ence Act and the rule of three on appointment had to some extent eliminated the political aspects of appointments, and can see nothing in the reorganization proposal likely to improve the present situation.

If the reorganization plan now under consideration contained provisions making it possible to establish a real career service on the basis of a merit system of promotions to the position of postmaster, we would certainly support it. Unfortunately, nothing in this proposal seems likely to bring about that condition and we are forced to the conclusion that the changes proposed would actually do more harm than good.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we support Senate Resolution No. 317 in opposition to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952.

Our views on this question are not lately arrived at and are based solely on the principle involved without regard to personalities or political considerations. As proof of this, I am attaching as an appendix to this statement the text of an editorial I wrote for our journal in July of 1950.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be printed in the record. (The material referred to follows:)

[From the August 1950 Union Postal Clerk]

WHO BLOCKS POSTAL REFORM?

In an editorial appearing in the New York Herald Tribune for June 28, the question is asked, "Who Blocks Postal Reform?" While the editorial refers to the curtailment of service occasioned by the Postmaster General's orders of April 17, the evident purpose is to put in a plug for the Hoover Commission recommendations, particularly one which would put the appointment of postmasters under the sole supervision of the Postmaster General, eliminating the requirement for Senate confirmation at offices of the first-, second-, and third-class.

The editorial argues that the bill has been held up (the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee agreed to its indefinite postponement on March 21 of this year), "solely to protect the interests of politicians in the appointment of postmasters," but we venture the opinion that such is not the case. Members of both the House and Senate have told the writer on numerous occasions that there was only a negligible advantage in the designation of postmasters. As one well known Senator put it, "an appointment at best makes one friend and two enemies and at worst two enemies and one ingrate."

Aside from the political implications, Members of Congress may well question the advisability of removing the requirement for Senate confirmation on other grounds. In many places the postmaster is the only Federal official. He is a symbol of our Government and whether he is a good or bad official is important to the people of that community. Who is better equipped to know the needs of a community than those who are active politically? The Congressman or Senator who campaigns in a State or district must of necessity know a lot about the people of that State or district or he does not stay long in Congress. Isn't it logical to suppose that he might, therefore, be in a better position to select postmasters than an appointive official who does not have the same kind of personal responsibility to the people?

The argument that a savings in expenditures can be effected merely by changing the method of selecting postmasters is sheer nonsense. One of the best and at the same time most efficient postmasters the writer has ever known was a firstclass politician. He kept the wheels rolling with a minimum of friction. At the same time we have known businessmen who became postmasters and were flat failures. Changing the method of selecting postmasters is definitely not a panacea for the ills of the post office.

Mr. HALLBECK. I would like to quote just one paragraph from that editorial, because I think it might perhaps amplify something that has been said before. And this editorial was in connection with a bill I might add, that was introduced in the Congress, to which Senator Johnston referred.

Aside from the political implications, Members of Congress may well question the advisability of removing the requirement for Senate confirmation on other grounds. In many places the postmaster is the only Federal official. He is a symbol of our Government and whether he is a good or bad official is important to the people of that community. Who is better equipped to know the needs of a community than those who are active politically? The Congressman or Senator who campaigns in a State or district must of necessity know a lot about the people of that State or district or he does not stay long in Congress. Isn't it logical to suppose that he might, therefore, be in a better position to select postmasters than an appointive official who does not. have the same kind of personal responsibility to the people?

I would like to say one word in regard to the selection. Senator Monroney mentioned it a moment ago.

The selection which the Member of Congress is called upon to make at the present time is from the three highest eligibles on the register. And all he is asked to do is to select on the basis of residence and character, which, as the former Attorney General stated, is perfectly within the law.

Now, I am not naive enough to suppose that there are not occasions when they select on some other basis.

Senator MONRONEY. What was that?

Mr. HALLBECK. They are supposed to make the recommendations to the appointing officer on the basis of residence and character, and the former Attorney General, Mr. Murphy, has said that it was correct, that that was within the law.

Now, there may be occasions, and there probably are, when some Members of Congress have used another basis. But I do not think that is the fault of the system now in use. I think that is more likely to be a fault, if any, of the individual who uses that basis.

We appreciate the time and consideration which the committee is giving to this subject, and I want to express my personal thanks for this opportunity to express those views.

