S. 3725. A bill for the relief of Capt. Cassius H. Styles; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. SMITH of Maine, S. 3726. A bill granting the consent of Congress to certain New England States to enter into a compact relating to higher education in the New England States and establishing the New England Board of Higher Education; to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. (See the remarks of Mr. SALTONSTALL When he introduced the above bill, which appear under a separate heading.) By Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY): S. 3727. A bill to amend paragraph 717 of title I of the Tariff Act of 1930, with respect to duties applicable in the case of fish sticks; to the Committee on Finance. NEW ENGLAND BOARD OF HIGHER NEW ENGLAND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, the senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GREEN], the senior Senator from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN], the junior Senator from Vermont [Mr. FLANDERS], the senior Senator from Maine [Mrs. SMITH), the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the senior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BUSH], the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. PAYNE], the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PURTELL], the junior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. UPTON], and my colleague, the junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY], all Senators from the New England States, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to give the consent of Congress for any of the New England States to enter into a compact establishing a New England Board of Higher Education. The object of the compact is to produce more doctors, dentists, veterinarians, public health officers, and technical and scientific specialists in other fields through the cooperative efforts of all the States. By the enactment of this bill, at no expense to the Federal Government, an increase in the number of students from the compacting States can be arranged with existing institutions. This concrete action will strengthen these institutions while at the same time alleviating to some extent the existing need for their professionally trained graduates. Each of the compacting States plans to contribute toward the education of students from its State in the leading centers of one of the other States. In this way, duplication and overlapping can be avoided, and economies can be achieved. The result, I hope, will be to offset the constantly widening gap between the tuition costs and the actual cost to the institutions to provide the necessary training. Massachusetts participation has already been authorized by the State legislature and signed by Gov. Christian A. Herter. The compact has also received enthusiastic support among leaders in all sections of New England. I wholeheartedly endorse this cooperative effort amongst our New England States to use to the fullest and expand our exceptionally fine centers of learning. It is a particular pleasure to join with the other New England Senators acting together to further enrich the professional community with graduates from our schools. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be received and appropriately referred. The bill (S. 3726) granting the consent of Congress to certain New England States to enter into a compact relating to higher education in the New England States and establishing the New England Board of Higher Education, introduced by Mr. SALTONSTALL (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. NATIONAL SALVATION ARMY WEEK Mr. IVES. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a joint resolution to authorize the President of the United States to proclaim the week of November 28, 1954, through December 4, 1954, as 4, 1954, as National Salvation Army Week. The Salvation Army will celebrate its 75th anniversary year of service in the United States this fall. In October of 1879, Lt. Eliza Shirley came to the United States and her efforts resulted in the landing of the first official delegation of Salvation Army officers at Battery Park in New York City on March 12, 1880. A commemorative plaque marks the spot where these officers knelt in prayer at Battery Park. Their prayers were fully answered and today the Salvation Army has grown into a huge operation composed of 3,996 officers who administer 6,400 centers of charitable and religious work. These dedicated officers are advised and assisted by thousands of prominent citizens of all races and creeds, who have formally associated themselves in the close relationship of lay leadership. The work of the Salvation Army, under the charter issued by the State of New York in 1899, is well known to all of us. Therefore, it is only fitting that the week of November 28, 1954, through December 4, 1954, be proclaimed as National Salvation Army Week. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be printed in the body of the RECORD at this point in my remarks. