3. First-class postmaster applicants are given an unassembled examination and rated upon education, business or professional experience, qualifications, and suitability. Education is given a weight of 20; experience, qualifications, and suitability are given a combined weight of 80. No written examinations given because the work of first-class postmasters is largely administrative and supervisory, rather than clerical. The information furnished by applicants is carefully checked and verified by personal investigation performed by a Civil Service Commission investigator, who interviews a cross section of the patrons of the post office concerned, including some of the references of each applicant. Various persons in the local area are queried relative to their opinion of the applicants.

4. When the investigator, who is merely a fact-finder, completes his investigation, he files a report with the central offices of the Commission at Washington, where trained examiners review the information and determine whether the applicants are eligible, and the rating to be assigned.

5. Applicants for the position of postmasters of the second and third class are rated upon both a written examination, which is assigned a weight of 50; and education, business or professional experience, general qualifications and suitability, which is assigned a weight of 50. The written examination is designed to test the applicant's ability to understand terminology and interpret instructions, and his judgment and ability to deal with problems such as those which normally confront a postmaster. The applicant is graded upon his written examination solely upon the basis of the work which he did in the examination room. In assigning ratings on the subject of education, experience, general qualifications and suitability, consideration is given to the statements of experience on the application and to other evidence secured through investigation.

6. Information relative to suitability, etc., of the applicant is obtained by sending confidential inquiry forms to a representative cross section of the patrons of the post office for which the examination is held, including references given by each applicant. These inquiries request information relative to general qualifications, suitability and residence. When replies from these confidential inquiries reveal doubts as to the suitability or qualifications of an applicant, a personal investigation is made.

7. When all of the information is assembled, it is rated by examiners in the central office of the Commission, as in the case of first-class postmasters. However, second-class applicants must meet the minimum requirements with respect to experience and suitability before any credit can be given for the rating made in the written test, or for veteran preference. In order to meet the minimum requirements, an applicant must have demonstrated his ability to conduct business . affairs to an extent comparable with those of the postmaster of the post office for which he is a candidate.

8. In determining the rating for postmasters of all classes, due credit is allowed under the provisions of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944, as amended. B. Appointment

9. Upon completion of the examiners' review, the names of the three competitors at the top of the list of eligibles are certified by the Civil Service Commission to the Postmaster General.

10. The Postmaster General submits the names of the three top eligibles to the Congressman in whose district the vacancy exists, if the Congressman is of the same political party as the administration (unless the vacancy exists at the home post office of a Senator, in which event the list is submitted to him), for a recommendation with respect to one of the top three. If the Congressman is of a different political party than the administration, the list is submitted to a Senator for recommendation. If neither Congressmen nor Senators are from the same political party as the administration, the names go to the national committee of the political party of the administration, which contacts local individuals for recommendations. The Congressmen or Senators to whom the list of eligibles is submitted are referred to as "advisers".

11. The Congressman indicates his choice to the Postmaster General, who need not follow the recommendation, but usually does.

12. The Postmaster General then forwards the name of the person chosen to the President who transmits the nomination to the Senate for confirmation or rejection.

C. Fourth-class postmasters

Although fourth-class postmasters are not affected by the plan, it should be noted that the procedures by which they are appointed are similar to those used

in the appointment of postmasters of the first three classes, except that they *** applied by the Postmaster General, rather than the President, and conply require to Senate confirmation. In four belaw offices where the compensation is $1.700 a year or more, postmasters are appointed on the basis of Civil Service Commission certification after written examination and persmal investigation by confidential inquiry forms such as are used in connection with the appointment of second- and third-class postmasters. In offices where the compensation is less than $1,700 a year, no written test is required. Personal investigation is made by a post office inspector who reports his findings concerning the applicant's suitability, qualifications, etc.. to the Postmaster General When the names of the three top eligibles are certified to the Postmaster General by the Civil Service Commission the list is submitted to the appropriate congressional advisers for recommendation as in the case of postmasters of the first three classes.