Senator MONRONEY. Could you give this committee any information about how many members of your clerical organization have been appointed postmasters in the last, say, 7 years?

Mr. HALLBECK. I would say perhaps-and this is merely a guess, Senator-it might run as high as 200.

I believe the Postmaster General, the other day, made reference to three-hundred-some former employees who are now serving as postmasters in various cities, and he named a long list beginning with Atlanta, Ga.

Inasmuch as I represent the largest single division within the postal service, I would say that on that basis perhaps 200 of our members have been named postmaster.

Senator MONRONEY. Suppose the Postmaster General was correct, 300 in the last 7 years; was that his base?

Mr. HALLBECK. He said there are at the present time some threehundred-odd.

Senator MONRONEY. That would be 30 to 40 a year out of about 300,000 postal workers.

The thing that impresses me and the reason I feel rather keenly about it: I served in the House for 12 years in a democratic district. I think it is unfortunate that your postal workers, as a rule, do not even feel it is worth while, because they feel the cards are stacked against them, to even try to qualify under civil service on a rule of three. It is a rare case where a postal worker maybe with 20 or 25

years behind him has the temerity to even submit his qualifications for civil service status for postmaster. Yet, they are more familiar with the work than perhaps any outside ward boss or county manager could possibly be. And I cannot quite gear this protest by your postal unions into the good that the workers themselves will have a chance to receive if they do not happen to be the friend or the acquaintance of the sitting Congressman; or, in cases where you do not have a democratic Congressman or a Senator, then they just do not even choose to make themselves eligible for that.

Mr. HALLBECK. I wouldn't say that that was entirely true. I know of a lot of them that have taken examinations. I know of a lot of them that have been within the first three. But there is this to be said, and I am sure you know it, Senator Monroney, and the other members of the committee know it, but I think it should be stated for the benefit of the record: that the initial determination is made by the Post Office Department, and probably on the basis of information received from an adviser as to whether the position is to be filled by noncompetitive examination and promotion from within the service, or whether there is to be an open competitive examination.

Now, quite frankly, a lot of people feel that once there has been a determination, that it is to be filled by open competitive examination, it is the position of the powers that be that no one within the postal service should be promoted. If they had a contrary idea, all they would have to do would be to name that person acting postmaster, and he could then be given a noncompetitive examination and, upon qualification, appointed.

Senator MONRONEY. By the determination of the sitting Congressman?

Mr. HALLBECK. Very often I would expect it would be the sitting Congressman.

Senator MONRONEY. Very often he is the one to decide it. Oftentimes the sitting Congressman says, "If career men want to take this examination, let us get all the applicants there and go ahead."

Mr. HALLBECK. That is particularly true when you have more than one man within a given office looking for it. I would not blame a Congressman under those circumstances for asking for that.

Senator MONRONEY. I think the open one is better. If a man is of good record and standing, he should compete along with the others, so that with his record in the Post Office Department, they will have a chance to put him on.

Mr. HALLBECK. I think that is absolutely true, that they should compete. But even in those cases where they do compete, I am sure I don't have to tell you that if they haven't had the nod in the first place, they are not going to get the job.

Senator MONRONEY. Well, I do not think many Congressmen know who is going to be on that group of three.

Mr. HALLBECK. But they know who are on it.

Senator MONRONEY. At the present time, the men who are on it in the larger, more sought after jobs are all disabled veterans.

Mr. HALLBECK. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. So those three top men will be disabled veterans, and if the postal worker or the personal friend of the Congressman is not on it, there is not anything that can be done.

Mr. HALLBECK. That is true. And as long as there is a single disabled veteran on there of course, I don't have to tell you that it is difficult to run around a disabled veteran. You have to give a reason acceptable to the Commission.

Senator MONRONEY. Another veteran has the same status, if they are on a rule of three. But a disabled veteran or a veteran with five points cannot be skipped over for a nonveteran.

Mr. HALLBECK. Senator, if this plan proposed an actual career service, there would be something to it. We would support it. Senator MONRONEY. What makes you think this will not?

Mr. HALLBECK. This doesn't change the existing situation except in one respect, and that is to remove the requirement for Senate confirmation. That is the only change proposed.

