during the recess. Apparently in the past some boards and offices have been created to meet an exigency of the moment, without due thought of their proper relation to existing administrative machinery, or to the question whether or not it could do the new work; and there never has been, I believe, a comprehensive consideration of this machinery as a whole, with a view to reduce it to a system, with proper dependence, responsibility and harmony between its separate parts. I do not believe that the mere consolidation of boards and offices, having distinct fields of work without necessary dependence on each other, is any gain. This was tried without success with the boards of health, and of lunacy and charity. But greater efficiency and economy can be had by the abolition of some unnecessary offices, where the transfer of their duties can be made to some other authority as well or better fitted to do the work. Without attempting to cover the field or to outline an administrative system, I call to your attention some instances where such changes, in my judgment, can properly be made.

Board of Agriculture. The state board of agriculture is one of the oldest of our boards, and represents an industry most important to our people and our Commonwealth. Its membership consists almost wholly of practieal men, thoroughly conversant and in touch with that great industry. With their knowledge, experience and personal interest in agriculture, they are especially well fitted to deal with all matters and laws relating to it, and to act for the Commonwealth where she touches agricultural interests. Yet from time to time there have been created for such work separate and distinct administrative commissions and boards, such as the cattle commission, the gypsy moth commission, and the board of control of the agricultural experiment station. Last year your predecessors abolished the gypsy moth commission, and transferred its powers, duties and appropriation to the board of agriculture, to the great gain of agriculture and of the Commonwealth. They also created out of the board a dairy bureau for the enforcement of the law to protect dairy products, instead of making a distinct commission. Both of those steps were in the right direction, and tended to concentrate executive work in the proper and most competent hands, instead of dividing it among independent, unnecessary and expensive commissions. I believe, as

further steps, that the duties of the cattle commission should be transferred to the board of agriculture, and the commission abolished; and that the board should also have charge of the agricultural experiment station. With these enlarged executive duties given to it, there should be added to the board necessary specialists for its various departments, and the board itself should be organized into properly paid bureaus for executive work. Among its departments there might well be included one on roads, bridges and drainage, having attached to it a competent engineer. These subjects are of great importance, and affect seriously the health, comfort and convenience of all our people. The travel upon our highways, especially for long distances between centres of population, has much increased The need of improving these highways, and of more uniform and systematic methods in their construction and maintenance, is apparent. Without infringing on any local right or power, such a department could gather and distribute valuable information on this subject, and give experienced advisory assistance on road construction and maintenance. I believe that this would lead to a more comprehensive and scientific treatment of all our highways, and to greater economy and improvement than by unaided local effort. This subject has been called to the attention of the legislature by several of my predecessors. I commend it to your careful consideration.

I urge this transfer and grant of executive duties to the board of agriculture for the purpose of placing in one responsible and thoroughly representative board all the executive work of the Commonwealth relating to agriculture, and of giving to the farmers themselves the enforcement of all laws in which agriculture is especially interested. The board will then be, as it ought to be, one of the strongest and most important in the Commonwealth.

State Board of Police for Boston. This board was created in 1885, against strenuous opposition, for the purpose of taking from the city of Boston the control of her police force, and of vesting it in a state board, which was also given the licensing power. Since then the people of Boston have had no power whatever over their police, or over the enforcement within her limits of the laws of the state, or of the municipal ordinances enacted for their safety and benefit. If in their opinion constant and repeated violations of law are permitted, to their injury;