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, will be printed in the RECORD. The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 173) to authorize the President to proclaim the week of November 28, 1954, through December 4, 1954, as National Salvation Army Week, introduced by Mr. IVES, was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Whereas in October of 1879 a lone woman Salvation Army officer, Lt. Eliza Shirley, encouraged the formation of an official party, comprising seven women officers and Commissioner George Scott Railton, to extend the work of the Salvation Army in the United States; and Whereas today the Salvation Army has grown into a huge organization with its 3,996 officers administering 6,400 centers of charitable and religious work assisted by 34,687 prominent citizens of all races and creeds who have formally associated themselves in the close relationship of lay leadership; and Whereas the Salvation Army, acting under a charter issued by the State of New York in 1899, is an organization designed to operate as a religious and charitable organization with the following purposes: The spiritual, moral, and physical reformation of all who need it; the reclamation of the vicious, criminal, dissolute, and degraded; visitation among the poor and lonely and sick; the preaching of the Gospel and dissemination of Christian truth by means of open-air and indoor meetings: Therefore be it Resolved, etc., That the President of the United States is requested and authorized to officially proclaim the week beginning November 28, 1954, through December 4, 1954, as National Salvation Army Week. ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMIT TEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE Mr. BRICKER submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 276), which was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce: Resolved, That the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is authorized to expend from the contingent fund of the Senate, during the Eighty-third Congress, for the purposes specified in section 134 (a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, $10,000 in addition to the amount authorized in such section. EXTENSION OF COVERAGE UNDER OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE PROGRAM-AMENDMENTS Mr. KERR submitted amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H. R. 9366) to amend the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code so as to extend coverage under the oldage and survivors insurance program, increase the benefits payable thereunder, preserve the insurance rights of disabled individuals, and increase the amount of earnings permitted without loss of benefits, and for other purposes, which were referred to the Committee on Finance, and ordered to be printed. HOUSE BILLS REFERRED The following bills were severally read twice by their titles and referred as indicated: H. R. 179. An act to amend section 7 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended; and H. R. 8020. An act authorizing the transfer of certain property of the United States Government (in Klamath Falls, Oreg.) to the State of Oregon; to the Committee on Government Operations. H. R. 9580. An act to revise and extend the laws relating to espionage and sabotage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. 9709. An act to extend and improve the unemployment compensation program; to the Committee on Finance. A QUESTION OF LOYALTY Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, there has come to my desk a column written by Father James Gillis, entitled "A Question of Loyalty." This short essay is so calmly reasoned, that it cannot fail to appeal to the intellect of whoever may read it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this column may be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: A QUESTION OF LOYALTY (By James Gillis) Out of the welter of debatable questions brought to the fore by the MCCARTHY-Army imbroglio, I select one for consideration. It is a matter of concern to the conscience of any individual in the armed forces, or in a governmental department which demands an oath of loyalty of its employees. Let us suppose that one such employee learns of certain goings on that may work to the detriment of the Nation. He communi cates the knowledge to his immediate superior. Time passes and there is no evidence that the superior has transmitted the information to the higher ups. The wrong doing and the danger continue. In the governmental employee's oath there is a clause which forbids the transmission of "classified" information to any "unauthorized" person. But our man is convinced that if he continues to abide by the letter of the oath of silence, he may contribute to national disaster. He feels in conscience bound to reveal what he knows to someone who is in a position to do something effective. WHERE THE OFFENSE? As it happens, a Senatorial committee is in process of investigating precisely the kind of abuse of which the governmental employee is aware. So the employee decides to tell what he knows not to his wife, his neighbors, his companions, not to the newspapers, not to some loose-lipped news commentator and gossip purveyor but to the chairman of the senatorial committee investigating-now let us make it specific-Communist infiltration into Government. That being the kind of danger the employee has in mind, he conveys what he knows to the Senator who is himself bound by oath not to use to the detriment of the Nation any knowledge that he may acquire. Now tell me I speak to professional moralists and to well educated citizens-wherein has the governmental employee offended? Unless I have misunderstood all that was taught me years ago concerning moral obligations, the employee has done exactly what he was bound in conscience to do. He should be rewarded, not punished, promoted, not discharged. For there is a law above all rules, regulations, prohibitions, oaths of secrecy. The ancient Romans knew it. They had a motto, "Salus populi suprema lex" "The welfare of the people is the highest law." SHOULD BE REWARDED Also, in our ethical system conscience is, in the last analysis, the ultimate norm of action. It must be an "informed" conscience, a careful, cautious, and, so to speak, conscientious conscience. Acting on such a conscience, a man not only may but