STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 2 of 1952 AND SENATE RESOLUTION 317 Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks made by you, and I further appreciate the opportunity of coming before your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say to you at this point that I am sorry more members are not here, and I know they would like to be here to hear you testify. This is a Monday, and many of them do not get back from out of town until about noon on Monday. We thought these hearings should continue, however, because we have four plans before us now, the committee has other work, and there is a deadline or a limitation of time. We want to meet this deadline, and develop a record here which will enable the Members of the Senate to have all the information that is pertinent to their consideration of this issue.

Senator JOHNSTON. I appreciate what the chairman said in reference to me being chairman of the committee that studies matters of this kind. I would like to say to the chairman and to this committee that my committee has been studying this very thing. We had a bill introduced, and it was referred to the committee at the suggestion of the administration. We held hearings and came to the conclusion that it was not for the best interests of the people of this Nation to pass any such legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean your committee has already considered a bill?

Senator JOHNSTON. Yes; and when we had that bill up, the Postmaster General appeared, and we asked him at that time whether it would be necessary to pass a law on this subject, and he stated in reply that he thought it would be necessary to pass a law rather than just a reorganization plan.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, at all times prior to the submission of this plan, every agency and representative of the executive branch of the Government has maintained that it would be necessary to have legislation and that it could not be accomplished by a reorganization plan?

Senator JOHNSTON. That was the conclusion I reached from hearing the testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that was true with reference to the Bureau of the Budget, the Post Office Department, and the Chairman of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Mr. Herbert Hoover.

Senator JOHNSTON. You will also note that this resolution introduced is introduced by Senator McKellar, Senator Neely, Senator Langer, Senator Carlson, and myself. They happen to be the ranking members of my committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Of both parties?

Senator JOHNSTON. Of both parties. And we did not have an opportunity to meet. So, if you will recall, the chairman asked me about this matter and said he thought it would be appropriate for my committee to bring some resolution before this committee for this committee to act upon.

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall, I stated that I thought your committee should express itself regarding this plan, since your committee has jurisdiction over this subject matter.

Senator JOHNSTON. So we did introduce, then, this resolution:

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

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask of the clerk of the committee: Is that language in exact conformity with the act, the Reorganization Act? Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes; it is.

Senator JOHNSTON. It is my understanding that it is. Briefly, my opposition to the proposed plan is based on the following five points: 1. This change should be effected, if at all, by passage of a specific bill and not the introduction of a reorganization plan.

2. The plan does not place postmasters under civil service. Public Law 720, Seventy-fifth Congress, the O'Mahoney Act of 1938, does this by express language.

3. Whatever politics, good or bad, now existing in the appointment of postmasters are not removed by this plan.

4. The present law with regard to postmasters in offices of the first, second, and third class (Presidential offices, 21,618 on January 1, 1952) has given to us a high standard of efficient public officials. To change this procedure is, I think, unwise.

5. There is an important protection to the public by this final review on the part of the Senate with regard to the appointment of such important public officials.

I shall discuss rather briefly each of above points in order listed.

1. If my only objection to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952 was solely on the ground that it is not a matter for consideration in a reorganization plan, I would not take up your valuable time, but I think at the very outset the question of the legality of the plan should be considered. Your committee staff have ably considered this matter in staff memorandum No. 82-2-28 and you have reviewed the testimony of the Postmaster General and the Chairman of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, the Honorable Herbert Hoover. I will only add that when appropriate legislation was introduced in the Eighty-first Congress and reintroduced in the Eighty-second Congress to accomplish exactly what is contemplated in this plan, public hearings were held thereon. The subcommittee on postal service of my committee is presently studying the current bills and will in due course make a report to the full

committee.

2. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 720 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, Presidential postmasters were appointed to 4-year terms, by being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. For many years before that time, however, the Civil Service Commission held competitive examinations in connection with such nominations. However, Public Law 720-the O'Mahoney Act-inter alia, reads:

That postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall hereafter be ap pointed in the classified service without term by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

It is misleading to state that a change in the appointing officer, and that is all that this plan does, changes the rigid requirement of pending

law as to the civil-service requirements under which postmasters are presently selected.

3. Much has been said about this plan and the companion bills taking politics out of postmaster appointments. It is well, I think, that we examine the only existing statute that I know of on this point. I refer to 5 United States Code 642, which reads as follows:

Recommendations by Senators or Representatives: No recommendation of any person who shall apply for offices or places under the provisions of sections 632, 633, 637, 638, 640, 641 of this title which may be given by any Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, except as to the character or residence of the applicant, shall be received or considered by any person concerned in making any examination or appointment under said sections.

If I am correct that there is no other law on the subject, then any extension of advising with Members of Congress by the Postmaster General is not based on enacted legislation. This much is quite clear that no part of above-quoted statute, which deals with all applicants for civil-service positions, not just postmasters, is modified or repealed by this plan. I am quite familiar with the plan and the existence of advisers to the Post Office Department and that generally such advisers are Members of the House and not the Senate. My colleague, the senior Senator from South Carolina, and myself, are content to leave to the six Representatives from my State the functions permitted under this law although it gives the same privilege to Senators as to Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying that I know of no one who is in better position to express an opinion on the qualifications of an applicant for postmaster than the duly elected and accredited Representatives of a given State. It has been said that to remove Senate review of such nominations will take out politics. Certainly those who make such absurd statements have overlooked the fact that the Senate and my committee are restricted to the one person nominated. Whatever politics that have been exercised, and I would be very much surprised if there are not some in certain cases, have been on the level of the original selection from the eligible register of three highest.

