Senator DwORSHAK. Do you think that aspect will be entirely eliminated under Reorganization Plan No. 2 as far as the Post Office Department is concerned?

Mr. LAWTON. I would hope so.

Senator DwORSHAK. But what assurances do we have? I would like to go along with any proposal for greater efficiency and economy, and yet I am wondering why the elimination of confirmation of postmasters by the Senate and the nomination or selection of postmasters by the Postmaster General instead of the President, with Senate confirmation, will give us any real assurance that political considerations will be entirely eliminated. I cannot see any real reason for it except the assurances that you other witnesses give that the Postmaster General in this instance will not be politically influenced, will not have any political motives or incentives of any kind, or that under plan 3 the Secretary of the Treasury will entirely ignore political considerations. How can you assure us that that will be true?

Mr. LAWTON. I can't assure you of that but I would not suppose that political considerations would motivate the postmaster general here any more than in the appointment of the other 450,000 people he appoints.

Senator DwORSHAK. The Postmaster General may be just as politically minded, or even to a greater extent, than is the President, under the current system. Is that not possible?

Mr. LAWTON. Well, it is possible, but, of course, he does have the selection on the same basis as any other Cabinet officer, any other official of Government that has an appointive power, who appoints people under civil service.

Senator DwORSHIAK. When postmasters are selected, civil service selects a certified list of three persons from whom to make a nomination, and submits them.

Mr. LAWTON. Submits, is right. The question of not being required to submit might change the political complexion of his method of appointment.

Senator DwORSHAK. The Postmaster General could ask for a register from which to select a postmaster in some particular city, and if it did not suit him personally to select one of the first five, he could probably jump to the sixth one and give some apparently adequate reason for passing over the first five.

It might be entirely a political motive, but no one would know it. Mr. LAWTON.. The Postmaster General would know it, because he would have to select from the list he had.

Senator DwORSHAK. Could he request the selection of additional names? It is possible, is it not?

Mr. LAWTON. If he had good reasons, sufficient reasons, he should pass over the first ones. If they were not qualified, and he could prove it to the Civil Service Commission.

Senator DwORSHAK. It is difficult for me to envision a Postmaster General or a Secretary of the Treasury who is not motivated to some extent, to a large extent, by partisan politics.

And now the President, of course, is solely influenced by political considerations.

But we do have such nominations subject to confirmation by the Senate. That would be eliminated under these plans.

Then there would not be that final check by the elective representatives of the people. And it is difficult for me to be sure, entirely sure, that we are going to make any worthwhile improvements in this selection of personnel under the proposed plans.

Mr. LAWTON. Well, I follow that, but I am not sure that that check is a nonpolitical check, either.

Senator DWORSHAK. Well, it is sometimes. To be specific, in Idaho, in my State, at the present time, we have a solid Republican delegation in the House and in the Senate. But we do not have anything to do with the selection of postmasters. The politicians in Idaho not elected by the people representing the majority party recommend who shall be postmaster. I have nothing to do with that. Yet, as a member of the Senate, with the right of confirmation, I can hold up the appointment of someone who I think is not qualified for that particular job.

But under this plan, Members of the Senate, belonging to the minority party, would be deprived of that check, would they not? The CHAIRMAN. How about the majority?

Senator DwORSHAK. Well, that is right. But the majority does have something to say about the selection of postmasters. However, under the plan they would have nothing to do with the safeguard or check by virtue of losing the right of confirmation. So there is a difference.

Mr. LAWTON. You probably recall that during the Eightieth Congress there were over a thousand of them held up for over a year. Senator DwORSHAK. Well, what is the significance of that? The CHAIRMAN. More politics, was it not?

Mr. LAWTON. A little bit. Opposite party in control of the committee.

Senator DwORSHAK. I recognize that, Mr. Lawton, and I have frequently mentioned at hearings like this, that my party, the Republican Party, is no different than the other party. It is merely that one is in the majority at one time and the other in the minority. Human equations are involved, and I suppose, when I consider these plans, I have in mind doing what is best regardless of whether we have a Democratic or a Republican administration.

