morning for their frankness in trying to give us an understanding and insight on this very important matter.

I think that my personal opinion is and it has been for a long time that the Hatch Act needed amendment. Just how to do it, that is the question for us to argue out.

Mr. HYDE. May I ask one question of the gentleman from the Commission?

Mr. MELOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HYDE. Under the act, does the Civil Service Commission have the right to punish State employees?

Mr. MELOY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HYDE. Under order from the Civil Service Commission you can suspend a State employee who is on a State payroll.

Mr. MELOY. That is right within section 12. We are the only people in the Government that exercises authority under section 12, which is on State employees.

Mr. HYDE. Has section 12 been tested in the courts as to constitutionality?

Mr. MELOY. Yes, sir; twice.

Mr. HYDE. It is Federal?

Mr. MELOY. It doesn't quite work that way.

Mr. ABBITT. What happens is that the State has to agree to follow the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission or they don't get any money.

Mr. MELOY. It is entirely up to the State. We find that a State employee has violated the act; we would certify to the governor that so and so has violated the act. If he is not dismissed for 18 months by the governor, then we will penalize the next grant going to the State twice the annual salary of that individual. He has his option. He can be penalized the money or remove the man for 18 months. Mr. LONG. It is putting him over the barrel.

Mr. ASHMORE. That is a State's right that we had lost and did not realize that we had lost.

Mr. MELOY. That has been upheld as constitutional.

Mr. LESINSKI. For clarification, wherever there are funds in the Federal Government going into a State, the so-called Hatch Act will apply to it.

Mr. MELOY. It will apply to those people who are working in connection with that project that is financed; no others.

Mr. LESINSKI. Of the Federal Government with the State.

Mr. MELOY. Where the Federal Government puts in funds for a particular project, then those people working in connection with that project are covered by section 12 of the Hatch Act.

Mr. LESINSKI. I wanted that clear.

Mr. LONG. But employed by the State.

Mr. MELOY. If employed by the State.

Mr. HYDE. Anybody who says that Federal funds do not entail Federal control just does not know what he is talking about. Mr. LONG. Does not know what control is.

Mr. ASHMORE. I want to announce that Congressman John Lesinski, a member of our subcommittee, is now present and we would like to have him recorded.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. LESINSKI. I am sorry I could not be here sooner. We had a very important bill regarding loyalty to the Federal Government. I thought I should be there. I cannot be in two places at one time. That is all.

Mr. ASHMORE. Glad you could make it.

I also want to announce that Congressman Elliott of Alabama who is not a member of our subcommittee but is a member of the full Committee on House Administration is present. Would you like to make a statement at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL ELLIOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. ELLIOTT. I just would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I have long been interested in this particular subject matter and that is the reason for my attendance here.

Mr. ASHMORE. We are glad to have you.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I tried to help to improve this law back in 1949 or 1950. I think it is badly in need of amending. I think it is unfair in many of its applications today, I think it goes much too far, and I hope the subcommittee-I would just like to say that I hope the subcommittee can adopt the bill or some other approach to this thing that will eliminate some of the hazards and inconsistencies and the inequities of this law.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to have been here to participate in this most informative discussion."

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you.

In connection with the presentation of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Langston, do you have a letter from the Acting Chairman? Mr. LANGSTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The committee has received a letter dated July 18, 1957, addressed to Mr. Omar Burleson, chairman, Committee on House Administration, and signed by Mr. Christopher H. Phillips, Acting Chairman. The letter says:

This is in further reply to your request of June 8, 1957, addressed to Mr. Macy for the Civil Service Commission's views on H. R. 433 and H. R. 1167, identical bills, establishing a commission to study certain aspects of the restrictions on political activities imposed under sections 9, 12, and 15 of the act commonly referred to as the Hatch Political Activities Act.

This Commission is to conduct an investigation and study of the administration, operation, and enforcement of certain sections of the Hatch Political Activities Act. Since this study and investigation involve a statute administered by the Civil Service Commission, we believe we should not express any views thereon.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

(See appendix for text of letter.)

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you, Mr. Langston.

Mr. Hulick, I believe you have a statement you would like to make at this time?

Mr. HULICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. ASHMORE. I believe you are the president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. Please proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF RAY L. HULICK, PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. HULICK. My name is Ray L. Hulick. I am president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. Our association has a membership of more than 36,000 which includes almost 30,000 regular rural carriers, or more than 90 percent of all of the regular classified rural letter carriers of the Nation. The remainder of our membership is composed of retired, temporary, and substitute rural carriers.

Mr. Chairman, we deeply and sincerely appreciate this opportunity to express the views of our organization on the bill under consideration, H. R. 1167, to establish a commission to study certain aspects of the restrictions on political activities imposed under sections 9, 12, and 15 of the act commonly referred to as the Hatch Political Activities Act.

Generally speaking, our association has found the Hatch Act has been an extremely fine law which has afforded protection to Federal employees from political intimidation and pressure. Federal workers protection from political coercion, intimidation, or reprisal should remain the primary objective of the Hatch Act. In the event H. R. 1167 should become law and a commission established which would conduct an investigation and study of the restrictions of political activities under the Hatch Political Activities Act, ample provision should be made and the duties of the Commission should so state, that in the consideration of a possible greater amount of political activity on the part of officers and employees of the Federal Government that the protection presently afforded such officers and employees be maintained and not abridged in any manner. should be no loss of any protection from political intimidation in order to grant some possible additional freedom of political activity. The protection of Federal employees individually and collectively must receive first consideration.'

