particular individual it might help the cause of that party-and I am not speaking about the present President or the Democratic Party, but I am speaking about any President and any party-that if he gave orders to the Postmaster General to appoint that particular individual, they would have any trouble getting him qualified under civil service and appointing him?

Mr. KEATING. Not the slightest. It would follow a pattern, in my opinion. You would have a definite pattern. You have in the position of postmaster an influential leader in the community, and one man has the absolute right to dictate his selection.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the point I am making. They say they are taking politics out of it. How do we know they would be taking it out?

Now we have a system which provides for some check. We have a way to determine what politics enter into the selection.

But with this plan, you place the politics beyond any reach, or possibly even beyond exposure. We would have no right to question how a fellow got his appointment, if we delegate this power to the Postmaster General to make the selection. It would be within his control entirely.

Mr. KEATING. It would be entirely away from the people.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think there would be any Postmaster General-there might be some exceptions, but I doubt it-who would not take orders from the President. I doubt if any Civil Service Commission would refuse to take orders from the President, if he undertook to give them. And in view of some things that have happened recently, I can well foresee that if political expediency dictated it, the orders might be given. That is the view I take of it.

Mr. KEATING. I think you are absolutely right, Senator. I agree with you a hundred percent.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. KEATING. It is our opinion that what Senator Calhoun has said is true to an even greater extent today, because the country is far more vast, the annual income and expenditures of the Department have increased tremendously, the postal service reaches the remotest parts of the United States. We would suggest that, if any change is to be made in the appointment of postmasters, the legislative branch of the Government should assume more control, rather than relinquish the small amount they still retain.

There has been a growing tendency in Government to give more and more arbitrary power to administrative officers. Congress has already surrendered a great deal of authority to the administrative branch of Government, This has not resulted in improved administration. In a democracy, the legislative branch of the government should be strong.

If Reorganization Plan No. 2 is not disapproved, it could come to the point eventually where the Members of Congress would have to curry favor with the Postmaster General in order to retain their seats in Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think if a Congressman or Senator did not go along with the party line or administration line, and they decided they wanted to get rid of him at the next election, they could, through postmasters, wield considerable influence in determining the result of that election?

Mr. KEATING. Very definitely.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they are supposed to be under the Hatch Act. How restrictive is that when they get the orders from higher up?

Mr. KEATING. Under the Hatch Act, of course, it has to be approved from higher up.

The CHAIRMAN. Who finally determines? It is the Civil Service Commission that finally determines whether there has been a violation; is it not? So the judge, jury, and prosecutor could be all of one mind.

Mr. KEATING. At the present time, if a postmaster comes in, Senators of both parties are consulted. You each receive a card from the committee, and you can send in a rejection or an approval.

Now, in many cases the Senator of the minority party, if the candidate for postmaster is not a good man, can exert enough influence to have him disapproved. But under the proposed set-up, Congress would have absolutely nothing to say, and it would be easy for one group to violate the Hatch Act and awfully hard for another group to violate it.

The CHAIRMAN. You already have postmasters under civil service, certainly to the extent of qualifications and eligibility. The Civil Service Commission determines that now.

Mr. KEATING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All that the consulting authority does is to select one of the three who are certified as eligible, one of the top three. And I cannot bring myself to the belief that somebody in the Civil Service Commission, or a Postmaster General, could better determine who should be postmaster of the city of Camden, my home town in Arkansas, than I can.

Mr. KEATING. They couldn't do it as well.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I can determine that a little better than the Postmaster General and a little better than the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. KEATING. I migh point out that at the present time the House is considering S. 1135, known as the recruitment bill, which has already passed the Senate, and, if that passes, they will have a group of five rather than a group of three. The selection would be made from five rather than from three.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think that is all right. I think probably it should be made from any of those who qualify.

Mr. KEATING. We don't object to the five, except that we do if you are going to place it in the hands of an administrator. It widens it up, in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it makes any difference. I think if the Civil Service Commission has the authority, they will determine pretty much whom they want anyway.

Mr. KEATING. If this passes, there is no single individual in the United States that would have power comparable to the Postmaster General. In addition to administering a $2 billion business, he would have personal representatives who were obligated and responsible only to him in practically 22,000 cities in the United States.

We would not object too strenuously to Reorganization Plan No. 2 if the man with the highest rating in the civil-service examination were automatically appointed for the position, but we do object stren

uously to giving any one individual official such extensive authority. In our opinion, if Reorganization Plan No. 2 is permitted to be placed into effect, political favoritism and political patronage will reach a new high in American political history. The result will be a superduper bureaucracy in this country and the rights and interests of the American public and the employees of the Post Office Department will suffer severely.

In closing, we want to again urge your committee to favorably report out Senate Resolution 317.

We greatly appreciate having had the honor and privilege of testifying here this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Dworshak, any questions?

Senator DWORSHAK. Well, just one. I got one reaction from the comments made by Mr. Keating. The Citizens Committee for the Hoover Plan has created the impression that plan No. 2 would entirely remove politics, because, apparently, of the malicious influence of Members of the House, who recommend appointments or have some influence in the selection of postmasters now, and because the Senate has the right of confirmation. It just occurs to me that it is. a sad commentary on the political background of Members of Congress if we cannot trust 435 Members, or at least the majority Members of the House, to influence the selection of postmasters; but at the same time we are willing to set up one man in the executive branch and vest in him complete authority to take over the appointment of more than 20,000 postmasters.

