The CHAIRMAN. How do you know they have? How do you know where their superior allegiance is? That is more fiction than fact, is it not?"

Mr. ANDRETTA. It might be, but there is a likelihood all the time of his being subjected to all those influences.

The CHAIRMAN. You are trying to correct a suspicion that has not proven a fact over these many years.

Mr. ANDRETTA. There have been instances in the past, Senator. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Have we had some glaring examples of United States marshals getting into trouble by reason of that? Can you cite me one instance?

Mr. ANDRETTA. You mean because of the fact he is a political appointee?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by divided allegiance that you speak of? Where have you had any trouble?

Mr. ANDRETTA. We actually have not had any.

The CHAIRMAN. Over how many years?

Mr. ANDRETTA. 163 years. Of course I do not know what went on 163 years ago, or even 25 years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. I imagine if there were any be familiar with them, from history, at least.

serious cases you would

Let us get down to this point now. I was much gratified when Postmaster General Donaldson, referring to plan No. 2, said that the whole purpose of this is to get rid of Senate confirmation. That is the only real objective of it.

What is the real objective of this plan?

Mr. ANDRETTA. To provide career service and provide continuity in the office. I think that is very important in the operation of these offices.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. ANDRETTA. The committee will doubtless be interested in learning something about the persons affected by this plan. There are 94 positions, of which all but two are denominated "United States marshals" and two simply "marshals." Eighty-five of the positions are in the continental United States, the remainder in the Territories and possessions. All of the 85 in the States, plus positions in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, are in areas now served by the United States Civil Service Commission. Future arrangements must be made for extending the civil service procedures to the four positions in Alaska and to Guam, and the Canal Zone.

Of the 94 men in the positions at the present time, 3 have been retired under the Civil Service Retirement Act and are continuing to serve under court appointments until their successors are appointed and qualified. The appointments of eight have expired. One holds a court appointment because of the death of his predecessor, one holds an indefinite appointment. These special cases total 13. Of the 81 remaining, the appointments of 2 expire later in the calendar year 1952, 28 in the calendar year 1953, 23 in 1954, 21 in 1955, and 7 in 1956. Thus, if plan No. 4 is approved the great bulk of the changeover will be on and after January 1, 1953, which will give an opportunity for working out the "bugs," if any, in the plan and provide for the practical application of its various features.

99820-52-7

The CHAIRMAN. What kind of bug do you anticipate in this plan? I cannot see it. I cannot see where you anticipate any possible bug. Mr. ANDRETTA. Except in establishing the procedures for examination.

The CHAIRMAN. You will not have anything to do with that. That will be Civil Service.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes; but we work with them on it, and there is certain shaking-down you have to do on going over the civil-service registers of eligibles and things like that.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you shake down an eligible?

Mr. ANDRETTA. We have to work very closely with the Commission in establishing standards for the positions and qualifications. Very often you find when you set up standards on paper, that actual experience requires you to make some changes in these standards. For example, we went through that with the deputy marshals when we put them under civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. Once you establish that, there will be no problem about working out bugs?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You know what it is.

Mr. ANDRETTA. What I was driving at is that as we go along on this and these things come up, we can by experience point out better ways of handling these appointments.

The CHAIRMAN. You request the Civil Service Commission to revise their standards?

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. To get a higher type of eligibles?

Mr. ANDRETTA. For example, age requirements and things like that, you determine certain limits that might apply.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Further, on the ages of the present incumbents, the average age is approximately 56 years, 3 months. The ages fall into age brackets as follows:

Incumbents average a total of 11 years, 2 months, total government service. The average service as marshal is 7 years, 5 months. By groups, present marshals have served as follows:

Thirty-six marshals are now serving under their first 4-year term. Sixteen men now serving as marshals previously served as deputies; two served as assistant United States attorneys.

The salaries of marshals range in grades from GS-10 to GS-14 and in dollars and cents from $5,940 to $10,600.

The CHAIRMAN. Will their salaries be affected in any way by this plan?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You think the Civil Service will set them up within that classification?

Mr. ANDRETTA. We already have had them classified under the Classification Act.

The CHAIRMAN. They are now under the Classification Act?
Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. This would make no change in the salary?
Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.

The position of marshal was created in one of the first acts of Congress, being included in section 27 of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, Statute 87. For more than 100 years it was a fee position. In 1896 Congress placed the marshal's position on a salary basis but continued to carry certain deputies on a fee basis. It was not until after the enactment of title 28, United States Code, in 1948 that it was finally decided that all fee positions had been abolished.

The marshal's position, one of the oldest in the Government, has at various times been subject to the control or direction of one or the other of the Cabinet officers or of solicitors of departments. For instance, at one time the Secretary of State directed the marshal in taking the census; the Secretary of the Treasury and later the Secretary of the Interior exercised supervision over their accounts. The Solicitor of the Treasury had general authority over marshals in suits in which the United States was a party; the Auditor of the Post Office Department required returns on cases in which that Department was interested; the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on suits under the internal revenue laws and the Secretary of the Navy for prize vessels and cargoes.

