146 



National Resources Committee 



Adminiitrative Branch — Continued. 



26. North Dakota — Continued. 



2. Joint Committee on Economy in the Public 



Service. 

 Report, 1929. 



3. Governmental Survey Committee. 

 Report, 1933 



27. Ohio: 



1. Joint Committee on Administrative Reorganiza- 



tion. 

 Report, 1921. 



2. Joint Committee on Economy and Taxation. 

 Report, 1926. 



3. Joint Committee on Economy in the Public Serv- 



ice. 

 Survey reports on State administration by 

 Griffenhagen and Associates, 1929. 



4. Ohio Government Survey. 

 Reports, 1935. 



5. Interim Commission on Governmental and Ad- 



ministrative Reorganization. 

 Reports, 1937 (processed). 



28. Oklahoma: 



1. Institute for Government Research : Brookings 

 Institution. 

 Report on a survey of the organization and ad- 

 ministration of Oklahoma, 1935. 



29. Oregon : 



1. Consolidation Commission. 

 Report, 1919. 



2. Joint Committee on Administrative Reorganiza- 



tion. 

 Report, 1930. 



3. Interim Comuiissiou on Government and Ad- 



ministration ; Reorganization and Research 

 Committee of the Oregon State Planning 

 Board. 

 Joint Report, 1937. 



30. Pennsylvania : 



1. Economy and Efficiency Commission. 

 Report, 1915. 



2. Joint Committee on Finance. 



Report on the organization and administration 

 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1934. 



31. South Carolina: 



1. Joint Legislative Committee on Economy and 



Consolidation. 

 Report, 1922. 



2. Joint Legislative Committee on Efficiency and 



Economy. 

 Report, 1926. 



32. South Dakota: 



1. New York Bureau of Municipal Research. 

 Report on administrative organization and 



management of the government of the State 

 of South Dakota, 1922. 



2. Joint Legislative Committee on Administration 



and Reorganization. 

 Report, 1923. 



33. Texas: 



1. Joint Committee to Investigate the Departments 

 of the State Government and the State Institu- 

 tions. 

 Report, 1918. 



Administrative Branch — Continued. 



33. Texas — Continued. 



2. Committee to Investigate Certain State Depart- 



ments. 

 Report, 1927. 



3. Joint Legislative Committee on Organization and 



Economy. 

 Report by Griffenhagen and Associates, 1933. 



34. Utah: 



1. Committee to Study the Operations of the State 

 Government. 

 Reports, 1934. 



35. Virginia : 



1. Commission on Economy and Efficiency. 

 Reports, 1918. 



2. Special Joint Legislative Committee on Investi- 



gation of State Departments and Merger and 

 Abolition of Offices, Boards, and Commissions. 

 Report, 1922. 



3. Commission on Simplification and Economy of 



State and Local Government. 

 Report, 1924. 



4. New York Bureau of Mimicipal Research. 

 Organization and Management of the State Gov- 

 ernment of Virginia, 1927. 



5. Senate Committee on Economy. 

 Report, 1934. 



36. West Virginia: 



1. Efficiency Commission. 

 Report, 1917. 



37. Wisconsin: 



1. Interim Committee to Investigate State Admin- 

 istration and Taxation. 

 Report, 1926. 



38. Wyoming: 



1. Special Legislative Committee on Organization 

 and Revenue. 

 Report by Griffenhagen and Associates, 1933. 



General Comment 



A study of special investigations such as has been 

 made in the pages immediately preceding raises a num- 

 ber of questions that it is important to have examined. 



Value of Legislative Inquiries. — The first and most 

 important of these is as to the justification of legislative 

 bodies engaging in research work of the character de- 

 scribed and the value of the work that they have 

 actually done. To such inquiries but one response can 

 be made. Although the complaint that our legislatures, 

 and especially Congress, push their investigatory work 

 to indefensible lengths and incur unwarranted expense 

 may at times be partially justified, there can be no 

 doubt that, taken as a whole, these investigations have 

 fully justified themselves. They have enabled the legis- 

 lature to inform itself regarding the action desired by 

 its constituency; afforded an opportunity to interests 

 affected by proposed legislation to be heard ; informed 

 the committees regarding factors involved in proposed 

 action ; brought into existence a large body of valuable 

 data that otherwise would not have been rendered 

 available; have enabled the legislatures to bring about 



