. 
 
 Neither side would then depend upon improvisation. Both sides 
 would be well supplied with logical, legal, economic, and political 
 arguments as soon as they made up their minds on which side of a 
 question they were. 
 
 We have a legislative reference library in Wisconsin. It has done 
 good service, and the Socialists, especially, are well satisfied with its 
 workings. 
 
106 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 I heartily indorse the bill of my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. 
 Nelson] to create such a library for Congress. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Also Prof. Ernst Freimd, of the University of Chi- 
 cago Law School, who has written on the subject in magazine ar- 
 ticles, could not be here, and has sent me a short statement. May I 
 insert that in the record also ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF PROF. ERNST FREUND. 
 
 The University of Chicago Law School, 
 
 Chicago, February 20, 1912. 
 Hou. John M. Nelson, M. C. 
 
 SiK : The value and advantages of legislative reference service in connection 
 with public libraries are now generally conceded, and have been sufficiently 
 demonstrated by practical experience. I therefore deem it unnecessary to 
 speak generally in behalf of the establishment of such a service to aid con- 
 gi'essional legislation, and merely wish to emphasize some specific points. 
 
 The information most immediately available for pending legislation is to be 
 found in official documents — congressional, departmental, and .iudicial. These 
 documents include executive messages, administrative and official reports, 
 .iudicial decisions, departmental papers and rulings, reports of special com- 
 missions, and reports of congressional committees on bills, with accompanying 
 arguments, briefs, testimony, and other exhibits. 
 
 This material fills hundreds of volumes every year, and is gathered and 
 printed at great expense to the Government. If, by a relatively slight ad- 
 ditional expense, the material can be made more serviceable than it is, such 
 expenditure will be in the interest of true economy. 
 
 What is particularly needed at the present time to aid the work of legisla- 
 tion is a ready reference digest to practical observations and suggestions and 
 authoritative decisions that bear upon particular items of legislative propo- 
 sitions before Congress. 
 
 The same or similar administrative, legal, or other technical difficulties and 
 problems constantly recur in ditferent measures. We are at present in an 
 expermental stage regarding legislation conferring administrative powers. The 
 Postmaster General, the Secretary of War. the Department of Agriculture, the 
 Interstate Commerce Commission, exercise important quasi judicial functions 
 which conunercial and property interests of the greatest magnitude are 
 affected. The decisions of these officials and departments throw light upon the 
 operation of present statutes, and point out defects and possibilities of im- 
 provement that should be heeded in future legislation upon the same and 
 analogous sub.iects. The experience of one department is frequently entirely 
 lost in dealing with a legislative proposition of a related character but falling 
 within the domain of another department. 
 
 The desideratum which the legislative reference bureau would be in a posi- 
 tion to meet is to collect and tabulate as much as possible of previous experience 
 that may be of value in determining the future course of legislation. 
 
 To illustrate: One of the most common problems in legislation is whether 
 certain requirements should be made specific or should be expressed in generic 
 terms, such as reasonable, sufficient, safe, etc. There are valuable observations 
 upon the administrative asiiect of the difference between generic and si)fcific 
 requirements contained in the reports of the factory inspection dejiartment of 
 New York, which are practically inaccessible because none of this material has 
 ever been properly indexed. 
 
 From administrative reports as well as judicial decisions important data can 
 be obtained as to proper legislative principles in granting administrative powers, 
 in the disposal of franchises and privileges, in establishing standards of regu- 
 lation, in providing ways and means, and in choosing the most effectual de\'ices 
 securing publicity, accountability, and compliance with statutory requirements. 
 The information derived from judicial decisions alone is often inadequate, since 
 a power sustained by the courts may be found to be inexpedient or ineffectual 
 in subsequent administrative experience, as revealed in official reports and 
 rulings; yet it is not the administrative but only the judicial material which 
 is digested and indexed, and therefore practically available, and even that is not 
 
CONGBESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 107 
 
 arranged or treated in the manner best suited to serve the purpose of the legis- 
 lator or drafter of bills. 
 
 One of the chief functions of a legislative reference bureau would be to place 
 the administrative experience stored up in practically inaccessible repositories 
 at the disposal of the busy legislator to facilitate his work and make it more 
 effectual. 
 
