In my work in the organization, I go around the country a good deal, and in private conversations with postmasters and supervisors, many of them have been extremely frank in expressing their opinions as to the conditions. Officially, they don't dare express themselves. The CHAIRMAN. I may want to go into this further, but go ahead with your prepared statement.

This is a sort of revelation to me.

What is your reaction, Senator Dworshak?

Senator DwORSHAK. Yes, especially when Mr. Keating says the morale of the postal employees has never been lower. I would like to have a little more enlightenment on that.

Mr. KEATING. We will be glad to go into that further, Senator. As I stated before, it is, of course, very nice to state that you can eliminate politics, but actually I think all of us realize that you can't eliminate politics where human beings are concerned. Where you have a relationship, if you have three people involved, you get politics.

We feel that the American public and the employees of the postal service are far better off if the selection of postmasters is left in the hands of the chosen representatives of the people. To give that authority to one single individual will create a potentially powerful patronage organization.

The postmasters under consideration in this plan are highly important Government officials. The practice of granting postmasters Presidential appointments has vested the position of postmasters with dignity and has given the position a high standing in the community. From a morale standpoint alone, to eliminate the selection by the President and the approval by the Senate would be a sorry mistake. Postmasters not only operate the post offices of all the cities throughout the United States, but they are extremely important public officials in their communities. They are influential men in their cities. To have a properly operated Post Office Department, these men should be closely identified with the local community. They should be responsive to the needs of their community. We are well aware of the fact that there is a residence requirement provision under civilservice law, wherein no one but a local resident can take the examination to qualify for postmaster. If it is possible, under the Reorganization Act, to take away powers from the Senate of the United States, what assurance do you have that after this is accomplished the residence requirement could not be abrogated with equal facility?

While there is a residence requirement, to the best of our knowledge, however, there is absolutely nothing in the regulations that would prevent the Postmaster General, under this plan, from transferring postmasters from one community to another. Even under civil-service regulations, there are a great many things that can be done that are objectionable to the public, and, if the administrators of a major agency of Government are given unlimited authority such as this Reorganization Plan No. 2 provides, there will be a great increase in this type of manipulation.

The Postmaster General, in testifying before the committee on Wednesday, May 14, stated. that they would not transfer postmasters because there would be no particular point in transferring a postmaster receiving $3,000 to a $5,000 position. From the standpoint of the in

dividual postmaster, it would seem that there would be a great deal of incentive for such a transfer-namely, $2,000 a year increase.

The CHAIRMAN. General Donaldson testified positively that that could not be done under this plan. I believe the Director of the Budget also testified accordingly.

I had some question in my mind about it, but they have given assurances to the committee that legally, under the plan, such transfers cannot be made, and residence eligibility requirements now provided by law, will remain.

Do you have any serious doubt about it?

Mr. KEATING. Very definitely. I was here when General Donaldson made his statement, and I didn't think it was too specific. As I recall, he said there would be no particular point in transferring a postmaster receiving $3,000 to a $5,000 position.

Of course, from the individual postmaster's standpoint, there would be a great deal of point in giving him a $2,000 increase.

The CHAIRMAN. You have here with you your general counsel who, I believe, has had years of experience as Solicitor of the Post Office Department.

Mr. DELANY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee is very much interested in having this point cleared up.

Mr. DELANY. May I file a statement on that point, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you do so, because we want to know what effect plan No. 2 will have on existing residence requirements. I do not want to leave the record in a state of confusion. I already have my own opinion about it, but I would like expert advice so as to make this record very clear.

(Subsequently the following statement was filed by Mr. Delany :)

Hon. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS,
Washington, D. C., May 21, 1952.

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCLELLAN: This statement is furnished you pursuant to your request, made at the hearings over which you presided, relating to Reorganization Plan No. 2, 1952. You wished my views concerning the possibility of the avoidance of residence requirements relating to postmasters at offices of the first three classes.

This question was raised in considering the possibility of postmasters being transferred from one city to another even though they had not previously resided in the other.

It is my view that the intent of the law now controlling the filling of postmaster vacancies will forbid such transfers. For example, the United States Code, title 39, section 31 (b) requires that appointments be made only to people who have been residents of the area which the office serves for 1 year; and further states specifically that such residence "shall be essential to the examination, appointment, reappointment, or promotion of applicants for postmaster at offices unless the Civil Service Commission finds that peculiar local conditions preclude or render impossible the application of such requirements."

