[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 54 - The Power of Investigation]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE POWER OF INVESTIGATION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Assertion of right to inquire into conduct of Military and
Civil Administration. Sections 1725-1730.\1\
2. Inquiry into Management of Bank of the United States.
Sections 1731-1733.\2\
3. In relation to President, Vice-President, and Cabinet
Officers. Sections 1734-1741.\3\
4. As to Officers of the Army and Navy. Sections 1742, 1743.
5. Various instances of exercise of the power. Sections 1744-
1749.\4\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1725. In 1792 the House declined to request the President to inquire
into the causes of the defeat of General St. Clair's army and asserted
its own right to make the investigation.
An example of difficulty caused by permitting division of a question
which does not present two substantive propositions.
On March 27, 1792,\5\ the following resolution was proposed:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
institute an inquiry into the causes of the late defeat of the army
under the command of Major-General St. Clair; and also into the causes
of the detentions or delays which are suggested to have attended the
money, clothing, provisions, and military stores for the use of the
said army, and into such other causes as may in any manner have been
productive of the said defeat.
Objection was made to this resolution on the ground that it was an
invasion of the Executive department by the Legislative department;
while an inquiry into the expenditure of money was the duty, not of a
court-martial but of the House, and should be made by a select
committee. On the other hand, it was urged that the resolution amounted
to a simple request; but against this it was argued that the theory
that the House was the grand inquest of the nation would lead to
confusion in the Departments of the Government, and that the
Constitution had limited the objects of inquiry by the House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also investigations undertaken with a view to impeachment.
Sections 2342, 2343, 2364-2366, 2385, 2399, 2403, 2408, 2409, 2444,
2469-2471, 2486-2515 of this volume.
\2\ In the case of Kilbourn the House exceeded its power in inquiring
into private affairs. Section 1611 of Volume II. See also Chapman case
in Senate. Section 1612 of Volume II.
\3\ Conflict with the President as to right of House to inquire into
his conduct. Section 1596 of Volume II. House has no power to inquire
into circumstances under which the primary vote for Presidential
electors is given. Section 1977 of this volume. See, also, discussion
referred to in Section 1698 of this volume.
\4\ As to right of House to inquire into offenses in a preceding
Congress. Section 1690 of this volume. As to attempt to investigate
alleged corruption in the Senate sitting for an impeachment trial.
Section 2064 of this volume.
\5\ First session Second Congress, Journal, pp. 551, 552 (Gales &
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 490-494.
Sec. 1726
A division of the question being demanded, the question was put first
on the following:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
institute an inquiry into the causes of the late defeat of the army
under the command of Major-General St. Clair.
This was decided in the negative, yeas 21, nays 35.\1\
The House then agreed to this resolution, yeas 44, nays 10:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the cause of
the failure of the late expedition under Major-General St. Clair, and
that the said committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers,
and records as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.
On April 4 \2\ it was
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
cause the proper officers to lay before this House such papers of a
public nature in the Executive department as may be necessary to the
investigation of the causes of the failure of the late expedition under
Major-General St. Clair.
1726. In 1807 the House, after mature consideration, declined to
investigate charges against the chief of the Army, but requested the
President to make such an inquiry.
The right and duty of the House to inquire into the manner of
expenditure of public money by the Executive branch was early asserted.
The House, by resolution, called on two of its Members to state what
they knew concerning charges against the chief of the Army, then under
discussion.
In the early practice of the House a resolution making a request of
the President was taken to him by a committee of Members.
On December 31, 1807,\3\ Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, having
presented to the House certain papers in his possession, proposed the
following resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to
cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of Brigadier-General
Wilkinson, commander of the Army of the United States, in relation to
his having at any time whilst in the service of the United States
corruptly received money from the Government or agents of Spain.
This resolution gave rise to a long debate as to the power of the
House to make such a request in relation to a military officer, as to
whom the Constitution did not give the House the power that it had in
the case of the impeachment of a civil officer. It was objected that it
would be improper and unconstitutional for one Department of the
Government to call upon another to perform its duty, as in this case
the House was calling upon the Executive to do what was evidently his
duty to do. On the other hand, it was contended that the House was the
grand inquest of the nation, and as such had a right to make the
request of the Executive.
Mr. Barent Gardenier, of New York, moved that the resolution be
referred to a select committee and that the committee have power to
send for persons and papers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ It will be observed that it was not necessary to vote on the
second portion, since no substantive proposition remained, and it would
have meant nothing had it been agreed to.
\2\ Journal, p. 561; Annals, p. 536.
\3\ First session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 101 (Gales & Seaton
ed.); Annals, pp. 1257-1268.
Sec. 1726
Mr. Robert Marion, of South Carolina, moved to strike out the words
giving the committee power to send for persons and papers.
In support of this motion it was urged that the House had no power to
send for persons and papers, because it had no authority to make an
investigation into the conduct of an officer under the authority of the
President and not subject to impeachment. It was urged that the powers
of the House were limited by the Constitution and that it had no powers
except from the Constitution. It was argued that as the House had the
war-making power it certainly could inquire into the loyalty of the
commander in chief. A question was also raised as to what the House
would do with the testimony that it already had and that it was
proposed to obtain, and the suggestion was made that the only proper
course would be to transmit it to the Executive.
The question being taken on January 5,\1\ the House, by 72 yeas to 38
nays, struck out the provision giving the committee power to send for
persons and papers, and then, without division, decided in the negative
the motion to refer to a select committee.
A resolution was agreed to calling on two Members of the House for
such information as they might possess concerning General Wilkinson,
and then the discussion of Mr. Randolph's original motion continued.
On January 13 \2\ the House, by 72 yeas to 49 nays, agreed to Mr.
Randolph's resolution.
Resolutions providing for an investigation by the House were proposed
during this discussion, but were withdrawn or refused consideration.
The House then ordered that copies of the papers and information
relative to the conduct of General Wilkinson, that had been laid on the
Clerk's table, be transmitted to the President of the United States,
and Messrs. Randolph and Eppes were appointed a committee to take the
papers and the resolution to the President.
Mr. John Rowan, of Kentucky, then offered the following
resolution,\3\ drawn evidently for the purpose of meeting the
constitutional objections to making the inquiry:
Resolved, That a special committee be appointed to inquire into the
conduct of Brigadier-General Wilkinson, in relation to his having at
any time, while in the service of the United States, either as a civil
or a military officer, been a pensioner of the Government of Spain, or
corruptly received money from that Government or its agents, and that
the said committee have power to send for such persons and papers as
may be necessary to assist their inquiries, and that they report the
result to this House, to enable this House the better to legislate on
subjects of the common weal, and our foreign relations, and
particularly our relation with Spain, as well as on the subject of the
increase of the Army of the United States, and its regulation.
Without division the House declined to consider this resolution.
On a vote by yeas and nays the House agreed unanimously to this
resolution:\4\
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to lay
before the House of Representatives all the information which may at
any time, from the establishment of the present Federal Gov-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 110, 111; Annals, pp. 1296 &-1328.
\3\ Journal, p. 127; Annals, p. 1461.
\2\ Journal, pp. 125-127; Annals, pp. 1434-1461.
\4\ Journal, p. 126; Annals, p. 1460.
Sec. 1727
ernment to the present time, have been forwarded to any Department of
the Government touching a combination between the agents of any foreign
government and citizens of the United States for dismembering the
Union, or going to show that any officer of the United States has at
anytime corruptly received money from any foreign government or its
agents, distinguishing as far as possible, the period at which such
information has been forwarded, and by whom.
On January 20 \1\ President Jefferson sent to the House a message
stating that some days previous to the adoption of the resolution of
the House a court of inquiry had been constituted in the case of
General Wilkinson, and that the papers and information transmitted from
the House had been forwarded to the judge-advocate of that court. The
message also transmitted to the House such information as the Executive
Department of the Government had on the subject involved in the
resolution of inquiry, and explained that certain other documents had
been destroyed, and that one document, a confidential letter, had been
withheld, but that the writer of the letter was to be summoned before
the court of inquiry to give in legal form the information contained in
the letter.
The President also assured the House that the duties which the
information sent by the House devolved upon him would be exercised with
rigorous impartiality.
On February 4 \2\ the President transmitted additional documents on
the subject of the inquiry, and on April 25 the House transmitted to
the President additional papers relating to General Wilkinson.
On February 3, 1809 \3\ Mr. Randolph rose in his place and said that
among the duties and rights of the House was none so important as its
control over the public purse which it possessed under the
Constitution. The mere form of appropriation was not all. The House-
should rigorously examine into the application of the money thus
appropriated. Therefore, he moved this resolution, which was agreed to
without debate or division:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any
advances of money have been made to the Commander in Chief of the Army
by the Department of War contrary to law.
Mr. Randolph was made chairman of the committee, and in due time
reported.
1727. In 1810 the House, after mature consideration, determined that
it had the right to investigate the conduct of General Wilkinson,
although he was not an officer within the impeaching power of the
House.
At the first investigation of charges against General Wilkinson the
proceedings were ex parte, but at the second inquiry the House voted
that he should be heard in his defense.
The House having investigated charges against General Wilkinson, of
the Army, the results were transmitted to the President by the hands of
a committee.
An instance wherein the precedents of Parliament were invoked and
discussed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 136; Annals, p. 1482.
\2\ Journal, p. 159; Annals, p. 1564.
\3\ Second session Tenth Congress, Journal, p. 506 (Gales & Seaton
ed.); Annals, pp. 1330, 1331.
Sec. 1727
On March 21, 1810,\1\ Mr. Joseph Pearson, of North Carolina, proposed
this resolution:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct
of Brig. Gen. James Wilkinson in relation to his having, at any time,
whilst in the service of the United States, corruptly received money
from the Government of Spain, or its agents, or in relation to his
having, during the time aforesaid, been an accomplice, or in any way
concerned with the agents of any foreign power, or with Aaxon Burr, in
a project against the dominions of the King of Spain, or to dismember
these United States; that the said committee inquire generally into the
conduct of the said James Wilkinson as brigadier-general of the Army of
the United States; that the said committee have power to send for
persons and papers and compel their attendance and production, and that
they report the result to this House.
