exhausted, and then only when there is reasonable expectation that the taxpayer will be receiving remittance through the mail. It would seem to me that based on all we have been able to collect through research, admissions in writing, without being the advocate that plays one against the other, that this principle of the Constitution has not been considered, but rather some later process of exclusion wherein in assumed law two negatives make a positive permission to seize. Then, of course, there is also the question of whether mail is the property of an individual prior to delivery. In other words, is a letter to you when your friend signs and seals it and drops it in the letter drop, is that already yours? Is it your property while it is in the custody of the Post Office Department?

Mr. KENNEDY. It is my recollection, too, that this fourth amendment to the Constitution which was part of the Bill of Rights was written in because of the desire of our forefathers to protect themselves against Government seizures of their property without due process of law.

Mr. HALL. I think you will find it, sir, in Madison's letters beautifully outlined, based on a threat even after the Continental Congress had convened of seizure and/or rifling the mails on direct orders of the King of England at that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. It seems we have almost come back to that situation if this practice is going on.

Thank you very much.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Doctor. We are grateful to you, and we will try to be in touch with you, or in contact with you in regard to any additional information we might develop.

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was a privilege to be here and we will cooperate in our entirety.

Senator LONG. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Montague and Mr. Doyle?

Will you gentlemen raise your right hand and be sworn, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MONTAGUE. I do.

Mr. DOYLE. I do.

Senator LONG. The Chair would like to observe that Senator Burdick, another member of the committee, is now present.

Mr. Burdick, we welcome you here this morning and we are delighted that you are here with us.

Senator BURDICK. Thank you.

TESTIMONY OF HENRY B. MONTAGUE, CHIEF INSPECTOR, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT; ACCOMPANIED BY LOUIS J. DOYLE, GENERAL COUNSEL

Senator LONG. Mr. Montague, we are back this morning on another matter dealing with your Department that is different than what we were on sometime ago. You of course are familiar with the charge

that has been made and the correspondence that has taken place between Dr. Hall and the Postmaster General, and the correspondence that has taken place between the Postmaster General and myself in regard to the seizure of mail, or the delivery of certain mail addressed to other people through the Internal Revenue Service, that mail being opened without a search warrant or any matters of that kind.

Can you tell me rather in detail, Mr. Montague, how this comes about. Let's start from the beginning. What kind of an order do you get? Do you have a certain form of it, do you have a copy of it from the Internal Revenue Service that tells you there is a delivery of Mr. Fensterwald's mail, for example, to the Internal Revenue Service? Mr. MONTAGUE. Senator, this is something out of my jurisdiction. This is a legal question which is handled in the office of the General Counsel. We in the Inspection Service don't make the decisions in cases of this kind. We abide by the legal decisions which are made. It is not within my jurisdiction to make these decisions, or to actually give you full information about it, because I am not familiar with all the information which you might want.

I understand the Postmaster General wrote a letter to you yesterday which he requested the privilege of putting in the record. Could that be read at this time?

Senator LONG. Yes; I have the letter here from the Postmaster General. We will put it in the record, but let me pursue this just a little further, if I may.

As I understand from you now, you know nothing about the method that would be used if the Internal Revenue Service would ask to receive the mail which was addressed to Mr. Fensterwald. You know nothing of the forms or anything else?

Mr. MONTAGUE. I know that there is a tax lien. I would know nothing about the mechanics of it, what the process would be, how the Internal Revenue Service gets or issues the tax lien, or any of that background information. That is within the jurisdiction

Senator LONG. I understand that, Mr. Montague, if I may interrupt you. But I want to know whta action the Post Office Department takes. When you get your first information from the Internal Revenue Service that they want that mail, then what do you do? How is it handled in your department from there on? Do you have that information, or is that in your department?

Mr. MONTAGUE. Senator, that is handled in the office of the General Council, and I believe that office would be in the best position to give you that information.

Senator LONG. I just wanted to be sure that it is not under yourso we understood exactly what you were talking about, that it was not in your particular department.

I have this letter signed by John Gronouski, Postmaster General, dated April 12, 1965, addressed to me as chairman of this committee. This further relates to the subjects discussed in our recent telephone conversations and in your letter of April 7, 1965.

