« 이전계속 »
the field offices of such bureaus, and shall appoint the heads and all officers and employees thereof."
The Secretary of the Treasury discusses S. 1150 as follows in a letter of May 14, 1951, to this committee: “As you know various officers of these bureaus, including the collectors of internal revenue and of customs, are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It has been the Treasury Department's experience that Presidential appointees located in strategic positions in these bureaus can do and have done effective, efficient work.' Among other department comments on S. 1150, the only other reaction is that of the Civil Service Commission, favoring the proposed change.
Two other pending 1951 proposals reflecting much staff work by the Bureau of Customs are designed to bring about economies in the Bureau by making major simplifications in customs and navigation laws. Thus, H. R. 5505 (Doughton) proposing the Customs Simplification Act of 19, of 42 printed pages, has passed the House, and hearings of the Senate Finance Committee are now under way. It proposes amendments of the Tariff Act of 1930, and related acts, for the most part removing cumbersome requirements now applicable to imports.
Similarly, H. R. 2641 of 186 printed pages, pending before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, revises the navigation laws relative to entry, clearance, coastwise trade, foreign trade, fisheries, and the like.
1952 related proposals.-Three proposals of this year are directly related to Plan No. 3 of 1952, as follows: (1) Plan No. 1 of 1952 applied to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the same extension of civil service as is now proposed. In place of 64 politically appointed collectors of internal revenue, it provided for appointment on a civil-service basis of not more than 25 new district commissioners, and not in excess of 70 other officials.
(2) Two bills have been recently introduced which would place officials of the Bureau of Customs under civil service. S. 2899, introduced by Senator Thye on March 19, 1952, and referred to the Committee on Finance, would place the same top customs officials under civil service as is proposed under plan No. 3. The statute is to become effective 6 months after passage.
S. 2990, a broader "blue ribbon” civil-service bill was introduced by Senators Humphrey, Monroney, and Moody on April 2, 1952. In addition to customs officials, it includes United States Attorneys, United States marshals, and postmasters of the first, second, and third class.
Management of the Bureau of Customs has been considerably improved. Plan No. 3 of 1952 is proposed to stimulate further improvement by replacing 52 politically appointed top customs officials with such number of career employees as is authorized in annual appropriations, including up to 20 new supergrade career appointees. Extension of a career basis of Federal service was repeatedly urged by the Hoover Commission of 1949. Plan No. 3 would also eliminate antiquated and cumbersome accounting and other requirements from statutes of many years standing, to help achieve eventual future savings of at least $300,000 a year, as estimated in the President's message.
No attention is given in plan No. 3 to a merger of the Bureaus of Internal Revenue and of Customs (55,433 and 8,603 employees, respectively), as was vigorously urged in the Hoover Commission report. For legal aspects of plan No. 3, see Staff Memorandum 82–2–28.
HERMAN C. LOEFFLER,
Professional Staff Member. Approved :
WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Staff Director.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
May 6, 1952. Staff Memorandum No. 82-2-31. Subject: Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952—Reorganizations in the Department
of Justice. Plan No. 4 of 1952 abolishes the 94 existing offices of United States marshal, establishes 94 successor offices of “United States Marshal” in the Department of Justice. and vests authority in the Attorney General to appoint the marshals under the classi ed civil service,
Section 1.--Abolishes the 87 offices of United States marshal for the judicial districts defined in title 28, U. S. Code, chapter 5, the four offices in Alaska, and one each in Guam, the Canal Zone and the Virgin Islands. Provides for terminating the affairs of those offices.
Section 2.- Establishes 94 new offices of United States marshal in the Department of Justice, as follows: 87 for the judicial districts defined in title 28, U. S. Code, chapter 5, four in Alaska, one in Guam, one in the Canal Zone, and one in the Virgin Islands. Provides for appointment of each marshal by the Attorney General under the classified civil service at compensation fixed by the classification laws.
Section 3.—Transfers to the Attorney General any functions now vested in United States marshals by statutes or reorganization plans.
Section 4 (a).-Makes section 1 (abolition of existing offices), with respect to statutory terms of office, effective as follows: (1) For offices having no incumbent on the date plan No. 4 becomes effective, or for offices having hold-over incumbents, the effective date shall be such date as the Attorney General specifies, but in no event later than January 1, 1953; and (2) for offices having an incumbent serving a specified term which has not expired whein plan No. 4 becomes effective, the date on which said term expires or whenever the office becomes vacant.
Section 4 (6).-Makes section 1 (with respect to offices not having a specified statutory term) effective on such date as the Attorney General specifies, but no later than January 1, 1953.
Section 4 (0).-Provides that section 2 (the establishment of new offices) shall become effective for each judicial district concurrently with the taking effect of the provisions of section 1 for the same judicial district.
Section 4 (d).-Provides that section 3 (transfers of functions) shall take effect on the date plan No. 4 becomes effective.