In addition, title 39, United States Code, section 32 requires a postmaster to maintain residence in the place where he is appointed.

Notwithstanding these provisions of law, the view might be taken that transfer is distinct from appointment and, therefore, the letter of the law does not preclude transfer of a postmaster residing in one city to the office of postmaster in another. The customary use of the terms "transfer" and "appointment" would permit a distinction to be made withdrawing transfers from the application of this law. Specific cases have been mentioned in testimony showing that in any

event the purpose of the law could be defeated. Congress, in establishing the residence requirement for postmasters, has as its objective that the postmaster in every community be an integral part of that community and familiar with its problems.

The specific cases mentioned show that it is possible to transfer postal employees from one area to another in anticipation of vacancies to occur; thus the letter of the residence requirement is met, but not the spirit since such employees are in no sense integral parts of the community involved. Vacancies in postmasterships can be readily foreseen due to the retirement divisions of law. Thus it would be possible to take full advantage of this loophole in the law in the way the specific cases called to your attention illustrate. The absence of congressional supervision of postmaster appointments would have a natural tendency to encourage such a practice.

Respectfully,

FRANK J. DELANY, Counsel.

Mr. KEATING. I think perhaps even under civil-service regulations there is a great deal of manipulation and things that can be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if a regulation is promulgated and enforced today, a new regulation can be promulgated tomorrow; so we cannot leave it to that uncertainty. What I want to know is what the law is. Mr. KEATING. I would like to cite a true case as to what can be done and what did happen in a particular instance.

Prior to the time the post office at Arlington, Va., was established in 1936, there were three or four post offices serving that part of Virginia. One was the South Washington post office, located near what is now the Pentagon Building. That office was a third-class post of fice. The clerk employed in that office at the time was an employee of the postmaster and did not have any civil-service status whatsoever. However, when that office was abolished, the third-class postmaster at South Washington was promoted to the position of postmaster at Arlington, Va., a first-class post office-a new post office, you understand and the unclassified clerk, because of the fact that he had served 60 days, was given a classified status and appointed assistant postmaster in the Arlington post office. He has since been promoted to a high position in the Post Office Inspection Service.

I noted, too, that in his testimony last week, on Wednesday, May 14, Postmaster General Donaldson made the statement that because of the requirements of veterans' preference there was very little selection left in the appointment of postmasters. As a matter of fact, there is no absolute requirement to select veterans under the law. The sole provision of the law is that if a veteran on the register is passed up for someone lower on the register, a reason must be given in writing. Elected representatives who represent the people live up to the spirit of the law. Administrators are more inclined to observe the letter of the law rather than the spirit.

If we are to judge what might happen under Reorganization Plan No. 2 by what has happened in the postal service, failure to adopt Senate Resolution 317 would spell the end of effective veterans' preference as far as postmasters are concerned. Last Thursday, May 15, a letter carrier from a post office in nearby Virginia visited our office. He is a young married veteran. He spent 15 months in prisoner-ofwar camps during World War II. He is 60-percent disabled and draws veteran's compensation for arthritis contracted during his 15 months as a prisoner of war. He has been trying to transfer to an inside job on doctor's orders. He has been denied the right to transfer

99820-52-9

and has filed for disability retirement. Seven years in the post office and 3 years in the military and he has to retire. If the treatment

that he and hundreds of other veterans have received is indicative of what will happen, failure to pass Senate Resolution 317 will mean the end of veterans' preference as far as postmaster appointments are concerned.

An important question has been raised relative to the legality of changing the method of appointing postmasters by a reorganization plan rather than by legislation. We would like to congratulate Mr. Walter Reynolds and Mr. Eli E. Nobleman of the committee staff for the splendid job they did in analyzing this highly technical question. I want to call the attention of this committee to the fact that in their analysis, it was pointed out that President Truman, former President Herbert Hoover, and Postmaster General Donaldson, as well as the Bureau of the Budget, have previously stated that in their opinion the President did not have the authority to make this change under the Reorganization Act, but that such action would require legislation. It appears now that some of these gentlemen have changed their minds. We requested our counsel, Mr. Frank Delany, to consider this subject closely, and he expresses as his opinion that the President does not have the authority under the Reorganization Act of 1949 to make this change and that the change would require legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask Mr. Delany if he has prepared a memorandum citing any authorities which he could supply to the committee? Mr. DELANY. Not for the benefit of the committee, Senator.

