The functions involved in these three plans have been transferred from all of the officers in those departments to the Cabinet officers involved.

The CHAIRMAN. They have already been transferred by previous plans?

Mr. LAWTON. By previous plans or by this plan. These offices, the functions having been transferred, are subject to abolition under the terms of section 3, No. 6, of the Reorganization Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the fact is that you did not include these abolitions and establishments of new offices to take their place in the original plans reorganizing the Treasury Department and the Post Office Department, did you?

Mr. LAWTON. No, we did not. The President had recommended legislation. At the time he recommended several pieces of legislation in connection with the Post Office reorganization, and this was one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Primarily, it was for the reason I assume that at that time you held the view that this particular plan was not a proper reorganization under the statute, but would require legislation to effectuate?

Mr. LAWTON. We took the view at that time that it should take substantive legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask whether you have consulted with or have any opinion on this question from the Justice Department, from the Attorney General's Office?

Mr. LAWTON. We have, of course, the usual approval letter of the Attorney General. These plans, of course, were developed in consultation, constant consultation, with some of the officials of the Department of Justice, and we have the letter of the Attorney General which approved these plans in transmitting them to the President, stating that they were in accord wih the reorganization act authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like for you to obtain from the Attorney General, or rather the Acting Attorney General for the record, an official opinion with respect to whether or not the purposes sought to be accomplished by these plans are proper subjects for a reorganization plan under the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949. And I would also like to know whether postmasters particularly, and also marshals-I am not interested in Customs officials so muchunder the law, would still be required to be residents of the district or the community which they serve; as to postmasters whether they will be required to be residents of the city or community served and as to whether marshals will have to be residents of the district to which he will be appointed? I think we would very much want that cleared up.

What is your comment about it?

Mr. LAWTON. The postmasters have a 1-year residence requirement prior to appointment, which is specifically preserved by section 2 of the plan.

The CHAIRMAN. Section 2 of the plan, and the postmaster appointments preserve the same residence requirements as now apply under statute to the existing postmasters. Is that correct?

Mr. LAWTON. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, with respect to plan No. 4, relating to marshals, what is there in the plan to require that marshals who are appointed under civil service examination must be residents of the district that they are to serve?

Mr. LAWTON. There is no provision in the plan. At present, there is no requirement for marshals to be residents of the district, as I understand it, prior to appointment. There is a residence requirement after appointment.

Except in one case, that is, Hawaii, where he must be a resident for 3 years. And that was not continued in the plan.

The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that the law now specifically provides that "each marshal shall reside within the District for which he is appointed." That was not continued in the plan. I am not so much interested in Hawaii as I am in Arkansas. I want to get Arkansas settled first.

What reliance will we have that these appointments will go to citizens of the respective States and districts, which they serve? What statutory assurance or guaranty have we?

Mr. LAWTON. You have the same statutory assurance that you have now, unless you refuse to

The CHAIRMAN. We have the power of confirmation, but you are taking that away from us.

Mr. LAWTON. That is the one place; yes. But otherwise, if the Senate consented, you could still appoint someone from outside of Arkansas now.

I doubt whether that would happen.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I doubt that it would happen now. Very seriously, I am not sure, and I want to get the legal aspects of this in the record. I want to know what will happen if this plan goes into effect, with respect to their appointment, as to residence requirements, and so forth.

In other words, I want to get the record to show what the law is, and what the law will be, when this plan goes into effect. I am not interested at the moment in what someone in the Attorney General's office says about it.

Mr. LAWTON. There is no residence requirement under the law now. There is none provided in this plan. There is a residence requirement after appointment.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, if the Attorney General appoints somebody from another State, and he moves down there, he complies. That would be a compliance, as I get your interpretation.

All right. I want to go just a little further now. After this plan goes into effect, and the marshal's position becomes vacant say in Arkansas-and I use my own State for purposes of illustrationwould a marshal from Louisiana, Mississippi, or some other State, who desired to transfer under civil service, be eligible to transfer to the Little Rock office?

Mr. LAWTON. If he is an existing marshal, you mean, now? You are not talking about promotion, or anything of that sort?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not know whether it involves promotion or not. It might involve promotion in the sense that he would get a higher salary. He might come from an office of a lower classification. He might go into an office of a higher classification. And

99820-52-8

thus it would actually involve a promotion so far as salary is concerned. But the point that I am trying to get at is simply this: If this plan goes into effect, I want to know not what the Civil Service Commission would do, not what the Attorney General might do or could do or might promise to do. What I want to know is this: If this plan goes into effect, and 60 days or a year, say, after it goes into effect, the office of marshal of Little Rock should become vacant; suppose, then, we had some marshal who was already qualified and appointed under this plan over in another State, in Mississippi, New York, Idaho, California, or somewhere else, who decided he would like to come to Arkansas and live. He makes an application for transfer. He applies for transfer to get that job down there.

Are you telling me that he can or cannot be transferred under the law?

Mr. LAWTON. Under the law, he could. He could be appointed. The CHAIRMAN. He could be transferred?

Mr. LAWTON. Transferred, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. He could be transferred and appointed to that office.

Now, let us take the same thing with respect to postmasters under plan No. 2. Could a postmaster position be filled where a vacancy occurs after the plan is in effect, by transferring a postmaster from another office to fill a vacancy in an office?

Mr. LAWTON. No, because of the residence requirement, unless he resided within the area of the post office; which, of course, I do not see how he could do.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not see how he could, either.

