The CHAIRMAN. But the point is simply this: We are taking the consultation sources away from the man whom the people have chosen to place in the highest legislative body in the country, and you place them somewhere else, nobody knows where and nobody can find out. And you say that is an improvement.

Dr. FLEMMING. Senator, I am sure that you have seen some of the examinations held for a first-class post office.

The CHAIRMAN. I would fail both ways. I could not get a political appointment even under a Democratic administration.

Dr. FLEMMING. No; these are not written examinations I am talking about now. These are examinations which are conducted solely on the basis of investigators of the Commission going into the community and interviewing the responsible citizens of the community and finding out what the citizens of that community think.

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody is complaining about that. This plan does not change that.

Dr. FLEMMING. I know. But they are finding out what the citizens of the community think about the qualifications of persons to serve as postmaster. Now, my only point is this: That all of that information is available to the Postmaster General or the person that he delegates authority to, to make these appointments. The person who gets the civil-service list over in the Post Office Department is not going to be in the dark as to what the community thinks about the various candidates for the job. He will have a very clear and accurate picture of just what the community thinks.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you anticipate that he will act solely upon that? Dr. FLEMMING. No; I do not. There are times when it seems to me that circumstances will force him to act solely on that particular basis. I don't contend that this will achieve Utopia or anything approaching it as far as the civil-service system is concerned. My only contention is this, Senator, that we haven't got a chance of moving in the direction of nonpolitical appointment of postmasters as long as we have provision for senatorial confirmation.

The CHAIRMAN. What is wrong with a political appointment, if the man whom the people elect to the Senate of the United States is the man who makes it? What is wrong with it? What has developed that is wrong in this system? Where is your corruption or graft or whatever is wrong now that you are trying to correct? It does not exist in the Post Office Department.

Dr. FLEMMING. Senator, my contention is simply this, that the thing that is wrong about putting appointments of this kind on a political basis is that the postmaster of a community is charged with the responsibility of operating an important Government business, and that the person who is selected for that job should be selected solely on the basis of his ability to do a good administrative job. And I don't think that we are helping the morale of the citizens of this Nation when we say to them that as far as an important job of that kind is concerned, a citizen who happens to belong to the party that is out of power hasn't got a change in the world of being given consideration on the basis of merit for that particular pob.

Now, could I go. back to this question of the Postmaster General consulting Members of Congress?

I advocate, as Mr. Ramspeck has advocated before this committee, a civil-service rule that would prohibit the Postmaster from follow

ing the advisory system that he now follows on postmasterships and rural carriers.

If a postmaster, in checking up on people on a list, wanted to consult the elected representative of the people in a particular congressional district, irrespective of whether that elected representative was a Republican or a Democrat, I wouldn't have any quarrel with that. But I doubt that it would work out in that particular way.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you not just simply issue a rule requiring that? The Postmaster General would not take the advice anyway, and you know it. He is not likely to follow it any more than he is likely to follow the rule the other way. He will do as he pleases anyhow.

Dr. FLEMMING. Well, I think after all Mr. Ramspeck, who has advocated this rule, is a practical person and has lived with this situation while a member of the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. I will not quarrel with him, but I do have a quarrel with this theory because it is not practical.

Dr. FLEMMING. Well, he says that he feels that it is practical for the President to issue a rule prohibiting the Postmaster General from following the advisory system that he now follows.

Mr. Chairman, other Cabinet officers do not follow that advisory system in the way it is followed in the Post Office Department. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the other Cabinet officers do not have an officer in every community either.

Dr. FLEMMING. Oh, many of them do.

The CHAIRMAN. No; the Post Office is separate, apart, and distinct as to the kind of service it renders.

Dr. FLEMMING. But just look at the extent to which we have decentralized the operations of Government in recent years. Just look at the field offices, the regional offices, the subregional offices, the State offices, and the area offices that we have for all departments and agencies at the present time. Take a city like Columbus, Ohio. There are all kinds of agencies who appoint representatives to serve in Columbus, Ohio. They don't trot around following this kind of an advisory system that has grown up with respect to rural carriers and postmasters. I don't think there is any question at all but that if we could eliminate it, we could get better service in the long run from the people who occupy these jobs.

The CHAIRMAN. To me all your argument means is that a recommendation from a Congressman and confirmation of the man in the United States Senate contaminates the office to which he belongs. I do not believe that.

Dr. FLEMMING. My contention, Senator, is that the requirement of confirmation for this type of job-and as you know, I have the some feeling on collectors of internal revenue—the requirements of confirmation for this type of job means that there is not a chance in the world of moving away from purely political appointments.

Now, you and I undoubtedly differ on that particular point.

The CHAIRMAN. You call them purely political, but they are not. In the first place, they have been examined by the Civil Service as to their qualifications. They have to go through that.

Dr. FLEMMING. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. So it is not purely political.

Dr. FLEMMING. Yes, it is because the final appointment rests solely on political considerations.

The CHAIRMAN. What is wrong with it if those political considerations are identified with and completely attached to the community life and sentiment?

Dr. FLEMMING. That is wrong.

Senator DwORSHAK. May I interpolate there, Mr. Chairman, that you apparently overlook the fact that everybody connected with the legislative branch of the Government is a politician while everybody connected with the executive department of the Government is nonpolitical. You do not realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not a very accurate statement.

Dr. FLEMMING. I have not contended that, but I would say this: What is wrong with it is this, as far as postmasterships are concerned, for 20-odd years a particular segment of our population have been second-class citizens in terms of their opportunities for being considered for what is called a civil-service job.

The CHAIRMAN. They are also second-class citizens so far as holding many other offices are concerned.