 One of the first tasks of the bureau would be the construction of a practical 
 system of topical analysis covering the greatest possible number of heads under 
 which legislative questions could be indexed. 
 
 The indexing of the material might begin with current publications and 
 gradually be extended to older documents and reports. 
 
 A second task would be the gradual building up of a systematized and classi- 
 fied collection of model clauses providing for the greatest possible variety of 
 legislative contingencies, thereby establishing canons of draftsmanship which 
 would add to the certainty of legislation, and both aid judicial interpretation 
 and make it less conjectural. 
 
 There are other sides to legislative reference work besides the one that I have 
 emphasized. There may, however, be a danger in attempting to cover too large 
 a field, and I believe the service which I have pointed out is one for which 
 experts might be trained with the greatest hope of success, and which would be 
 most likely to win the confidence of Congress. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 
 Ebnst Frettnd. 
 
 Mr. Nelsox. ]SIr. Chairman, that ends the list of gentlemen, so 
 far as I am concerned, whom I have asked to come before the com- 
 mittee, unless 
 
 Mr. Putxa:m. Mr. Chairman, I have talked with Dr. McCarthy on 
 this, and we thought it might be useful if the record should show the 
 line his bureau draws in the collection of data. He spoke of going 
 abroad and making investigations. Xow, it has occurred to me that 
 when such a bureau as this is proposed for the Federal Government 
 Avith the specification that it shall gather and cla.ssify " data for or 
 bearing upon legislation.*' it might be objected that we have a num- 
 ber of bureaus here under the Federal Government already doing 
 that thing in various field.s — the Bureau of Labor. Bureau of Statis- 
 tics, Tarilf Board, etc. Would it be the function of such a reference 
 bureau as this to collect data upon wool, as the basis for a bill 
 modifying the tariff in reference to wool? If so, what dimensions 
 must we have in prospect for such a bureau ? Xow. I notice that in 
 Wisconsin also there are various boards and commissions: and for 
 the sake of the record I will name them: State board of public af- 
 fairs, tax commission, industrial commission, railroad commission, 
 dairy and food commission. State board of agriculture. State board 
 of forestry, board of health and vital statistics, tuberculosis commis- 
 sion — you spoke of some bills relating to tuberculosis yesterday — and 
 State board of immigration. Is there any point at which these 
 boards can draw the line against investigations as more properly the 
 province of one of these standing commissions? 
 
 The Chairman, If there is no such point of separation, one will 
 have to be made. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. And if there is any line of separation Dr. McCarthy 
 must have been obliged or called upon to make investigations which 
 he thought without the province of his bureau. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I am very glad to answer that. Of course, the 
 work required of the legislative bureau has been so great in Wiscon- 
 sin that we are very anxious not to duplicate the work of any exist- 
 ing department or any existing committee, simply in order to save 
 
108 CONGRESSIONAL, EEFEEENCE BUREAU. 
 
 the greatest eflRciency for those things upon which the legislature 
 desires information and upon which there is no department or com- 
 mittee working. I mentioned the question of the workmen's compen- 
 sation act. Six years ago, when the first bill was introduced, I gath- 
 ered for the committee as far as I could the workmen's compensation 
 acts throughout the world and the bills which have been introduced 
 upon that subject. That was an entirely new subject at that time. 
 But after that a committee was formed to investigate the workmen's 
 compensation act. That committee — as it usually happened — called 
 upon my department to help them. The workmen's compensation 
 act has gone through. It is now under the administration of the 
 industrial commission of Wisconsin. The chances are that my de- 
 partment will not have anything more to do with it in the future, 
 except that there may be a peculiar schedule (sic) of it which might 
 come up in the matter of amendment, in which I might be asked by 
 the bureau itself (because the bureaus in Wisconsin are not such as 
 you have here, and you may have facilities that they have not) to 
 gather information from correspondents whom I have in many 
 places, because my facilities may be greater. So, in the ordinary 
 course of events, if the thing is so complicated that a bureau similar 
 to mine can not begin to take hold of it, why, of course, the bureau 
 can not do it, and it must not do it, and it must not complicate the 
 situation, but it must get the information where it can do so and 
 where there are no other facilities. 
 