if municipal ordinances are not enforced, resulting in detriment to the public health or to the public convenience; if notorious and illegal resorts are allowed to exist, to the scandal and disgrace of the city; or if the control of the police and of the saloons is abused for political purposes, the citizens of Boston have no power to correct these evils, but must patiently submit to them, while they are taxed for the whole expense of such enforcement of law. Boston is the only community within the Commonwealth which has thus been deprived of the right to govern herself. The declared reason for such legislation was mistrust of her citizens. I do not share that sentiment. On the contrary, I have not only a firm belief in their right to govern themselves, but full confidence in their capacity and ability to do so. The jurisdiction of this state board over both licenses and police is a union of two distinct powers, which, in my judgment, it is not for the public interest to have united in any one board. The power of granting or revoking licenses is judicial in its character; the other is purely executive. The first should be vested in a board of such appointment and tenure as to be judicial in its action; the other in a board responsible to the community over which it exercises executive control. I earnestly recommend a separation of these powers; that the control of her police be restored to the city of Boston; and that you then consider whether the control of licenses should be left in the present board, or placed in another board of such character, appointment and tenure that it will be above all political, personal or selfish influences, and will command the confidence of the people. Superintendent of Prisons. This office, created in 1887 and involving an expense of sixty-five hundred dollars a year, has few and very limited duties, all of which can be and should be performed by the various boards in charge of our penal institutions, or by the heads of such institutions under the direction of such boards. It is independent of the board of prison commissioners and its work, and seems to be out of gear with any existing administrative machinery. Unless you are prepared to follow the plan adopted in New York, which gives to a superintendent of prisons, in place of other boards, practically full charge of the whole prison system, and makes him, and so the administration of the system, responsible to the governor, I believe the office is not necessary or

useful. For these and other reasons, more fully stated in a special message to the legislature, March 23, 1891, I recommend that it be abolished.

Topographical Survey Commission. - This commission reports that it is now engaged in surveying and delineating the town boundaries of the Commonwealth, and that it will require at least ten years more for the work, of which about one third is completed. In its opinion this work can best be done under the management of the board of harbor and land commissioners. It recommends such transfer, which recommendation I submit for your favorable action.

Board of Supervisors of Statistics. This board, consisting of state officials, was created in 1877, to have general supervision and control of all matters relating to statistics. It is required to "meet regularly at the state house at least once in each month." I am informed that it has met but once since its creation, and has done nothing. It is responsible to no one. It seems to be useful only as a good illustration of the continued existence of unnecessary boards, and of the need of a thorough overhauling of our administrative machinery.

Building Commissions. The custom has prevailed in the past, when any important state building was to be erected, of creating a salaried commission, usually of three members, to have charge of the work. These commissions have then employed architects, engineers, superintendents, clerks, or such other assistants as seemed necessary. While this work has been done in some instances with unquestioned fidelity and success, in others there have been delay, unnecessary expense and great criticism, and in one instance the commission itself was finally legislated out of office. I do not believe this method of construction is the most economical or expeditious, or that the creation of these commissions, with rare exceptions, is necessary. If a building is to be erected for an institution already existing, I believe that the board in control of that institution should have general supervision of the work, having under them a proper person to superintend the construction. If the building is for a new institution, the board which is to manage it should be created at once, and should be given the charge of the work. The advantage of this would be greater expedition, less expense, more care and better results in build

ing, and a better institution when in operation, because of the experience and knowledge acquired by the board in its erection. This was the plan adopted in building the hospital provided for in chapter 412 of the acts of 1889,

a precedent which I recommend be followed in the future. If the building is not or is not to be in charge of any board, then its erection might be under the direction. of the governor and council, or other proper officials having under them some one to superintend the work. If this plan, suggested for future building, meets with your approval, it may be wise and necessary to create a state officer, to superintend the details of the construction of state buildings, under the control of the respective boards in charge of the work.

The entire absence of responsibility or system in our executive work; the instances suggested of needed change or abolition of offices, and others which may occur to you; the advantage of grouping under proper departments our executive boards and commissions; the expediency of devising some better way of bringing the needs and the information of the executive departments to the attention of the legislature; and the necessity of reducing to a proper system and control our present cumbersome executive machinery, all these reasons will, I trust, lead you to make a comprehensive and thorough examination of this branch of our government.

Two other matters connected with executive work deserve your attention.

CLERICAL ASSISTANCE.

Over one hundred thousand dollars are spent each year by executive departments for clerical assistance, under appropriations which give to the head of the department a gross sum to be divided and distributed for this purpose as he deems necessary. For one department sixteen thousand dollars are so appropriated. The head of that department can hire sixteen clerks for one thousand dollars apiece, or one clerk for sixteen thousand dollars if he wishes. The civil service commissioners have earnestly requested a change in this system, in which request I concur. In my judgment the clerical force of the departments should be established by law upon a permanent basis, with fixed salaries, and with a small contingent