of plan No. 3 of 1949, reorganizing the Post Office Department, he stated before this committee, that

The President's plan No. 3 relates to the Post Office. Again, it is a preliminary step going as far as the President's authority under the Reorganization Act of 1949 permits.

He took that position then. And later on-he said:

I have been advised by all of our legal friends that it would be utterly impossible, for instance, to reorganize the Post Office or the armed services, or to provide a new accounting or budgeting system and a new personnel system in the Government without special legislation by the Congress.

Now, that is the view Mr. Hoover took; that in plan No. 3 of 1949 the President had gone as far as his authority would permit, to reorganize the Post Office Department, and that that was just the first step.

That is one of the reasons why I am especially anxious about these new plans. I am also concerned about the fact that they, particularly the marshal's plan, create the same office, with the same functions, for an indefinite term, whereas the statute now fixes it at a 4-year term.

That office, it is true, is abolished. But that would be to me a subterfuge if the Congress said, as it did in the Reorganization Act, that no reorganization plan shall provide for increasing the term of any office beyond that provided by law for such office.

Well, now, you could not, under the Reorganization Act-I mean under the present law-send down a plan which simply provided that hereafter the term of marshal, instead of being a 4-year term, will be for an indefinite term. I believe you will agree that you could not do that. But, by abolishing the office and recreating the same office in a reorganization plan, you now contend that you can make the term of office indefinite.

Now, that, to me, would be pretty much of a subterfuge to get around this Reorganization Act-and that is why I am very anxious to have the opinion of the Attorney General on it-unless Congress wants to ignore what it specifically provided. In my opinion, Congress did not have in mind that its expressed intentions could be circumvented by this sort of a process.

Any other questions?

We thank you very much, Mr. Lawton. We are glad to have had this help from you, and I hope you can give us these opinions for the record.

Mr. LAWTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other witnesses here who were to appear today?

The Chair will announce that there will be a resumed hearing on plans 2, 3, and 4 next Monday, the 19th, and other witnesses who are interested may be notified if they are not present.

We will have hearings on plan No. 5 tomorrow, and if we do not conclude those hearings tomorrow, we will resume hearings on plan No. 5 on Tuesday, the 20th.

(Whereupon, at 5: 15 p. m., Wednesday, May 14, 1952, the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m. Monday, May 19, 1952.)

REORGANIZATION PLANS NOS. 2, 3, AND 4 OF 1952

MONDAY, MAY 19, 1952

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan, Monroney, and Dworshak.

Also present: Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk; Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk; and Eli E. Nobleman, professional staff member. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We will resume hearings this morning on Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4.

When hearings began, no resolution of disapproval was pending. However, during the course of the hearings, Senate Resolution 317, disapproving plan No. 2 of 1952, was introduced. Accordingly, as to plan No. 2, the testimony will be directed primarily to Senate Resolution 317.

We will insert Senate Resolution 317 in the record at this point. (S. Res. 317, referred to, is as follows:)

[S. Res. 317, 82d Cong., 2d sess.]

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That the Senate does not favor the Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 of 1952 transmitted to Congress by the President on April 10, 1952.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schoeppel, a member of the committee, has advised the Chair this morning that due to a delegation of his constituents who are here to confer with him regarding flood-control legislation, he will not be able to be present today. I understand they are presenting their problem to the Appropriations Committee, which is also conducting a hearing at this same hour.

We have scheduled as our first witness this morning Senator Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina, but I understand that he has been detained.

So we will proceed with other witnesses.

Mr. Jerome J. Keating, will you come forward, please?

Mr. Keating, will you identify the others present with you who will testify?

117

STATEMENT OF JEROME J. KEATING, SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS; ACCOMPANIED BY R. B. KREMERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY; AND FRANK J. DELANY, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 of 1952 and SENATE RESOLUTION 317

Mr. KEATING. Yes, Senator. This is our general counsel, Mr. Frank J. Delany, president of the Federal Bar Association and former Solicitor for the Post Office Department, and Mr. R. B. Kremers, the assistant secretary of the National Association of Letter Carriers. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. KEATING. Yes, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to have it inserted in the record, or do you prefer to read it?

Mr. KEATING. I should like to read it, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed to read your state

ment.

Will you first identify yourself for the record?

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jerome J. Keating. I am secretary of the National Association of Letter carriers, an organization representing 103,000 letter carriers located in every State of the Union, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

I have been connected with the Post Office Department for 30 years, and Mr. Kremers has been employed by the Post Office Department for the past 32 years. Mr. Delany is president of the Federal Bar Association and former Solicitor of the Post Office Department. Mr. W. C. Doherty, our national president, has 30 years of service in the Post Office Department and Mr. D. R. Sullivan, our national vice president, has had 47 years in the Post Office Department. Mr. Doherty and Mr. Sullivan are prevented from being here today because they are absent from the city on official business.

Our association was organized in Milwaukee, Wis., in 1889. One of the announced objectives of our association then was to strive for the constant improvement of the postal service. This association has consistently continued to work toward that objective.