I can well appreciate your concern over the statute by which the Internal Revenue Service has in the past levied on mail addressed to tax delinquents in certain cases.

I, too, am concerned about it and have been since this procedure first came to my attention in August 1964.

Immedately upon learning that such a procedure existed, I telephoned Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon and expressed this concern to him. Secretary Dillon agreed with me that such levies should not be permitted to continue and, accordingly, an agreement was reached, the practical effect of which was that the practice permitted by the statutes would not thereafter be used. No liens have been placed against mail since August of 1964. In one instance, during October of 1964, a question arose as to whether mail should be delivered to an address of a business which had been seized under law by the Internal Revenue Service. A decision was made to deliver the mail as addressed.

I am sending you, under separate cover, the items which you requested. I want to emphasize that in coming to our agreement, Secretary Dillon and I were both of the opinion that the privacy and sanctity of first-class mail were of paramount importance.

I am of the personal opinion while discontinuance of this practice may in some instances increase the difficulty of collecting delinquent taxes, the practice should not be resumed because of the overriding importance of protecting the sanctity of the mails.

Existing law recognizes mail as personal property and clearly permits the seizure of property by the Internal Revenue Service to satisfy unpaid taxes. I can impose my personal views on the subject only as a matter of mutual policy agreed to by the Secretary of the Treasury and myself. Under existing law, the Department is compelled to release to the Internal Revenue Service, when a levy is made, the mail of an addressee against whom a tax assessment has been made and who has not paid such tax. The levy may be imposed or not imposed, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The new Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Fowler, has told me that he is in accord with the agreement I reached with Secretary Dillon. While no levies on the mail of delinquent taxpayers have been made since that agreement was reached, we cannot be certain that the same policy would be maintained in future years, as the authority to seize the mail is in the statute.

Accordingly, I believe legislation is needed to guarantee maintenance of this policy. I also have discussed this with Secretary Fowler, and he has advised me that he would not object to a change in the law which would specifically exempt mail from property that can be seized.

Should your subcommittee decide to recommend legislation to make permanent the present agreement, I am informed by Secretary Fowler that his staff will be glad to work with yours, as would my staff, to draft language to achieve this objective.

Therefore, pursuant to your request, I have instructed Messrs. Harvey H. Hannah and I. F. Kardos, members of my legal staff, to appear at the hearing you have scheduled for the morning of April 13. These two gentlemen will make every effort to assist you in clarifying the situation concerning Internal Revenue Service levies on the mail. I have also asked them to read into the record, with your permission, this letter reflecting my position on this matter. Among the items being sent under separate cover, there is the list of names and addresses of taxpayers involved in tax levies. The Internal Revenue Service has advised us that it has no objection to our providing you with the names. As of this writing that list includes only those instances which were found in the files of the office of the General Counsel at headquarters. However, I have directed my regional directors to furnish me the names and addresses of any other delinquent taxpayers whose mail may have been levied on by the Internal Revenue Service, but which were not referred to headquarters for action. Every effort will be made to get that list to you, as a supplement, as soon as possible.

In further reference to your letter of April 7, there have been no regulations issued by headquarters of this Department which specifically mentioned tax levies on mail. However, section 331.12, Postal Manual, would appear sufficiently broad to include tax levies. Accordingly, a copy of section 331.12 will be furnished.

I am also providing under separate cover the forms used by the Treasury Department in effecting levies on the mail. This Department has no forms for this purpose.

Also, as you requested, I will send you a copy of the contract between this Department and International Telephone & Telegraph Co., together with the testimony made by Mr. Day, et al, at a hearing before a subcommittee of the

Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 1st session, for the Treaury-Post Office Department, appropriations for 1962. The pertinent testimony appears on pages 280 through 285 and pages 305 through 309. There was no contract with American Telephone & Telegraph Co. for a facsimile mail system.

I have directed Messrs. Louis J. Doyle, General Counsel for the Post Office Department, and Chief Inspector Henry B. Montague to appear before your subcommittee on April 13, to clarify other matters referred to in your April 7 correspondence.

