The Daily Alaska empire., 1939-11-04
PROVISIONS OF NEW HATCH ACT
 ARE EXPLAINED
Permissible Political At tivities of Government
 Employees Defined
Continued trUin Page One)

ficer" or employee. shall not be construed to include CD the Presi- dent and Vice-President of the United States; (2) persons whose compensation is paid from the ap- propriation for the office of the President; (3) heads and assistant heads of executive departments; (4 officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to be pursued by the United States in it's relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Fed eral laws"
 Defined by President
 The pertinent provisions of the Presidents message to Congress in approving the Hatch Bill are as fol- lows:
 "It is because I have received and will continue to receive so many queries asking what Government employee may or may not do that it seems appropriate at the outset to postulate the broad principle that if the bill is administered in accord with it's spirit, and if it is in the future administered without abuse. oppression or groundless fear. it will serve the purpose intended by the Congress.
 For example, I have been asked by employees of the Government whether under this law they would lose their positions if they merely attend political meetings. The an- swer is, of course, No.
 T have been asked whether they would lose their positions if they contributed voluntarily to party or individual campaign funds without being solicited, The answer is, of course, No
 Can Express Opinions
 T have been asked whether they would lose their positions if they should merely express their opin- ion or preference publicly-orally, by radio, or in writing - without doing so as part of an organized political campaign The answer is No
 q have been asked if Government employees who belong to Young Re- publican Clubs, Young Democratic | Clubs. Civil Service Reform Asso- citations, the League of Women Vot- CTS, the American Federation of La bor, the Congress of Industrial Or ganizations and similar bodies are subject to the penalties of the meas ure because of mere membership in these organizations. The answer is No
 Finally, I have been asked vari- ous questions relating to the right of a Government employee publicly to answer unwarranted attacks made on him or on his work or on the work of his superiors or on the work of his subordinates, notwith- standing the fact that such attacks or misrepresentations were made for political purposes by newspapers or by individuals as a part of po- litical campaign.
 May Answer Attacks
 Ut is, therefore, my considered opinion, in which the Attorney Gen. eral of the United States joins me, that all Federal employees, from the highest to the lowest, have the right publicly to answer any attack or misrepresentation, provid d, of course, they do not make such reply as part of active participation in political campaigns"
 The Attorney General in Depart mental Circular No. 3285 has ruled on the Hatch Act as follows:
 provisions similar to the fore going are found in Civil Service Rule 1. Section 1. Many of the questions and situations currently arising un- der the Hatch Law have previously been considered and ruled upon by the Civil Service Commission in con- struing the provisions of the Civil Service Rules. These rulings have been published in Form 1236, issued