must disregard all other laws. Yet I have seen nowhere-even in Catholic publications-so much as a surmise that the "young Army officer" who passed on information to the McCarthy committee could possibly have been acting in accordance with that fundamental moral principle. I, for one, give him credit. It is reported that the Army is hunting him out and that they have threatened to expel him if they find him. The Army accepted a known traitor, a Communist, gave him a commission, promoted him, and when it appeared that the lawfully appointed investigators were closing in on him the Army hurriedly gave him an honorable discharge. Yet the same Army threatens dishonorable discharge to an officer who did, or may have done, his patriotic duty. Treason is rewarded; devotion to duty and to conscience penalized. In one of John Galsworthy's best plays, Loyalties, there is a thrilling exposition of what happens when one loyalty conflicts with another. Among the guests at a house party in the home of Charles and Lady Winsor, there are Dancy, a retired army captain; General Canynge; and a wealthy and aristocratic Jew called De Levis. Dancy, having lost heavily at the races and at the gambling table, robs De Levis of a thousand pounds. De Levis knows who has stolen his money. So does General Canynge. The general, anxious for the honor of the army, persuades De Levis not to prosecute. HIGH LOYALTY Three weeks later, De Levis, applying for membership in the Jocky Club, is blackballed. The captain had called him a d Jew, and De Levis had called Dancy a thief. Thereupon come the conflict of loyalties. The captain's lawyer drops the case because of loyalty to his profession. The general remains silent because of loyalty to the army. Winsor declines to speak because of loyalty to his concept of a host. The captain's wife is loyal to her husband. De Levis is loyal to his racial pride. "My race was civilized when you were all savages." he says. One and all, they are loyal to this and to that, but no one is loyal to truth and justice. I read that play in 1922. It came back to me after all these years because of the coverup tactics of the Army. Loyalty to the Army is good, so is loyalty to the administration, but there is a higher loyalty to which no one seems to pay attention. The coverup has been at this writing effective. We don't know even yet the name of officers at Fort Monmouth or in the Pentagon who promoted the Communist and gave him an honorable discharge. We don't know what was in the document conveyed by the Army officer to the chairman of the committee. Loyalty to conscience, to the people, and to the Nation is smothered under a pile of lesser loyalties. Suprema lex salus populi; the supreme law, the welfare of the people, is forgotten. PROPOSED SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOVIET RUSSIA Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, since the introduction of Senate Resolution 247, to provide for the severance of diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia, I have received a great deal of mail touching on this subject. Most of this mail has favored the proposal. I do not want to burden the Senate with even a sampling of this correspondence; but I do want to call to attention one letter which, on its face, gives such obvious evidence of sincerity that I truly believe every Senator will find it interesting. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this letter, which came to me from Mr. Otto J. Ellik, of Brooklyn, N. Y., may be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: BROOKLYN, N. Y., June 30, 1954. Senator MCCARRAN, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: Allow me to congratulate you in your gallant fight with communism. A couple of days ago I saw a short notice in papers about your demand to sever diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. I came to this country as a war refugee 7 years ago. Although now a full-fledged citizen, I am not too well informed about political matters in this country. Anyway, I recall that a year or more ago I read about a plan in which you also advocated to terminate all ties with communistic countries. I am not a politician. In old country I was a science teacher. However, I believe I understand communism. I have lived 2 years behind the Iron Curtain where I learned all basic principles of communism. On my own skin, of course, I had the luck to escape. However what I have seen and know makes it impossible for me to enjoy life in comfort. Mankind is deadly sick. All our ordinary problems-progress, culture, raising of children, etc. are only of second importance. If we don't get well all will be over in a few years. Our Western World, our dearest values-God, truth, spiritual, cultural-will be dead and gone. It is appalling how little people outside the Iron Curtain understand communism. It is appalling to see how right now those who are voted into power are leading the free world into destruction. The overwhelming majority of American people are anti-Communist. The same is true about their representatives in Government. However, because of ignorance and complacency, every political grouping, every newspaper, almost every person has a different idea about methods how to fight communism. Such confusion makes any concerted and effective action impossible. The grossest samples of our ignorance are the unnormal relations with communistic countries. There seems to be no difference at all as compared with our friendly countries. We trade with Communists, we invite them to international organizations, to cultural meetings, etc. Needless to say that such an attitude bereaves us from all moral factors in fight with communism. I cannot