The Cabinet Change-Over

December 15, 1952

Some readers may have wondered why a column devoted to business tides has been discussing the “political” problems of an Administration change-over. The reason is that the uncertainties created by the interregnum period can have, and have had, profound effects on business. The bank panic of 1933 was the direct result of the interregnum. That panic caused great unemployment and suffering for years. Its effects are still felt in the retention of such mischievous institutions as the Reconstruction Finance Corp., in the persistence of inconvertible paper money, and in the excessive dread of deflation that has helped to cause continued inflation.

American action could be temporarily paralyzed even now if, for example, the Communist world should make some unexpected aggressive move before the present interregnum was over. And whatever threatens our national security of course profoundly affects business.

Yet there is great national reluctance to consider even minor changes affecting the Presidential office. Though the Constitution makes explicit provision for the resignation of a President, there is a curiously widespread notion that it would be “unconstitutional” for a President to resign before his term expired on Jan. 20. And the proposal that a President be merely enabled by law to resign in favor of his elected successor is regarded by some as directed against the incumbent—though such a precedent, once set, would almost certainly control all his successors.

Fortunately, it is possible to discuss the changeover of a Cabinet with comparative freedom from the misconceptions and prejudices that encumber the discussion of a change-over of the Presidential office. And the Cabinet problem urgently needs consideration at this time. For months Defense Secretary Lovett has expressed a wish to be able to brief his successor fully before that successor takes office. General Eisenhower has taken the unprecedented step of naming his full Cabinet long in advance of his inauguration. His Secretaries-designate have already been holding conferences with incumbent Secretaries.

The new procedure undoubtedly serves the public interest. Yet under existing law it is unfair to the President-elect and his appointees. If they are expected to begin working on their new jobs even before officially taking office, then they ought not to be asked to do it without compensation. Congressman Hugh Scott says it is costing some $20,000 a week to keep a staff of 90 to 100 persons in the Eisenhower headquarters in New York, and that it is necessary in the public interest to keep this organization until Jan. 20. But the funds for it must now be supplied by private subscription.

There is a simple way in which Congress could deal equitably with this situation. It could authorize both an outgoing and a newly inaugurated President to appoint an Alternate Secretary for each existing Secretary. This Alternate would have the rank and the salary of a Cabinet member, and a modest budget for temporary clerical help. As his tenure would have a maximum duration of, say, three months, and as he would have no independent powers, his appointment would not need to be made subject to Senate confirmation.

With such legislation on the books, the President-elect could forward to the outgoing President a list of his intended Cabinet appointments. The outgoing President, as a courtesy, could name these as Alternate Secretaries. Even if this course were not feasible in a given case, the new President, when naming his new Cabinet after he took office, would still be empowered to name members of his predecessor’s Cabinet as Alternate Secretaries for a few weeks to give them time to brief their successors.

This legal provision for a smoother, fairer, and more orderly Cabinet change-over could either be made by Congress independently, on its own merits, or together with a provision permitting more flexibility in the change-over of the Presidential office.