But, again, I cannot give myself those assurances that we are eliminating all of the political aspects if we adopt these plans, particularly plan No. 2.

Mr. LAWTON. My only point is that the same argument could apply to the entire civil service, all positions.

Senator DwORSHAK. Well, are not postmasters under that civil service now?

Mr. LAWTON. It is a hybrid.

Senator DwORSHAK. The people generally assume, who are not intimately acquainted with political procedure, or are led to believe, that postmasters are selected on a nonpolitical basis. Maybe some of us know otherwise, but it is difficult for me to be thoroughly as sured on that point. Maybe the chairman is. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is in about the same position you are. Senator DwORSHAK. I mean it sincerely. Because I just cannot give myself that guaranty that a Postmaster General, not considering the present incumbent of that office, for whom I have a very high regard, but that a Postmaster General, is any different than a President,

and particularly when you eliminate the safety check of confirmation. Then "you are asking for it," as they say.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask this question, if you have finished: What is there in this plan, what can you point to in the plan that assures that there will not be political consultations in selecting one of the three eligibles as postmaster? How will it be any different from what it is right now?

Mr. LAWTON. In the plan?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LAWTON. Of course, there is nothing on that subject, because political consultations, to whatever extent they exist, are not any requirement of existing law, except as they deal with the question of confirmation.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the very point I am getting at. This plan does absolutely nothing to remove political considerations. So far as anything in the plan, or any provision or interpretation is concerned, it does not remove political considerations in making the appointment. Mr. LAWTON. Except as the civil service laws apply and in adherence to those.

The CHAIRMAN. The civil services laws will not be changed at all in reference to postmasters. It is just a method of appointment that is being changed. You have the same civil-service qualifications, the same civil-service processing, the same consideration by the Civil Service Commission under the plan, that you have now, with the Postmaster General selecting one of the three highest.

Is that not so?

Mr. LAWTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is just the same as it is now. The only difference there would be is that now these political consultations can be checked-to know who is consulted and how he is arriving at his decision on political considerations. But when you remove the confirmation, then you take from the elected representatives of the people the power to check against those political considerations to see whether they are wholesome, whether they are vindictive, whether they are an exercise of favoritism, whether selection is made to punish some Member of Congress or some Member of the Senate who does not necessarily follow the party line. And the elected representatives of the people in Government-the House and the Senate-have no check against it. It can be practiced openly and flagrantly, and they can do nothing about it.

Mr. LAWTON. The only thing that I can say specifically to that is that presently, through customs, there have been these types of political considerations, these political checks, political clearances. They are the accepted thing. They are the usual. They have been going on for years.

With this change, it seems to me that the Postmaster General would be flying rather completely in the face of both congressional action, resulting from the approval of this plan, and of the civil service laws, if he continued political clearances of that sort.

Now, I do not mean by that that if the person who is best acquainted with the man happens to be a person who is a Member of the House or a Member of the Senate, if that person knows the man, knows his qualifications, he cannot express his viewpoint to the Postmaster General. He can do that with respect to anybody. He can do it with

respect to people in private employment. He can do it with respect to any other type of civil service position, if he is qualified to advise on the ability of the individual.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, here is what it actually does. Presently, at least, the party in power having the responsibility for administration of the executive branch of the Government naturally has the appointing power and the responsibility for making good appointments. But there is a check against it now by Senate confirmation which keeps those political considerations a bit more wholesome than they would be, or, at least, than they could be. If we take away from the elected representatives of the people any power to check or to veto in case of flagrant actions or arbitrary appointments, made perhaps with a political motive, or with some intent to discredit them, or to make more difficult their problems in their own communities, by appointing someone who is unfriendly to them and who would undertake to pursue policies that would probably be adverse to them, you are simply taking government further away from the elected representatives of the people. Now, that can be done. There is no question about that possibility. And I say to you frankly, it is done now at the highest level although not necessarily in the Post Office Department. I know of cases where that is true.