understand how your approach, dear Senator, which is the only right one, has won so little ground. I don't wonder very much about politicians. They are often blinded by diplomats, who, as we know, are the greatest malefactors of human race. I wonder about religious and cultural organizations who should evaluate things from the standpoint of morals. Why they have not joined for a united action against our immoral ties with communistic countries is more than I can comprehend. Once a paper published a picture how an American diplomat cordially shook hands with Andrei Vishinsky. I showed the picture to a woman refugee. "How would you like to shake hands with Vishinski?" She took a look at the picture and retorted angrily: "I would rather chop off my hand than to touch that bloody swine." And she furiously spat at the photo. A mixed up, halfwit holdup murderer is a despicable monster, not worthy of human mercy. Could you shake hands with him? Probably not, neither could I. Vishinsky, a big wheel in history's greatest mass murder spree, is responsible for at least 10,000 murders. Yet we call him a foreign diplomat, we confer politely with him and treat him in any way as if he were an honest man. How is such dualism possible? Because people don't understand communism. The angry refugee woman, a plain farmer's wife, understood it. To her communism did not mean those lengthy, well-worded definitions boys learn at Harvard. To her communism meant things she had seen with her own eyes: Crime, murder, violence, injustice, immorality. Our main trouble, ignorance, seems to have historical background. What is communism? Most of answers would be: A political ideology, a political party, a certain form of government, etc. There are communistic states. The term "state" is in human mind automatically connected to term "law," of long, long experience. Since there are communistic states they have to be something lawful, etc. Such conclusions are fallacious and obsolete. Present-day communism is nothing political. It is a crime. Communism is an international crime organization who under pretext of politics is fighting to enslave the world. If I were a historian I would start a research as to where and when another state was so utterly lawless and criminal as today's Russia. It's hard to believe there ever was. Even in the old slave states at least national customs provided some security and justice. Real progress in a man's life began when he first organized a state and made laws. There cannot be any real peace and cooperation in the world until we put up international laws and abide them. (Basic human rights, guaranties for peaceful cooperation, etc.) It's time we start to distinguish between lawful and unlawful states. The latter category is criminal and has to be treated as such. A diplomat would say: "All this is hysterical, impractical, not up-to-date and realistic politics." Well, practical and realistic diplomats have run the world for the last 50 years. They have run it straight into hell. Only an idiot pays attention to what a diplomat says. Please forgive my long letter. I am afraid I let me carry away. Please excuse also my deficient language. I take the liberty to ask you for a favor. Please could you inform me are there any nonpartisan clubs or organizations who advance your ideas about the relations with communistic states. I would like to join one in hope to do my wee bit in a gigantic battle. It's grand to know that in all darkness and evil there are such sturdy fighters for human cause as you are, dear Senator. With best regards, OTTO J. ELLIK. ANTI-COMMUNIST LEGISLATION Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, the Attorney General has been making a great deal of noise about the desirability of enacting some anti-Communist legislation. In this connection, I invite the attention of Senators, and particularly the tion of Senators, and particularly the attention of the able majority leader, attention of the able majority leader, to the bill S. 23, Calendar No. 1540. This to the bill S. 23, Calendar No. 1540. This bill has been on the Senate calendar since June 7, when it was reported favorably from the Committee on the Judiciary. In the hope that I may be able to induce the able majority leader to schedule this bill for debate in the Senate, I wish to point out some facts about the bill. This bill would accomplish two things which have been recommended by the present administration, through its Attorney General. For one thing, it would prohibit members of Communist organizations from holding office or employment with labor unions. For another thing, it would let an employer fire a subversive employee without being held guilty of an unfair labor practice. In this latter connection, the bill provides that no statute of the United States shall preclude an employer from discharging without liability an employee who voluntarily continues as a member of a subversive organization, designated as such by the Attorney General, or who has actively concealed his membership in such an organization, or who has refused to state to a duly constituted congressional legislative committee whether or not he is or has knowingly or willingly been a member of such an organization. In the case of the ban against Communist officers or employees of labor unions, the bill would apply only to members of organizations found by a final order of the subversive activities control board to be Communist organiza tions; and the penalty would be applied to the Communist who continued in employment or in an office in a labor union. There is no penalty to be imposed upon the union itself. I indicated, Mr. President, that this bill covered two recommendations made