BOTE ON THE PRACTICE AND LEGALITY OF SUBMISSION OF LIST OF TOP THREE ELIGIBLES TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Barly practice

It appears that the practice of consulting the congressional delegation with respect to vacancies in their districts began even before the establishment of the Government of the United States. Prof. Leonard D. White notes that “* * from an early date it was the custom in the Post Office to defer to the representatives of the people.” In this connection, Professor White cites an entry in the diary of Richard Smith, a member of the Continental Congress in 1775 as follows: "Dr. Franklin, the Postmaster General desired the Delegates of New Jersey to nominate Deputy Postmasters (presently known as postmasters) throughout the Colony which we did accordingly.'" (White, The Federalists, New York, 1948, pp. 83-84. )

The practice of consulting congressional advisers continued after the establishment of the new Government, and Professor White observes that "The Postminsters General from 1789 to 1801 tried conscientiously to find proper persons (for postmaster positions). They sought advice from Members of Congress, from leading merchants and local residents, from retiring postmasters and others * * *" (White, The Federalists, op. cit., p. 179).

Further evidence of this practice is found in a letter written February 11, 1792, by Timothy Pickering, Postmaster General during part of George Washington's administration, advising two appointees of their appointment. He wrote: "At the request and on the recommendation of Mr. Bourne, your Representative in Congress, I have appointed you Postmaster *" (Letter Book of the Postmaster General, Book A, p. 406).

* *

Describing the period between 1801 and 1829, Professor White states that "The Postmaster General consulted various sources of information, and made his own inquiries of persons residing in localities where a vacancy had to be supplied. Representatives and Senators were regular advisers. Jeffersonians, New York, 1951, p. 323).

Legality of the practice

**

(White, The

Although the legality of this practice has never been passed upon by the courts, it has found by the Attorney General (Hon. Frank Murphy) of the United States to be expressly authorized by statute, in an opinion issued in 1939 In connection with the appointment of a fourth-class postmaster (39 Op. Atty. Gon, 878). It appears that the postmaster in question was one of the top three applicants who had been certified by the Civil Service Commission to the Postmaster General as eligible for appointment to a vacancy in Ohio. Following the usual practice, the Postmaster General submitted the list to the Congressman in whose district the vacancy existed, requesting him “to submit any representations he cared to make regarding the character or residence of the eligibles.” The Congressman recommended the appointment of one of the three and the Postmaster General thereupon appointed the individual recommended.

After investigation, the Civil Service Commission found that the Congressman, by his own admission, had been motivated by political considerations in recommending the appointee. The Commission then notified the Postmaster General that the appointment was in violation of the Civil Service Act and its regulations which requires appointments to be made solely upon the basis of merit and without regard to political considerations, and that the appointment should be ownceled The Postmaster General thereupon requested a ruling from the

Attorney General first, with respect to the legality of the appointment in question; and second, with respect to the practice of the Post Office Department of requesting recommendations from congressional advisers.

The Attorney General found that the appointment of the postmaster in question was legal, since the request for congressional recommendations is authorized by 'section 10 of the Civil Service Act of 1883, as amended (5 U. S. C., sec. 642), and further, since there was no evidence that the Postmaster General was aware of the motives of the Congressman, prior to making the appointment.

Concerning the legality of the practice, generally, the Attorney General stated (381-2):

"I also note your request for my opinion as to the legality of the procedure which the Post Office Department has long followed in respect to the appointment of fourth-class postmasters. Your letter and the accompanying exhibits indicate that such practice consists of requesting the Civil Service Commission to certify the names of three persons eligible for appointment, as provided by the Civil Service Act and rules; and of thereafter notifying the Members of the House of Representatives in whose district the post office is located of the names of persons so certified and requesting him to submit any representations he cares to make regarding the character or residence of the eligibles.

"Section 10 of the Civil Service Act (U. S. C. title 5, sec. 642) provides as follows:

66

"That no recommendation of any person who shall apply for office or place under the provisions of this act which may be given by any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, except as to the character or residence of the applicant, shall be received or considered by any person concerned in making any examination or appointment under this act'. [Emphasis supplied.]

"In view of the fact that it appears that in offering to Members of the House of Representatives an opportunity to make suggestions in reference to the selection of the person to be selected for appointment out of the three persons certified by the Civil Service Commission, you expressly request the Members to limit themselves to submitting representations regarding the character or residence of the eligibles, your practice does not violate the provisions of the Civil Service Act, but on the contrary is within its explicit provisions."