On April 3 the resolution was considered at length. It was urged in
its favor \2\ that the House, as the grand inquest of the nation, had a
right to make this inquiry. The English House of Commons had inquired
into the charge that the Duke of York, commander in chief of the army
and second son of the Monarch, had speculated in commissions. If the
House of Commons could do that, could not this House inquire into the
conduct of a commander in chief charged with betraying the nation to
the foreigner? If the House had not the absolute power of removing the
commander in chief, they at least had the power of requesting the
President of the United States to remove him, and if the President
should not do it, the House could say that there should no longer be an
Army with a commander at its head. If the powers of the House were to
be circumscribed by the strict letter of the Constitution \3\ where
would be found the power for the investigation in 1801 of the expenses
of a previous Administration which had gone out of office? It was not a
necessary appendage of the power of impeachment. The true construction
of the powers of the House with respect to investigation, other than
for the purpose of impeachment, was that (1) the House had the power to
inquire to inform themselves and the nation, and (2) the power to
inquire with a view to future legislation. The legislature and the
people had the right to know how the money drawn by taxation had been
applied. Also the House had the right to inquire as incidental to the
impeaching power, for how was a President to be impeached for
protecting a corrupt officer until the officer should be proven to be
corrupt? It was admitted to be true that under the Constitution no
military officer could be impeached, but it did not follow that the
House had no right to inquire into the state of the Army. Having
undoubtedly the right to inquire into the state of the Army, they also
had the right to inquire into the conduct of the individuals composing
it. If this was not so it followed that the Army belonged to the
President and not to the nation.\4\
In opposition to the resolution it was argued that the example of the
House of Commons could not be followed safely, because the Commons had
power over the Constitution, while the House of Representatives had
only such powers as the Constitution conferred upon them. Among the
powers granted to the House by the Constitution no gentleman could find
the authority for what they now proposed to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 306, 339, 343-346
(Gales & Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 1606, 1727-1757.
\2\ By Mr. Timothy Pitkin, Jr., of Connecticut.
\3\ Argument of Mr. Daniel Sheffey, of Virginia.
\4\ Argument of Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina.
Sec. 1727
do.\1\ The Executive, the House, the Senate, each had its orbit and its
responsibilities. It was now proposed that the House step in between
the Executive and his duties.\2\ Congress had no power to impeach a
military officer, and to say that these proceedings were a step toward
impeachment of the Executive was to assign a motive not revealed by the
resolution or really intended. Only for purposes of impeachment was the
House the grand inquest of the nation, and even then they could not
compel the attendance of the civil officer whom they intended to
impeach. They could compel the attendance only of their own Members.
Congress could prescribe rules for the government of the Army, and if
those rules were not sufficient to bring the offender to justice it was
the fault of the Congress which had made them. By assuming the
jurisdiction of the courts, either civil or military, the House would
degrade its legislative character.
The resolution was voted on in two portions, the first clause being
agreed to, yeas 87, nays 24; and the second clause, beginning with the
words ``That the said committee inquire generally,'' etc., was agreed
to, yeas 78, nays 31. The whole resolution was then agreed to, yeas 80,
nays 29.
On April 20,\3\ a letter from General Wilkinson asking that an
impartial tribunal be constituted to try him was presented to the House
by the Speaker, but after being read was not acted on, the House even
refusing to refer it to the Secretary of War.\4\
On May 1 \5\ the committee made their report. It consisted of a mass
of evidence, but no recommendations for action. The committee stated in
the course of debate that General Wilkinson had not expressed a wish to
appear before them. Their report states that they issued a subpoena
duces tecum to General Wilkinson, requiring him to submit to the
committee certain papers, and that he sent papers in response to this,
but upon examination they did not include certain of the papers
demanded, and the committee had been unable to obtain them. The papers
which the committee wished to obtain they had applied for at first from
the Secretary of War, but were informed that they had been taken from
that Department by General Wilkinson.
When the report was presented there was objection to it on the ground
that the proceedings had been ex parte, General Wilkinson not having
been invited to appear before the committee; but it was urged in
response that examinations for impeachment were in the first instance
ex parte.
At the next session of the Congress, on December 18, 1810,\6\ the
continuation of the inquiry\7\ was authorized by the presentation anew
of the original resolution with the addition of these words: ``And that
the said James Wilkinson be notified by the committee of the time and
place of their sitting, and be heard in his defense.'' This addition
was approved, 89 to 20, after considerable debate, in which it was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Argument of Mr. John Smilie, of Pennsylvania.
\2\ Argument of Mr. John Taylor, of South Carolina.
\3\ Journal, p. 383; Annals, pp. 1932, 1933.
\4\ Journal, p. 392.
\5\ Journal, p. 421; Annals, pp. 2032, 2048.
\6\ Third session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 450-452; Annals,
pp. 432-450.
\7\ At this time business before a committee at the end of a session
fell with the session.
Sec. 1728
objected that this addition would make the resolution still more
unconstitutional, because it would make the proceeding a trial of
General Wilkinson. The resolution in the amended form was agreed to,
yeas 79, nays 36.
On February 26 \1\ the report of the committee was submitted to the
House. A motion was first made to refer the report to the Committee of
the Whole, and it was determined in the negative, yeas 43, nays 81.
Then it was moved that the report with the documents accompanying be
transmitted to the President of the United States. A proposition was
made to amend by adding the words:
Together with the report of a select committee, made to the House at
the last session of Congress, on the same subject, with the documents
accompanying the same.
Objection was made on the ground that the report of the preceding
session had been based on ex parte examination. The amendment was
disagreed to, yeas 88, nays 32. The motion to transmit the report of
the present session to the President was then agreed to, yeas 76, nays
42.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bibb were appointed a committee to transmit the
report and accompanying documents to the President.
On March 1 \2\ Mr. Bibb reported that the committee had performed the
service.
1728. In 1861 the two Houses, by concurrent action, assumed without
question the right to investigate the conduct of the war.--On December
9, 1861,\3\ the Senate agreed to the following:
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),
That a joint committee of three Members of the Senate and four Members
of the House of Representatives be appointed to inquire into the
conduct of the present war; that they have power to send for persons
and papers, and to sit during the sessions of either House of Congress.
In the debate in the Senate Mr. James W. Grimes, of Iowa, declared it
the right and duty of Congress to make the investigation, and cited as
a precedent the action of the House of Representatives in investigating
in 1792 the St. Clair disaster and to action of the House in 1813.\4\
The debate touched only briefly on the question of constitutional
authority to make such an investigation.
On December 10, in the House of Representatives, the resolution was
agreed to without debate.
1729. The House very early overruled the objection that its inquiry
into the conduct of clerks in the Executive Departments would be an
infringement on the Executive power.--On January 16, 1818,\5\ Mr. John
Holmes, of Massachusetts, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any or
what clerks or other officers in either of the Departments, or in any
office at the seat of the General Government, have conducted themselves
improperly in their official duties, and that the committee have power
to send for persons and papers.
Objection being made that the House would, by adopting this
resolution, assume power over the Departments that belonged to the
Executive and would
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 578-582; Annals, pp. 1030-1032.
\2\ Journal, p. 606.
\3\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 56; Globe,
pp. 29-32, 40.
\4\ Apparently the precedent of 1810 is meant.
\5\ First session Fifteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 152, 153; Annals,
p. 783.
Sec. 1730
thus impair Executive responsibility, it was answered that the House
was in the relation of a grand jury, to the nation, and that it was the
duty of the House to examine into the conduct of public officers.
The resolution was agreed to, and the committee was appointed.
1730. Having the constitutional right to concur in appropriating the
public money, the House has exercised also the right to examine the
application of those appropriations.--On December 10, 1819,\1\ Mr.
Henry R. Storrs, of New York, introduced a resolution, explaining its
object by saying that if there was any one point on which the House
should be tenacious of its prerogatives, it was upon its constitutional
right of originating revenue bills, and its concurrent right, with the
Senate, of denoting, according to their own discretion, the manner in
which the public moneys should be appropriated and applied.
The resolution, which was agreed to, was as follows:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire and report to this
House whether any of the public moneys appropriated by Congress for the
pay and subsistence of the Regular Army of the United States since the
4th day of March, 1815, have been applied to the support of any army or
detachment of troops raised without the consent of this House or the
authority of Congress.
Mr. Storrs was appointed chairman of the committee, and on February
28, 1820,\2\ he made a report of the facts, which disclosed
irregularities of the nature referred to in the resolution, and
assumptions of power by the commanding officer, General Jackson. The
report concludes:
The House having authorized the committee to report by bill, they
have devoted their attention to the devising of some legislative
remedies against the recurrence of these disorders. To prescribe the
principles of the Constitution by legislative enactments might tend to
impair its high and uncontrollable sanctions, and the faithful
discharge of the duties of the several committees of the House furnish
an adequate remedy against all abuses in the public expenditure. The
committee, therefore, submit the facts contained in this report and the
documents which establish them, referring them to the discretion of the
House.
1731. In authorizing an investigation of the Bank of the United
States in 1832 a distinction was drawn between the public relations of
the bank to the Government and its dealings with private individuals.
The House sometimes fixes a date before which a committee shall
report.
On March 14, 1832,\3\ the House was considering this resolution,
offered on a previous day by Mr. Augustin S. Clayton, of Georgia:
Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to examine into the
affairs of the Bank of the United States, with power to send for
persons and papers, and to report the result of their inquiries to this
House.
Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, criticised this resolution
as proposing an investigation not within the power of the House; and
therefore, to prevent improper inquiry, he proposed an amendment
following the words of the charter and the precedent of the
investigation of 1819:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, p. 31 (Gales & Sealon
ed.); Annals, p. 717.
\2\ Annals, p. 1542.
\3\ First session Twenty-second Congress, Journal, pp. 487-494;
Debates, pp. 2160-2164.