by the Attorney General. I do not mean to say that the bill is in response to those recommendations. As a matter of fact, the bill was introduced at the very beginning of this Congress, and long before those recommendations were made by the Attorney General. Furthermore, this bill is identical with another bill, S. 2548, of the 82d Congress, of which I also had the honor to be the sponsor. What is involved here is very simple. By approving this bill, we shall be taking a long step in the direction of eliminating the power and influence and domination of the Communist Party in the field of labor and in labor organizations in this country. I point out that enforcement of the proposed prohibition against the holding of office or employment with a labor organization by a member of a Communist organization, would be in the hands of the regular Federal law-enforcement officials; that is, in the first instance, the offices of of United States attorneys throughout the Nation. Enforcement of the provision with respect to the right of an employer to discharge a subversive would come about in this way: Whenever a discharged employee went to the Labor Relations Board with a complaint that his discharge constituted an unfair labor practice, the employer would be able to defend by showing that the employee in question had voluntarily continued as a member of an organization designated on the Attorney General's subversive list, or had actively concealed his membership in such an organization, or had refused before a congressional committee to state whether or not he is or has knowingly or willingly been a member of such an organization. I note the calendar print of the bill bears the imprint 83d Congress, 2d session. Actually it was introduced during the 1st session of this Congress, as the number clearly indicates, the actual date of introduction being January 7, 1953. I hope that what I have said about this bill may help to induce my friend, the able majority leader, to tell us that he will schedule the bill for Senate action. I do believe that if the Senate is permitted to vote on this measure, it will be approved. PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, my reading of the Journal of the American Bar Association, and other professional journals, has been somewhat slowed up by the press of Senate business; and it was only this week that I came across a very important article which appears in the April 1954 issue of the ABA Journal. This article was written by Mr. C. Dickerman Williams, former General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. Its title is: "The Office of the President: A Reorganization Is Needed." In this article, Mr. Williams is responsible for one of the outstanding understatements of the year when, in speaking of the personnel of the office of the President, he says: The extent to which this large and key body of personnel operates without Senate or other congressional control is not generally appreciated. In his article, Mr. Williams makes several excellent points. His No. 1 point is: The personnel of the office of the President should be subjected to control by law with respect to their appointment, compensation, and duties. In the course of his article, Mr. Williams analyzes the Harry Dexter White case, which he calls "a horrible example of how the present looseness of organization" in the White House staff may work in practice. As Mr. Williams says in his article: It may be argued that it makes little difference whether a task is performed or advice given by the officer nominally responsible or by someone else. The answer is that orderly government must be carried on according to law; the alternative is arbitrary executive power. A department head is subject to confirmation by the Senate; his rights and duties are prescribed by statute; he is provided by Congress with the staff and equipment necessary for the discharge of those duties. These safeguards do not apply to a presidential aide. His instructions may be most informal; they are issued at the pleasure of the President and may be inspired by the aide himself for the purpose of his own aggrandizement. The struggle for British liberty was largely to require the monarch to rely on advice from his lawful ministers, and to act through them. I will not take the time of the Senate, Mr. President, to read further from this very fine article, but I intend to ask that the full text of the article may be printed in the RECORD. I want to make two suggestions with respect to this subject matter. First, I wish to commend to the Committee on Government Operations Operations a thorough study of this matter, with a view to formulating and reporting legislation to provide the desirable extent of control by law over the personnel of the office of the President. Second, I respectfully recommend and urge that the Hoover Commission consider the creation of a task force to go into this matter most thoroughly and make recommendations to the Congress. I now ask unanimous consent that the text of the article by C. Dickerman Williams, to which I have referred, may be printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: A REORGANIZATION IS NEEDED (By C. Dickerman Williams, of the New York Bar, New York City) (The Office of the President, the President's personal assistants, has existed as a legal entity only since 1939, when President Roosevelt created it by Executive order. It is extraordinary because it has no statutory definition although its members, because of their access to the ear of the Chief Executive, exercise tremendous power. Mr. Williams points out the dangers inherent in such an organi zation, citing cases where Presidential aides have overruled