Editorial changes All other changes are primarily editorial in nature, designed to clarify the meaning of the sections in which they occur. They are 12 in number. The statement of purpose in section 2 (a) is made more specific by adding the phrase "promote the educational development of the Nation, primarily in rural areas" and including "methods" of rural library service in the studies and reports to be made. In section 4 the word "these" describing benefits of which the Commissioner shall inform the States is changed to "all the". In section 5 (a) 1 the word "Governor" is changed to "Chief Executive" and in keeping with the purpose of this section, which is to prevent the substitution of Federal funds for regular operating funds of the State library agency funds for "State aid to public libraries" is added to administration and operation appropriations, which should not be reduced. In section 5 (a) 3 the phrase "on a merit basis" is added to qualifications for personnel although the specifications for these qualifications are otherwise left entirely up to the State agency. In section 6 (a) the phrase "in the provision of demonstrations" is changed to "in providing demonstrations" in order to mollify English purists. In section 6 (b) appropriations to the Federal Security Agency are authorized "during the life of the act" instead of "for each of four fiscal years following passage of the act" in order to make the term of these appropriations coincide with the grants to the States. The words "more than" which follow immediately after "not to exceed" are struck out as being redundant. In section 7 (b) the words "which meet the requirements of section 5 of this act" are included to describe the expanded demonstration plans in order to clarify the intent to have all plans meet the basic requirements of the act. În section 8 (a) the phrase "outlining results" is changed to "describing results". In section 9 (a) the definition of "States" is revised to include the District of Columbia, in order to correspond with the usual definition in such cases. AMENDING THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PREVENT PURCHASE AND SALE OF PUBLIC OFFICE," APPROVED DECEMBER 11, 1926 January 24, 1949.—Ordered to be printed Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 15] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 15) to amend the act entitled "An act to prevent purchase and sale of public office," approved December 11, 1926, having considered the same, report the bill to the Senate favorably, without amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass. STATEMENT The language of this bill is identical with that of S. 1714, Seventyninth Congress, which passed the Senate unanimously, without amendment, on April 12, 1946, and also is identical with that of S. 22, Eightieth Congress, which passed the Senate unanimously, without amendment, on January 27, 1947. Existing law makes it a criminal offense for anyone to solicit or receive any sum of money or thing of value for promising to support or to influence in behalf of an applicant for a Government position. Enactment of this bill will make certain that which is in doubt under the present statute so that it will be unlawful for a private employment agency to solicit or receive a fee for submitting the names of clients to an appointing officer of the Government. The committee feels that the bill will correct a need the justification of which is expressed in detail in the following letter dated December 14, 1945, from the Civil Service Commission: Hon. KENNETH MCKELLAR, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, President pro tempore of the Senate, Washington 25, D. C., December 14, 1945. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MCKELLAR: The Civil Service Commission desires to submit for your consideration a draft of a proposed bill amending the act of December 11, 1926 (44 Stat. 918), which is an act designed to prohibit the purchase and sale of public office. The Commission's proposed bill would make it an offense for a private employment agency to solicit or accept fees for referring persons for employment by the Government of the United States. Under existing law it is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both, for anyone to solicit or receive any sum of money or thing of value for promising to support or to influence in behalf of an applicant for a Government position (18 U. S. C. 149, 150, 151). It is doubtful, however, whether the terms of any of these laws are such as to make it unlawful for a private employment agency to solicit or receive a fee for submitting the names of clients to an appointing officer of the Government. An enactment of the proposed bill would eliminate this doubt by expressly providing that such practices are unlawful. The Commission in recent years has received a number of complaints with respect to the practices of charging of fees by private or commercial employment agencies for referrals to Federal positions. Government agencies and the employees concerned feel that Government employees should not be required to pay any fee for securing Federal employment. Under some contracts with private employment agencies the employees are required to pay a stipulated fee upon placement irrespective of whether the private agency actually assists in making such placement. Although most Government agencies believe that citizens should not pay a fee for securing Federal employment, they are placed in an embarrassing position when private employment agencies complain of nonpayment under a contract because the agencies have already circularized their employees regarding the necessity of paying debts and obligations. Your attention is invited to the following statutes, which are in a way involved in this situation: "SECTION 1. That each individual hereafter appointed as a civil officer of the United States by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by the President alone, or by a court of law, or by the head of a department, shall, within thirty days after the effective date of his appointment, file with the Comptroller General of the United States an affidavit stating that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing such appointment (44 Stat. 918, December 11, 1926, as amended March 2, 1927, 44 Stat. 1346)." "SEC. 1. That it shall be unlawful to pay or offer or promise to pay any sum of money, or any other thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence, whatsoever, to procure any appointive office under the Government of the United States for any person whatsoever. "SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful to solicit or receive from anyone whatsoever, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any sum of money or thing of value, whatsoever, in consideration of the promise of support, or use of influence, or for the support or influence of the payee, in behalf of the person paying the money, or any other person, in obtaining any appointive office under the Government of the United States. "SEC. 3. Anyone convicted of violating this act shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. "SEC. 4. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed (44 Stat. 918, December 11, 1926; U. S. C., Title 18, Secs. 149, 150, 151). The act of March 2, 1927, is applicable only to officers as distinguished from employees. It is doubtful that this statute can be construed as prohibiting the payment of a fee to a private employment agency by an employee whose name had been submitted to the appointing officer by such agency. If the private employment agency does not attempt to use "influence" in behalf of the person whose name they have referred, it is doubtful that the act of December 11, 1926, prohibits the payment of any fee stipulated in the agency's contract. We are unable to find any statute which specifically prohibits a Government agency from utilizing the services of a private employment agency in securing personnel or any statute which prohibits a private employment agency from accepting a fee from persons whom it assists in securing Federal employment. Of course, in both instances the Commission feels that the practices are contrary to public policy. The Commission is of the opinion that legislation to correct the present feecharging practices of private employment agencies in securing Federal employment is very desirable and would definitely be in the public interest. During the war there was a great opportunity for private employment agencies to collect fees from persons receiving Federal employment because of the large number of persons employed in the war program. With this in mind the Commission in 1942 brought this matter to the attention of Congress A bill, H. R. 1209, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, was actually introduced. However, unfortunately, this bill was never enacted as law. In the final analysis the practice of private employment agencies charging fees for Government employment is even more undesirable in peacetime, when jobs are scarce and many veterans are seeking placement in the Federal service. This would be especially true in the case of recently discharged veterans and doubly true in the case of those discharged veterans who, by reason of their youth at the time of their entry in the armed forces, had not previously held positions and thus are extremely interested in securing employment. There is no question that the public is justified in criticizing the practices of these fee-charging agencies as they now exist. Inasmuch as there is already a statute designed to prohibit the purchase and sale of public office (act of December 11, 1926, 44 Stat. 918) the Commission believes that the most appropriate method of prohibiting the acceptance of fees by private employment agencies for referral to Government positions is the enactment of an amendment to this statute. Accordingly, there is attached hereto for your consideration a draft of a proposed bill amending section 2 of the act of December 11, 1926. The Commission requests that the proposed bill be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration. The Commission has already referred this matter to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and has been advised that there is no objection to the submission of this proposal to the present Congress. Very respectfully, HARRY B. MITCHELL, President. At the request of a previous committee considering similar legislation the Attorney General in the following letter dated February 19, 1946, presented his views and recommendation: Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for my views relative to a bill (S. 1714) to amend the act entitled "An act to prevent purchase and sale of public office," approved December 11, 1926 (44 Stat. 918). Existing law makes it an offense to pay or offer or promise to pay for the use of influence in procuring an appointive office under the Government of the United States, or to solicit or receive compensation for the use of influence or support in obtaining such appointive office (18 U. S. C. 149-151). The bill under consideration would amend the existing law by the addition of a subsection prohibiting persons, films, or corporations from receiving compensation for aiding or assisting any person to obtain appointive office or employment under the United States Government either by referral of such persons' name to any Department or establishment of the Government of the United States, or otherwise. It would also broaden prohibitions of the existing law by making it an offense to exact a fee from any person because such person has obtained Federal employment. Further, under the proposed language, the solicitation or receipt of compensation, either on behalf of the solicitor or another, would be prohibited, whereas the existing law merely prohibits the solicitation or receipt of compensation, either as a political contribution or personal emolument on behalf of the solicitor himself. The objectives of the measure appear desirable and the enactment of the bill would facilitate the enforcement of the present statute. I find no objection to the enactment of the measure. I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, TOM C. CLARK, Attorney General. O |