No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Congressional Investigations During Franklin D. Roosevelt's First Term
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Much has been written on Congressional investigations. The theoretical questions connected with them have been explored. Their place in our governmental system has been reasonably well established.
Recent developments give a new perspective. The high point of Congressional investigations, so far as the previous literature was concerned, came in a time of stagnating major party politics. There was an attitude of “stand by” on the part of the Administration; defeatism pervaded the official minority. Conditions in the Senate, however, permitted the dissident Republicans, in combination with the Democrats, to constitute an intermittent majority for purposes of criticism if not of construction. When malfeasance and misfeasance were allowed to creep into administration, meeting little resistance from within, the check had to come from without, and it came in the form of Congressional investigations.
- Type
- American Government and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1937
References
1 Investigations became an issue in the recent presidential campaign when Governor Landon, in his Los Angeles speech of Oct. 20, 1936, vigorously attacked “a committee that is out to get the critics” as distinguished from “a committee that is out to get the crooks.”
2 This study covers over three and three-quarter years, beginning March 4, 1933, and running through 1936. It is obviously impossible to cite final results in connection with a score of investigations that remained in progress after the beginning of the 75th Congress.
3 No attempt is made to include investigations that a standing committee may conduct on its own initiative without a Senate or House resolution. An example was the inquiry, voted by the Senate Commerce Committee in June, 1935, of charges of corruption in the Department of Commerce. The accusations were made by E. Y. Mitchell, who had been ousted by the President as Assistant Secretary of Commerce after refusing to resign. The Department was sustained. See Hearings of the Senate Committee on Commerce (June 19, 20, 21, 1935), 74th Cong., 1st sess., on “Alleged Irregularities in the Department of Commerce;” also Mr.Mitchell's, volume, Kicked In and Kicked Out of the President's Little Cabinet (Washington, Andrew Jackson Press, 1936)Google Scholar.
4 The term “Administration” has at least two meanings. It may refer merely to those who execute the laws in a routine way. But it is used here in the political sense to include the President and those who work with him in formulating as well as carrying out general governmental policies. Thus used, it is capitalized in this study.
5 So far as classification must be guided by the real effect, this may not be clear until the investigation has been completed and its results put to use. Thus the Byrd resolution to investigate executive agencies of the government with a view to co-ordination and economy (S. Res. 217, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 24, 1936) at first seemed a “check”; but the President, pointing out that he had been thinking on the subject previous to the resolution, maneuvered skillfully and lost no time in taking over direction. On March 20, he wrote Speaker Byrns, of the House, suggesting that that body create a committee similar to the Senate's to “cooperate with me and the committee that I shall name in making this study … to avoid duplication of effort in the task of research.” It remains to be seen whether the Brookings Institution reports for the Senate and House committees—the first of which, on the subject of consolidation of credit agencies, appeared on January 14, 1937—will run contrary to the January report by the President's Committee, “Administrative Management in the Government of the United States.”
6 For example, the House resolution, early in 1933, which asked the Secretary of Agriculture for information and also for recommendations respecting farm mortgages and debts (H. Res. 69, 73d Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 22, 1933).
7 H. Res. 288, 74th Cong., 1st sess., July 8, 1935; and S. Res. 165, 74th Cong., 1st sess., July 11, 1935. The legal difficulties of the committee set up under the latter resolution are dealt with below.
8 S. 2796 (Pub. 333–74th Cong.) Aug. 26, 1935.
9 H. R. 8632 (Pub. 412–74th Cong.) Aug. 31, 1935.
10 Two other investigations begun before Roosevelt contributed aid to the passage of this bill: (1) The inquiry by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce into the ownership and control of public utility corporations by holding companies (H. Res. 59, 72d Cong., 1st sess., Jan, 19, 1932). See House Report 2192, 72d Cong., 2d sess.; 827, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 6 parts; and 1273, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 3 parts. (2) The Federal Trade Commission's investigation of electric and gas public utility corporations (S. Res. 83, 70th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 13, 1928). A total of 84 interim reports and seven exhibit volumes—S. Doc. 92, parts 1 to 84 (parts 51 to 84 were issued since March 4, 1933). Part 71B is an index of parts 1 to 20 and exhibit volumes; part 77A of parts 21 to 45; part 84D (in preparation) of parts 46 to 84.
11 S. Res. 84., 72d Cong., 1st. sess., Mar. 4, 1932.
12 H. R. 5661 (Pub. 66–73d Cong.) June 16, 1933.
13 H. R. 7617 (Pub. 305–74th Cong.) August 23, 1935.
14 H. R. 5480 (Pub. 22–73d Cong.) May 27, 1933.
15 H. R. 9323 (Pub. 291–73d Cong.) June 6, 1934.
16 S. Res. 349, 72d Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 25, 1933, and H. Res. 226, 72d Cong., 1st sess., June 21, 1932.
