[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3]
[Chapter 57 - Inquiries of the Executive]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                      INQUIRIES OF THE EXECUTIVE.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

   1. The rule and growth of practice. Section 1856.\1\
   2. Privilege of resolutions of inquiry. Sections 1857-1864.
   3. Action when committee fails to report resolution, Sections 
     1865-1971.
   4. Forms of resolution held within the privilege. Sections 
     1872-1878.
   5. The resolution of inquiry as a substitute for personal 
     attendance of executive officers. Sections 1879-1883.
   6. Conflicts with the Executive over. Sections 1884-1894.\2\
   7. Form of request in inquiring of President and direction as 
     to other officers. Sections 1895-1910.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  1856. Committees are required to report resolutions of inquiry back 
to the House within one week of the reference.
  As to the use of the words ``request'' and ``direct'' in resolutions 
of inquiry addressed to the Executive.
  Form and history of section 5 of Rule XXII.
  Section 5 of Rule XXII provides:

  All resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads of Executive 
Departments shall be reported to the House within one week after 
presentation.

  From its earliest days the House has exercised the right to call on 
the President and heads of Departments for information.\3\ On December 
12, 1820,\4\ a rule was proposed that--

a proposition requesting information from the President of the United 
States, or directing \5\ it to be furnished by the head of either of 
the Executive Departments or by the Postmaster-General, shall lie on 
the table one day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Resolutions of inquiry in early days taken to the President by a 
committee. Section 1726 of this volume.
  \2\ In some cases the President has refused to transmit documents 
relating to treaties (secs. 1509, 1518, Vol. II) and in others has 
responded to the inquiry (secs. 1510, 1512, Vol. II).
  \3\ Second session Fourth Congress, Journal, p. 634; second session 
Ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 533-536; Annals, pp. 334-459.
  \4\ Second session Sixteenth Congress, Journal, pp. 67, 70.
  \5\ The use of the words ``request'' and ``direct'' in this form of 
the rule simply embodied the prior practice of the House. For Cabinet 
officers the House used the words ``be directed to'' or ``be required 
to.'' See instances in 1815. (First session Fourteenth Congress, 
Journal, pp. 92, 201, 206, 262.) But in resolutions of inquiry to the 
President the words ``be requested'' were usually employed, and 
sometimes the words ``if, in his opinion, it will not be inconsistent 
with the public welfare'' were added. (See Journal of first session 
Fourteenth Congress, pp. 122, 227, 310, etc.; also Mr. Daniel Webster's 
resolutions, first session Thirteenth Congress, Annals, pp. 150, 170, 
302-311.)
Sec. 1857
  The object of this was to cause greater care and deliberation in 
making demands. This proposition was adopted, and on January 22, 
1822,\1\ the rule was amended to give them consideration after reports 
of committees, and providing that the Clerk should cause the same to be 
delivered. Before this time the House had appointed a committee to 
present resolutions of inquiry to the President.\2\
  The rule of 1820 \3\ with reference to resolutions of inquiry existed 
until May 1, 1879, when Mr. Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, from 
the Committee on Rules, presented a resolution providing that in the 
call for resolutions every Monday \4\ resolutions of inquiry might be 
introduced and referred, and that the committee should be privileged to 
report them at any time. Mr. John H. Baker, of Indiana, proposed an 
amendment providing that the committee should report on the resolution 
within one week. With this amendment, the resolution was agreed to. Mr. 
Randall stated that the new rule was intended to give greater facility 
to Members who had, under the old arrangement, been forced to seek 
unanimous consent to get resolutions adopted. The reference to a 
committee would prevent abuse of the privilege. Mr. Alexander H. 
Stephens, of Georgia, recalled that when he entered Congress, in 1843, 
such resolutions were introduced in large numbers and sometimes, 
without information, the House imposed great labors on the Executive 
Departments. The reference to committee would obviate that. When the 
rules were revised in 1880,\5\ this rule, which was Rule No. 130 in the 
old system, became section 1 of Rule XXIV. Section 1 then referred to 
the call of the States and Territories each Monday for the introduction 
of bills and resolutions, and when that call was abolished, in 1890,\6\ 
the portion relating to resolutions of inquiry became a new section of 
Rule XXII, which is the present form.
  1857. A resolution of inquiry is not privileged for consideration 
until it has been referred to a committee, and then only under 
conditions prescribed by the rules.--On January 3, 1900,\7\ Mr. William 
Sulzer, of New York, offered as a privileged matter a resolution of 
inquiry relative to certain alleged transactions of the Secretary of 
the Treasury with certain national banks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 174; Annals, p. 
756.
  \2\ See instance January 18, 1819. Second session Fifteenth Congress, 
Journal, p. 195.
  \3\ First session Forty-sixth Congress, Journal, p. 224; Record, p. 
1018, 1019. As early as 1872 Mr. Luke P. Poland, of Vermont, had 
proposed a rule that resolutions of inquiry should be referred to 
committees, with the privilege of reporting at any time.
  \4\ Under the present rules all bills and resolutions are introduced 
by laying them on the Clerk's table.
  \5\ Second session Forty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 206.
  \6\ First session Fifty-first Congress, House Report No. 23. 
Resolutions sometimes direct or request that the reply be made at the 
next session of the same Congress. (First session Nineteenth Congress, 
Journal, pp. 602, 603, May 19, 1826.) For discussion of the rights of 
the two Houses in asking information see proceedings of the Senate from 
March 9 to 26, 1886. (First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 
2211, 2246, 2291, 2328, 2528, 2615, 2653, 2693, 2737, 2784.) For an 
instance wherein the House asked information in detail from the 
President see Mr. Daniel Webster's resolutions in 1813. (First session 
Thirteenth Congress, Annals, pp. 150, 170, 302-311, 433.)
  \7\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 635.
                                                            Sec. 1858
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  This is in no sense a resolution of privilege, but must go to the 
Speaker, to be referred to the appropriate committee, under Rule XXII.
  The Chair calls attention to paragraph 3 of Rule XXII. After 
referring in paragraph 1 to private resolutions, it says:
  ``3. All other bills, memorials, and resolutions may in like manner 
be delivered, indorsed with the names of Members introducing them, to 
the Speaker, to be by him referred.''
  The titles, etc., to be indorsed thereon.
  Paragraph 5 of Rule XXII provides that ``All resolutions of inquiry 
addressed to the heads of Executive Departments shall be reported to 
the House within one week after presentation.''
  The rules are not only distinct and explicit in saying what shall be 
done with these resolutions of inquiry, but the practice as long and 
well settled must certainly be known to the gentleman from New York. 
The rules are so explicit also that no harm can come, as the committee 
is bound under the rules to report within one week. The Chair therefore 
rules the matter to be not privileged, and not in order for immediate 
consideration.