 But it does have to take hold rapidly in a more or less scientific 
 manner as scientifically as possible, during the time that we have 
 the subjects which are coming up. There is not any bureau, for 
 instance, to take up a corrupt-practices act, so that necessarily we 
 have to gather the corrupt-practices acts from all over the world. 
 But if there was a committee appointed on the corrupt-practices 
 act the chances are that that committee would never call upon us. 
 The}^ might call upon us to become a depository of their material; 
 and after the committee got good and ready they might call one of 
 my draftsmen and make 8 or 10 drafts of that bill. That might be the 
 end of it. But the work is so great and there are so many things 
 in which we are called upon that the thing settles itself. You do 
 not want to take up work that you do not have to do, to duplicate 
 the work of other bureaus. 
 
 The Chairman. Doctor, how would you meet this situation? Are 
 you a lawyer? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. I have never been admitted to the bar. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, have you any members of your board who 
 have had considerable experience? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Oh; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, the question of expediting court procedure, 
 the trial of causes, is one of very great interest and there seems to be 
 a present demand for it. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, now, suppose you, not having been engaged 
 in the practice of law, were called on to supply information or data 
 about that, or this bureau was, to a legislative committee ; how would 
 you proceed in a case of that kind ? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. That case has come up in our State several times. 
 Once it was met by a committee from the bar association meeting 
 
CONGEESSIONAL REFEEENOB BUREAU. 109 
 
 on that question. Once a committee of judges met upon it, and 
 there is now a society organized for that purpose, with a secretary, 
 in the University Law School. Several members have come to me 
 and asked me as to how many cases Avere before the court, when they 
 began, when they finished, or how certain procedure was worked out 
 in other States or other countries. The question of the English pro- 
 cedure has time and again come up there, and I have simply dele- 
 gated a man to hunt up that English procedure, and he hunts 
 through the law reports for criticisms on it, and how it would work 
 out ; and we put this mass of material together so that the committees 
 could use it. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. The Industrial Club of Chicago two or three years 
 ago sent a commission, consisting of judges and prominent lawyers, 
 to England to investigate the English system of legal procedure; 
 they spent several weeks or months there, I believe. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. Now, that report was hunted up and 
 we collected a lot of such material. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. They submitted a report. I do not know whether 
 it was printed. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Such questions ought to be submitted to an ex- 
 pert committee, or an ex ofRcia committee, to go into it, and then if 
 there was an actual bill to be drawn afterwards our men could assist. 
 In fact, the judges and the lawyers do ask us. Nine-tenths of the 
 bills are drafted in our department, and drafted for men who are 
 perfectly capable of drafting them, but who want to get the benefit 
 of critical attitude toward a production drafted by others. If some- 
 thing exists before you to work upon you often can pick flaws in it 
 to greater advantage than if you are working at every little detail 
 yourself. This critical position is very valuable, especially if you 
 have men right at hand to do it all over again time and time again. 
 
 Mr. Pickett. Of course, it is not germane to this discussion, but 
 I should like to know what conclusion you reached, as to whether it 
 was the fault of the law or of the lawyers — that is, on the question 
 of delay. 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. On that particular case. Well, I do not remem- 
 ber just what came up on that. In our State we have not got much 
 of that. Our courts are up to date and in pretty good shape. The 
 thing has been changed in the last few years, so that they are up to 
 date. 
 
 The Chairman. It is like asking you for an opinion as to your OAvn 
 work 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Still, I would like to have you tell me whether 
 the effect of your bill drafting has been on the whole, and is so ac- 
 cepted in the public estimation, to clarify and simplify the laws so 
 that they are more comprehensible. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Let me answer that. I had rather answer it authori- 
 tatively. If you will read one of the recent magazines — I think 
 Everybody's — you will find a decision by Judge Winslow, a Demo- 
 crat, who is chief justice of our State, quoted in part. His decision 
 is highly praised for its breadth of view and for its largeness of vision ; 
 and, by the way. Judge Winslow was one of three men considered, I 
 think, by the President — I was so told personally by Secretary Nor- 
 
110 CONGRESSIONAL. REFERENOE BUREAU. 
 
 ion — for appointment upon the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 I want to read his letter to me right on that point. 
 