17 In this specific instance, however, the repercussions perhaps over-balanced the advantages to the Administration.
18 Some of the limits are brought out in: “Security Exchange Commission's Power of Search,” George Washington Law Review, Mar., 1935, Vol. 3, pp. 356–369Google Scholar, by O. S. Colclough; and “Constitutionality of Investigations by the Federal Trade Commission,” Columbia Law Review, Jan. and Mar., 1928, Vol. 28, pp. 708–733, and 905–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar, by Milton Handler.
19 S. Res. 71, 74th Cong., 1st sess., May 20, 1935.
20 Congressional Record, 74th Cong., 1st sess., p. 7818; and 75th Cong., 1st sess., p. 858.
21 H. Res. 443, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Mar. 10, 1936.
22 See below.
23 A defensive inquiry was employed when Superintendent Wirt made his charges of “reds” in the government in 1934. An open investigation of him and some of those whom he accused served emphatically to bring out the disproportion of the charges (H. Res. 317, 73d Cong;, 2d sess., Mar. 29, 1934).
24 The Senate committee on campaign expenditures (S. Res. 225, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 1, 1936) was able to be of assistance by, among other things, disclosing, on the eve of a speech in Maine by Governor Landon, that American Liberty League backers had contributed to the Republican campaign fund in Maine.
25 Willoughby, W. F., Principles of Legislative Organization and Administration (1934), p. 157Google Scholar.
26 Presidential Secretary Louis Howe was under some shadow of suspicion for his part in the purchase of some CCC toilet kits (S. Res. 88, 73d Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 1933), but the investigating committee found no evidence of corruption or improper motive (S. Rp. 144, 73d Cong., 1st sess).
27 S. Res. 146, 74th Cong., 1st sess., June 7, 1935.
28 Reverberations continued until the resignation on February 28, 1937, of the director of the Bureau, Eugene L. Vidal, which at least indirectly was related to the disclosures.
29 As S. Res. 190, 73d Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 15, 1934, asking the Administrator of Public Works for information concerning the organization, policies, and program of the PWA.
30 Although such action cannot be called common, several illustrations may be cited, including S. Res. 294, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 30, 1936, and S. Res. 107. 74th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 16, 1935 (requested Secretary of Interior to submit reports of inquiries into alleged communistic activities at Howard University); S. Res. 175, 73d Cong., 2d seas., Feb. 21,1934 (sought information on past and current connections of employees of the NRA); H. Res. 430, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Mar. 2, 1936 (asked for report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics relative to cotton reduction which, according to the resolution, had been made public with certain deletions and alterations).
31 An unanswered question—perhaps unanswerable due to separation of powers —is how far Congress can go in getting information from an executive. There are a few instances where the requested material apparently never was submitted. Only once was there any record of a definite refusal. The House asked the President for the full text of one of his press conferenes (H. Res. 212, 74th Cong., 1st sess.), but he considered this a bad precedent (Congressional Record, 74th Cong., 1st sess. p. 7186). No issue was made of it.
32 S. Res. 187, 74th Cong., 1 sess., Aug. 16, 1935.
33 The committee has as yet made no report.
34 S. Res. 206, 73d Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 12, 1934. Hearings, beginning Sept. 4, 1934 (24 parts). Committee issued nine reports: S. Rp. 400, 74–1, reported progress; S. Rp. 944, pt. 1, 74–1, Naval Shipbuilding; S. Rp. 944, pt. 2, 74–1, study of findings of War Policies Commission; S. Rp. 577, 74–1, recommended H. R. 5529 to prevent war profiteering; S. Rp. 944, pt. 3, 74–2, recommended nationalization of manufacture of war requirements; S. Rp. 944, pt. 4, 74–2, criticized War Department bills S. 1716 and S. 1722 relating to war-time mobilization of industry; S. Rp. 944, pt. 5, 74–2, discussed existing neutrality and embargo laws; S. Rp. 944, pt. 6, 74–2, further discussed the adequacy of existing legislation; S. Rp. 944, pt. 7, 74–2, included a study of government manufacture of munitions.
35 S. Res. 7, 74th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 16, 1935.
36 H. Con. Res. 32, 73d Cong., 2d sess., June 16, 1934.
37 S. Res. 114, 74th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 24, 1935.
38 H. Res. 412, 73d Cong., 2d sess., June 15, 1934.
39 S. Res. 266, 74th Cong., 2d sess., June 6, 1936.
40 Such assistance, of course, was indirectly “aid to the Administration,” since it was aid to a state ally of the Administration.