  1858. The week's time required to make a resolution of inquiry 
privileged is seven days, exclusive of either the first or last day.--
On July 1, 1902,\2\ Mr. William Sulzer, of New York, claiming the floor 
for a privileged motion moved to discharge the Committee on Military 
Affairs from the consideration of a resolution which he described as a 
resolution of inquiry relating to the army transport service.
  Mr. John A. T. Hull, of Iowa, made the point of order that the motion 
was not yet privileged.
  The Speaker \1\ said:

  This resolution was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs 
June 25. Only six days have elapsed; so it is not yet privileged. * * * 
In order to make it seven days we would have to count the first and the 
last days. * * * The rule says one week, if the Chair remembers right. 
* * * Within one week after the introduction. This is clearly not 
privileged as yet.

  1859. On March 3, 1905,\3\ Mr. Willard D. Vandiver, of Missouri, as a 
privileged question, moved to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary 
from the further consideration of a resolution of inquiry relating to 
the so-called armor-plate trust.
  Mr. John J. Jenkins, of Wisconsin, having raised a question that the 
motion was not privileged, the Speaker \4\ said:

  This resolution seems to have been introduced February 24, and this 
is the 3d day of March. The week's time required to make a resolution 
of inquiry privileged is * * * seven days, exclusive of either the 
first or the last day, but not exclusive of both.

  1860. A resolution authorizing a committee to request information has 
been treated as a resolution of inquiry.--On December 8, 1903,\5\ Mr. 
Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, from the Committee on the Post-Office and 
Post-Roads, reported the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads is 
hereby authorized to request the Postmaster-General to send to the 
committee all papers connected with the recent investigation of his 
Department.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 7771.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 4019.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 51-54.
Sec. 1861
  Mr. Irving P. Wanger, of Pennsylvania, proposing to object, the 
Speaker \1\ said:

  The Chair will state that on examining the resolution it seems to be 
a report from the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads of a 
resolution of inquiry, and, in the opinion of the Chair, does not 
require unanimous consent. The question therefore is on agreeing to the 
resolution.