Mr. LAWTON. It is just the same as present law with respect to that. The CHAIRMAN. You think the plan ties in with the present law so as to make the residence of the postmaster a basic qualification to serve, in the first place, and therefore you could not transfer a nonresident in to fill a vacancy?

Mr. LAWTON. No, he would have to have the same residence requirement; 1 year.

The CHAIRMAN. But that is not true with respect to United States marshals?

Mr. LAWTON. No, because they have no residence requirement now. The CHAIRMAN. So then, if we approve the plan and if we wanted to guard against that, we would simply have to do one of two things, either rely on promises and assurances given by the Attorney General and the Civil Service Commission that they would not transfer anybody, or enact a statute to provide that safeguard.

Mr. LAWTON. Yes. You would be just the same as you are with some of the other law-enforcement officers of the Department of Justice, the head of an FBI office, for example. It would be just the same position.

The CHAIRMAN. That is just a little different, I think; a marshal's office and an FBI office. I think there is a little difference, but I wanted to get the record clear on it. I am going to request that you get it in some way, and I think you could be helpful in that request to the Attorney General, so that there can be filed an official opinion with respect to these two things, postmaster eligibility residence requirement-whether the plan preserves that-and the legality or

authorization for this kind of a reorganization under the Reorganization Act.

Mr. LAWTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to have those for the record.

(The material referred to appears in the hearing of June 4, 1952, p. 161.)

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Senator Schoeppel?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I would like to ask Mr. Lawton: With reference to the Customs Department and with reference to the United States Marshal. In a number of these other plans there has been the abolishment of functions, transfers, and consolidations down the line. But here it appears that there is just abolishment and transfer, the opportunity to rename people, by authority.

Now, quite frankly, I know you feel that it is a reorganization act. But there are some who have had doubts raised in their minds as to whether this is in reality a reorganization plan as it applies itself to these two departments.

It seems to me that we are stretching a point somewhat-of course I have not given it anything like the thought and study that you have, because you have a great responsibility in this regard, but where we are making no changes to speak of how can it really be justified as a reorganization plan without additional legislation to put it in line with what I would consider a relatively strict construction of the approach to a reorganization plan?

Mr. LAWTON. Well, if you take the basis of reorganization, the sole reason for having a reorganization act at all is one thing, really: Improvement of the efficiency in operations of Government. It is our belief, it is the President's belief, that the placing of these nonpolicy-making positions, positions of an administrative character, a technical character, under civil service, under the classified civil-service system, the merit system, is a great step forward in improving the management and operations of Government. It meets the spirit and the reason that the Reorganization Act was passed by the Congress. It meets the spirit and the reason that you created a Hover Commission, and that that Hoover Commission recommended these kinds of changes and recommended the passage of a Reorganization Act.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. In other words, then, great emphasis is placed, in my judgment on the machinery that would permit a closer scrutiny into the qualifications and background of the individual who would be called upon to perform the functions?

Mr. LAWTON. And the maintenance of a career service.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. And as you say, the maintenance of a career service, which you think in the long run would be more efficient by reason of the lack of gaps and uncertainty of a tenure of office.

Mr. LAWTON. That is correct, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, as to these marshals, I asked a question of the preceding witness.

I have a regard for the position which the judiciary occupies, the judges in these respective courts, over the employees, or those who serve the courts.

Are you convinced, Mr. Lawton, that there will be no division of authority, no change in the relationship that exists between the

marshal's office and the judiciary, the judges as such, that would in any way affect the impartial, practical, harmonious administration of justice and the functions of the court?

Mr. LAWTON. I can't see any way that this would affect it, because the marshals are now officers of the executive branch of the Government. They will continue to be under this reorganization plan officers of the executive branch. They are cooperating and working with the judiciary, the judicial branch of Government. And the mere change in the method of appointment should not in any way that I can see affect that.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Would we have any difficult-I asked the question before, because it is being brought up a good many times-or any delay such as sometimes ensues in the removing of a civil-service employee from his position?

Of course, there are safeguards during that period of time for someone else to serve.

Now, can you envision any difficulty that might develop in the marshal's position as it relates to the Judiciary, that might prove to be a stumbling block or develop some inefficiencies?

Mr. LAWTON. I don't see that it will.

Of course, that question of difficulty of removal usually arises because of the Veterans' Preference Act, which requires notice and hearing.

But in the case of a person who is being removed for cause, I don't see where that is any stumbling block.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. There have been long periods of delay in the final determination of justification for the removal, and those matters ought to be safeguarded. I thoroughly agree with that.

But in the marshal's position with the court, I just wondered whether it is really necessary to make this change and to shift them into civil service. This would prove, in my humble opinion, a more cumbersome procedure on a removal for cause.

Mr. LAWTON. I don't think that it will, and I think that certainly you have the opposite effect possible under the present system, whereby you can remove a good man without cause.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. That is true.

I believe those are all the questions I have.

Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Lawton, in your conclusions, you state that:

The taking effect of Reorganization Plans Nos. 2 and 4, relating to the Post Office and Justice Departments, is not expected to result in any substantial savings, but is expected to produce a better structure of accountability in those two departments.

Then you say, on page 3 of your statement, that

In addition to meeting the primary objective of providing greater accountability in these executive departments, these plans will gain for us the advantages which will come from filling these offices under the merit principle of the classified civil service.

Is it not true that it is contended that the selection of postmasters currently is being made under the civil-service regulations?

Mr. LAWTON. Well, it has the civil service examination, but it also has a measure of political element in it, inasmuch as they are what are commonly termed political officers, Presidential appointees.