4. It is significant that one of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission included in pending legislation and which has been stressed so much by them is not contained in any of the President's reorganization plans. I refer to recommendation 3 that the postal service be decentralized into 15 regions. In his illuminating testimony opposing this recommendation, the Postmaster General emphasized that in a strict sense each of the 21,618 Presidential post offices represent a decentralized service. In this, I agree. A postmaster is a very important public official. Of late, there has been a tendency to downgrade the importance of this most frequent top Federal official in a given community. It is rather loosely said at times that he makes no policy, inferring that he is somewhat of a rubber stamp to carry out instructions from Washington. Of course, there must be standards in all business set at the top and the Post Office Department is our biggest business.

To illustrate the importance of a local postmaster take the New York City office from which originates nearly 10 percent of all of our postal revenues. This now approaches $200 million annually, considerably more than the total annual revenue of the entire Canadian postal service. While it is true that many of our Presidential offices

are much smaller than New York or Chicago but to these communities the prestige of the postmaster is just as important. I don't want to overemphasize, Mr. Chairman, this matter, for I realize that you don't cure incompetence with a Presidential commission but, by the same token, you don't change a man's morals just by putting him under civil service, although I am in thorough accord with the present law that all postmasters are now in the classified service and should continue under civil service and this can be accomplished without a new plan or a new law.

5. Personally I think the best place to start in having competent, honest, and upright postmasters is in the original appointment. No one has argued that we don't get such officials under the present plan. No convincing argument has been made before your committee, Mr. Chairman, or before my committee, that to change the appointing officer will insure better officials. I do want to say this, that the United States Civil Service Commission, where the prime responsibility rests as to character and qualification of a potential postmaster, does a fine job of investigation. They should have the necessary funds to make a personal investigation in connection with all size offices and not the larger as is the present case. I recall a case in a rather small, second-class office in a Midwest State where one of the Senators, a very high class man no longer in the Senate, rather reluctantly raised the question as to the applicant's honesty. Both the Commission and the Post Office Department had given the green light as to the man's fitness but these rumors persisted. The Congress was not in session but I directed the appropriate staff member to make an investigation in person. This was done quietly and it developed that the very persons who had given a clean bill of health in writing to the Commission told our representative an entirely different story that this man was a confirmed kleptomaniac. Our representative confirmed this by talking to the former employer of the nominee. When the information secured by the committee was submitted to the proper persons, this nomination was never resubmitted.

The members of this committee are quite familiar with the recent Mississippi scandals, involving civil-service employees.

The CHAIRMAN. That, again, is a case where they were ignoring the elected representatives of the people.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And getting their information from extraneous

sources.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is entirely correct.

According to my information, 12 persons were indicted for conspiracy to sell Federal jobs. Two pleaded guilty. Five persons were indicted for perjury. Four persons were indicted for selling Federal jobs.

Of the 99 cases investigated by the Post Office Department, 29 were removed from office; 4 were removed but removal orders were revoked; 2 cases are still pending on appeal after removal orders; 2 cases now involve men who will face charges on separation from military service.

Mr. Chairman, all 99 cases were civil-service appointees but none of the 99 had been appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think there would have been any scandal in Mississippi, of the proportions discovered, if the Post Office Department had followed the usual procedure in recognizing Members of Congress in making these appointments?

Senator JOHNSTON. In my humble opinion, I think there is where the administration got into trouble, by not following the usual procedure in making the appointments.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you know the reason why they departed from the usual procedure in that State was simply for political reprisals. How much easier would it be to resort to political reprisals if you take away Senate consultation and consultation with the elected representatives of the people.

Senator DwORSHAK. Was Mr. Donaldson involved in that sale of postal jobs in any way? I do not mean was he personally culpable, but did he approve it?

Senator JOHNSTON. He must have given approval to the appointments.

The CHAIRMAN. Now they have to consult the Representatives or Senators, at least for confirmation, and it is proposed to remove that last check.

Senator JOHNSTON. As I see it, you are placing in the hands of one man the appointing power over approximately 42,000 postmasters. You are building up one of the biggest political powers in America. If we fall for this reorganization plan, I do not hesitate to predict that this man will be the chairman of the party.

I have no reflection on whatever party it might be. And when he becomes the chairman of the party, then, with this large appointive power throughout the United States, touching every nook and corner, you have done something to the public that will be seriously injurious in the future. It will not give us the class of men that we want as postmasters but will give power to the richest, most powerful politicians in the various localities.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not likely to result in a situation where if an individual contributes he will get consideration, and if he does not, maybe he will get none?

Senator JOHNSTON. I think the chairman is probably right, I am sorry to say.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at the picture with regard to postmasters nominated by the President. During both sessions of the Eightyfirst Congress and the first session of this Congress, 16 such nominations were submitted to the Senate.

Of these 16 nominations, only 4 were finally confirmed, and that not until both Mississippi Senators had satisfied themselves that they had no connection with the postal scandals, and sent their approval to the committee. Of the remaining 12, 5 nominations were withdrawn by the President, and because of lack of Senate confirmation on the remaining 7, it was necessary to eventually submit to the Senate new nominations for these.

That finishes my statement, but I would be glad to try to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dworshak.

Senator DwORSHAK. No questions.