We are assuming that Members of Congress cannot be trusted from a political standpoint, but that we can take a member of the President's Cabinet and assume that he will be completely aloof and removed from the field of patronage in making these selections. That does not sound logical, does it?

Mr. KEATING. No; and it is entirely foreign to our basic political thinking in this country and the principles upon which this Government was founded, entirely foreign.

The CHAIRMAN. Incidentally, it might be well to observe in that connection that postmasters in the past have served as national chairmen of national political party committees. I do not know when that practice will be resumed.

Mr. KEATING. As a matter of fact, in my experience in the Post Office Department, I think the most competent Postmaster General we ever had was Postmaster General Farley. He had a broad understanding of public welfare and relationships and service, and he had a kind and keen insight into the welfare of the employees. And he gave us, I would say, the most efficient administration we ever had. Of course, he was an official of a political party.

I might also say that Postmaster General Will Hays, while he served a relatively short period of time, would have given a similar type of administration. He did splendidly as Postmaster General in the period that he served.

So somehow or other in this country we have come to talk about politics as being an evil. Well, it is a sad thing if it gets to be an evil. It is an evil in Russia. They don't have it. And it is an evil in all countries where they don't have democracy. But if you are going to have a democratic government, you are going to have poli

tics, and we should make politics good rather than talk about eliminating politics. You are not going to eliminate politics as long as you have people,

Senator DwORSHAK. Very briefly, Mr. Keating, can you give us some comment on your statement that the morale of the postal employees has never been lower than at the present time?

Mr. KEATING. I think that is generally conceded. The morale is extremely low. The service is poor. There are a lot of complaints from the public. And the letter carriers are taking a beating from the public. It has kind of knocked down their interest in their jobs. The best thing we have had throughout the years of the postal service has been the feeling of the postal employees that they wanted to serve the people, give them good service. When they are discouraged from doing that, and regulations and curtailment orders are put into effect that make it impossible, mail is received when it is late, and the people criticize the employees, morale can't be good. It is absolutely impossible. And there has been more official indecision and confusion under the present Postmaster General than ever in my experience in the postal service.

Senator DwORSHAK. It is generally assumed, of course, that the incumbent Postmaster General is a career man and that patronage and partisanship had absolutely nothing to do with his selection to fill that post in the Cabinet, and that consequently morale has been on a higher plane among the employees. But that is not true? Mr. KEATING. No; that is not true. The opposite is true at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Do either of you gentlemen care to make a statement, Mr. Delany or Mr. Kremers?

Mr. DELANY. Senator, I might make a brief statement, which will be supplementary to the staff memoranda, which, as I said before, were so excellent and so comprehensive.

They demonstrate quite clearly that from a legal standpoint not only was it never conceived that the Reorganization Act of 1949 would authorize such action as is taken in the reorganization plan before the committee, but in fact it was declared unanimously that the opposite was true, that there was no authority to do this. And it was later so declared by all interested people.

Now, here we have an attempted exercise of that authority.

I would like to point out one provision of the Reorganization Act, dealing specifically with the matter of appointments, which I don't believe is mentioned in those memoranda. That is found in section 2 of the act, which is section 133z-2 of the United States Code, title 5. Now, in subsection 2, it is stated that any reorganization plan transmitted by the President may include provisions for the appointment and compensation of the head and one or more other officers of any agency, if the President finds, and in his message transmitting the plan, declares, that by reason of a reorganization made by the plan such provisions are necessary. In other words, this authorizes provisions for appointment as a corollary and a subordinate part of other structural changes in the agency to be affected.

The CHAIRMAN. There is actually no structural change made by this plan.

Mr. DELANY. This might be described as an effort to lift oneself by one's bootstraps.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, there is no change, no structural change, whatsoever, except the change in the method of appointment.

Mr. DELANY. This is not necessary to something else, because there is nothing else in the plan.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not tie to anything else in the plan, because there is nothing to tie to. If an authorized structural change were being made, and it were necessary to appoint some official or create some office to meet those changed conditions in order that the functions might be performed, then they have the authority to create an office.

But where no structural change is made, you make the point that there is no authority to creat an office.

Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, let us say tomorrow the President decided that there ought to be a new office in the executive branch of the Government, a new agency and a new office. He just sends down a plan creating an agency and an office, without transferring any functions of any other agency or anything else. Do you think he would have authority to do that under this plan, under the Reorganization Act? It would not be reorganized or anything. It would be establishing something new.

Mr. DELANY. That is true, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this does not reorganize. It just purports to establish a new office and sets up the manner of appointment.

Mr. DELANEY. The sole effect is to transfer to the Executive powers formerly exercised by the legislative branch of the Government. The purpose of the Reorganization Act was to allow the President to make order within his own exclusive household.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnston, come forward, please, sir. Senator, I believe you are the author or one of the coauthors of Senate Resolution 317, which is a resolution expressing disapproval of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952. The committee is very glad to hear you, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, because the plan which is before us deals specifically with the Post Office Department, over which your committee would normally have jurisdiction. We have it before us because the Legislative Reorganizations Act of 1946 gives this committee jurisdiction over all reorganization plans. In other words, if this proposal had been submitted as a bill, your committee would have jurisdiction over it. I am sure this committee wants your views as chairman and those of the members of your committee; because we feel that you are more familiar than this committee with the Post Office Department, its set-up, its functions, the service it gives, and legislation that is appropriate for its proper and efficient management.

We are glad to welcome you, and to have your views in support of the resolution, and your discussion of the plan before us.