It is my sincere hope that the information provided will be of substantial assistance to your subcommittee. If I can help you further, please call on me. Sincerely yours,

JOHN A. GRONOUSKI,
Postmaster General.

I place this letter, without objection, into the record at this time. The Postmaster General, of course, has been very cooperative, but there are still a number of items that we would like to pursue, Mr. Montague.

Are you gentlemen

Mr. DOYLE. May I introduce, Senator Long, Mr. Harvey Han

nah

Senator LONG. Are you members of the legal counsel mentioned in the letter?

Mr. DOYLE. He is the Deputy General Counsel.

Mr. HANNAH. Yes, sir.

Senator LONG. Will you be sworn, please.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. HANNAH. I do.

Mr. KARDOS. I do.

Senator LONG. Let me ask you, Mr. Montague, you have known for some time, of course, that the Internal Revenue Service did levy on mail-first-class mail of the citizens were opened by people other than the addressee?

Mr. MONTAGUE. I know that there was such a thing-I was aware that there was such a thing as a levy on mail; yes, sir.

Senator LONG. How long have you been aware of that, Mr. Montague?

Mr. MONTAGUE. I think that I first became aware of it back inI don't know, 1962 or 1963.

Senator LONG. Were you aware of that when you testified before our committee some weeks ago?

Mr. MONTAGUE. It did not come to my mind, but I did know there is such a thing as a mail levy, yes.

Senator LONG. You did know of such a thing at that time, that there was first-class mail that was opened by individuals other than the addressee?

Mr. MONTAGUE. Well, Senator, the context of our talks at that time dealt with mail covers; going back to 1962, we had quite a bit of correspondence with your office, and it was all about mail covers. And when you asked me to appear before your committee you told me that we would talk about mail covers and lookouts. When I prepared my statement it was on the basis that I would talk about mail covers and lookouts. All through my testimony when you asked about turning

mail over, or anything of that kind, I was thinking of it in the context of mail covers, something that might be illegal rather than something that is legal.

According to my position then and now, this mail levy is legal. It acts the same as a warrant. We abide by the opinion of our legal counsel on this, and as far as we are concerned this is legal. It is in the category of a warrant. When the mail is turned over to the Internal Revenue Service, it is a delivery. The mail is not opened in the Postal Service. If I had discussed it at that time, it would have been in this manner that I would have discussed it.

Senator LONG. Well, I am concerned of course about the paragraph in your opening statement that was mentioned by Dr. Hall where you stated the seal on first-class mail is sacred. When a person puts firstclass postage on a piece of mail and seals it, he can be sure that the contents of the piece of mail are secured against all illegal searches and seizures. The only time first-class mail to be opened in the Postal Service is when it can neither be delivered to the addressee nor returned to the sender.

Now, this could be returned, could it not?

Mr. MONTAGUE. If I were making that statement today, Senator, I would make it exactly the same. There has been nothing that has come to my attention in the meantime to change it. It all hinges on one word, "illegal." According to the legal interpretation and definition that I have, a mail levy is legal. It all goes down to this one word, is a mail levy "illegal."

Senator LONG. Let me read to you, Mr. Montague, section 1702 of the United States Code and see if you are aware of that.

Whoever takes any letter, postal card or package out of any post office or any authorized depository or mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, would design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the secrets of others, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Does not that criminal statute of the United States seem to cover it in whole force and effect at the present time?

Mr. MONTAGUE. That is correct, Senator, but you are not mentioning a warrant. We both know that on a warrant you can take mail. And the mail levy, as far as I am concerned, is in the same category as a

warrant.

Senator LONG. Well, I know, but it is not a warrant though, is it? That is the same trouble we had over a peephole or an observation post. We are splitting hairs over names here now. There is a big difference between a warrant, if you had an authorized search warrant, we would not be questioning this matter.

Mr. MONTAGUE. I know, but I tried to explain my position here in the beginning, that we abide by the legal decisions which we get. And as far as the decision we have on this, it is as stated to you by the Postmaster General-that there are legal grounds for this procedure, and it is considered a delivery.

This is the basis on which I have to operate.

Senator LONG. What you are telling me now is that you operate your office, whether it is illegal or not, whether you take a chance on