Sec. 1732
Strike out all after the word ``Resolved'' and insert:
That a select committee be appointed to inspect the books and examine
into the proceedings of the Bank of the United States, to report
thereon, and to report whether the provisions of its charter have been
violated or not; that the said committee have leave to meet in the city
of Philadelphia, and shall make their final report on or before the
21st of April next; that they shall have power to send for persons and
papers, and to employ the requisite clerks; the expense of which shall
be audited and allowed by the Committee of Accounts, and paid out of
the contingent fund of the House.
In the course of the debate Mr. James K. Polk, of Tennessee,
criticised the amendment as placing upon the committee a limitation as
to the time within which they should make their report. He thought that
there was no precedent for this.
Mr. Adams's amendment was agreed to, yeas 106, nays 92. The
resolution as amended was then agreed to.
In filing, his views on May 14, as a member of the minority of this
investigating committee, Mr. Adams developed his views more fully. He
said: \1\
The amended resolution adopted by the House was predicated on the
principle that the original resolution presented objects of inquiry not
authorized by the charter of the bank, nor within the legitimate powers
of the House, particularly that it looked to investigations which must
necessarily implicate not only the president and directors of the bank,
and their proceedings, but the rights, the interests, the fortunes, and
the reputation of individuals not responsible for those proceedings,
and whom neither the committee nor the House had the power to try, or
even to accuse before any other tribunal. In the examination of the
books and proceedings of the bank the pecuniary transactions of
multitudes of individuals with it must necessarily be disclosed to the
committee, and the proceedings of the president and directors of the
bank, in relation thereto, formed just and proper subject of inquiry--
not, however, in the opinion of the subscriber, to any extent which
would authorize them to criminate any individual other than the
president, directors, and officers of the bank of its branches--nor
them, otherwise than as forming part of their official proceedings. The
subscriber believed that the authority of the committee and of the
House itself did not extend, under color of examining into the books
and proceedings of the bank, to scrutinize, for animadversion or
censure, the religious or political opinions even of the president and
directors of the bank, nor their domestic or family concerns, nor their
private lives or characters, nor their moral, or political, or
pecuniary standing in society; still less could he believe the
committee invested with a power to embrace in their sphere of
investigation researches so invidious and inquisitorial over multitudes
of individuals having no connection with the bank other than that of
dealing with them in their appropriate business of discounts, deposits,
and exchanges.
Mr. Adams shows that the majority of the committee did not, however,
follow these principles, but investigated the personal accounts of
private individuals, such as several proprietors of well-known
newspapers, although no compulsory process was issued against one
citizen who declined to give his attendance.
1732. In 1834 the directors of the Bank of the United States resisted
the authority of the House to compel the production of books of the
bank before an investigating committee.
The investigation of the Bank of the United States in 1834 was
objected to on the ground that it involved a general search of the
affairs of private individuals.
The committee appointed to investigate the Bank of the United States
in 1834 held that its proceedings should be confidential, not to be
attended by any person not invited or required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Debates, p. 54 of Appendix.
Sec. 1732
Minority views were filed in 1834 by members of the committee
appointed to investigate the affairs of the Bank of the United States.
A form of subpoena issued in 1834 and criticised as defective.
On March 18, 1834,\1\ the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom had
been committed the report of the Secretary, of the Treasury of his
reasons for ordering the public deposits to be removed from the Bank of
the United States, made a report recommending the adoption of four
resolutions. The first three of these expressed the opinion that the
bank ought not to be rechartered; that the public deposits ought not to
be restored to it; and that the State banks, under suitable
regulations, should be continued as places of deposit of public money.
The fourth resolution was as follows:
Resolved, That, for the purpose of ascertaining, as fax as
practicable, the cause of the commercial embarrassment and distress
complained of by numerous citizens of the United States, in sundry
memorials which have been presented to Congress at the present session,
and of inquiring whether the charter of the Bank of the United States
has been violated, and also what corruptions and abuses have existed in
its management; whether it has used its corporate power, or money, to
control the press, to interfere in politics or influence elections, and
whether it has had any agency, through its management or money, in
producing the existing pressure; a select committee be appointed to
inspect the books and examine into the proceedings of the said bank,
who shall report whether the provisions of the charter have been
violated or not, and also what abuses, corruptions, or malpractices
have existed in the management of said bank, and that the said
committee be authorized to send for persons and papers, and to summon
and examine witnesses on oath, and to examine into the affairs of the
said bank and branches; and they are further authorized to visit the
principal bank, or any of its branches, for the purpose of inspecting
the books, correspondence, accounts, and other papers connected with
its management or business; and that the said committee be required to
report the result of such investigation, together with the evidence
they may take, at as early a day as practicable.
This resolution was agreed to on April 4,\2\ and the following
committee were appointed: Messrs. Francis Thomas, of Maryland, Edward
Everett, of Massachusetts, Henry A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, John
Y. Mason, of Virginia, William W. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, Abijah
Mum. jr., of New York, and Robert T. Lytle, of Ohio.
The committee reported on May 22,\3\ the minority also filing views:
\4\
The proceedings of the committee, in the form of extracts from its
journal, are appended to the report, and show that the committee met at
the North American Hotel at Philadelphia, on April 23, and informed the
president of the bank that they would be ready to proceed to business
on the morrow.
April 24 the committee were informed by officials of the bank that
arrangements would be made to accommodate them at the bank, and that a
committee of seven members of the board of directors had been appointed
to receive the committee of the House of Representatives of the United
States, and to offer for their inspection such books and papers of the
bank as may be necessary to exhibit the proceedings of the corporation
according to the requirements of the charter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Journal, p. 422.
\2\ Journal, pp. 487-489.
\3\ Journal, p. 650.
\4\ The report, with extracts from the Journal of the committee and
views of the minority appear as No. 481 in House Reports first session
Twenty-third Congress. Minority views were also filed in the preceding
investigation in 1832.
Sec. 1732
On April 26 the investigating committee agreed to and forwarded to
the committee of the directors resolutions stating ``that the
proceedings, investigations, and examinations of this committee of the
books, papers, and affairs of the bank, shall be confidential, unless
otherwise ordered by the committee;'' and ``that the investigations of
this committee into the affairs, management, and concerns of the Bank
of the United States shall be conducted without the presence of any
person who is not required or invited to attend the examinations of
this committee.'' \1\
To this the board of directors responded by resolving that they could
not ``consent to give up the custody and possession of the books and
papers of the bank, nor to permit them to be examined but in the
presence of the committee appointed by the board.'' Considering the
investigation ``accusatory'' in nature, the directors also thought it
proper that the institution and individuals concerned should have the
opportunity to be present, by their appointed representatives, at all
examinations touching their character and conduct. But they protested
against a secret or partial investigation.
The investigating committee, replying under date of April 29, accept
the offer made by the directors of the use of a room at the bank, but
with a statement of belief that
the room thus offered would be exclusively for its occupation and that
of those whose attendance might be, by the committee, required or
assented to.
The committee also
claims the right, to be exercised at its discretion, to compel the
production of the books and papers of the bank for inspection, and to
inspect the same in such mode as to the committee may seem best
calculated to promote the object of its inquiry.
The committee denies ``accusatory'' intentions, does not purpose
making a secret or partial examination, states that it will afford
every person whose character or conduct may seem to be affected by the
investigation a full opportunity of explanation and defense, but
claims the right of determining the time and mode of giving such
privilege, and therefore can not recognize the right of the directors
to prescribe the course to be pursued by this committee in making its
examinations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In their minority views Messrs. Everett and Ellsworth say: ``The
first resolution was regarded merely as an understanding, on the part
of the committee of investigation, that no publicity would be given by
them, until otherwise ordered, to the matters that might appear in the
course of the examination. The undersigned assented to this resolution,
with the understanding of the parliamentary law that the sittings of
every committee are open unless ordered to be secret by the House; and
that it was not in the power of the present committee, by a vote of
their own, either to shut their doors or impose secrecy on any persons
who might attend. But they assented to the injunction of confidence in
conformity with a usage which has prevailed in other committees of
inquiry of the House, for their own convenience, as a rule binding on
themselves, and with the express reservation that the adoption of this
resolution should in no degree involve an assent to the principle
asserted in the second. To that principle, viz, that no person should
be permitted to attend during the inspection of the books of the bank
and the examination of its proceedings, etc., * * * the undersigned
were strenuously opposed. * * * This claim was regarded by the
undersigned as being without foundation and objectionable. In the first
place, as has been observed, they believed it to be contrary to the lex
parliamentaria for a committee of inquiry, on its own authority, to
claim the right of holding its sittings, except when deliberating and
voting, in secret. It can only be constituted a secret committee by
express order of the House. (See pp. 44, 45, of Report No. 481, House
of Representatives, first session Twenty-third Congress.)
Sec. 1732
Again, on April 30, the committee, reiterates
that they have the power to compel the production of the books and
papers of the bank for inspection; that they have the power to make
such inspection in the presence of those only who may be, by the
committee, required or invited to attend; and to exclude from their
room all persons who, by their presence, may in any degree tend to
impede the progress of the inspection of the books .and papers or
incommode the members of the committee in the discharge of the high
duties devolved on them by the House of Representatives.
The committee also in this communication ask if they are to have the
exclusive use of the room at the bank.
The chairman of the committee of directors, replying under date of
May 1, reiterates the previous decision that the custody and possession
of the books of the bank can not be given up, and that they can not be
examined except in the presence of the committee appointed by the
board.
On May 2 the committee of investigation resolved that, as they could
not have exclusive use of the room at the bank, they would hold their
sittings at their room in the North American Hotel, and that the
president and directors of the Bank of the United States be required to
submit for the inspection of the committee at the hotel at 11 a. m. May
3 certain specified books of the bank.
The directors replied that they could not let the books and papers go
out of their care and custody, or out of the banking house, as such
action would be a violation of their duty, and might be deemed an
abandonment of their right to be present by themselves, or by their
committee or agents, at the examination.
On May 5 the investigating committee decided to go to the bank and
require of the president or other officers the production of the books
of the bank for the inspection of the committee. Accordingly they
proceeded to the bank and requested the president and first cashier to
produce the books already demanded. The president and cashier replied
that they could not comply with the request, as the books were in the
custody of the board of directors, who had appointed a committee to
exhibit them.