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE APPOINTMENT OF POSTMASTERS

Summary of developments

The Continental Congress, in 1775, established a post office and made Benjamin Franklin, Postmaster General, "with power to appoint such and so many deputies, as to him may seem proper and necessary." Under the Articles of Confederation, in 1781, the Congress again provided for a post office and a Postmaster General with "full power and authority to appoint a clerk, or assistant to himself, and such and so many deputy postmasters as he shall think proper." The first Congress under the Constitution, directed, in 1789 “That there shall be appointed a Postmaster General; his powers and salary, and the compensation to the assistant or clerk and deputies which he may appoint, shall be the same as they last were under the resolutions and ordinances of the late Congress" (act of September 22, 1789, 1 Stat. 70).

** * *

From 1789 to 1836-the first 47 years of the life of the Republic-all postmasters were appointed by the Postmaster General without designated term, and were subject to removal by him. Until 1863, they were known as deputy postmasters.

Following an intensive investigation by two Senate committees, during 1834 and 1835, into alleged graft and corruption in the Post Office, in particular, and into executive patronage, in general, the Congress passed H. R. 245, Twentyfourth Congress, which became the act of July 2, 1836 (5 Stat. 80, 87). This act was the first statutory authority for the Presidential appointment of postmasters, with Senate confirmation, and grew out of the recommendations of the two committee as well as a general feeling in Congress that Senate confirmation was the only way in which graft, corruption, and abuses could be controlled or eliminated. The act provided that all postmasters at post offices at which annual commissions allowed amounted to $1,000 or more, as of a given date, were to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of 4 years, unless sooner removed by the President.

In 1863, the Postmaster General was empowered to appoint all postmasters whose compensation was less than $1,000; in 1864, five classes of post offices were established; and in 1872, provision was made for the appointment and removal

by the Postmaster General of all postmasters of the fourth and fifth classes, all others being continued as Presidential appointees. In 1874, postmasters were divided into four classes according to compensation. The Postmaster General was authorized to appoint fourth-class postmasters; all others were continued as Presidential appointees. The act of July 12, 1876 (19 Stat. 80, 81), continued this method of appointing postmasters, which is the law today, except that the act of June 25, 1938, eliminated the 4-year term for first-, second-, and thirdclass postmasters and provided for the appointment of all postmasters under civil service rules and regulations. (See appendix A for history and background of Senate confirmation of postmasters.)

SUMMARY

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952 would have the sole effect of changing the method of appointing postmasters of the first three classes by transferring their appointment from the President, subject to Senate confirmation, to the Postmaster General under civil service. Although plan No. 2 of 1952 purports to abolish existing offices of postmaster at post offices of the first three classes and to establish a new office entitled "Postmaster," it does not appear that any actual reorganization in either the structure or functions of the Department will

occur.

In view of this, and the expression of opinion by the President, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the Postmaster General and former President Herbert Hoover, in connection with earlier reorganizations in the Post Office, to the effect that the transfer of appointment sought to be accomplished, required substantive legislation and could not be done by a reorganization plan, serious doubt is raised with respect to the legality of plan No. 2 of 1952.

Approved:

ELI E. NOBLEMAN, Professional Staff Member.

WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Staff Director.

APPENDIX A

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF SENATE CONFIRMATION OF POSTMASTERS

The original drive in Congress for Presidential appointment of postmasters, with Senate confirmation, appears to have arisen out of a fear that a Postmaster General, who could appoint whom he wished, without any control or approval of the Senate, had a dangerous and extensive patronage power.

The first move to attain some control over this power by requiring Senate participation, appears to have been made when Congressman Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania submitted a resolution, on January 7, 1814, calling for an "Inquiry into the expediency of revising the laws regulating the General Post Office Establishment of the United States, and of so amending them as to render them more conformable than they are at present to the principles of the Constitution, as regards appointments to office under that establishment." Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives, in support of his resolution and on the general subject of patronage, he said:

"It has always been an objection urged by many respectable individuals against the Constitution of the United States from the time of its adoption down to this moment, that the Executive Chief Magistrate is entrenched behind too formidable a barrier of patronage and influence. Yet that officer can hardly make an appointment without submitting the nomination to an ordeal in the Senate; an ordeal well known to be of the most trying kind—for very recently it would occur to everybody that, after being tested in the senatorial crucible, some distinguished individuals not answering the assay, had been rejected as found wanting and thrown back upon the President. The War Department cannot make an officer * * * without the intervention of the Senate. Nor can the Navy Department.