even Cabinet officers. The recent controversy over Harry Dexter White may indicate the dangers inherent in the present system. Mr. Williams, who was General Counsel of the Department of Commerce under Secretary Sawyer, urges a general reorganization of the White House.) A disquieting trend in public affairs has been the increasing concentration of authority in the hands of the President and his immediate entourage. Leading to this result have been several subsidiary trends: to government as compared with private enterprise, to the National Government as compared with the State governments, to the executive branch of the National Government as compared with the legislative and judicial branches, and, within the executive branch, to the personal establishment of the President as compared with the departments and agencies whose powers and duties are defined by law. This paper is concerned solely with the development last mentioned. Serving as General Counsel of the Department of Commerce under former Secretary Charles Sawyer, the writer was impressed with the size, power, and unregulated character of the White House, as the Executive Office of the President is usually called. This organization was created as a legal entity by President Roosevelt on September 8, 1939, by Executive Order 8248.1 It has become what the "court" or "palace" was in the monarchies of the past-that is to say, a large group of people surrounding the person of the chief of state, people who for the most part do not have, or are not limited to, duties clearly defined by law, but because of their ready access to the holder of enormous power, have great influence on events. History demonstrates that such influence is almost always exercised badly, that courtiers obstruct the work of responsible ministers and legislative and popular leaders and often urge upon the ruler extreme policies that have harmful and sometimes disastrous consequences. Undoubtedly, if unfortunately, the importance and complexity of modern government require that the President have a fairly large personal organization. The evils of the existing arrangement can, however, be greatly reduced. That is to say, the Office can be subjected to legal control and much of its work transferred to the regular executive departments. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate and illustrate the existing evils and to propose needed reforms. As Congress last July created a Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, the way to reorganization is open. One constant objective runs through these proposals; curtailment of the tendency of the President to develop a personal staff of advisers and examiners, men not subject to Senate confirmation and relatively unknown to the general public, who review and audit the work of the departments, and who, in some instances, through constant and ready access to the President, overrule or even supersede department heads, and who at other times accomplish little or nothing, serving only to confuse by needless activity. A conception of the extent of this development may be gained by comparing the number of personnel in the Office of the 1 Fed. Reg. 3864. Resolution 2, 78th Cong., adopted June 7, 1939, approved Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1939 (title 5, U. S. Code, sec. 133t) which referred to the "Executive Office of the President" but did not define it. The President's "Office" was then what it always had been, rooms where the President worked with clerks and secretaries. Executive Order 8248 made it a legal entity in September of that year. 24 Public Law 108-83d Cong. The presentation of the writer's proposals can best be accomplished by stating each and then discussing the reasons for it. 1. The personnel of the Office of the President should be subjected to control by law with respect to their appointment, compensation, and duties. The extent to which this large and key body of personnel operates without Senate or other congressional control is not generally appreciated. ACCESS TO PRESIDENT GIVES POWER The Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate to the appointment of all officers of the United States, except that Congress may in its discretion dispense with this requirement in the case of inferior officers.1 The influence that flows from access to the President of the United States makes the members of the White House staff anything but inferior officers. It is indeed anomalous that Senate confirmation is not required for such a powerful officer as Director of the Budget, who reviews the proposals of members of the Cabinet, but is necessary for the appointment of a second lieutenant in the Regular Army, the postmaster of a village or a sanitary engineer in the health service. It is similarly anomalous that Senate confirmation should be required for the Assistant Secretaries of the various departments and not for the assistants to the President. How are the latter inferior to the assistants to members of the Cabinet? Congress should require Senate confirmation of all the principal employees of the Office of the President and limit their terms of office, albeit with eligibility for reappointment. Again, Congress has strictly specified the compensation, or the standards of compensation, of all Government officers and employees from the highest to the lowest-all, that is, with one exception: the employees of the White House. For them Congress customarily appropriates large sums to be paid "at such per diem rates for individuals as the President may specify, and [for] other personal services without regard to the provisions of law regulating the employment and compensation of persons in the Government service * * * [the funds used] to be accounted for solely on [the President's] certificate." 