« 이전계속 »
opinion of the executive branch must be reviewed by the Congress which, in turn, ascertains the opinion of citizen organizations concerned and of the public generally before rendering its own decisive opinion.
If the opinion of the executive branch were alone sufficient, there would hardly be need, in this case, for further discussion. Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were submitted by the President. They have been endorsed by the Postmaster General, the Civil Service Commission, the Bureau of the Budget, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice.
As to the views of others concerned, I believe it is clear that these plans will meet with the approval of the great majority of interested citizens groups, of the public generally, of the press, and, most importantly, of the Congress itself. It happens that these three new plans closely parallel their predecessor, Plan No. 1 of 1952, on the Internal Revenue Bureau, as to aim and effect. The pattern of discussion, pro and con, is likely to be parallel also. Thus we are given extra insight into the attitudes with which the three proposals now under consideration will be viewed.
Unanimity on such questions is, of course, too much to expect. Some worthy organizations have registered opposition to Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4 and their views fully merit the consideration of the Congress. On the other hand, the plans are favored by such organizations as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Civil Service League, the Special Committee on Federal Personnel Policy, the National Association of Securities Dealers, and the Postal Subcommittee of the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, to name but a few.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that any of those organizations have come forward with any statement or any indication of their views.
Mr. COATES. Perhaps they have not appeared, Senator. They have communicated with us.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not recall any of them. Mr. REYNOLDS. A representative of the National Civil Service League will appear later this morning.
Mr. COATES. I am basing this on their communications to us, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. COATES. On the basis of our experience with Plan No. 1 of 1952, I think we may safely assume the support of still other organizations who, perhaps, have not yet had an opportunity to place their views on record.
That applies to the National Civil Service League, and we have since heard from such organizations as the National Grange and the National Association of Life Underwriters.
On the same basis, I think we may anticipate general public approval of the plans. Finally, taking their past statements and actions as a guide, I believe a considerable majority of the Members of the Senate are in general sympathy with aims of Plans No. 2, 3, and 4. Accordingly, I submit as appendix A a list of Senators who have, in one way or another, endorsed the underlying personnel concept involved in these plans.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the purpose of submitting that list? We are trying to keep politics out of this, as you know. Why do you want this list printed ?
Mr. COATES. It includes both Republican and Democratic Senators.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it like a list of those who are our friends, eliminating those who are not our friends? Is not that the purpose of
Mr. COATES. Well, it is not meant for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the purpose of that? We have all of that in the Congressional Record. What is the purpose of it? · Mr. COATES. It was meant to suggest that there appears to be agreement in the Senate itself in support of the underlying concept.
The CHAIRMAN. Its purpose apparently is to show that there is agreement by the majority. That is the purpose of it, I think.
I am going to let the list be printed in the record. I just wanted to see what your idea was and how you thought it would influence any
Mr. COATES. The only purpose of this statement was to bring out the apparent general agreement of the several segments of the public and of the Congress itself.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you think it is like the argument before the Supreme Court that they had done this before. They have usurped powers before, and therefore the action has become legal by custom and practice. Thus, if they voted for one plan which removed Senate confirmation, why, of course, they are bound now to follow that precedent even though they were wrong in the first place. Mr. COATES. I would not want to transcribe it that way, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not about the same kind of argument?
Mr. COATES. No, sir. Are we not here considering all of the elements of public thought that go into a decision on an issue of this sort ?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. It seems to me that all we are considering is keeping postmasters from being confirmed. That seems to be about all.
Mr. COATES. We can proceed to the text of the plan from there.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed. I will let the appendix be printed in the record.
Mr. COATES. Thank you, sir.
Other issues are present, of course, but I take it that the underlying concept is the elimination of political considerations from the appointment of postmasters, customs collectors, and United States marshals, as well as collectors of internal revenue, and for the same basic reasons. The Hoover Commission was certainly clear enough in its assertion that:
(1) The choice of non-policy-making officials should lie with the responsible department or agency heads concerned;
(2) That political considerations in the appointment of postmasters particularly were a definite detriment to morale and efficiency throughout the organization.
It is on this point, I think, that public understanding of the plans is largely based. Through the years strong public sentiment has supported the merit approach to the selection of career employees. The public, moreover, has been impressed by recent examples of the misfeasance and malfeasance of officeholders chosen by political preference.
The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you there to say that I hear all of this argument about career men having a little higher rating as to honor and integrity. I do not know of a postmaster in my State since
I have been in the Senate—there may be one, but if so it has not come to my attention—who has been removed or prosecuted for any crime in connection with the handling of his affairs. There may be an exception to that. I do not recall any. But I do know some with 25 and 30 years of career service who have been caught and prosecuted and removed.
I just do not see that there is any halo of virtue or character or integrity attached to those with the civil-service rating.
Mr. ČOATEs. I think on that point, Senator, I will take the place recently occupied by Dr. Flemming and say that Utopia is still not quite at hand and we will just have to face that fact.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. COATES. For all these reasons, in addition to the many you will hear from other sources, the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, representing a significant segment of public opinion, earnestly urges your favorable consideration of plans No. 2, 3, and 4 of 1952.
Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Coates. (The list submitted for the record by Mr. Coates is as follows:)
List of Senators who have endorsed recently the concept of merit instead of
political preference in appointments to Federal non-policy-making jobs
List of Senatprs who have endorsed recently the concept of merit instead of polit
ical preference in appointments to Federal non-policy-making jobs—Continued
Collectors of Internal Revenue .....
U.S. marshals and attorneys
STATEMENT OF ALBERT MAC C. BARNES, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION
OF THE CUSTOMS BAR
REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 3 ... The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Albert Mac C. Barnes, president of the Association of the Customs Bar.
Come forward, Mr. Barnes. Are you addressing your remarks to plan No. 3? Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Exclusively? Mr. BARNES. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed. : I note that you have a prepared statement. Would you like to file that for the record and comment upon it?
Mr. BARNES. I have already given to the clerk of the committee an envelope addressed to each member of the committee which contains my statement and also a statement which I secured from the Customs Court and which is an unofficial expression of opinion after their unofficial analysis of this bill. That came over to me only last night, so I put it in envelopes and addressed one envelope to each member of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what you refer to here as appendix A?
The CHAIRMAN. I want to expedite the hearing. I do not want to deny anyone the opportunity of being heard, but would it be satisfactory to you to have your statement printed in the record in full at this point, together with appendix A, and then to have your comments, or would you prefer to read your statement ? Mr. BARNES. No. I have some other comments to make. The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to accommodate you. Mr. BARNES. I offer my statement for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. All right. The full statement of Mr. Barnes may be printed in the record together with appendix A, as designated by him, which is a memorandum on the effect of Reorganization Plan No. 3 upon the jurisdiction of the United States Customs Court, and its judicial review in respect to customs matters. They may both be printed in the record.
(The documents referred to are as follows:)
STATEMENT OF ALBERT MACC. BARNES, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF THE CUSTOMS
CUSTOM JUDICIAL REVIEW IMPERILED BY REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3
The Association of the Customs Bar is composed of lawyers throughout the United States who practice before the Treasury Department and the United States Customs Court and the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. They have requested me to present the results of their study of and deliberations in connection with Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 as transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives by the President.
It is our considered opinion that this Plan No. 3 seriously jeopardizes the right, which-Congress has given to importers and American manufacturers, to sue the United States for alleged mistakes in the administration of the customs laws. More than 60 years has been spent in perfecting this review procedure.