I did for my own benefit. And I examined staff memoranda 82-2-28 and 82-2-29, which are very, very thorough on that point. I have a few points to add to them.

The CHAIRMAN. You can do that, then, at the conclusion of the testimony. I was just hoping that, since your opinion is being placed in the record, you might have something to substantiate it in the way of citations.

Mr. DELANY. Such a thorough job was done by the staff of the committee, Senator, that it was almost unnecessary for me to add anything to the staff work.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed, then.

Mr. KEATING. We believe that there is a very dangerous situation created when the President, by an Executive order under the Reorganization Act, can take away authority from the Congress of the United States. The purpose of the Reorganization Act of 1949 was to give the President authority to place his own house in order-in other words, to reorganize the executive branch of the Government. The purpose of the Reorganization Act was not to permit him to take away the rights Congress has retained for itself. If, under the Reorganization Act, the President can take away from the Senate the right to pass upon the appointment of postmasters, what is there to prevent him from taking away the authority retained by Congress in the case of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee-in the case of the Joint Committee on Defense? What is there to prevent him from following the pattern followed in the case of postmasters with relation to the Federal Trade Commissioners, by creating new titles and, under the Reorganization Act, delegating the authority to select the individuals to fill these positions to someone in the administration?

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, if this is the criterion of the authority that he is attempting to exercise in this instance, you think it would apply with equal force to any other agency which the Congress may have created?

Mr. KEATING. Very definitely. It seems that under the Constitution, there are only a limited number of positions-

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it is admitted that all this reorganization plan does is to abolish postmasters and then recreate them? Mr. KEATING. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. The whole purpose, as stated, is to eliminate Senate confirmation. We want to give credit to General Donaldson, at least, for being completely candid about the objectives of this reorganization plan and the only reason for its submission, so far as I can determine from the testimony up to this point. It is designed to take Government further away from the people and eliminate any congressional supervision, control, or check against the action of the Executive.

Mr. KEATING. That coincides exactly with our opinion, Senator. In every single instance in history where a democratic government has failed, it has failed principally because of the fact that the elected representatives of that government did not zealously guard their prerogatives or because of the fact that their prerogatives and responsibilities were usurped by someone in executive positions. And we could quote endlessly from history to establish that fact.

We again wish to urge the members of this committee to favorably report out Senate resolution 317, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2.

This was pointed out by the staff report, but I think it should be reiterated again. The plan of having postmasters appointed by the Postmaster General is not a new one. The United States tried it for 57 years and threw it out. On February 9, 1835, Senator Calhoun, of South Carolina, made the following pertinent observation:

But the great and alarming strides which patronage has made ** ** has demonstrated the necessity of imposing ** ** limitations on the discretionary powers of the Executive; particularly in reference to the General Post Office and the public funds, on which important subject the Executive has an almost unlimited discretion as things now are.

In a government like ours, liable to dangers so imminent from the excess and abuse of patronage, it would seem extraordinary that a department of such vast powers, with an annual income and expenditure so great, and with a host of persons in its service, extending and ramifying itself to the remotest point, and into every neighborhood of the Union, and having a control over the correspondence and intercourse of the whole community, should be permitted to remain so long without efficient checks or responsibility, under the almost unlimited control of the Executive. Such a power, wielded by a single will, is sufficient of itself, when made an instrument of ambition, to contaminate the community, and to control to a great extent, public opinion. To guard against this danger, and to impose effectual restrictions on Executive patronage, acting through this important department, your committee are of the opinion that an entire reorganization of the department is required; *"" (S. Doc., vol. 5, No. 108, pp. 22, 23).

* *

The CHAIRMAN. You talk about taking politics out of the post office. Do you have any doubt that if the office of postmaster were vacant in a large metropolitan city, in a State where both parties are pretty strong and one that is liable to go one way or the other in politics, and the President of the United States thought that by appointing some