  Later, the previous question having in the meantime been ordered, Mr. 
James D. Richardson, of Tennessee, made the point of order that the 
resolution was not privileged.
  After debate, the Speaker said:

  The Chair does not desire to hear further discussion. If the point of 
order were well taken, it comes too late; and the previous question 
having been ordered, it is not necessary for the Chair to rule. But the 
Chair is of opinion at this time that if the point of order had been 
made in apt time the Chair would have overruled the point of order. The 
resolution comes in an unusual form, it is true, but the object of the 
resolution is to obtain information-- ``the letter killeth, but the 
spirit giveth life;'' and therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the 
resolution is in order.

  1861. Only resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads of Executive 
Departments are privileged.--On January 27, 1891,\2\ Mr. Benjamin A. 
Enloe, of Tennessee, on the ground of its being a question of 
privilege, submitted a resolution requesting certain information from 
the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
  The resolution having been read, the Speaker \3\ ruled that it did 
not present a privileged question, for the reason that under clause 5 
of Rule XXII only ``resolutions of inquiry addressed to the heads of 
Executive Departments'' were required to be reported to the House 
within one week after presentation, thus presenting under the practice 
a privileged question when it was alleged that the rule had not been 
complied with.
  1862. On March 12, 1904,\4\ Mr. Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, from the Committee on Reform in the Civil Service, 
submitted as privileged a report on the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the President of the Civil Service Commission be, and 
he is hereby, directed to inform the House of Representatives, as 
follows:
  In how many cases the civil-service law and the regulations made 
thereunder have been suspended, and by whom, since the 4th day of 
March, 1885, giving, with said information, the dates of all such 
suspensions, and where such suspensions have operated to put in office 
individuals who otherwise could not have been appointed, the names of 
such individuals, and the date of the suspension of said civil-service 
law and the regulations made thereunder, in each individual case.

  The Speaker \1\ said:

  As the Chair understands, this is not a privileged matter under the 
rules, as it is not a resolution calling upon the head of a Department, 
but upon the Civil Service Commission. Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts ask its consideration now?

  Thereupon, by unanimous consent, the resolution was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Journal, p. 188; Record, p. 
1874.
  \3\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 3181.
                                                            Sec. 1863
  1863. On February 4, 1904,\1\ Mr. Edgar D. Crumpacker, of Indiana, 
from the Committee on the Census, reported as privileged the following 
resolution:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Director of the 
Census be, and he is hereby, directed to inform the House what persons 
have been selected and employed by him and the dates and periods of 
time for which such persons have been employed in the Census Office 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1903, which provided as 
follows, etc.: * * *
  And how long such employees have continued under such appointment, 
and, if such appointments were discontinued, for what reasons they were 
so discontinued.

  The resolution having been read, the Speaker, said:

  The Chair desires to say that the Chair is of opinion that this is 
not a matter of privilege. It is not in the language of the rule 
addressed to the head of an Executive Department. The Chair merely 
wants to call the attention of the gentleman to the fact. Is there 
objection?

  There being no objection, the resolution was, by unanimous consent, 
considered.
  1864. The privilege of resolutions of inquiry applies to those 
addressed to the President of the United States.--On January 29, 
1906,\3\ Mr. Oscar W. Gillespie, of Texas, claiming the floor for a 
privileged question, moved to discharge the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce from consideration of the following resolution of 
inquiry, which had been referred to that committee more than one week 
previously:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he is 
hereby, requested to report to the House of Representatives, for its 
information, all the facts within the knowledge of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission which shows or tends to show that there exists at 
this time, or heretofore within the last twelve months has existed, a 
combination or arrangement between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 
the Pennsylvania Company, the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, the 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the Philadelphia, Baltimore and 
Washington Railroad Company, the Northern Central Railway Company, and 
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, or any two or more of said 
railroad companies, in violation of the act passed July 2, 1890, and 
entitled ``An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful 
restraints and monopolies,'' or acts amendatory thereof.

  The motion was agreed to, and then the resolution, being before the 
House, was agreed to after it had been amended on motion of Mr. Sereno 
E. Payne, of New York, by the insertion of the words--

if not incompatible with the public interests.

  Mr. John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, having moved to reconsider, a 
question arose as to the form of the resolution, Mr. Dalzell saying:

  Mr. Speaker, the President is not the head of a Department within the 
meaning of that rule. But, in the second place, if that information 
ought to be had by reason of an inquiry addressed to the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, and it is sought to evade the rule because that is 
not an Executive Department, then this resolution can not be made 
privileged by addressing it to the President of the United States.