On May 7 the committee of investigation received a notification from
the committee of directors that the latter would be ready May 7 at 11
a.m. to exhibit books of the bank; and accordingly the committee of
investigation proceeded to the bank, and called for the
minute books, containing the proceedings of the directors of the bank,
and the expense book and vouchers for expenses incurred.
The committee of the directors retired to deliberate, and after a
time presented to the investigating committee their resolutions. They
declare that the investigation proposed involves two branches, one to
ascertain whether the charter had been violated, and the other very
general and indefinite; that the calls for books embrace a very wide
range, including an extensive examination of the transactions, acts,
and accounts of individuals, thus instituting a general search which
would be an injurious invasion of private rights; that in the opinion
of the directors the inquiry can only be rightfully extended to alleged
violations of the charter and ought to be conducted according to
certain principles and rules. Therefore the investigating committee are
``respectfully required'' to state specifically in writing
Sec. 1732
the purposes for which the books and papers called for are to be
inspected; and, if it be to establish a violation of the charter, to
state specifically and in writing what are the alleged violations to
which the evidence is alleged to be applicable. The suggestion is also
made that the investigating committee should furnish a specification of
all the charges intended to be inquired into, and proceed with them in
order.
In response to this communication the investigating committee stated
that they were engaged not in a prosecution, but an inquiry, and
therefore could not be ``required'' to specify supposed violations of
the charter or state specifically the purposes for which the books were
to be inspected. But the committee proceeded to request of the
directors the credit books and pay lists of the bank to ascertain
``whether it has used its corporate powers or money to control the
press, to interfere in politics, or influence elections;'' also the
minute books, etc., to ascertain whether the bank ``has had any agency,
through its management or money, in producing the present pressure,''
and whether the directors have violated the charter of the bank.
The committee of the board of directors replied by declining to
comply with the calls in any other manner than already laid down.
On May 9 the investigating committee authorized the issuing of the
following subpoena duces tecum:
By Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States.
To Benjamin S. Bonsall,
Marshal of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
You are hereby commanded to summon Nicholas Biddle, president;
Emanuel Eyre, Matthew Newkirk, John Sergeant, Charles Chauncey, John S.
Henry, John R. Neff, Ambrose White, Daniel W. Coxe, John Goddard, James
C. Fisher, Lawrence Lewis, John Holmes, and William Platt, directors of
the Bank of the United States, to be and appear before the committee of
the House of Representatives of the United States appointed on the 4th
day of April, 1834, ``for the purpose of ascertaining,'' etc. [here
follows the portion of the resolution specifying the duties of the
committee], in their chamber in the North American Hotel, in the city
of Philadelphia, and to bring with them the credit books of said bank,
showing the indebtedness of individuals to said bank on the 10th day of
May instant, at the hour of 12 o'clock m., then and there to testify
touching the matters of said inquiry, and to submit said books to said
committee for inspection.
Herein fail not, and make return of this summons.
Witness the seal of the House of Representatives of the United
States, and the signature of Hon. Francis Thomas, chairman of the said
committee, at the city of Philadelphia, this ninth day of May, in the
year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four.
[seal.]
Francis Thomas.
Attest:
W. S. Franklin,
Clerk House of Representatives U. S.\1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The directors in their reply reserved objection to the legality
of this process and the service, but did not state their grounds. The
minority of the committee in their views (p. 61 of report) say: ``The
form of the process and its mode of service are believed by the
undersigned to be not less objectionable than its object, and equally
fatal to its legal character; but on this topic they omit to dwell.''
Rule 11 of the House was as follows at that time: ``All acts,
addresses, and joint resolutions shall be signed by the Speaker; and
all writs, warrants, and subpoenas issued by order of the House shall
be under his hand and seal, attested by the Clerk.'' This rule has been
somewhat changed since. (See sections 251 of Volume I and 1313 of
Volume II of this work.)
Sec. 1732
At the appointed time President Biddle and the associates named in
the subpoena appeared, and Mr. Sergeant stated--
that they came in pursuance of the precept served on them individually
by the marshal, and that he would read their individual answer to it.
This answer was in writing and signed by the respondents. It declared
first that they did not produce the books,
because they are not in the custody of either of us, but, as has been
heretofore stated, of the board, whose views upon this subject, we
would take occasion to say, have already been respectfully communicated
to the committee of investigation.
As to testifying, the paper continues:
Each of us now says for himself that, considering the nature of the
proceeding and the character of the inquiry, even as explained in the
resolution of the committee of investigation of the 7th instant, and
considering that as corporators and as directors we are parties to the
proceeding, we do not consider ourselves bound to testify, and
therefore respectfully decline to do so.
The committee of investigation, on May 22, reported to the House,
recommending the following resolutions:
Resolved, That, by the charter of the bank of the United States, the
right was expressly reserved to either House of Congress, by the
appointment of a committee, to inspect the books and to examine into
the proceedings of the said bank, as well as to ascertain if at any
time it had violated its charter.
Resolved, That the resolution of the House of Representatives passed
on the 4th of April, 1834, for the appointment of a committee, with
full powers to make the investigations embraced in said resolution, was
in accordance with the provisions of the charter of said bank and the
power of this House.
Resolved, That the president of the board of directors of the bank of
the United States, by refusing to submit for inspection the books and
papers of the bank, as called for by the committee of the House of
Representatives, have contemned the legitimate authority of the House,
asserting for themselves powers and privileges not contemplated by the
framers of their charter, nor in fairness deducible from any of the
terms or provisions of that instrument.
Resolved, That either House of Congress has the right to compel the
production of any such books or papers as have been called for by their
committee, and also to compel said president and directors to testify
to such interrogatories as were necessary to a full and perfect
understanding of the proceedings of the bank at any period within the
term of its existence.
Resolved, That the Speaker of this House do issue his warrant to the
Sergeant-at-Arms, to arrest Nicholas Biddle, president; Manuel Eyre,
Lawrence Lewis, Ambrose White, Daniel W. Coxe, John Holmes, Charles
Chauncey, John Goddard, John R. Neff, William Platt, Matthew Newkirk,
James C. Fisher, John S. Henry, and John Sergeant, directors of the
Bank of the United States, and bring them to the bar of this House, to
answer for their contempt of its lawful authority.
The report of the committee, made by Mr. Thomas, in support of the
resolutions, calls attention to the fact that the bank was chartered
for a great public purpose, to act as an agent of the Government in the
collection and disbursement of money, and that the United States holds
seven millions of the stock of the bank. The House of Representatives
is the grand inquest of the nation, and as such has power to inspect
all departments of the Federal Government. That there might be no doubt
of the existence of this power it had been expressly reserved in the
23rd section of the charter of the bank, which provides--
that it shall be at all times lawful for a committee of either House of
Congress, appointed for that purpose to inspect the books and examine
into the proceedings of the corporation hereby created, and to report
whether the provisions of its charter have been violated or not.
Sec. 1732
Thus the only restriction in the charter of the bank was one relating
to the committee, and not to the House, and had reference, not to the
extent of the examination, but to the character of the report to be
made. The object of this specification was seen in the clause of the
charter providing for certain legal action in the courts if the
committee should find that the charter had been violated.
The committee argue that any doubt as to the reserve power of the
House had long been settled by the precedents of the examinations by
committees of the House in 1818 and 1832. Those committees examined
into the general management of the bank, the transactions of private
individuals were freely and fully examined, and were published. The
managers of the bank on those occasions did not question the authority
of the committees to make the examinations.
The committee say that in providing by resolution that the
proceedings of the committee should be confidential they followed the
precedent of the committee of 1832.
The minority of the committee, Messrs. Everett and Ellsworth,
contended that the charter was a contract proposed by the Government to
the stockholders, that the power of visitation and examination was one
onerous to the stockholders, and to attempt to enlarge it by
construction was to interpolate new and oppressive conditions into the
contract. A resolution of the House passed in virtue of its general
power of inquisition could not enlarge the specific provisions of law.
The fact that the Government was a stockholder might give the
Government rights in the matter which should not be claimed by the
House, which was only one department of the Government. The law gave
the House certain power in this case, and it was not within its power
to give the committee a general power of search. The minority did not
deny the power of the House to inquire into any alleged abuse or
corruption whatsoever, and they believed that the committee was
authorized to make such inquiry, but those inquiries should be
conducted according to the charter and according to the principles of
equity and constitutional right. The power of the committee did not
authorize it to prosecute a secret inquiry of indefinite character. It
did not extend the right of inspecting the books, granted for one
purpose alone, so as to authorize their inspection for purposes totally
different. It did not empower the committee to issue warrants of
general search, and compel the appearance of citizens and the
production of papers, not in proof or disproof of charges against third
persons, but to enable the committee to find out from the papers
whether those who should bring them were themselves guilty of
misdemeanors. A general search was repugnant to the Constitution. The
minority reviewed the proceedings at length, criticizing, among other
things, the legality of the process issued to compel the attendance of
the directors.
On May 29,\1\ Mr. John Quincy Adams presented to the House
resolutions declaring that any attempt to bring to the bar of the House
the directors would be unconstitutional. These resolutions were not
acted on.
On June 25 \2\ Mr. Thomas presented a resolution to make the
consideration of the report of this committee a continuing order of the
House. The question
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 664.
\2\ Journal, pp. 831, 832.
Sec. 1733
of consideration being raised, the House voted to consider it--yeas 97,
nays 65. But after consideration for a time, the resolution was
superseded by privileged business. Thereafter, until the final
adjournment of the session on June 30, the House was engaged in other
business, so the report of the committee was not acted on.
1733. The general authority of the House to compel testimony and the
production of papers in an investigation, and the relation of this
right to the rights of individuals to privacy in business affairs, were
discussed in 1837.--On January 3, 1837,\1\ on motion of Mr. James
Garland, of Virginia, the House agreed to the following:
Resolved, That a committee of nine Members be appointed, whose duty
it shall be to inquire whether the several banks employed for the
deposit of the public money have all, or any of them, by joint or
several contract, employed an agent to reside at the seat of government
to transact their business with the Treasury Department; what is the
character of the business which he is so employed to transact, and what
compensation he receives; whether said agent, if there be one, has been
employed at the request or through the procurement of the Treasury
Department; whether the business of the Treasury Department with said
banks is conducted through said agent; and whether, in the transaction
of any business confided to said agent, he receives any compensation
from the Treasury Department; and that said committee have power to
send for persons and papers.