 LETTER FROM HON. JOHN B. AVINSLOW, CHIEF JUSTICE OF WISCONSIN. 
 
 Supreme Court Chambers, 
 Madison, Wis., January 13, 1912. 
 Hon. John M. Nelson, M. C, 
 
 House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
 My Dear Mr. Nelson : Yours of January 10, inclosing your bill to establish 
 a lesislative reference library at Washington, is received. I hope you will be 
 able to carry the measure through, for I have no question of its value. I am 
 not able to say that the Wisconsin bureau has been of direct service to the 
 court in its labors. I can confidently say. hovs'ever. that it has been of very 
 material assistance to the legislative branch of the Government in the careful 
 drafting of bills and in placing within reach of the legislators the results of 
 legislation in other countries, as well as the literature bearing thereon. The 
 effect of this work is, of course, naturally helpful to the court, because it tends 
 to produce laws more scientifically drawn, and to prevent crudities in laws. 
 Very truly, yours, 
 
 Jno. B. Winslow. 
 
 Mr. Bruncken, May I say something in answer to this question, in 
 order to avoid embarrassment to Mr. McCarthy? My experience in 
 California was this — and you remember that the third sesion that I 
 was there, and when the work was most appreciated, was after Dr. 
 McCarthy had been at work six or eight years. My experience was 
 that almost invariably every member, when he began discussing the 
 matter with me, wanted to know first of all what was the latest Wis- 
 consin law on the subject^ — ^invariably. 
 
 l^r. McCarthy. I wanted to say that we have had just one impor- 
 tant bill declared unconstitutional during that time I have been there. 
 There Avas one bill knocked out by the courts which was doubtful 
 when it went up ; everybody said so. 
 
 Mr. Evans. Do they declare bills unconstitutional in Wisconsin? 
 
 Dr. McCarthy. Well, they have recently. Within the last two 
 months a law was declared unconstitutional by the State of Wiscon- 
 sin. That is the first thing of the kind in Wisconsin that I remember. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gardner indicated yesterday that 
 he would like to ask the Librarian of Congress a question. I would 
 like to have him do so before I conclude. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Mr. Putnam, Mr. Griffin spends a great deal of time 
 compiling references on all sorts of subjects^Mr. Griffin and Mr. 
 Meyer, who is now chief bibliographer, and his staff ? 
 
 STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT PUTNAM. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Mr. Meyer succeeded Mr. Griffin as chief bibliog- 
 rapher, Mr. Griffin having become chief assistant librarian. But 
 Mr. Griffin also does reference work 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Well, from time to time I have had occasion to tele- 
 phone over to Mr. Griffin. For instance, I have telephoned over to 
 find out about the German cartel system, and very properly, I got 
 magazines and everything else, interleaved, marked, and so on. It 
 seemed to me a very effective service. It is open to all Members of 
 Congress, is it not? 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. Ill 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. What percentage of Members of Congress use it ? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. I could not give you the exact percentage. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Is it 10 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Mr. Meyer, have you any idea ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. It is more than that. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. You think that 40 Members of Congress use it dur- 
 the year? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. More than that. We have on our list Members who 
 ask us questions — not always about legislation — something over a 
 hundred. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Dr. McCarthy yesterday, in answer to a question of 
 mine, said that 131 out of the 133 members of the Wisconsin Legisla- 
 ture in the last session had been to his bureau, and I wanted to get at 
 it as a practical question — how extensively the facilities which we 
 have noAv are used. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. And we should like to give you the answer in figures 
 if we could. I can only report a substantial use, which is indicated 
 in part by the personal inquiries, in part by letters, in part by the re- 
 quests for these printed lists on various subjects, which result from 
 the collection of bibliographical data. The fact, however, that we 
 lack just what this bureau proposes prevents the use which would be 
 general, in my opinion. The consummation of it all is the legislation 
 proposed — the drafting of a bill. Prior to that there must be, not 
 merely an accumulation of a great general collection in its ordinary 
 form of what is here called the data for legislation — the various in- 
 formation that may enter into the consideration of a bill— but such 
 a grouping and classification, such an index of it, compilation of it, 
 that at any one time upon any one measure under contemplation it 
 may be concentrated. Now, then, a Representative or Senator comes 
 to us. He says : " I am interested in such and such a subject — sugar, 
 wool, the popular election of Senators — and I would like some mate- 
 rial on it." 
 