The Attorney General originally was given general superintendence over marshals by the act of August 2, 1861, and later in the act of 1870 creating the Department of Justice, the Attorney General was given the supervisory powers over marshals' accounts previously exercised by the Secretary of the Interior.

This Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952 would practically complete the Attorney General's control over the position by giving him the power of appointment, although it must be pointed out that even this plan does not put the United States marshal completely under the Attorney General since the courts will continue to direct the marshals in those functions which make him the executive officer of the court. Furthermore, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts will continue to exercise the powers granted him in controlling the marshals' court disbursing functions. Therefore, while plan No. 4 goes a long way, it does not completely cover all the duties of a United States marshal.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I know probably the judges as such do not have a close-knit organization, for instance, like the United States District Judges Association or the circuit judges. Now, do you know whether the judges have generally approved this plan?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not know, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Do you know whether that branch of the American Bar Association that deals with the Federal courts, circuit courts, has approved it?

Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not know.

The duties of a United States marshal are many and varied. He serves original writs and executes the orders of the court by serving subpenas, attachments, warrants, restraining orders and injunctions, sells real and personal property pursuant to court order, acts as the custodian of civil and criminal seizures, including vessels in admirality cases, makes arrests, transports prisoners, and executes commitments to institutions. He disburses appropriated moneys and handles disposition of funds of private litigants. For the faithful performance of all of these duties, he is required to give a bond which is subject to suit by any party considering himself aggrieved by the marshal or his deputies. This bond continues in force after his death in office and until his successor is appointed. Upon the death of a marshal the court may under present law appoint a successor until the Presient shall have acted. All of the powers, duties, responsibilities, and liabilities are continued in the new position under Reorganization Plan No. 4, the only change being that the Attorney General will make the appointments under the civil-service laws instead of the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The marshal is not a policy-making officer; his duties are generally ministerial in that he carries out the orders of the Attorney General and the courts. Undoubtedly these positions are those defined in the Constitution which the Congress, if it so deems, may vest the appointment thereto in the heads of the departments.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any trouble getting rid of marshals for incompetency or inefficiency?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When they have not performed their function according to the line of authority or under the line of authority as directed from the Attorney General, you have been able to get rid of them promptly?

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. This will not affect that, will it?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Not as to the removal, no, sir, I do not think so. The CHAIRMAN. It will complicate it, will it not?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir. it will.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what amuses me about this whole proposition, trying to contend that there could be, or maybe there is-we do not know-a divided allegiance, and yet you have had no trouble in dismissing them summarily now. I do not see how this is going to strengthen anything.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Actually, in the technicality of removal there would not be any improvement, I agree with that, but I think the thing about this is this, that the marshal will know that he is a career man, that he has been appointed on the basis of ability to do the job and his qualifications. He will know that he has an indefinite tenure in the office, that he can stay there as long as he has interest in the job. He will take a greater interest in the position. We will get away from the present attitude that they are Presidential appointees and therefore they are entitled to the money whether they work or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any particular trouble in that regard?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes; we have had some.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Mr. ANDRETTA. In some of the judicial districts we have found that the marshal is running his private business, for example.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you not make this apply to court clerks, too?

Mr. ANDRETTA. We have no control over the judicial branch of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not now under the Department of Justice?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No longer, sir. They are under the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and under the Judicial Conference. The CHAIRMAN. After they get under civil service will marshals be permitted to have a business of their own or must they give up their business?

Mr. ANDRETTA. They will have to give up the business insofar as it has any conflict with the governmental operation and insofar as it interferes with their time and attendance.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be required to be present in the office all the time?

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Either present in the office or on duty?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Or at least accounting for their absence.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Yes. If I understood you correctly a while ago, Mr. Andretta, you said your Department collaborated with the Civil Service Commission in writing some rules, regulations, and standards. Did you include in those standards and those rules full responsibility to the office with no outside activities?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Why did you not, then?

Mr. ANDRETTA. You misunderstand what I said probably, Senator. I said we got together with them on establishing the standards and qualifications necessary on which they would base examinations to determine persons that are eligible for these positions.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you mean standards that make them eligible to compete?

Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Only on the matter of competing for it, then? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now you probably may not know-obviously you are not responsible for it but I am wondering, did we not have Plan No. 2 before us in 1950 on the reorganization of the Department of Justice?

Mr. ANDRETTA. There was one in 1950, Reorganization Plan No. 2. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Since this is so closely aligned with it, I wonder why this was not included in the reorganization plan at that time.

Mr. ANDRETTA. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe it was because at that time the consensus of legal opinion in the Department of Justice, and also in the Bureau