The following were appointed the committee: Messrs. Garland, Franklin
Pierce, of New Hampshire; John Fairfield, of Maine; Henry A. Wise, of
Virginia; Ransom H. Gillett, of New York; Henry Johnson, of Louisiana;
Thomas L. Hamer, of Ohio; Joshua L. Martin, of Alabama, and Balie
Peyton, of Tennessee.
In the course of the investigation in the committee Mr. Peyton
offered this resolution: \2\
Resolved, That R. M. Whitney be summoned to appear before the
committee, at the room of the Committee on Commerce, on Thursday
morning next, at 10 o'clock, and that he be required to bring with him
the books, papers, and memoranda relating to his agency with the
deposit banks; that he produce all the correspondence between himself
and any person or bank going to show the existence of that agency; that
he produce the originals, where in his power, and copies where the
originals are not in his possession; that he produce all the contracts
which he has made or proposed with and to any bank, or correspondence
held in relation to the public deposits; all books, papers, etc., going
to show the amount of his compensation, and the character of the
business which he is employed to transact.
To the adoption of this resolution Mr. Martin objected, on the ground
that he doubted the power of the committee, on the showing then before
them, to require the production of all the papers therein required, and
moved for a division of the resolution, so as to take the question upon
ordering the subpoena for R. M. Whitney, and the subpoena duces tecum
to him, separately; which motion was withdrawn, upon the understanding
with the committee generally that the question of power to enforce the
demand, if objected to by Mr. Whitney, to whom the subpoena duces tecum
was directed, should be reserved. Whereupon the resolution was adopted
without further objection.
On January 25 \3\ Mr. Whitney, who had previously declined to answer
certain
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 164, 165;
Globe, pp. 69, 73.
\2\ House Report, first session Twenty-fourth Congress, No. 193, p. 2
of Journal of Report.
\3\ Journal of Report, No. 193, pp. 67-80.
Sec. 1733
questions and to produce certain papers, filed with the committee a
written protest, which was, by vote of the committee, ordered to be
read.
In this protest the witness declared that the committee, in calling
for an indefinite mass of papers, many of them private, had exceeded
their inquisitorial power. The resolution under which they acted
provided for three branches of investigation--first, the Treasury
Department and its officers; secondly, ``the several banks employed for
the deposit of the public moneys;'' and, lastly, himself. To the first
branch of the inquiry he professed no relation, and in no manner would
draw in question the power of the committee. He had answered freely
every question strictly within the province of that branch of inquiry.
As to the deposit banks, he denied that the mere fact of their having,
in the course of their business, entered into a contract with a
Department of the Government, gave one branch of the Congress any
authority to examine into their business transactions or their
relations with their agents. They were chartered under State laws, and
were not at all under national control. There was no visitorial or
supervising power over them in either branch of Congress. Even in the
late Bank of the United States, chartered by Congress, it was thought
necessary to confer that power by a special clause of the charter. And
even then, when under examination by a committee authorized under this
special provision, the bank had resisted the efforts of the committee
to inquire into certain matters. The act of Congress regulating the
deposits of the public moneys gave to the Secretary of the Treasury a
modified right of inspection of the general accounts of the banks that
should accept the public deposits, but this modified right of
inspection did not imply any inherent power of Congress over the banks.
It was merely a condition precedent to their being employed as
depositories. As to himself personally the inquiry had two branches--
first, as to whether he had been employed as agent of the banks through
the procurement of the Treasury Department and had received
compensation from that department; and, second, as to his business
arrangements with such of the deposit banks as constituted him their
agent. As to the first branch, relating as it did to the management of
the Treasury Department and the disbursements of the public moneys, he
had answered all questions and still held himself ready to answer all
such; but the questions falling under the second branch he had not
answered, on the ground that they were inquisitorial in their nature,
going into the personal and private transactions and relations between
himself and his employers.
I have already
[says the protest]
referred to the summons as in the nature of a subpoena duces tecum, by
which myself and my papers were cited before your committee; how
sweeping and indefinite are the number and the description of the
papers comprehended in the citation; how deeply it searches into my
correspondence--into the documents of my business and transactions--
sweeping up even all the loose memoranda I may have kept relating to my
agency (no matter to what other things the same memoranda may relate).
All this appears on the face of the summons, and may be sufficiently
inferred from the notice already taken of that document.
If the power to send for ``papers,'' which may be rightfully
delegated to and exercised by a committee of Congress, be susceptible
of any more reasonable limits than that of the power to send for
``persons,'' I am advised that it may be clearly reduced to two simple
heads:
Sec. 1733
1. All that can be denominated public papers, as belonging to the
public archives of any Department of the Government, and which may be
required for the information of Congress upon any matter touching the
public administration.
2. Such private papers in the hands of individuals as are necessary
to the advancement of justice in the exercise of the judicative power
of Congress, understanding that power as limited to impeachments. Then
such private papers, and such only, are included as would, if produced,
be competent evidence in a criminal prosecution and in a prosecution
not against the party cited to produce the papers.
The rules of procedure, long established by the courts of ordinary
judicature and sanctioned by veteran experience and wisdom as
indispensable to the liberty and safety of the citizen, can not be
dispensed with by Congress when it assumes the tribunal and exercises
its constitutional functions of criminal judicature. Now, these rules
have strictly limited and guarded the process for papers in criminal
proceedings--as, indeed, in civil. The paper required must be described
with reasonable certainty, so as to be distinguished and identified;
above all, it must be made clearly to appear, before its production is
required, to be competent and pertinent evidence to the issue, or, if
the issue be not yet formed (as in the case of a presentment pending
before a grand jury or an impeachment in course of preparation), still
competent and pertinent evidence to the issue to be formed, in case the
presentment be found true or the impeachment be preferred.
Therefore the witness concluded that the committee might not demand
the production of a large and miscellaneous mass of private papers, the
contents of which and the conclusions from which are utterly unknown
beforehand. In his view the power to send for persons and papers did
not go to this extent.
The committee did not attempt to compel Mr. Whitney to answer
questions which he considered inquisitorial; but in their report they
say:\1\
It is not the purpose of the committee to enter into a long or
detailed answer to said protest; they hive not time, if they were
disposed, nor is it necessary to do so. As relates to the resolution of
the committee, the whole argument of the protest is based upon the idea
that the committee has asserted a claim of power, in compelling the
production of private papers and in examining into private
transactions, which it has not done. The resolution is general, and
calls for no specific paper; it calls generally for such papers, etc.,
as may refer to and shed light upon the inquiries directed by the
House. The committee, in adopting this resolution, made it general,
because they had no knowledge of the peculiar character of the papers
held by the witness, whether they were of a purely private or public
character, and could not, therefore, designate any particular paper for
which to make a call, and because they thought it due to the witness
himself that he might have the opportunity of producing such papers of
a private character as he might deem necessary for the purpose of
explanation if such explanation should be deemed necessary by him.
Immediately following the adoption of the resolution referred to the
committee made an express reservation of the question--what papers they
would or would not compel the production of until the witness had
determined for himself which he would or would not produce, having
reference to the necessity of explanation as affecting himself. * * *
The committee has not in a single instance attempted to enforce the
production of any paper objected to by the witness. As to the question
whether the House of Representatives has the power to direct the
inquiries contained in the resolution organizing the committee, it is
not deemed necessary to make any remark. In adopting the resolution it
is presumed that the House well understood its power and its duty, and
did not hastily institute inquiries beyond the reach of the one or the
other. The committee does not claim for the House or itself the power
to compel the deposit banks to expose their private concerns or private
transactions to the scrutiny of the committee, nor has the committee in
any instance demanded such exposure. Yet, while the committee does not
assert any such claim of power, it holds it decidedly within the power
of Congress to ascertain, by other competent and legal testimony, any
of the transactions of the deposit banks which are calculated to affect
the safety of the public funds, and to render some action on the part
of Congress necessary for their security.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House Report No. 193, p. 1.
Sec. 1734
1734. Members of the Presidents Cabinet, whose reputations and
conduct have been assailed on the floor of the House, have sometimes
asked for an investigation.--On February 1, 1805,\1\ the Postmaster-
General, Gideon Granger, having
received information from various sources, that both my public and
private character and conduct have been arraigned on the floor of the
House of Congress by a Member of that House,
addressed a letter to the Speaker, asking an investigation. This letter
was read to the House and referred to a committee.
1735. On April 3, 1850,\2\ the Speaker, by unanimous consent, laid
before the House a letter from Hon. George W. Crawford, Secretary of
War, asking the House to investigate the charges made against him in
connection with the Galphin claim. The letter, having been read, was
referred to a select committee of nine members.
1736. Vice-President Calhoun asked the House, as the grand inquest of
the nation, to investigate certain charges made against his conduct as
Secretary of War, and the House granted the request.
The Vice-President was represented by a Member of the House before a
committee of the House which was investigating charges against him.
The proceedings of an investigating committee having brought out
statements reflecting on the character of a person not directly
involved in the inquiry and not a Member of either House, the House
refused to incorporate his explanation in the report.
In investigating charges of an impeachable offense, the committee
permitted the accused to be represented by counsel and have process to
compel testimony.
Investigating committees do not always confine themselves within the
strict rules of evidence.
On December 29, 1826,\3\ the Speaker laid before the House the
following communication from the Vice-President of the United States:
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States.
Sir: You will please to lay before the House, over which you preside,
the inclosed communication, addressed to that body.