There

With this thought in mind, however, our association sincerely believes that such a commission should be established to determine if there are changes in the Hatch Political Activities Act which would grant a greater freedom of political activity to Federal employees.

An example of an area which the commission might very well investigate would be the restrictions placed on Federal employees in local school board elections. In many areas Federal employees are restricted from any activity with regard to school board elections simply because in these respective areas school board elections are conducted in conjunction with partisan political elections. Whereas in a great many other areas of the country, school board elections are strictly nonpartisan elections and it is not required that political affiliation be stated by the candidates. We feel that Federal employees are stricted from performing very worthwhile public service since they are unable to serve on a school board in many areas.

In considering this and other possible areas where Federal employees are presently restricted from performing worthwhile civic and citizenship activities as a result of the restrictions of the Hatch

Act, we would certainly recommend that any such commission that would be established under the pending bill give every consideration to paragraph 2 of section 3 regarding the advisability of attempting to define more precisely the activities prohibited by the Hatch Act. Federal employees should have a clear cut and precise understanding of the activities which would be prohibited and of the activities which could properly be engaged in without violating the Hatch Act.

Our association is also in complete accord with paragraph 3 of section 3 which would consider the advisability of classifying violations of the Hatch Act according to the nature of the political activity engaged in by the violator, and thus the prescribing and the setting forth of proper penalties based on the respective violations. We feel there should be a series of penalties established and stated in the Hatch Act for violations less than that requiring separation. Insofar as it is possible to do, violations ranging from minor to serious should be set forth and the penalties therefor stated so that like penalties should always be assessed for like violations.

Mr. Chairman, we commend you for holding hearings on this vital matter and wish to place our organization on record as being in favor of H. R. 1167 to establish a bipartisan commission to study the restrictions of political activities under the Hatch Political Activities Act. We feel that a complete investigation and thorough study on this subject would be healthy and in the best interest of good government. Thank you.

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you, sir.

May I say at this time that since we have a limited time this morning that we shall have to have another meeting at which time we anticipate fuller opportunity for questions by the committee.

Mr. LANGSTON. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roosevelt has indicated he will be unable to be here this morning but he has a statement setting forth his views which he would like to have appear in the record. Mr. ASHMORE. We are indeed sorry Mr. Roosevelt is not able to be here. However, his statement may appear in the record at this point as though read.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, conditions imposed on any segment of a democratic society which deny to the individual the guaranties of the Bill of Rights are anathema to our people. If these rights are ever in any way proscribed, democratic tradition insists that such restraint be exercised only in cases of extreme national emergency, and restored at the earliest possible moment. Yet for 18 years, since the passage of the Hatch Act in 1939, the freedom of speech of Federal employees has been abridged. Moreover, they have been denied the right-and it is unquestionably a right-to contribute to the operation of their Government through political activity.

Historically, it might be said that need existed for the restraining provisions of the act. During the 1938 campaign, an important issue was the alleged misappropriation of relief funds, with particular reference to Works Progress Administration funds, for political pur

poses. Evidently, enough substantive evidence was developed to impel the Senate committee which was created to investigate the matter to recommend the so-called remedies now incorporated in the Hatch Act. The act stands today as an example of broad, sweeping legislation designed to prohibit specific improper action at a point in time, but because of its scope, additionally prohibiting proper action in which every citizen has the right to engage, no matter what his condition of employment.

Not considering the question of justice surrounding the passage of the act originally, the need that was assumed to exist for such stringent legislation is highly debatable, and certainly such need does not now exist. What logic dictates that a clerk in the Commerce Department, or a laborer on a federally financed road construction ought be refused the right to address his political club or rally or to attend either in any capacity other than as a spectator, or to work at the polls on election day, to contribute his services to the campaign of the candidate of his choice, to hold office in his precinct or ward or to write a letter to the editor in expression of his opinion of the merits of a partisan candidate for elective office?

Some say that to engage in such activities does not constitute the exertion of a right, as did Justice Holmes when he said in 1892, "The servant cannot complain, as he takes the employment on the terms which are offered him." But the history of labor in the United States is evidence that when the servant did complain, the terms got better and better. The servant is not bound to accept the terms; he can work to improve them, and when the terms abridge his constitutional right of freedom of expression and his right as a citizen to participate in his political party, he ought not have to work to improve them. This committee and Congress has a clear responsibility to restore his rights to him.

Politically, our Government workers are today second-class citizens. The few exceptions to the restraints of the act given to some municipalities by the special dispensation of the Civil Service Commission are still subject to unnecessary restrictive provisos. A franchise which allows an individual no more than his vote cannot be construed as complete franchise. Anything less is a grave indictment of the causative legislation and a clear call for remedy.

Although I strongly favor repeal of the Hatch Act, with the exception of section 9 (a), I also feel that the bill under consideration is an important step in the right direction, and I was happy to cosponsor it with Congressman Lankford. Since the climate necessary to pass a repeal bill is not a likely possibility, I therefore heartily support H. R. 1167, and urge the committee to give its favorable consideration to this bill, in so doing set in operation the machinery that can restore to Government workers some of the rights now denied them. Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Beamer, we shall be glad to hear from you at this time. Proceed in your own way, please, sir.

Mr. BEAMER. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. BEAMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Mr. BEAMER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate this opportunity to present my views on the proposals embodied in H. R. 1167. It is