Dr. FLEMMING. As long as that condition exists, you cannot develop a feeling of confidence on the part of the citizens of this country in the fairness and the impartiality of the civil-service system.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to you, Dr. Flemming, that I served two terms in the House during which time I had the responsibility for exercising this great political discretion. I reappointed every postmaster that my predecessor, whom I had defeated for office, had appointed, and I knew that they would campaign against me. I reappointed every one of them save one, where the community would not have him. That is the way I felt about it.

Dr. FLEMMING. Senator, don't you think that was rather exceptional?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know. I have been in the Senate for 9 years and am in my tenth year. Only once, as I recall, or maybe twice, have I held up a confirmation that I could check because I had some complaint. You keep talking about the confidence of the people in this system.

Dr. FLEMMING. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. During those 14 years I have not had a single complaint from my State about the system. It all originates up here with bureaucrats who are attempting to get more control and to take these appointments and positions away from local control. That is the whole purpose of it.

Dr. FLEMMING. No, Senator. This plan does not change the resi· dence requirement for postmasters. It does not change the examining process at all.

The CHAIRMAN. All you do is to say that the Civil Service Commission will rule on the actions of a Postmaster General who is a political appointee. What you are saying is that they can determine better who can serve the community than can the man they choose to send to the Senate of the United States. That is what you are saying.

Dr. FLEMMING. Well, Senator, that is the very essence of our merit system. I wish you would put yourself, for example, in the position of a Civil Service Commissioner, in the position that I was in from

1939 to 1948.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the Civil Service Commission. I beg your pardon. I think they do an excellent job of getting the best qualified people up on their list.

Dr. FLEMMING. I appreciate that, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not complaining about the Civil Service Commission.

Dr. FLEMMING. My point is this: When you are out talking with a group of citizens and you talk about the hopes and ambitions of the Federal Government as far as the development of a genuine career service is concerned-and I think most of us would agree that we do need a career service as far as most of our jobs are concerned-and you talk to them about the fact that irrespective of what party may be in power young men and young women will have the opportunity of filing applications for jobs, will have the opportunity of being considered for those jobs on the basis of their qualifications, not on the basis of what political party they happen to belong to at a particular time, they are happy to hear that.

Now, those are the objectives of the civil-service system as far as the Federal Government is concerned, objectives which the Congress has joined in establishing.

This is not an executive branch concept. It is a concept of the entire Government, a concept which the courts have joined in upholding. The CHAIRMAN. I will say this to you: Removing the confirmation is certainly an executive branch operation. It does not come from the people. I never had a request for it in my life.

Dr. FLEMMING. My point is this, Senator: Then a citizen says to you, "Yes, you talk about those objectives for a merit system. How do you explain the fact that for over 20 years we have had nothing but a Democrat serving as Postmaster? We have had three Postmasters, and they have all been Democrats."

The CHAIRMAN. You take the position that the Democratic Party is the best party, t'e most capable of running the Government from the top to the bottom.

Dr. FLEMMING. Of course, there are citizens in various parts of the country who

The CHAIRMAN. That is the whole theory of the party system. You are going to hear so much of it in the atmosphere that it is going to sound like thunder from now on until November.

Dr. FLEMMING. There are those who might take issue with that, but it seems to me that Republicans and Democrats alike join in feeling that there are jobs in the executive branch of the Government that should be filled by persons who are qualified for them regardless of their political affiliation. And there are citizens, both Republicans and Democrats alike, who believe that unless we follow that kind of a system we cannot have a well-administered Government. Senator DWORSHAK. Do we have?

Dr. FLEMMING. We have a long distance to travel. But I am enough of an optimist to say this, that I believe that over a quarter of a century we have made some progress, and I also believe that we are going to continue to make some progress, provided we keep driving toward the kind of objectives that I have been trying to talk about here this morning.

Senator DwORSHAK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion that regardless of which party wins next November I think

Dr. Flemming should be recommended by this committee for Post-, master General. I thing he will do a good job.

Dr. FLEMMING. I appreciate that.

The CHAIRMAN. I may have some constituent who wants that office. I am going to reserve my comment.

Well, thank your very much, Doctor.

Dr. FLEMMING. You are welcome, I am sure.

The CHAIRMAN. While the Chair may have disagreed with you on some points, I enjoyed your discussion of the issue before us. There are two points of view, and I trust that the one which is best for the Government, whether it is my point of view or yours, will ultimately prevail.

Dr. FLEMMING. I certainly share that view, and I appreciate the opportunity of participating in the discussion with you and Senator Dworshak.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(There was a statement off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Charles B. Coates.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. COATES, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE HOOVER REPORT

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

Mr. COATES. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the privilege of appearing here. I have a prepared statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to read it, or do you prefer to insert it in the record and comment upon it?

Mr. COATES. I would prefer to read it, with your permission.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

Mr. COATES. My name is Charles B. Coates. I am acting chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report. Formerly I was with the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, the Hoover Commission, as assistant to the Chairman and Director of Information.

The Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report finds Presidential Reorganization Plans Nos. 2, 3, and 4 consistent with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Warrants for this conclusion are found in Recommendation No. 5 of the Commission's Report on the Post Office, which says:.

We recommend that the confirmation of postmasters by the Senate should be abolished

and in Recommendation No. 2 of the Commission's Report on Personnel Management, which says:

Primary responsibility for recruiting and examining Federal employees should be placed on the departments and agencies.

In both of these recommendations, the Commission was unanimous. Your committee, Mr. Chairman, has heard and will hear still more from witnesses well versed in the legal procedural and technical aspects of these proposals. Perhaps it may prove useful to review briefly the attitudes and views of the people concerned in the matter. Like nearly ever question confronting the Congress, this one contains elements that lie in the realm of opinion. For this reason, the