5 Although it cannot be said that any President has abused this power, the provision seems unconstitutional in that it effects a delegation of the legislative power of appropriation without limiting standards (Panama Refining Company v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388)). Certainly it is an abdication of the "power of the purse," long considered the 3 As already noted, the Office did not become a legal entity until Executive Order 8248 of September 8, 1939. 4 Art. 2, sec. 2. E. g., title I, Public Law 422, 82d Cong. most vital safeguard against arbitrary government. The third and perhaps most important respect in which the Office of the President requires regulation is the specification of duties. The jurisdiction, duties, and powers of the departments, bureaus, and other agencies have in general been carefully set forth by acts of Congress. But the Office of the President has never been so defined, although some of its units have been, such as the Bureau of the Budget. Indeed, strictly speaking, the Office has never been created as a permanent organization like other Government agencies. The Office has no organic act. It exists only by virtue of annual appropriations and President Roosevelt's fiat. Moreover, there is no public document specifying in any detail the duties of the various members of the White House staff. Anyone who has business to do with, say, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation can go to the Federal Register and read a formal departmental order defining that officer's responsibilities at length." President Roosevelt's decree merely provides that the staff shall "assist" him and maintain liaison with Government agencies, press, and public. HARRY DEXTER WHITE CASE IS HORRIBLE EXAMPLE A horrible example of how the present looseness of organization may work in practice is provided by the Harry Dexter White case. According to former President Truman, the commission to White was issued in order to safeguard the investigation of the Silvermaster spy ring. But who told Mr. Truman that such a course of action was necessary or desirable? It is hardly conceivable that he reached such a conclusion unless so advised by one or more of his associates. Yet the evidence so far available does not identify any adviser who took this view. Mr. Hoover, who was in charge of the investigation, has expressly denied giving such advice. Secretary Byrnes says that after his interview with the President he was left with the impression that the President would forestall the appointment. Attorney General Clark, we learn from both Messrs. Hoover and Caudle, wanted to prevent White's assumption of office. Secretary Vinson, too, Mr. Hoover says, was against the appointment, although he feared that after the Senate's confirmation White had a legal right to the commission-a very different consideration from the possibility of danger to the success of an investigation. (Secretary Vinson's fear was obviously an initial reaction which only a little research would dispel. There is a formal and most persuasive opinion by Attorney General Stanbery (12 Op. Atty-Gen. 304) that the President may reconsider an appointment after Senate confirmation. Marbury V. Madison (1 Cranch 50), sometimes mentioned as holding the contrary, may be distinguished on two grounds; first, the commission had been signed and the petitioner was merely trying to get it; second, the office involved was judicial, that is, beyond the removal power of the President. There is a dictum in Marbury v. Madison that the President may withhold even a signed commission from one appointed to the executive branch as an incident of the power of removal.) Now it also is clear that Mr. Truman lacks a keen recollection of the incident. His first comment was that he had never read an FBI report on White; his second, that White had been dismissed as soon as it became known that he was disloyal. telecast explanation was obviously a reconstruction made after a study of the records. With the best will in the world, it is extremely difficult to be accurate under such 18 Federal Register, p. 1216. His circumstances. The difficulty would be acute for anyone who at the time had been living the crowded life of the President of the United States and would be doubly so if the reconstruction were attempted under the pressure that existed in this case. The theory that President Truman would willfully disregard such a report is also untenable. Whatever Mr. Truman's faults, the Communist infiltration of the Government took place under the Roosevelt administration, not the Truman administration. Undoubtedly during the Truman administration some agencies were not sufficiently prompt and vigorous in removing them, but others were vigilant. So far as this writer is aware, all Government employees who had been identified as spies were dismissed sooner or later, and before the end of the administration. Attorney General Brownell has obtained no espionage indictments against Government employees and apparently does not regard himself as able to do so under existing legislation. In short, the departments with responsibility, all headed by well-known public figures, were unanimously in favor of one course of action, and yet a different course of action, extraordinary and contrary to usual policy, was adopted. Another explanation, therefore, seems possible that some employee of the Office of the President, secretly a Communist or Communist sympathizer and not yet identified, may have been the source of unscrupulous advice to sign the commission, or may have secured the President's signature without