Very respectfully, yours, etc.,
J. C. Calhoun.
The inclosed communication was addressed ``to the honorable Members
of the House of Representatives,'' and began:
An imperious sense of duty and a sacred regard to the honor of the
station which I occupy compel me to approach your body, in its high
character of grand inquest of the nation. * * * In claiming the
investigation of the House I am sensible that under our free and happy
institutions the conduct of public servants is a fair subject of the
closest scrutiny; * * * but when such attacks assume the character of
impeachable offenses and become in some degree official by being placed
among the public records, an officer thus assailed, however base the
instrument used, if conscious of innocence, can look for refuge only to
the Hall of the immediate representatives of the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Eighth Congress, Journal, pp. 113, 331, 400 (Gales
& Seaton ed.); Annals, p. 1110.
\2\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, p. 741; Globe, p.
628.
\3\ Second session Nineteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 109, 110;
Debates, pp. 574, 576.
Sec. 1736
The letter goes on to state that charges had been filed in an
Executive Department that he had, while Secretary of War, corruptly
participated in the profits of a public contract. Therefore he
challenged the freest investigation by the House. The letter was signed
``J. C. Calhoun, Vice-President of the United States.''
The House, without division, referred the communication to a select
committee with power to send for persons and papers. Mr. John Floyd, of
Virginia, was chairman of this committee, and Mr. John C. Wright, of
Ohio, was second member.
On February 13, 1827,\1\ Mr. Wright submitted a report, which was
read and laid on the table.
Mr. Floyd ``submitted to the House a paper, also purporting to be a
report upon the same subject, and which contains the views of the
minority thereof, in relation to the subject-matter of inquiry, which
paper was read and also laid on the table.''
The report states that immediately after the committee assembled they
informed the Vice-President of their readiness to receive any
communication that he might see fit to make. The Vice-President, in his
response, expressed his wish that, to avoid the inconvenience of
communication by letter, he might be represented by Mr. George
McDuffie, a Member of the House. Mr. McDuffie had accordingly been
admitted. The report then reviews the charges and testimony, gives the
conclusions of the committee, and transmits the testimony and a written
protest by Mr. McDuffie against the methods by which the committee had
proceeded. This protest of Mr. McDuffie \2\ was against what he termed
the committee's departure--
from the fundamental principles of judicial investigation and the
established rules of judicial evidence.
In particular he objected that large quantities of testimony had been
admitted relative to the general administration of the War Department,
and disassociated from the specific charge committed to the committee;
also that on that charge private letters of Major Vandeventer to Elijah
Mix had been admitted as evidence against Mr. Calhoun, although they
were, as lawyers well knew, ``incompetent and improper testimony.'' Mr.
McDuffie also protested against hearsay evidence.
Admitting that it is proper for the committee to assume inquisitorial
powers in this investigation [he says], and in that character to ask of
the witnesses not only what they know, but what they have heard from
others, it must be exceedingly apparent that the only excusable
purpose, even of an inquisitorial kind, for which such questions could
be propounded, is the discovery of other witnesses, by whose evidence
the charges might be established.
The report also shows that at the instance of Mr. McDuffie subpnoeas
were issued for witnesses to testify in behalf of the Vice-President.
The report proposed no action by the House, therefore the House
disposed of it by ordering it to lie on the table and be printed, with
the accompanying documents and the views of the minority.
After this had been done Mr. John Forsyth, of Georgia, by leave of
the House, presented a letter signed C. Vandeventer, expressive of his
regret that the committee had not accompanied their report by a
communication of his explanatory of transactions as far as he was
concerned with the subject of investigation, and praying that it might
be received, and with accompanying documents be placed among the papers
presented by the committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, pp. 294, 295; Debates, pp. 1128-1150.
\2\ House Report No. 79, page 221.
Sec. 1737
Mr. Vandeventer, who was chief clerk of the War Department,
considered that the testimony presented by the committee contained
reflections on his conduct, and therefore he wished his explanation to
accompany those reflections.
Mr. Wright stated that the committee had received several such
communications; but as they did not consider them pertinent to the
inquiry committed to them, they had returned them to the senders. The
committee did not see why they should enter upon an investigation to
exculpate these individuals any more than all the other witnesses. They
could not be diverted from the main object of inquiry by unnecessary
investigations. To append documents and arguments to the report of the
committee for the purpose of exculpating a witness would be a novel
procedure, leading to many perplexities.
It was pointed out, on the other hand, that this man was a public
officer, who was about to be injured by the publication in a report of
matter reflecting on his character. But the reply was made that the
proper course in such a case was to do as the Vice-President had done--
ask for an investigation.
The House, without division, decided not to print the communication
with the report, but laid it on the table.\1\
1737. President Jackson resisted with vigor the attempt of a
committee of the House to secure his assistance in an investigation of
his Administration.
The motion to lay on the table is used in committees.
On January 23, 1837,\2\ the select committee appointed to investigate
the Executive Departments of the Government agreed to a series of
resolutions calling on the President and heads of Departments for
information of various kinds. One of these resolutions was as follows:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested, and
the heads of the several Executive Departments be directed, to furnish
this committee with a list, or lists, of all officers or agents, or
deputies, who have been appointed or employed and paid since the 4th of
March, 1829, to the 1st of December last (if any, without authority of
law, or whose Dames are not contained in the last printed register of
public officers, commonly called the ``Blue Book'') by the President or
either of the said heads of departments, respectively; and without
nomination to, or the advice and consent of the Senate of the United
States; showing the names of such officers or agents, or deputies; the
sums paid to each; the services rendered; and by what authority
appointed and paid; and what reasons for such appointments.
Resolved, That the various executive officers, in replying to the
foregoing resolution, be requested, at the same time, to furnish a
statement of the period at which any innovations, not authorized by
law, (if such exist), had their origin, their causes, and the necessity
which has required their continuance.
By order of the committee the chairman transmitted to the President
of the United States a copy of the above resolutions. The copy
transmitted in the letter of the chairman was attested by the clerk of
the committee.
On January 27 Mr. Andrew Jackson, Jr., secretary of the President,
entered the committee room and delivered to the chairman, Mr. Henry A.
Wise, of Virginia, a letter addressed to Mr. Wise and giving the
President's reasons for not complying
\1\ Journal, p. 295; Debates, pp. 1144-1150.
\2\ House Report No. 194, second session Twenty-fourth Congress, pp.
12, 13, 29-45; Journal of the committee, pp. 9, 10, 17, 23, 29, 45.
Sec. 1737
with the request of the committee. The President begins his letter by
saying that the resolution adopted by the House authorizing the
investigation raised an issue with his annual message, which had stated
that the Executive Departments were in excellent condition. After
referring to speeches made in the House by Mr. Wise and other Members
on this subject, and the appointment of the special committee, he says:
The first proceeding of the investigating committee is to pass a
series of resolutions, which, though amended in their passage, were, as
understood, introduced by you, calling on the President and the heads
of the Departments--not to answer to any specific charge; not to
explain any alleged abuse; not to give information as to any particular
transaction; but, assuming that they have been guilty of the charges
alleged, calls upon them to furnish evidence against themselves. After
the reiterated charges you have made, it was to have been expected that
you would have been prepared to reduce them to specifications, and that
the committee would then proceed to investigate the matters alleged.
But, instead of this, you resort to generalities even more vague than
your original accusations; and, in open violation of the Constitution,
and of that well-established and wise maxim ``that all men are presumed
to be innocent until proven guilty, according to the established rules
of law'' you request myself and the heads of the Departments to become
our own accusers, and to furnish the evidence to convict ourselves; and
this call purports to be founded on the authority of that body in which
alone, by the Constitution, the power of impeaching is vested. The
heads of Departments may answer such a request as they please, provided
they do not withdraw their own time and that of the officers under
their direction from the public business to the injury thereof. To that
business I shall direct them to devote themselves in preference to any
illegal and unconstitutional call for information, no matter from what
source it may come or however anxious they may be to meet it. For
myself, I shall repel all such attempts as an invasion of the
principles of justice, as well as of the Constitution; and I shall
esteem it my sacred duty to the people of the United States to resist
them as I would the establishment of a Spanish inquisition.
The President then lectures still further the chairman of the
committee, and concludes with an expression of astonishment that the
House should make such a call on the Executive when there were six
standing committees of the House specifically charged with examining
the details of expenditures in the Departments.
On January 30 Mr. Wise offered these resolutions in the committee:
Resolved, That the letter of the President of the United States,
dated the 26th instant, addressed to the chairman of this committee and
handed to him by the private secretary of the President in presence of
the committee, is an official attack of the Executive upon the
proceedings of the House of Representatives and of this committee, and
upon the privileges of Members of both Houses of Congress, and opposes
unlawful and unconstitutional resistance to the just powers of the
House of Representatives and of the committee: Therefore,
Resolved, That the chairman of the committee be directed to report to
the House his letter and the resolutions of this committee inclosed,
addressed to the President, and the letter of the President in reply
thereto, dated the 26th instant, and to submit to the consideration of
the House the propriety and necessity of adopting measures to defend
its proceedings; to protect the privileges of its Members; and to
enforce its just powers and those of its committees; to enable this
committee to discharge the duties devolved upon it by the resolution of
the 17th instant, adopted by the House of Representatives.
These resolutions were laid on the table by a vote of 6 yeas, 3 nays.
On February 1 an attempt was made to consider and amend them, but it
failed.
The committee in their report say:
Neither did the committee discover in the letter of the President any
attack upon the proceedings of the House or the privileges of its
Members, for the plain reason that neither the House nor its Members
have any privilege to call upon parties accused to criminate
themselves. Consequently they
Sec. 1738
could not sanction the resolution offered by the chairman to censure
the President for his emphatic repulsion of what he construed to mean
charges of personal accusation, and calls for self-crimination; nor
could they consent to put a stop to the public business by getting up a
debate in the House to enforce any pretended ``privilege'' of the House
or its committees to compel public officers to furnish evidence against
themselves.
Mr. Wise, in his minority views, argues at length the proposition
that the President, by his letter, invade the privileges and
prerogatives of the House.\1\
The various heads of Departments replied to the call of the committee
in a manner similar to the reply of the President, stating that they
could not furnish evidence to criminate themselves, as the committee
had demanded.