 Our service at present is, in the first place, hoAvever, collected ma- 
 terial in its primary form. It is there scattered through 1,800,000 
 volumes. Then, in answer to his particular inquiry, we will give 
 him a list of books, pamphletvS, periodicals, references to periodicals, 
 documents, and so on, which may aid him. He gets such a list, and 
 what does he do with it? It is not " evalued," as the librarian would 
 say. There is no attempt to interpret it. There is no precis fur- 
 nished to him — what Mr. Evans referred to as a brief yesterday; 
 there is no argument; no syllabus furnished him. We have not the 
 physical ability to do that kind of thing. We can not, even without 
 diverting a cataloguer or classifier from his regular duties, make a 
 translation ; and at no one time are we in a situation when he comes 
 to_ us, to point, as Mr. McCarthy would point, and say, " There you 
 will find the information which you need in connection with this 
 subject, indexed and classified and correlated there." 
 
 Mr. Gardner. How long would it take, for instance, if I tele- 
 phoned over to Mr. Griffin and said I wanted the best things on both 
 sides of the German cartel system? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. Such a list as a bibliographical list is often com- 
 piled 
 
112 CONGBESSIONAL EEFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. If those lists are two elaborate they are of little 
 use. 
 
 Mr. Putnam. We quite often indicate in the preface that agru- 
 ments on this side will be found in such and such volumes, and argu- 
 ments on the other side in other volumes. That still leaves a great 
 deal of labor of collation and concentration to be done by the Senator 
 or Representative himself. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. The question in my mind is whether he had not 
 better do it. As a matter of fact, if I were to telephone or to ask 
 Mr. Meyer now to send me to-morrow a list of the best references on 
 some particular subject, he could make out a pretty full statement, 
 could he not? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. I think he would. That is library business ; that is 
 bibliographical work. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Very well, I am going to ask him to give me to- 
 morrow the best references on Government by Psephism, and see 
 what I get to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. And we don't know whether it relates to seals or sur- 
 gery. 
 
 Mr. Gardner. I am going to make a speech on Government bjr 
 Psephism. Will I get that by to-morrow in the ordinary course ? 
 
 Mr. Putnam. You will get it. Mr. Chairman, the amount of the- 
 service of this kind that we render now is all that our physical 
 ability enables us to render. But there is a difference, not merely in 
 degree, but in kind, between the work which we are able to do in' 
 these divisions, including the division of bibliography, the division 
 of documents, the chief assistant librarian, and so on, and the work 
 of a legislative reference bureau. It is the difference in the handling 
 of material, the concentration of it, the attitude toward it, and the 
 expectation of a concrete, particular use to which it is to be applied. 
 Now, our organization does not suffice for that. There is no other 
 question, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 Mr. Nelson. Mr. Meyer, can answer Mr. Gardner definitely now 
 on his question as to the number of members who apply for and 
 receive data. 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Mr. Gardner asked the number of Members who ap- 
 plied to the library. I answer about 100. I counted it and it was 
 exactly 93 ; he asked a question of some kind about these inquiries 
 
 Mr. Gardner. Are they all on legislative matters ? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Not always on legislative matters. Now, in addition 
 to that we answer telephone calls every day. I should say, roughly 
 speaking, that they average about three or four a day during the 
 session. A little before the session and a little after it we get calls, 
 too; but while Congress is in recess we do not get many calls, but 
 simply inquiries by letter. 
 
 Mr. Evans. May I ask what proportion of that 93 were on legis- 
 lative matters, and how many were on quotations to wind up 
 speeches? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. I have not any statistics on that, covering the last 
 year; but we are gathering them this year to show how much of our 
 service was rendered to Congress and how much to outsiders. We 
 classify them into three branches: A, B, and C, giving them those 
 designations for convenience. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 113 
 
 The CiiAimiAX. Do you consider Members who go over and take 
 a seat in the reading rooms and get a book or paper in making that 
 estimate? 
 
 Mr. Meyer. Xo, not at all ; I have nothing at all to do with those 
 Members. 
 