41 The key measure strengthened the right of municipalites to own and operate their own gas and electric plants. Laws of the State of New York, 1934, Chap. 281. The other bills in the program were Chaps. 212, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287.
42 H. Res. 120, 73d Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 26, 1933, directed an inquiry into alleged misconduct on the part of Judge James A. Lowell of Massachusetts; but his death occurred before this was completed. H. Res. 163, 73d Cong., 1st sess., June 1, 1933, concerned Judge Halsted L. Ritter. The subcommittee investigating pursuant to the resolution voted two to one against recommending impeachment, but the full Judiciary Committee, after voting to drop the charges, reversed itself, with the result that the Judge was impeached by the House. The Senate, on April 17, 1936, found him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
43 Those of Senators Cutting and Holt. The committee's report (S. Rp. 793, 74th Cong., 1st sess.) on the former, published after his death, found no evidence which reflected “upon the honor or integrity” of the Senator. S. Rp. 904, 74th Cong., 1st sess., contained both a majority and a minority opinion, the Democrats voting to seat Mr. Holt, the Republicans opposing on the ground that he had not reached the age of thirty when elected.
44 Eight Republicans, four Democrats, and one Farmer-Laborite were seated as a result.
45 H. Res. 231, 73d Cong., 2d sess., Jan. 29, 1934. See Congressional Record, 73d Cong., 2d sess., p. 1510.
46 Dimock, Marshall E., Congressional Investigating Committees (1929), p. 30Google Scholar.
47 Rogers, Lindsay, The American Senate (1926), p. 202Google Scholar.
48 This phase of investigations has become so important that it is dealt with below.
49 For investigations authorized before but continuing into the Roosevelt term, only appropriations made during the 73d and 74th Congresses are included. Two or three unavoidable exceptions have an insignificant effect on the figures.
50 The LaFollette committee investigating infringements of civil liberties also was an important borrower. In January, 26 employees who were being paid from relief funds, with annual salaries totaling $61,420, were loaned to Congressional investigating committees (see Congressional Record, 75th Cong., 1st sess., p. 562).
51 H. R. 3587 (Pub. 4–75th Cong.) Feb. 9, 1937.
52 The Independent Offices Appropriation Bill (H. R. 4064) went to conference on Feb. 17, when the Senate eliminated a similar House stipulation that none of the funds should be made available for expenses in connection with Congressional investigations.
53 Not all questions of contumacy result in actual litigation. It occasionally happens that a committee encounters opposition which it does not combat.
54 294 U. S. 125 (1935).
55 A convenient reference for the happenings surrounding the MacCracken incident is S. Doc. 51, 74th Cong., 1st sess., “William P. MacCracken, Jr., et al.”
56 72F (2d) 560.
57 Dimock has written: “The arbitrary power of committees to demand the production of papers, once the power has been granted by the House, has been the chief subject of denunciation by witnesses throughout the history of investigations” (op. cit., p. 154).
58 New York Times, Mar. 12, 1936.
59 Ibid., Apr. 9, 1936.
60 U. S. Ct. Appls. D.C., Hearst v. Black et al., No. 6808.
61 The Senate, spurred by Senator Borah (who claimed he was not acting in the spirit of censure), passed a resolution (S. Res. 245, 74th Cong., 2d sess., Mar. 9, 1936) asking the Communications Commission for a report on its activities in this connection and for information on the authority under which it took action. The reply (S. Doc. 188, 74th Cong., 2d sess.) urged the Commission's interest, due to alleged forging of telegrams and to burning of file copies.
62 When Mr. Hearst decided to appeal his case, the Senate committee asked through a joint resolution (S. J. Res. 234, 74th Cong., 2d sess.) for $10,000 for counsel hire (since the maximum which it could pay was $3,600 per year) to defend its position, but the House turned it down by a vote of 153 to 137. This slap at the committee supposedly was substantially prompted by the fact that it had at one time smeared several House members with suspicion of receiving favor from a lobbyist, and that it had conflicted with the House committee in 1935 over obtaining testimony from H. C. Hopson of the Associated Gas and Electic Co. (The Senate committee, in S. Rp. 1272, 74th Cong, 1st sess., dated Aug. 14, 1935, had gone so far as to recommend that Hopson be brought before the bar of the Senate to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in refusing to testify. The matter was dropped when Mr. Hopson appeared before the committee the next day.) Also, several Democratic representatives resented the attempt to drag their party into the Senate committee controversy.
63 Later sentenced to pay $100 fine and serve 30 days in jail, he was released on bond pending appeal.
64 H. R. 8875 (Pub. 849–74th Cong.), July 13, 1936.
65 The six, officials of the Railway Audit and Inspection Company, Inc., were on September 21 indicted by a district grand jury. No court action had been taken by the end of February.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.