*

**

"If then, sir, neither the President nor any one of the Executive Secretaries enjoys such a field of irresponsible patronage, I submit it to every man attached to the principles of the Constitution, to consider whether the head of the General Post Office should be allowed, without control, without appeal, without question, to command the services of a band of agents consisting, unless I am incorrectly informed, of not less than 3,000 individuals, distributed throughout the territories of this extensive continent. * * This patronage extends not merely to the uncontrolled appointment of inferior deputies. He has moreover within his

gift places which, in that particular unfortunately too seductive, that is, in point of emolument, are better worth having than any one of the honorable stations occupied by the Secretaries immediately about the person, and in the Cabinet of the Executive.

"While therefore I disown any view to implicate the General Post Office in culpability at present, I cannot help apprehending that other masters at other times may come, when honorable Senators or other elevated men may be diverted, perverted possibly from their duties, by hopes allowed to be entertained that a postmaster may be prevailed on to translate them from their public places to others of less dignity but more emolument. It does appear to me that unless some remedy be applied to this evil, and that without delay, we are in danger of a new order of Jesuits, in this country, with an unlimited General at their head, to dictate his orders, and enforce them, under all the pains and penalties of removal from their deputations. All that I require is, that the Post Office Establishment should be put on the footing of all the other departments of the General Government that this should be done as soon as possible, and that an effectual remedy should be applied to this great and dangerous evil. (Annals, 13th Cong., vol. 1, pp. 864-866. [Emphasis supplied.]

*

Although the House adopted his resolution by a vote of 73 to 53 and referred it to the appropriate committee, no further action was taken on the resolution. On March 8, 1814, Congressman Ingersoll introduced a bill providing that all postmasters at distributing offices and in all incorporated cities be appointed by the President and the Senate, upon which no action was ever taken.

Several times within the 15 years following 1814, the suggestion was made that postmasters should be Presidential appointees. In 1816, John Quincy Adams recorded in his diary a joint report of Monroe and Crawford, made in a Cabinet meeting, suggesting that all postmasters whose commissions amounted to $2,000 a year or over should be appointed by the President, with the consent of the Senate (Adams, Memoirs, Philadelphia, 1874-77, vol. 5, p. 482). On May 1, 1822, a similar proposal was voted down in the House of Representatives (Annals, 17th Cong., vol. 1, p. 1774).

On May 4, 1826, a Select Senate Committee on Executive Patronage, headed by Senator Benton, of Missouri, filed a report, decrying the evils of executive patronage and recommending, among other things, that postmasters be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A draft bill, entitled "A bill to regulate the appointment of Postmasters," was submitted with the report, and subsequently introduced. After extensive debate and a second reading, it was tabled. (Congressional Debates, 19th Cong., vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 133).

On March 29, 1834, the Senate adopted a resolution directing that an inquiry into the condition of the Post Office Department be made by the Committee on Post Office and Post Roads. This committee filed an interim report on June 9, 1834, in which they reviewed the evidence which had been developed to date, and reported that:

"On the whole, your committee have found the affairs of this Department in a state of utter derangement, resulting, as it is believed, from the uncontrolled discretion exercised by its officers over its contracts and its funds; and their habitual evasion, and, in some instances, their total disregard of the laws which have been provided for their restraint (S. Doc. No. 422, 23d Cong.,

1st sess., p. 31).

On June 25, 1834, the Senate adopted another resolution calling for a further investigation of the affairs of the Post Office. This committee submitted an extensive and carefully documented report, on January 27, 1835, calling for far-reaching reforms in the organization and operations of the Post Office. The report stated that:

* * *

"So numerous and so great are the abuses which have grown up in this Department, that reform has become absolutely necessary; many of the evils which require a remedy do not arise from defects in existing law, but from an habitual disregard of plain legal provisions. They may, however, be principally traced to the absolute and unchecked power which a single individual holds over the resources and disbursements, and all the vast machinery of this Department. The checks of various inferior officers upon each other are of no value, when they are all guided and controlled in their acts by one dominant will (S. Doc. No. 86, 23d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 88, 89). After a further discussion of the abuses and disorders uncovered, the committee stated that:

66

* *

*

*

* * *

They deem it their duty at this time to propose such measures of legislation as will, in their opinion, the most effectually prevent the 99820-52-3