 Mr. Evans. I have gone over for that very purpose and have sent 
 for books on legislative matters; it is the only way I have ever c(m- 
 sulted the library. 
 
 Mr. PuTXAM. Mr. Chairman, of course the records make clear 
 that Ave have been applying this question to the kind of inquiry 
 wliich comes up to the bibliographical division. The use of the 
 Representatives" reading room and the issue of books directly there, 
 or to the Capitol, or to the House Office Building, is an entirely dif- 
 ferent matter, and the majority of Congress are using the library. 
 The majority of Representatives are noted as using the Representa- 
 tives' reading room. 
 
 Mr. Xelson. Mr. Chairman, I just Avant to say that I do not care 
 to detain the committee any longer. You have been very courteous 
 and have given up your valuable time; you have spent tAvo days for 
 these hearings at my request, and I am A'ery grateful to these gen- 
 tlemen Avho have come so far, having the subject matter at heart, to 
 assist us with their information. 
 
 I intended to submit to 3^ou, or to bring here men of science in 
 university work, Avho had studied this matter scientifically; legisla- 
 tive reference men Avho had had years of practical operation in this 
 Avork ; leaders from both parties in the House who kncAv of the need 
 of an agency of this kind to assist us and Avho would be representa- 
 tive: also heads of bureaus of the Government who saAv the need of 
 a clearing house Avhich would make available for our immediate 
 needs the vast stores of information that these bureaus contain ; also 
 the Librarian of Congress, who could tell you how this Avould sup- 
 plement the Avork of the library by fcx-using the A'ast resources of that 
 institution upon the questions before us; and in order that a'ou might 
 have the Avorld vieAvpoint, I invited the author of The American 
 Commonwealth to be present; he not only knew of our needs, but 
 Avas sympathetic with any moA^ement of this kind, to lift legislation 
 to a higher level, and in his experience as a parliamentarian and min- 
 ister Mr. Bryce Avas familiar Avith the exceeding helpfulness of such 
 an agency for the improvement of the substance and form of stat- 
 utes in Great Britain. Now, it seems to me that there are three 
 things at least that Ave are agreed upon from the trend of the discus- 
 sion here. 
 
 First, the desirability of an institution of this kind that will re- 
 lieve Members of Congress of the clerical drudgery of collecting 
 data and information in the preparation of laAAs, so that we may 
 concentrate on principles and policies. Second, the necessity of 
 improving the form of legislation through skilled men trained in the 
 technique of laAv forms, who will act for us in the A\'ay of the form 
 of legislation, as we now haA'e parliamentary experts assist us in 
 parliamentary procedure; and. third, it appears to me clear that Ave 
 must haA'e these united : that the substance is conditioned on the form, 
 and the form on the substance, and to separate them Avould be a 
 fundamental and fatal defect. 
 40435—12 8 
 
114 CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE BUREAU. 
 
 Now, I realize furthermore that primarily this institution will be 
 of service to party leaders and committees. But T plead for the indi- 
 vidual Member of Congress. He needs information and data upon 
 legislation upon which he is to vote; upon bills that he intends to 
 advocate or speeches or remarks that he intends to submit upon 
 legislation pending; and I trust that this committee will not urge 
 upon Congress a one-sided bill, one that will simply look after a 
 committee or a party leader, but that Ave will have an institution here 
 that will look to the collective efficiency, and Avill enlarge the indi- 
 vidual capacity of every Member of the House for legislative service. 
 In other words, that we may have a legislative institution here that 
 will help us as our collective secretary and our parliamentary 
 counsel. 
 
 The Chairman. Gentlemen, we are glad to have heard you, and 
 are obliged to you for your trouble. 
 
 Thereupon, at 2.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned. 
 
--SelPj^^E OP 25 CENTS 
 
 WIUU INCREASE TO SO ce^?,''!.- """^ PENALTY 
 DAY AND TO $I.ol on t„. """^ ''°"''^« 
 OVERDUE. ^"^ ^"E SEVENTH DAY 
 
 I 
 


wmJl^^^^^^ LIBRARIES 
 
 C057MaM0fll 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 This book is due oa the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 ijdC^d y/ii(c7 
 
 LD 21-40m-10,'65 
 (F7763sl0)476 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley