Evening star., 1939-09-01
Justice Aide Explains
Hatch Act Ruling
Believes Editorial Criticism
Overlooked important
Facts Involved

To the Editor Of The Star:
The issue of The Evening Star for
Saturday, August 26, contains an edi-
torial criticizing conclusion reached by
the Department Of Justice In respect to
the application of the Hatch Act to the
case of the United States attorney at
Pittsburgh, Pa. 1t occurs to me that the
writer of the editorial may not have had
before him complete statement of the
salient facts. Knowing the customary
fairness OF your paper and your desire
and endeavor to be accurate, am taking
the liberty of bringing to your notice the
governing facts in the matter, which, it
seems to me, necessitate the conclusion
that the criticism advanced in your edi-
torial was not well founded.
The pertinent provision of the Hatch
Act is found in Section 8 (a) and reads
as follows:
mo officer or employe in the execu-
1--WE branch OF the Federal Govern
ment, or any agency or department
thereof. shall take any active part In
pohtical management or in political
campaigns"
1t Is perhaps superfluous to emphasize
that in constituting or applying any
statute regard must be had to its exact
phraseology. rather than to what some-
one believes is the objective or the pur-
pose OF the statute.
The facts that were laid before the
Department of Justice were that the
united States attorney at Pittsburgh
had caused petition to be filed naming
himself as candidate in the primary
election for local judicial Office. This
petition had been filed before the Hatch
Act was approved or took effect. The
law OF the State of PENNSYLVANIA pro-
vldes that name may not be withdrawn
from the ballot after the expiration
OF certain period of time. This period
had expired prior to the approval of the
Hatch Act. Consequently, the only steps
that had been taken by the United States
attorney in respect to his candidacy for
local office had been taken before the
Hatch Act became law Subsequently to
the effective date of the act there was
nothing that the United States attorney
could have done that would have taken
MS name OF the primary ballot. Conse-
quently, it can hardly be said that the
mere fact that his name was on the
ballot constituted violation of the act
when nothing that he might do could
cause his name to be taken off the ballot
Coupled with the foregoing situation
was another important fact namely
That the United States attorney was not
oelng opposed in the primary, and that
consequently, he was not intending to
carry on an active campaign until after
the primary election.
In view of the peculiar and unioue
circumstances of this case, the depart
ment reached the conclusion, and it
seems properly so, that so long as the
United States attorney was refrainine
from any campaign activity, he was not
violating the aforementioned provision
OF the Hatch Act. 1t was indicated to
him that if and when he undertook any
such activities he would have to resign
his Federal Office.
IL must be borne in mind that a situ-
atlon such as was presented here could
arise only when the Hatch Act first went
into erect. 1t cannot recur at any sub
sequent time. 1t must also be remem-
bered that efficiency of administration
renders it desirable that persons in high
once should not sever their official con-
nectlons overnight, If such a result can
De avoided. because of the disarrange-
ment OF business that would necessarily
follow Good administration requires
that person who is planning to leave
his Office should be given time to wind
up pending matters and place them in
such shape that his successor could carry
on without undue delay or duplication of
effort. ALEXANDER HOLTZOFF.
Special Assistant to the Attorney
General.
AUGUST %