  The Speaker \2\ said:

  The Chair does not know that he ought to rule on a subject not before 
the House, but if before the House the Chair would be prepared to rule; 
and perhaps by unanimous consent the Chair may be indulged in an 
informal expression of opinion, which he might not possibly be bound 
by, as to whether
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress. Record, p. 1643.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ First session a Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1701, 1702.
Sec. 1865
the President is the head of the Executive Departments. Now, it seems 
to the Chair, under a fair construction of this rule, that the 
President is the head not only of one but all the Executive 
Departments. The Chair only intimates what he would hold as at present 
advised if the question were before the House.

  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table, yeas 122, nays 93.\1\
  1865. A committee not having reported a resolution of inquiry within 
the time fixed by the rule, the House may reach the resolution only by 
a motion to discharge the committee from its consideration. On June 29, 
1886,\2\ Mr. John M. Glover, of Missouri, as a privileged question, 
moved that the Committee on Expenditures in the Treasury Department be 
discharged from the consideration of a resolution of inquiry relating 
to alleged frauds in the revenue, and that the resolution be put on its 
passage.
  The Speaker \3\ said:

  The gentleman may move to discharge the committee from the further 
consideration of the resolution, but that is the extent of his motion. 
* * * When the committee is discharged then the resolution is before 
the House, but the question of consideration can be raised against it 
by one Member.

  Mr. Glover having made the proper motion was proceeding to debate, 
when he was called to order by Mr. Nathaniel J. Hammond, of Georgia.
  The Speaker said:

  There is nothing before the House except the simple motion to 
discharge the committee. The merits of the resolution pending before 
the committee are not before the House for discussion.

  The motion to discharge the committee was disagreed to.
  Mr. Glover then moved that the committee be directed to report the 
resolution within a given time.
  The Speaker said:

  That is not a privileged motion. The privileged motion is to 
discharge the committee.

  Mr. John A. Anderson, of Kansas, made the point of order that, the 
resolution not having been reported within the time prescribed by the 
rule, the committee having custody of the same was thereby discharged 
from the consideration of it.
  The Speaker overruled the point of order, and held that the committee 
could only be discharged by motion, which the House had just refused to 
do.
  1866. A resolution of inquiry not being reported back within one 
week, a motion to discharge the committee from the consideration of it 
presents a privileged question.--On April 25, 1882,\4\ Mr. William E. 
Robinson, of New York, moved, as a matter of privilege, to discharge 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs from the consideration of a resolution 
relating to alleged imprisonment of American citizens abroad, which had 
been referred to the committee more than a week previous.
  Mr. John A. Anderson, of Iowa, made the point of order that the 
motion did not present a question of privilege.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ On December 26, 1832, after several days of debate, the House 
agreed to a resolution calling on the President for a list of 
appointments of Members of Congress to offices. (Journal, 2d sess., 22d 
Cong., pp. 80, 97; Debates, pp. 901-911.)
  \2\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 2036; Record, pp. 
6283, 6284.
  \3\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \4\ First session Forty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 1124; Record, 
p. 3275.
                                                            Sec. 1867
  The Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The resolution, from the further consideration of which it is sought 
to discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a resolution of 
inquiry, and originally introduced as such and referred to that 
committee. Upon being reported back to the House it was recommitted to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs with certain instructions. The Chair 
holds, in the first place, that the resolution, upon being recommitted 
to the committee, holds the same relation to the committee and the same 
right under the rules of the House to be considered by the committee 
and reported back in the same time as if it had been an original 
resolution of inquiry referred to them at the time of its recommitment. 
Under the last clause of paragraph 1 of Rule XXIV \2\ the committees of 
the House are required to report resolutions of inquiry directed to 
heads of Executive Departments back within one week from the time of 
their reference. This being so, the question now before us is, Is it a 
question of privilege to ask to discharge the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs from the further consideration of the resolution of inquiry as 
recommitted?
  The Chair holds that this is a matter affecting the order of the 
business of the House. There may be perfectly good, wise, and valid 
reasons why the committee have not reported back the resolution, but 
the Chair is inclined to hold that the House may control the matter, 
and after the time has expired for reporting the resolution back the 
House has a right, as a matter of privilege, to call upon the committee 
to report it back or to discharge the committee from its further 
consideration. The Chair therefore holds that the resolution presented 
by the gentleman from New York, in so far as it seeks to discharge the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs from further consideration of the 
resolution of inquiry, is a matter of privilege, and therefore 
overrules the point of order.