HISTORY OF APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES MARSHALS
Since the first Congress in 1789, United States marshals have been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the office of United States marshal (one for each judicial district), limited the marshal's term of office to 4 years and provided that marshals should be removable at pleasure. The act authorized each marshal to appoint deputy marshals, who were subject to removal by either the district or circuit judges whom the marshal served, but lated statutes made deputy marshals subject to removal at the discretion of the marshal. The Act of November 26, 1940 (the Ramspeck Act), provided for the bringing of deputy marshals under the classified civil service, making their appointments subject to the civil service merit system which was subsequently accomplished by Executive Order No. 8743 in 1941. A bill to restore appointment of deputy marshals without reference to the civil service law is presently pending, as hereafter indicated.
REASONS ADVANCED FOR ADOPTION OF PLAN NO. 4
Plan No. 4, according to the Presidential meassage accompanying it, would establish “clear lines” of accountability from the United States marshals to the Attorney General by vesting in him the power to appoint those subordinates for whose performance he is responsible.
In 1937, the President's Committee on Administrative Management reported: “The continued appointment by the President of field officials, such as postmasters, United States marshals, collectors of internal revenue and collectors of customs is not only antiquated, but prejudicial to good administration."
In 1949, the Hoover Commission in its report on general management of the executive branch recommended that postmasters, customs officials, and other officials in the executive branch below the rank of assistant secretary should be appointed from the career service, which recommendation would also embrace the office of United States marshal.
In addition to the primary objective of achieving greater accountability for performance, the President emphasizes plan No. 4 would give to the office of United States marshal the benefits of the classified civil service system under which civil servants not only obtain but hold their positions strictly on merit.
In submitting the plan, the President stated that the abolition of the existing United States marshals' offices would have no effect upon powers of those offices except as they relate to appointment under the, reorganization plan. Excerpts from his statement follow:
"The abolition of offices by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952 will not abolish any rights, privileges, powers, duties, immunities, liabilities, obligations, or other attributes of those offices except as they relate to matters of appointment, tenure, and compensation inconsistent with that reorganization plan. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949 all of these attributes of office will attach to the new offices of United States marshall, either automatically or upon the occurrence of an appropriate delegation of functions to such new offices by the Attorney General. For example, the statutory provisions requiring the marshals to be bonded (28 U. S. C., 544) will attach to the successor offices of United States marshall created by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952."
Another objective sought is to relieve the President, as well as the Congress, from the multiplicity of Presidential appointments of a subordinate nature which distracts from consideration of issues of national importance facing both branches of the Government in increasing numbers every day.
APPARENT CONFLICT WITH THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1949
Concern has been expressed that Plan No. 4 of 1952 violates Public Law 109, Eighty-first Congress, first session, the Reorganization Act of 1949, which authorizes the President to submit reorganization plans to the Congress.
Section 5 (a) of Public Law 109, which limits the President's power in submitting reorganization plans, states: "No reorganization plan shall provide for, and no reorganization under this act shall have the effect of—(5) increasing the term of any office beyond that provided by law for such office;
As previously indicated, United States marshals are now appointed for a statutory term of office of 4 years' duration, but section 2 of plan No. 4 provides for their appointment under the classified civil service system for permanent, indefinite terms, subject to removal pursuant to civil service regulations only.
This possible conflict with Public Law 109, along with other legal aspects of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 1952, is analyzed in detail in Staff Memorandum No. 82–2–28.
STATUS OF DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS
As indicated before, deputy United States marshals were brought under the civil service system pursuant to the Act of November 26, 1940 (54 Stat. 1211), the Ramspeck Act.
However, a bill, S. 35 (McCarran), which would restore appointment of deputy United States marshals without reference to civil service laws, is now pending on the Senate calendar. This bill is identical to S. 3993, Eighty-first Congress, which passed the Senate on August 23, 1950.
S. 35 was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary on January 17, 1951. In its report (S. Rept. No. 5, 82d Cong.) the committee argued that since United States marsals, like United States district attorneys who also are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, are responsible for the conduct of their offices, they should be permitted, without regard to civil-service laws, to choose their assistants. The committee noted pointedly that assistant United States district attorneys were specifically excepted from the statute which incorporated deputy United States marshals in the civil-service system.
On March 12, 1951, upon request of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the Senate, with the agreement of the Committee on the Judiciary, rereferred S. 35 to the latter committee. That committee reported adversely upon the bill on May 8, 1951 (in S. Rept. No. 313), stating that it found no solid basis for removal of deputy United States marshals from the civil-service system ; that such action would be detrimental from the standpoint of increased costs, increased turn-over, uncertain tenure of office, and a general loss of efficiency in operation of the United States marshals' offices. The following is an extract from the report :
"The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has received no testimony in favor of enactment of this legislation.
"Deputy marshals and representatives of the National Association of Deputy Marshals appeared in person and were unanimous and very strong in their opposition to this bill.
“The Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service Commission were equally as strong and unanimous in their opposition to the measure. The Department of Justice, in its report on S. 35, pointed out the following possible objection :
“ 'It is believed that the bill might result in an increase in the turn-over in the position of deputy marshal. Such a result would be detrimental to the Government service, both from the standpoint of increased costs in training new employees and from loss of efficiency. The Federal service might also be adversely affected through the loss of morale on the part of deputy marshals whose tenure in office would become uncertain.