1738. In 1837 a committee discussed the authority of the House in
calling for papers from the Executive Departments and the kind of
papers properly subject to its demand.--On March 3, 1837,\2\ the select
committee appointed on January 17 to inquire into the condition of the
Executive Departments of the Government, made a report, which takes the
following view of the power to send for persons and papers:
One of the powers conferred on the committee by the resolution of the
House was the power to send for persons and papers. * * * At best, this
is a vague and not well-defined power; incidental, and not derived from
any express provision in the Constitution. In its exercise, therefore,
there should be some limitation; and it should be carefully used only
in cases where the direct legislation of Congress, the protection and
enforcement of the privileges and rules of either House, or manifest
public interest imperatively demand it. It is a judicial power, which
Congress can exercise merely as a power incidental to the power ``to
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.''
To construe it into an unlimited power for a committee of this House
to bring before them the persons of citizens from any part of the Union
at their own arbitrary will, without just cause, or to compel the
surrender of all papers which a committee might see fit to send for,
would be to set up an incidental power of the House nowhere expressly
recognized in the Constitution, which would totally annul one of the
express provisions of the Constitution, to secure the citizen against
these very outrages, viz, ``the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures.''
In applying this principle to the calls which were proposed, in this
investigation, upon the President and heads of Departments, for
statements and papers, the committee have considered that a public
officer is not put without the pale of the protection afforded to other
citizens against being required to furnish statements or evidence to
accuse himself; and against unreasonable demands for papers not
constituting a part of the public documents; and, in their opinion, the
call for papers ought to be limited to such as are already made and on
file in the Departments.
To every call for statements going to show any act of a public
officer without authority of law, and for papers coming within the
above description, the committee have uniformly responded in the
affirmative, while, as a general rule, they have felt bound to reject
all calls for statements touching motives and acts not shown to be
unlawful, if proved, and for all real or supposed papers, private in
their character, and not coming within the denomination of public
papers on file.
If it be contended that this distinction enables a public officer to
exclude from the files of his department whatever he chooses to
consider private and which ought to be placed there, the answer is that
this can not alter the powers of a committee of the House to send for
papers nor change the nature of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The majority of the committee who made the report consisted of
Messrs. Dutee J. Pearce, of Rhode Island; Henry A. Muhlenberg, of
Pennsylvania; Edward A. Hannegan, of Indiana; Gorham Parks, of Maine;
Abijah Mann, of New York, and John Chaney, of Ohio.
\2\ House Report No. 194, pp. 6 and 7, second session Twenty-fourth
Congress. The members of the committee joining in this report were
Messrs. Dutee J. Pearce, of Rhode Island; Henry A. Muhlenberg, of
Pennsylvania; Edward A. Hannegan, of Indiana; Gorham Parks, of Maine;
Abijah Mann, of New York, and John Chaney, of Ohio.
Sec. 1739
the call; and that, if any paper, shown to be of a public character,
and such as ought to be placed on file or record, is excluded there is
just ground of accusation against the officer for violation of duty.
But the bare suspicion that papers which ought to be on file are not
there can not warrant a call for all the personal and private papers of
such officer in order that the committee may decide by inspection
whether there are any which ought to go into the public files.
Besides, in calls made by Congress on the President or heads of
Departments, the reservation is impliedly established, by usage, of
such papers as, in their opinion, can not be communicated without
injury to the public service. Consequently, all calls for papers must
be subject to this discretion of the public officer of whom they are
required; and if he abuses that discretion he must be held responsible
for it in some other form of investigation into his official conduct.
1739. A committee of the House declined to prefer any charge against
a public officer before requiring him to furnish certain records of his
office.--In 1839,\1\ in the course of the investigation into the
affairs of the New York custom-house by a select committee, a call was
made upon the collector to furnish the committee with certain
correspondence. In response the collector questioned the authority of
the committee to make the demand on him, under the language of the
resolution creating the committee:
That the said committee be required to inquire into and make report
of any defalcations among the collectors, receivers, and disbursers of
the public money, which may now exist; the length of time they have
existed, and the causes which led to them.
This being the language, the collector requested, before he sent the
correspondence asked, that he be informed whether the committee or any
of its members charged him with being a defaulter.
The committee responded by repeating the call for the correspondence
and by agreeing to the following resolution:
Resolved, That this committee can not recognize any authority or
right whatever in any collector, receiver, or disburser of the public
money to call upon ``the committee,'' or ``any of its members,'' to
prefer or to disavow a charge of his ``being a defaulter,'' before such
officer sends ``the correspondence'' of his ``office,'' when required
under the authority of the House of Representatives ``to send for
persons and papers,'' to enable its committee ``to inquire into, and
make reports of, any defalcations among collectors, receivers, and
disbursers of the public money which may now exist;'' nor can this
committee or ``any of its members'' report whether Mr. Hoyt is or is
not now a defaulter until by examination of the ``persons and papers''
for which it has sent and will send it shall discover ``who are the
defaulters, the amount of defalcations, the length of time they have
existed, and the causes which led to them.'' And when the committee
shall have found the facts embraced by these inquiries or closed its
investigation it will make a report thereof to the House of
Representatives.
Collector Hoyt responded by asking a full investigation of his
accounts and transmitting the letters called for.
1740. In 1837 a committee took the view that the House might inquire
into alleged corrupt violations of duty by the Executive only with
impeachment in view.--On March 3, 1837,\2\ the select committee
appointed on January 17 to inquire into the condition of the Executive
Departments of the Government,\3\ made a report which takes the
following view of the investigation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, House Report No. 313, pp.
326, 349.
\2\ Second session Twenty-fourth Congress, House Report No. 194.
\3\ The committee consisted of Messrs. Henry A. Wise, of Virginia;
Dutee J. Pearce, of Rhode Island; Henry A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania;
Robert B. Campbell, of South Carolina; Edward A. Hannegan, of Indiana;
Gorham Parks, of Maine; Levi Lincoln, of Massachusetts; Abijah Mann, of
New York, and John Chaney, of Ohio. Messrs. Wise, Lincoln, and Campbell
did not concur in this report.
Sec. 1741
The power of the House to institute an inquiry of this kind into the
conduct of the Executive, directly personal in its application, can
nowhere exist, unless it be an incident of the ``sole power of
impeachment'' which is given to the House of Representatives by the
Constitution. This power extends to the President and all civil
officers of the United States on charges of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. Such, in effect, were the representations
upon which the resolution creating this committee was founded and the
necessity of its adoption urged before the House. Such is the nature of
the allegations formally put upon the journal of the committee by the
mover of the resolution in the House, the chairman. * * *
It follows, therefore, that the only constitutional power under which
the House of Representatives, as a coordinate branch of the Government,
could constitute a committee to inquire into alleged ``corrupt
violations of duty'' by another coordinate branch of the Government
(the Executive) is the ``power of impeachment.''
By the terms of the resolution referred to the committee, and by the
express declaration of the mover of that resolution, as well as by the
legal construction of the constitutional powers of the House, this
inquiry can not be brought within the only other clause of the
Constitution which, by any possible implication, can be made applicable
to it, viz: ``that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any department or officer
thereof.''
The allegation is nowhere made that the laws are defective in
relation to the ``powers vested in any Department or officer'' of the
Government, and that this inquiry is made to enable Congress to ``make
laws;'' but the charges are against the individual officers for
``corrupt violation'' of existing laws; and the ground is expressly
taken by the chairman, in his declaration under oath, ``that the whole
Government needs reform, and more patriotic and honest men to
administer it.''
The committee, therefore, conceive that they were fully warranted and
imperatively required to regard this investigation in the light of a
preliminary inquiry into facts and evidence to show whether a process
of impeachment ought not to be instituted by the House of
Representatives against the Executive and the heads of Departments.
1741. The House, in 1824, investigated, on application of the United
States minister to Mexico, a controversy on a public matter between him
and the Secretary of the Treasury.
The committee investigating charges against Secretary of the Treasury
W. H. Crawford permitted him to be represented by counsel and to
produce testimony.
Instance wherein a committee, empowered to sit during recess, was
directed to file its report with the Clerk of the House.
On April 19, 1824,\1\ the Speaker communicated to the House an
address of Ninian Edwards, late a Senator of the United States from the
State of Illinois, complaining that injustice had been done him in a
report from the Secretary of the Treasury, William H. Crawford,
accompanying the correspondence between the Treasury Department and the
banks in the different States upon the subject of the deposits of
public money in said banks, exculpating himself, and also preferring
certain charges against the said Secretary.
The address contained two general charges against the Secretary: One
of mismanaging the public funds, under which various illegal
transactions were alleged in reference to the deposit of the public
money in certain banks and the mode in which such moneys were allowed,
afterwards, to be repaid; the other, imputing to the Secretary the
suppression of papers and documents or failing to communicate them when
they ought to have been communicated in answer to resolutions of the
Houses of Congress.
\1\ First session Eighteenth Congress, Journal, p. 433; Annals, p.
2431.
Sec. 1741
In this address Mr. Edwards claims the right to be heard, not only
because such a right would be accorded to the humblest individual, but
because it was due also to the nation, in view of his late position as
Senator and his present position as minister to Mexico; and also
because of the exceptional circumstances of the case. He was called
upon by the House of Representatives at the last session and
was subjected to an examination which has not its parallel in the
records of any free country.
An attempt having been made to impeach his credibility, he should be
allowed to repel the attack.
Debate arose as to the disposition of the address. It was proposed to
print it, but Mr. Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, objected that it
was incompatible with the dignity of the House to convert it into an
arena where prominent men might carry on their personal contests. If an
investigation was to be made the letter might be printed for
information of the House, otherwise he should object.
The House finally adopted an order that the address be referred to a
select committee with power to send for persons and papers. Messrs.
John Floyd, of Virginia, Edward Livingston, of New York, Daniel
Webster, of Massachusetts, John Randolph, of Virginia, John W. Taylor,
of New York, Duncan McArthur, of Ohio, and George W. Owen, of Alabama,
were appointed on this committee.
On April 22 \1\ Mr. Floyd, by the instructions of the committee,
reported the following minutes of the proceedings of the committee:
Voted, That the committee ought to proceed to make inquiry into the
matters contained in the said communication and connected therewith.
