Perhaps the American public is overreacting to the signing statement President George W. Bush attached to new postal legislation last month.

But judging from the response from the administration and a top postal official to the concerns being voiced, the president and postal authorities have gotten the message that the public isn't happy with the implications that the statement carries.

Bush could have avoided much trepidation among postal customers if he had signed the legislation without adding his two cents.

The people of this country have amply indicated that, even with the threats terrorism poses, Americans' right to privacy must be respected.

That is the message contained in the outcry regarding the president's postal legislation signing statement. The statement seems to pave the way for the government to open first-class mail without a warrant.

Until now, government agents have been required to obtain a warrant before opening such mail.

The internet and privately run delivery services already have exacted a sizable toll on the U.S. Postal Service's mail volume. Bush's signing statement, which seems contrary to the U.S. Constitution and laws enacted by Congress, could cause additional damage.

Bush can be faulted for not giving enough thought to that possibility prior to attaching his statement — and, having decided to add it, not having taken enough time to craft it clearly, so his message could not be misinterpreted — if it has been misinterpreted.

Once the overriding message from the public became clear, the administration launched damage control. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the statement.

"All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for — in exigent circumstances — for such inspections," Snow said. "It has been thus. This is not a change in law. . . ."

Added postal Vice President Tom Day, "As has been the long-standing practice, first-class mail is protected from unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody. Nothing in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changes this protection. The president is not exerting any new authority."

But the president's statement doesn't specifically say that, and that omission is the basis for the legitimate concerns being raised.

"What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that? asked Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. She said the group would file a request for information on how the administration plans to use the exception, and whether the president's statement already had been used as the basis for opening any mail.

It is to be hoped that the response to the statement ends up being, in fact, an overreaction. But until that is determined, the public's concerns will remain.