“ “The bill would also appear discriminatory in singling out this class of employees which would be removed from the civil-service system.'
“The Civil Service Commission in its official report remarked :
" "There is no sound basis for canceling this procedure which is in accord with the merit system prescribed by Congress in its act of November 26, 1940.'
“The Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service is unanimous in its request that the Senate not take favorable action on S. 35."
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN NO. 4
Plan No. 4 of 1952 was submitted to the Congress by the President on April 10, 1952, under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949. Under the provisions of that act the plan shall take effect upon the expiration of the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following the date: upon which the plan was submitted unless by affirmative vote by a majority of the authorized membership of either of the two Houses of Congress a resolution of disapproval is passed. Allowing for the Easter recess of the House, the plan will therefore become effective at 12:01 a. m., June 21, 1952, except for provisions having later effective date, unless disapproved by the House or the Senate.
MILES SCULL, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member. Approved :
WALTER L. REYNOLDS, Staff Director.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS,
Washington, D. O., May 12, 1952. Hon. John L. McCLELLAN,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: The adoption of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952, submitted to Congress by President Harry S. Truman, on April 10, 1952, will result in the creation of a tremendous political patronage machine headed up by one individual—the Postmaster General-unless Congress takes prompt action and disapproves Reorganization Plan No. 2.
This plan, at first glance, appears to be a very attractive package. The stated purpose of this reorganization plan is to take the appointment of postmasters: out of politics. It provides a new method of appointing postmasters in first-, second-, and third-class post offices by placing the selection of these postmasters in the hands of the Postmaster General. If Congress continues in session until June 21 without any recess, this reorganization plan with go into effect, unless either House by a majority vote rejects the proposal.
The proposal has considerable popular appeal. However, on closer scrutiny, it is evident that, while the package is beautifully wrapped, the contents are exeremely disappointing.
Under the present law, postmasters at first-, second-, and third-class offices are under civil-service regulations. When there is a vacancy in the position of postmaster, the Civil Service Commission holds an examination, largely investigatory in nature. From this examination, the top three names are certified and sent to the Senator or Congressman of the party in control of the administration. One of these names is then selected. The selection goes to the Post Office Department, from there to the White House, and the President sends the nomination to the Senate. The Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee sends out a card to the two Senators in the State where the appointment is to be made. This card is sent, regardless of the politics of the Senators involved. When both Senators return their cards, the name is then acted upon by the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. In the event one of the Senators objects to confirmation, then the matter is taken up by the Committee on Contested Nominations. This committee is composed of two members of the majority party and one of the minority party. The nominations then are acted upon by the Senate.
Along with Reorganization Plan No. 2, there is a bill now being considered by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee that would change the method of recruitment so as to provide for the selection of civil-service employees from the top five names rather than from the top three names on the eligible register.
Reorganization Plan No. 2 would take the right of selection away from the elected representatives of the people and give it to the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General has control of a great deal of patronage in his Department, inasmuch as the Post Office Department is a business organization spending over $2,000,000,000 every year, and numerous contracts for various services and supplies are under the direction of the Postmaster General. Reorganization Plan No. 2 would give him the right to appoint 21,438 individual representatives in all of the major cities in the United States.
It is erroneous to assume that politics and political patronage exist only in the elective branches of Government. There are more politics-and more vicious politics-in the administrative branch of the Government than there is in the elective branch of the Government. The American people have absolutely no control over administrators. Reorganization Plan No. 2 would create under the direction of the Postmaster General the most powerful political machine that has ever existed in the United States of America. The elected representatives of the people would have absolutely no control over the selection of these officers.
The position of postmaster, in addition to being an administrative position, is one of great importance, and in most cities the postmaster ranks along with the mayor as being one of the most influential civic officials in the community. The local post offices in the past have been closely identified with community life. This identification would be completely eliminated with the adoption of Reorganization Plan No. 2. Most of the recent difficulties in Government have come from incompetence or confusion on the part of administrative officers of the Government. To assume that by granting one of these men, the Postmaster General, terrific authority and power would result in improved efficiency is an extremely naive assumption.
There has been a growing tendency in Government to grant more and more arbitrary power to administrative officers. Congress has surrendered a great deal of authority to the administrative branch of the Government. Instead of resulting in improved administration, this surrender of authority on the part of the elected representatives of Government has brought about poorer administration.
Congress should act quickly to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2.
The Nat nal Association of Letter Carriers would favor the appointment of postmasters through civil service if the top man in the examination was automatically given the position without requiring selection by the Postmaster General.
If Reorganization Plan No. 2 is adopted, political favoritism and political patronage will reach a new high in American political history. The National Association of Letter Carriers respectfully requests that the plan be disapproved. Your assistance in the matter will be everlastingly appreciated. Sincerely yours,
(Signed W. C. DOHERTY,
President. (Signed) JEROME J. KEATING, (Typed) J. J. Keating,
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' COUNCIL
Washington, D. C., May 12, 1952. Hon. John L. MCCLELLAN,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: The Government Employees' Council of the American Federation of Labor, after a very careful analysis, unanimously approved a resolution to oppose Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952, that was