on June 15, the day the House voted, he had called him again and had told him that Government attorneys had decided not to intervene. The possibility of such intervention was the reason Adams had given for his request for postponement according to Armstrong. However, Armstrong refused to testify as to whether the House vote had been discussed in these conversations, stating that such testimony went beyond the Brownell opinion. The committee ordered him to again consult with the Attorney General. (Above material from New York Times, July 14, 1955, p. 1). July 20, 1955: Chairman Armstrong again retreated from a previous position. He testified that Sherman Adams had mentioned the pending House vote in his June 11, 1955, telephone conversation. Armstrong refused to testify as to whether he had collaborated with Sherman Adams with reference to testimony to be given before the investigating committee, stating "it has nothing to do with proceeding before the SEC" (New York Times, July 21, 1955, p. 1; Washington Post and Times Herald, same date, p. 1). July 30, 1955: Armstrong again refused to testify as to what advice Adams had given him regarding testimony before the committee. Armstrong stated that this position was sustained by Herbert Brownell, Jr., and Gerald Morgan, special counsel to the President, on the grounds that it was privileged information (New York Times, July 30, p. 6). Sherman Adams, Assistant to the President July 21, 1955: Replying to a request by Senator Kefauver to testify before the committee, Mr. Adams stated in a letter to the committee: "Since every fact to which I might give testimony either has been or could be testified to fully by other responsible Government officials and because of my official and confidential relationship to the President, I respectfully decline the subcommittee's invitation" (New York Times, July 22, p. 1). July 26, 1955: Replying to a letter from Senator Kefauver asking him to reconsider, Mr. Adams stated in a short letter that his position had not changed (New York Times, July 30, 1955, p. 6). Kenneth E. Fields, General Manager, Atomic Energy Commission July 21, 1955: Senator Kefauver, by letter of July 18, 1955 (reprinted, Daily Congressional Record, July 21, 1955, at p. 9576), requested Mr. Fields to deliver certain reports and memorandum. Fields stated in reply: "The documents to which you refer constitute internal working papers within the Commission and reflect staff discussions prior to final action. They do not constitute official actions by a Government agency or a Government official. I hope you will appreciate, therefore, that they constitute privileged communications within the executive branch under the well-recognized doctrine of separation of powers, a principle which was recently reiterated by the President. Under the circumstances, therefore, the Commission has instructed me to advise you that we must respectfully decline to comply with your request." Fields took the same position at the hearings that day (New York Times, July 22, 1955, p. 1). Rowland Hughes, Director of the Bureau of the Budget Hughes refused to make available to the committee a copy of a report prepared by Wenzell. Subsequently, Hughes released a copy of the report to Wenzell to use as he saw fit, and Wenzell turned it over to the committee. The committee, in its interim report states that the "refusal of the document to the committee directly still stands" (interim report to the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly Legislation of the Committee on the Judiciary (1955), p. 14). This refusal was made after checking with the President (id.). The report further states that Hughes refuses "on claim of Executive privilege, apparently still with the support of the President *** other documents *** including a memorandum prepared for his attention" and shown to a private party (id., 15). The report does not give dates for these refusals. 83D CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE {Do DOCUMENT CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION A STUDY PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF BY THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RELATIVE TO CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION PRESENTED BY MR. LANGER FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 8), 1954.-Ordered to be printed UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1954 447 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota, Chairman ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland PAT MCCARRAN, Nevada HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina THOMAS O. HENNINGS, JR., Missouri JOHN L. MCOLELLAN, Arkansas 448 (II) I. Congressional power of investigation generally: 1. The Constitution grants the legislative authority to Con gress.. 2. The constitutional grants do not spell out express powers 3. Power to compel pertinent disclosures is implied in the 4. A legislative purpose will be presumed in authorizing 5. A congressional inquiry may be as broad as the legislative 6. Appeals by persons investigated to courts for aid should 7. Congress should enforce its own process. 8. Pertinency of evidence is not determined by its probative 9. The "Do-you-know-a-certain-person" question, without 10. Witnesses may be punished for mistakes of law in refusing to answer.. 11. Cotumacy may be punished either by Congress or as a 12. Whether or not a witness has purged himself of contempt 14. The plea of privilege may be denied to witnesses. -- 16. The authority of the President to pardon persons punished 18. Investigatory powers are granted to the standing com- IV. Privilege of an attorney-. V. Recent citations... VI. Rights of a witness 1. Searches and seizures... 2. Disgracing and inconveniencing questions.. 15 16 3. Right to counsel.. 4. Cross-examination... 5. Presenting written statements or calling witnesses.. 16 17 17 X. Rules 1. General types of contempt cases.. 4. Recommending action to the executive branch.. (b) Questions framed with care. (c) Counsel permitted to interpose.. (d) Member protests.. (e) Chairman rebukes counsel. (f) Declaration of contempt unnecessary (g) Committee deliberates action and reports.. (h) Senate takes action......... 8. Reversible procedural error.. Page 20 22 24 25 27 27 27 29 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 44 47 47 48 49 50 55 56 57 57 5. Jurney v. MacCracken__ 6. Gerhart Eisler.. 7. President Andrew Jackson....... 8. President Buchanan.. 9. President Tyler.. 10. President Polk.. 11. Senate Resolution of 1886. XIV. Bibliography___. 58 |