Senator MONRONEY. You and I know that the Senate confirmation is a very minor part of the selection of postmaster.

I serve on the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. It is a rare time, I mean in my brief experience, where there has been any question if the nomination has come up from the Post Office Department, which means it has been cleared by the sitting Congressman or by the political organization in that State.

Mr. HALLBECK. Unless there is some objection somewhere.

Senator MONRONEY. I think there possibly have been only two objections, to my memory, in the last 15 or 16 months, and I expect we have approved close to a thousand postmasters. So it is more or less a perfunctory function, an obsolete function of the Senate, whereas it is still a very important and vital function of the House, believe me.

I know the problems that you have in trying to find out the man that the local community most desires to have for their postmaster. Mr. HALLBECK. From that standpoint I think, frankly, it is a headache to most Members of Congress. I think it does them more harm than good.

Senator MONRONEY. I quite agree with you.

Mr. HALLBECK. I think that is absolutely true, that the Congressman, individually, might be better off without it. Whether it is good business for him is one question; but whether he is performing a necessary service is another.

Now, you mentioned the few who aren't confirmed. I believe Postmaster General Donaldson last week said he knew of one case where an acting postmaster had been serving for a considerable length of time despite the fact that a nomination was sent up, I believe he said, in the Eightieth Congress; but I am sure it was sent up twice during the Eighty-first, and once already during the Eighty-second, and that man still has not been confirmed. Well, there is one example where somebody has put a roadblock in the way. I do not know just where that was.

Senator MONRONEY. We will have testimony on that from the Civil Service Committee, will we not?

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnston testified earlier this morning. I do not believe he testified in detail about that matter. We can recall him if we want to obtain that information.

I just wanted to confirm this from one experience I remember as a Member of the House. I recall one instance where two men were most anxious to get the appointment in the post office. As between

them, I had no particular choice. But I did feel that there was objection to one from some others in the office, and vice versa; so I thought the thing to do was to throw it open to competitive examinations. And I think a good many times that is done. The Commission may request an open competitive examination, because there are a number of good people in the town. They are taxpayers.

I do not think just because a fellow happens to be in the career service he should necessarily have priority over some other good citizen.

Mr. HALLBECK. No; I don't think that is true, either.

The CHAIRMAN. The other fellow is a citizen. He pays taxes. He supports the Government. He helps to pay the salary of the person against whom he has to compete with for the job.

I think the open-competitive examination is sound in practice, and I should like to see it continued.

I do not mean by that that I would not appoint, and maybe did—I know I offered the appointment to one or two because I thought they were good and competent men; but they declined.

Mr. HALLBECK. It is the strange thing that there are a lot of men who would not take the job of postmaster within the postal service. The CHAIRMAN: And I may say this. You were speaking about it being a headache for the Congressman. I do not think it is a political asset to him at all. That is my experience. But in order to avoid this making one friend and a dozen enemies, it was my practice—at that time they served for only 4 years, and you could reappoint them without calling for a new examination-that in every office in any district save one, I reappointed the present postmaster who had been appointed by the man I had defeated, rather than to open it up. I lost a friend occasionally on account of that.

The postmasters who were in office when I was elected had supported the man I defeated for Congress as they should have done. But I found them to be good men. I found them to be people in whom the community had confidence. I found them efficient, courteous, and accommodating, and I saw no reason to make a change. That is the way I felt about it, and that was the policy I pursued.

Mr. HALLBECK. Well, I think that is right. There is nothing inherently wrong in politics. Actually, politics is the science of government. And there is nothing inherently wrong in that science. It is true that there are tangents departing from the scientific angle occasionally. But that doesn't make politics itself anything reprehensible. The CHAIRMAN. I might add this to what I just said.

The Congressman who succeeded me, and who is still serving in my own district, reappointed all of those whom I appointed, as I recall. Most of them are still serving, because in 1938, Congress passed a law making the appointments for indefinite term. Many of them are still serving, including some whom my predecessors appointed and some whom I appointed; and, of course, there are still some vacancies. But those men have all satisfied the community. They have given service, and I am sure there will not be any complaints about them. It can be done. Politics can be wholesome, or it can be unwholesome. It depends upon the individual, in the final analysis.

Mr. HALLBECK. It is subject to human error, like pretty near everything else.