realization by Mr. Truman of the nature of the document he was signing, or, indeed, may have forged the signature. Communist penetration of the Office of the President during the Roosevelt administration, not rooted out by 1946, is a possibility that cannot be lightly dismissed. The Communists sought to penetrate every organization of importance. Would they have ignored the Office of the President? The name of Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to the President from 1939 until he was dismissed on June 30, 1945, has appeared repeatedly in testimony concerning the Silvermaster espionage ring. White testified that Currie was his good friend. They both had taken graduate economics at Harvard at the same time; both entered the Treasury as economists in the year 1934 and had had brilliant careers in government thereafter. May not Currie, during his 6 years at the White House, have sponsored the employment there of Communists or fellow travelers in positions that would have been minor apart from their close association with matters of transcendent importance? Also, Mrs. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins were at times friendly with Communists. May not the same question apply to them? And if Communists got in, when were they put out? For if they were still there, they may have had an opportunity to effectuate the White appointment. Like all busy men, President Truman relied extensively on his staff. If one of them advised him on the White affair, he would hardly be able to remember it. He did not at first even recollect his meeting with Secretary Byrnes. Further, it has been reported that the President must sign 600 documents a day. He can hardly read each one carefully. Conceivably some employee, without the President's knowledge, may have designedly or carelessly put the White Commission into the pile of documents for his signature. It was rumored in Washington during the Truman administration that, because the President's fingers were so cramped by the signing of documents to which the law required his signature, he had authorized a clerk to sign his name to relatively unimportant personal correspondence in a script resembling the President's own. The possi bilities of abuse of this practice, if it existed, are obvious. In an interview broadcast by radio on the evening of November 29, 1953, former Ambassador Harriman expressed doubt that President Truman had consciously signed the effusive letter to Mr. White that went out over his signature on the occasion of Mr. White's resignation from the International Monetary Fund. No one had a better opportunity than Ambassador Harriman to observe White House procedures. And if the President did not consciously sign that letter of appreciation, is it not also possible that he did not consciously sign the commission? Although the White case may provide a sensational example of the evil of the present situation, perhaps even more dangerous to constitutional government is the tendency of the personnel of the office of the President to usurp or interfere with the work of the executive departments. ORDERLY GOVERNMENT MUST CARRY ON It may be argued that it makes little difference whether a task is performed or advice given by the officer nominally responsible or by someone else. The answer is that orderly government must be carried on according to law; the alternative is arbitrary executive power. A department head is subject to confirmation by the Senate; his rights and duties are prescribed by statute; he is provided by Congress with the staff and equipment necessary for the discharge of those duties. These safeguards do not apply to a Presidential aide. His instructions may be most informal; they are issued at the pleasure of the President and may be inspired by the aide himself for the purpose of his own aggrandizement. The struggle for British liberty was largely to require the monarch to rely on advice from his lawful ministers, and to act through them. In recent years, Dr. John R. Steelman was a conspicuous example of the Presidential assistant who supersedes a Department head. Secretary of Labor Tobin was head of an executive department whose statutory purpose is "to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment."" Secretary Tobin had been appointed by the President, sat in his Cabinet, and held office at his pleasure. Yet Dr. Steelman handled major labor matters on behalf of the President. So far as could be observed, from the press, from gossip in Government circles, and by the writer personally, the President relied on Dr. Steelman's advice when questions arose in that field. What is criticized is the system, not the individuals. The President had no intention of undermining the Constitution; he simply found that he worked more readily with Dr. Steelman than with Secretary Tobin. But the result was the disregard of procedures contemplated by law and, consequently, irresponsible government. Another illustration is the less publicized intervention of Admiral Dennison, the President's naval aide, in the controversy over the 'Title 5, U. S. Code, sec. 611. 8 Perhaps the outstanding labor problem of the Truman administration was the dispute in the steel industry leading to the seizure of the mills on the evening of April 8, 1952. The writer was present at a conference held on the steel situation that afternoon. Dr. Steelman presided. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Acting Attorney General, the Under Secretary of the Treasury, the Economic Stabilization Administrator, the Director of Price Stabilization, the Defense Production Administrator, and various assistants were all there, but no representative of the Department of Labor. |