Voted, That for the purpose of such inquiry the attendance of said
Ninian Edwards upon the committee, to be by them examined, is
requisite, and that his attendance be accordingly ordered.
Voted, That the chairman do inform the House of the foregoing
resolutions of the committee; and, inasmuch as it is suggested that the
said Ninian Edwards is about to leave the United States on foreign
diplomatic service,
Voted, That the chairman do move the House that information of the
said communication, of the votes of the House thereon, and of the
foregoing resolutions of the committee be communicated to the
President.
After debate this motion was agreed to.
On April 23 \2\ President Monroe, by message, acknowledged the
receipt of the resolution of the House, and informed the House that he
had already instructed Mr. Edwards not to proceed to his mission, but
to await the call of the committee of the House.
On May 25 \3\ Mr. Livingston made a report from the committee. The
report states that immediately upon their appointment the committee
communicated a copy of Mr. Edwards's address to the Secretary of the
Treasury and also ordered the attendance of Mr. Edwards. The report
then goes at length into the charges against the Secretary of the
Treasury and appends, with other documents, the answer, in writing, to
the charges of Mr. Edwards. The Secretary did not appear personally
before the committee, but in his response he states that he is willing
to do so. The committee state that the investigation should not be
terminated until
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 445; Annals, p. 2471.
\2\ Journal, p. 448; Annals, p. 2480.
\3\ Journal, pp. 579, 580, 589, 590; Annals, pp. 2713, 2761, 2766;
House Report No. 128.
Sec. 1742
Mr. Edwards shall have been examined, and recommend that they be
allowed to sit in the recess after the adjournment of the session in
order to complete the work.
Mr. Livingston then moved the adoption of the following:
Ordered, That the committee to which was referred the address of
Ninian Edwards be required to sit after the adjournment of the House
for such time as shall be necessary in their judgment for further
examination; that any additional report which may be made by them be
filed in the office of the Clerk of the House; and that any three
members of the committee be a quorum for the transaction of business.
After debate, on May 26, the House struck out that portion of the
order making three members of the committee a quorum and added a clause
providing that the report, after being filed with the Clerk, should be
by him printed and forwarded to Members of Congress.
A further order, adopted May 27,\1\ empowering the Clerk to pay
witnesses and the expenses of subpoenaing them, on certificate of the
chairman, closed the proceedings of the House.
In making their final report,\2\ the committee state that Mr. Edwards
attended the committee in obedience to summons, was examined as a
witness (under oath), was cross-examined by a gentleman attending on
behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, and this testimony, together
with various documents and reports were communicated as part of the
report. A paper in reply to the communication heretofore received by
the committee from the Secretary, and another in the nature of an
argument on the whole case, had also been presented by Mr. Edwards and
considered by the committee. The committee express the opinion that
nothing had been proved to impeach the integrity of the Secretary, but
beyond that statement content themselves with presenting the facts and
testimony.
An examination of the report shows that among those summoned and
examined as witnesses were United States Senators Thomas H. Benton, of
Missouri, and James Noble, of Indiana.\3\ Also several Members of the
House were examined.
It appears from the report that during the examination before the
committee the Secretary of the Treasury was permitted to be represented
by counsel and to summon witnesses in his own behalf.
1742. A letter from an individual, charging an officer of the Army
with corruption, was considered and an investigation was ordered.--On
April 13, 1816,\4\ the Speaker laid before the House a letter from
William Simmons, late accountant of the War Department, charging Col.
James Thomas, deputy quartermaster-general in the armies of the United
States, with fraud and misapplication of public moneys, which was read
and laid on the table.\5\
The following resolution was then presented by a Member:
Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed to inquire
into the state of the accounts rendered and settled of James Thomas,
late a deputy quartermaster-general of the United States, and also to
examine all accounts connected therewith; that the said committee have
power to send for persons and effects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Journal, p. 601.
\2\ Annals, p. 2770.
\3\ As this examination occurred in the recess of Congress it was
impossible to obtain permission of the Senate for their attendance as
witnesses.
\4\ First session Fourteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 465, 701; Annals,
p. 1199.
\5\ Under the present usages of the House, such letters, which are in
the nature of memorials, are not presented in open House, but are
referred through the Clerk. (See sec. 3364 of Vol. IV of this work.)
Sec. 1743
There was objection to this resolution on the ground that information
on the subject had already been called for from the proper Department;
that it was improper to countenance individuals in bringing private
quarrels to Congress; that the letter was not couched in proper terms;
and that the power to send for persons and papers should not be lightly
given.
On the other hand, it was agreed that every person who came before
the House on a matter of public concern was entitled to a hearing, and
that the circumstances of the case suggested the propriety of an
investigation.
The resolution was agreed to, and the committee, on April 24,
reported the results of the inquiry.
1743. While a committee of the House reported it inexpedient for the
House to investigate the charges of a subordinate against a captain in
the Navy, they expressly asserted the power of the House so to do.--On
February 22, 1839,\1\ Mr. Charles Naylor, of Pennsylvania, from the
select committee appointed on the 14th instant, ``to inquire into the
official conduct of Capt. Jesse D. Elliott, of the United States Navy,
while in command of the squadron in the Mediterranean, in the years
1837 and 1838, and particularly into the allegations of tyranny and
oppression toward the officers under his command,'' and to which was
also referred, on the same day, the letter from the Secretary of the
Navy transmitting copies of the charges preferred by Charles C. Barton,
a passed midshipman, against the said Captain Elliott, made a report
\2\ under the direction of a majority of said committee, recommending
the adoption of the following resolutions, viz:
Resolved, That an interference by the House of Representatives in the
disputes that occur between subordinate officers of the Navy and their
superiors, commanding squadrons, is a power which ought at all times to
be exercised with great caution, and is calculated to produce
insubordination in that important arm of the national defense; but, in
the opinion of this committee, it is competent for the representatives
of the people to investigate any abuses alleged to be committed by
officers in command of squadrons, and to provide, by law, against a
recurrence of such abuses; and, moreover, to investigate and ascertain
whether the head of the Navy Department may have used such means as are
placed in his hands by law to punish and prevent any such alleged
abuses.
Resolved, That the most appropriate remedy for such subordinate
officers is an appeal to the Secretary of the Navy for a court of
inquiry to investigate the charges exhibited against their superiors;
and from this decision the party aggrieved may appeal to the President,
who, by the Constitution, is Commander in Chief of the Navy, he as well
as the Secretary being liable to impeachment for a willful or corrupt
violation or neglect of duty.
Then follow other resolutions reciting that for lack of time it is
inexpedient for the House to undertake the investigation.
Mr. Seargent S. Prentiss, of Mississippi, moved to recommit the
report, with instructions to strike out from the resolutions such parts
as related to the propriety of the investigation.
Pending consideration of this motion the whole subject was laid on
the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 543, 633;
Globe, p. 201. The Members of this committee were: Messrs. Naylor;
Ogden; Hoffman, of New York; Samuel Ingham, of Connecticut; Francis
Mallory, of Virginia; Thomas L. Hamer, of Ohio, and Francis S. Lyon, of
Alabama.
\2\ House Report No. 295. No one, either of majority or minority,
questioned the right of the House to investigate.
Sec. 1744
1744. The House determined to investigate an allegation that the
decision of the Senate in an impeachment case had been determined by
improper influences.
The question of order being raised that a pending resolution
reflected on the Senate, the Speaker held that it was a matter for the
House and not the Chair to pass on.
On May 16, 1868,\1\ Mr. John A. Bingham, of Ohio, from the Managers
of the impeachment of the President, offered the following resolution:
Whereas information has come to the Managers which seems to them to
furnish probable cause to believe that corrupt means have been used to
influence the determination of the Senate upon the articles of
impeachment exhibited to the Senate by the House of Representatives
against the President of the United States; Therefore,
Be it resolved, That for the further and more efficient prosecution
of the impeachment of the President, the Managers be directed and
instructed to summon and examine witnesses under oath, to send for
persons and papers, to employ a stenographer, and to appoint a
subcommittee to take testimony, the expenses thereof to be paid from
the contingent fund of the House.
Mr. John W. Chanler, of New York, made the point of order that as
this resolution reflected on the Senate it was not proper for the House
to consider it.
The Speaker \2\ held that the Chair could not decide that question,
it being a question for the consideration of the House.
The House agreed to the preamble and resolution, yeas 88, nays 14.
1745. An instance wherein the House investigated political troubles
within a State.--In 1845 \3\ the House investigated the troubles within
the State of Rhode Island, caused by the efforts to substitute a
constitution for the old colonial charter.
1746. Various instances of investigations by the House.--On February
28, 1876,\4\ the House, on recommendation of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, directed that committee to investigate into the connection of
the United States minister at the court of St. James with the Emma
mine, so called.
1747. In 1879 \5\ a committee of the House investigated the conduct
of Supervisor of Elections John I. Davenport, of New York, appointed by
a judge of the United States circuit court and not removable by
impeachment.
1748. On May 12, 1892,\6\ the House authorized the investigation of
the employment of Pinkerton detectives by companies engaged in
interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails.
1749. The Speaker has considered it his duty to lay before the House
a communication from a suspended consul-general who asked an
investigation.--On January 23, 1878,\7\ Mr. Speaker Randall laid before
the House a letter from John C. Myers, ``consul-general (under
suspension) at Shanghai, China,''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fortieth Congress; Globe, p. 2503; Journal, p.
698.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ First session Twenty-eighth Congress, House Reports Nos. 546,
581.
\4\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 1345; Journal, p.
470.
\5\ Third session Forty-fifth Congress, House Report No. 135.
\6\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Record, p. 4222.
\7\ Second session Forty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 504.
Sec. 1749
addressed to the Speaker, requesting that an inclosed statement of the
condition of his office be presented to the House and that an
investigation be made.
Mr. Omar D. Conger, of Michigan, raised the question that the
communication should be sent to the Department.
The Speaker said:
This was sent to the Speaker, and it is the duty of the Speaker to
transfer it to the House. The House can then do with it what it
pleases.
The communication was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.