So it is nonsense to talk about removing politics from these appointments. We are not removing politics. The politics are being retained. We are only shifting them back beyond the reach of, beyond any control by, beyond any check by, beyond any supervision of, the élected representatives, and beyond their ability to put any brake upon such practices and stop them. You never will take politics out of this Government.

Mr. LAWTON. Well, of course, that is a point, obviously, since it is not statutory and not required, that we can't deal with by reorganization plan.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I do not know, if you can go as far as you have here. You are dealing with it to the extent ofMr. LAWTON. I am talking about political consultation. The CHAIRMAN. You are going to always have it in this plan or any other.

The only difference is now that you are just simply taking Government farther away from the people and concentrating the power behind an iron curtain where the legislative branch of the Government cannot make a proper or adequate check to determine whether the services are being performed impartially and on a basis of merit, instead of to effectuate other purposes.

That is the way I see it. And it is not because I want patronage. I do not have any. I trust I do not need any. But I do have a responsibility. And I think the responsibility of a Senate confirmation is a proper check and safeguard so as to balance the powers of the executive and the legislative.

I do not ask you for your personal opinion. I trust that in the quiet meditation of your own counsel you will agree with me.

Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Lawton, is it not possible for you to visualize some postmaster general with political ambitions having an opportunity to build up a huge political machine if he were to have this almost unlimited power that Reorganization Plan No. 2 would give him over the postmasters of the country?

What restraint would there be?

Mr. LAWTON. I don't think so.

Senator DwORSHAK. You do not think so?

Mr. LAWTON. No.

Senator DwORSHAK. What restraints would there be to prevent that?

Mr. LAWTON. I don't think the present Postmaster General has any great political machine.

Senator DwORSHAK. Oh, well, now, that is fine. But he may not be in office forever. We had him as a witness this morning, and as I have already indicated I have a high regard for his ability. Yet he is subject to certain political influence from his chief and from others. And after he leaves office, is it not possible to have some Postmaster General belonging to the same party or to another party who might be ambitious to build up this huge political machine? Just think what the possibilities are. Or do you not think that is in the picture at all?

Mr. LAWTON. Well, I think that he would run a little counter to the Hatch Act in that attempt. And I think civil service has been rather jealous of that.

The CHAIRMAN. The Department heads are not under the Hatch Act, are they?

Mr. LAWTON. No, but the postmasters are, or would be.

The CHAIRMAN. The Postmaster General is not. You would not the Postmaster General is, would you?

say

Mr. LAWTON. No; but the postmasters would be, and a Postmaster General certainly is not going to run a machine of that size.

The CHAIRMAN. The postmasters are under the Hatch Act now. They are civil service. This would not make any change.

Mr. LAWTON. Well, certainly if you consider that that is an opportunity for the political machine, what about the Secretary of Defense, who has twice as many people?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, those promotions, after you get up so high, have to be confirmed by the Senate. I wonder when we are going to have to leave the military free-when are you going to say, "Let's take politics out of it"?

Mr. LAWTON. I am talking about civilian employees.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about politics in the military. I do not know how far this is going. It seems to me that there is a pretty steady pattern. There are some who are wholly innocent of it, and I respect their views about it. They believe that we are actually doing something here to take politics out of this thing. But we are not. We are actually making it easier for shenanigans to exist concealed rather than disclosed, as there is some opportunity to do now.

Mr. LAWTON. But actually what we are talking about is less than half of a percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, just a little rotten spot on an apple will grow, you know, in time.

Mr. LAWTON. The rest are under civil service.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one other question, now.

I assume you are familiar with the testimony given by former President Hoover regarding these plans, the first seven plans that were submitted under the Reorganization Act. At that time, speaking