We have carefully analyzed Reorganization Plan No. 2 and it is the considered opinion of all of us, basing our conclusions on our experience in the postal service, that to permit this plan to go into effect would be an extremely grave error. For this reason, we want to urge the committee to favorably report out Senate Resolution 317, introduced by Senators Johnston, McKellar, Neely, Langer, and Carlson last Wednesday, May 14. We sincerely believe that it would be an extremely serious mistake to eliminate senatorial confirmation of postmaster appointments. The arguments that have been advanced for the adoption of this plan are very attractive on the surface. The pronounced objective is to take politics out of the Post Office Department. This sounds very fine indeed; however, instead of taking politics out of the Post Office Department, to permit Reorganization Plan No. 2 to go into effect would really put politics into the Post Office Depart

ment.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a very interesting statement. I wish you would elaborate on it and tell us why you think this plan would create more politics within the service than it would eliminate.

Mr. KEATING. I will as I develop the statement, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I entertain about the same view, although some people do disagree with us.

Mr. KEATING. At the present time, candidates for apopintment to the position of postmaster are very carefully screened by leaders in the community and by the elected representatives of the community serving in the Congress, and all the Members of the Senate. If there is any serious objection raised to the confirmation of any of these men, the appointment is denied.

Reorganization Plan No. 2 would take away the right of selection from the elected representatives of the people and give it to the Postmaster General. The Post Office Department is the largest business in the world, spending over $2 billion a year. The Postmaster General, as head of that Department, has, through his authority in letting contracts and making purchases, a great deal of potential patronage. 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. He already has the authority to appoint the 20,000 fourth-class postmasters. It is erroneous to assume that politics and political patronage exist only in the elective branch of the Government. There are more politics and more vicious politics in the administrative branch of the Government than there are in the elective branch of the Government. The American people have absolutely no direct control over administrators, and very little indirect control. The elected representatives of the Government are responsive to the desires of the public, and must defend their policies to the people.

Unfortunately, we Americans are prone to become influenced by shibboleths, slogans, and catch phrases. The enthusiasm for Reorganization Plan No. 2 springs entirely from this frailty. Actually, the adoption of this proposal would create bureacracy on a mammoth scale. No man in history has ever had direct control, without restraint. over as many high administrative officials as this proposal would vest in the Postmaster General.

The founding fathers of our Government acted very wisely when they set up a Government with checks and balances. The very foundation of democracy in the United States of America is the Congress, which is made up of the elected representatives of the people. Within the last few years we have had many examples of what can happen to people and their countries when the administrative or executive branch of the Government is permitted to take full control of the destiny of its citizens. The backbone of Mussolini's Fascist Government was strong administrative units of government over which the Parliament had no control. The same situation prevails in Russia today; bureaucratic administrators rule without restraint. We think it is of fundamental importance that, if we are to maintain a strong democracy, the elected representatives of the people must maintain control over the administrative branch of the Government.

A very popular appeal to the businessmen of America is to suggest that Government be placed on a business basis. This is a very attractive and desirable objective. However, in striving to obtain that

objective, we must constantly remember that the operation of a Government department is considerably different from the operation of a business institution. Government does not have the natural inhibitions that we find in business. The head of a Government department can violate all sound economic principles without doing violence to himself. He can hire people entirely through favoritism who are utterly incompetent and not suffer personally from this practice. He may be criticized, but this has little effect on men who do not have to face an election. However, in business organizations, uneconomic methods result in a loss of profit and destruction of the business. Loss of profit disciplines the incompetent administrator in business, but in Government unless Congress holds the reins, there is no discipline. One beautiful dream that postal employees throughout the years have entertained was that a utopia would be quickly realized if it were possible to place a career man at the head of the Post Office Department. During the past few years we have had a career man at the head of the Post Office Department and the experience has not been a happy one. Sound principles of public policy and of personnel relationship have been ignored so that today we have the poorest mail service in the history of the Post Office Department and the morale of the postal employees has never been lower.

The CHAIRMAN. That is quite a challenging statement. I did not know that condition existed. We have generally thought, here, that we had a pretty good administrator now at the head of the Depart

ment.

Mr. KEATING. No, the experience has been exactly the opposite. We do not have a good administrator. There has never been in my experience in the Post Office Department as unfavorable a press. In a great many cities there have been a long series of articles containing complaints from the public. The Washington Evening Star had a number of articles criticizing the present postal service. A Utica newspaper had a similar series. The New York papers have been full of criticism. And to show how ridiculous things can become, a broker on Wall Street by the name of Weisenberger made the statement that 140 years ago they used pigeons to beat the mail service and because the mail service has been so poor in New York, he says he is going to start sending pigeons out to bond houses scattered around the country. And the statement has been made on Wall Street that there have been many programs, financial programs, involving billions of dollars, where, because of delays in the mail, the bond brokers have had to postpone or set aside those programs.

From the employees' standpoint, the curtailment orders of April 17, 1950, have placed an enormous burden on our people, particularly the letter carriers. There have been a number of retirements for disability, and there has been a 20-percent increase in compensation for injury cases in the Post Office Department.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you if other organizations of the postal service-other associations such as yours-share the view that you are now expressing? Is this just the view of your group, or is it generally shared by all postal employees?

Mr. KEATING. I think it is generally shared, although probably not as forcibly expressed.