  1867. On April 28, 1886,\3\ Mr. W. P. Taulbee, of Kentucky, claiming 
the floor for a privileged motion, moved that the Committee on Reform 
of the Civil Service be discharged from the further consideration of a 
resolution of inquiry as to certain alleged practices in the Treasury 
Department, which had been referred to the committee more than a week 
previous.
  The Speaker \4\ held the motion to be out of order, but stated that a 
motion to instruct the committee to report the resolution within a 
given time would be in order.
  1868. On February 10, 1891,\5\ Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, 
called attention of the House that a resolution of inquiry concerning 
the execution of the law relating to the National Geological Park, 
which had been referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Treasury Department, had not been reported within the time required by 
the rules, and offered as privileged a motion to discharge the 
committee from the consideration of the resolution.
  Mr. Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, having made the point of order 
that no question of privilege was involved, the Speaker \6\ ruled that 
this was a privileged question, but not a question of privilege. The 
gentleman from Tennessee was entitled to have the question decided 
whether or not the committee should be discharged. That, however, was a 
question of procedure, to be decided without debate. The question of 
the priority of business was not debatable.\7\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ J. Warren Keifer, of Ohio, Speaker.
  \2\ Now section 5 of Rule XXII. (See see. 1856 of this chapter.)
  \3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 1420; Record, pp. 
3929, 3930.
  \4\ John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, Speaker.
  \5\ Second session Fifty-first Congress, Record, pp. 2456, 2457.
  \6\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
  \7\ See Rule XXV. Section 3061 of Volume IV of this work.
Sec. 1869
  1869. On March 18, 1892,\1\ Mr. Allen R. Bushnell, of Wisconsin, as a 
privileged question, moved to discharge the Committee on Rivers and 
Harbors from the consideration of a resolution of inquiry requesting of 
the Secretary of War and Attorney-General information relating to 
alleged injuries to the navigation of the upper Mississippi River. This 
resolution had not been reported within the time prescribed by the 
rule.
  Mr. John Lind, of Minnesota, made the point of order that the motion 
was not privileged because the resolution was erroneously referred to 
the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and that committee had no 
jurisdiction of the subject.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order, holding that the 
resolution might have been properly referred to either the Committee on 
Rivers and Harbors or the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
  1870. On July 15, 1892,\3\ Mr. Benjamin A. Enloe, of Tennessee, 
moved, as a privileged motion, to discharge the Committee on the Post-
Office and Post-Roads from the consideration of a resolution of inquiry 
requesting the Postmaster-General to transmit certain information to 
the House, the resolution having been referred to the committee more 
than a week previous.
  Mr. Christopher A. Bergen, of New Jersey, and Air. Albert J. Hopkins, 
of Illinois, submitted the point of order that the motion was not 
privileged.
  The Speaker \2\ overruled the point of order on the ground that, it 
being the duty of the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads to 
report the resolution within one week after its reference, on its 
failure to so report it a motion to discharge the committee was 
privileged. The Speaker also held that the duty to report within one 
week carried with it the right to report at any time during that 
period, and, if delayed, the right to report at any time thereafter, 
and consequently the right of consideration when reported.
  1871. At the expiration of a week a motion to discharge a committee 
from the consideration of a resolution of inquiry is privileged, 
although the resolution may have been delayed in reaching the 
committee.--On September 22, 1893 \4\ Mr. Eugene F. Loud, of 
California, as a privileged motion, moved that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from the consideration of a resolution of 
inquiry requesting information from the Attorney-General as to the 
enforcement of the ``Chinese-exclusion act.''
  Mr. Loud alleged, as a ground for his motion, that the resolution had 
been presented and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary one week 
ago.
  Mr. William C. Oates, of Alabama, submitted the point that the 
resolution had not been before the committee, and that the motion of 
Mr. Loud was, therefore, not in order.
  It appeared that the resolution was introduced and referred to the 
committee one week before, but was not delivered to the committee until 
four days thereafter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 107; Record, p. 
2192.
  \2\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-second Congress, Journal, p. 296; Record, p. 
6218.
  \4\ First session Fifty-third Congress, Journal, pp. 106, 107.
                                                            Sec. 1872
  The Speaker \1\ overruled the point made by Mr. Oates and held that, 
pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXII, resolutions of inquiry are required 
to be reported within one week \2\ from their presentation to the 
House, regardless of the time when they may be actually delivered to 
the committee, and that the motion of Mr. Loud was, therefore, 
privileged.
  1872. A resolution of inquiry, to enjoy its privilege, should call 
for facts rather than opinions and should not require an 
investigation.--On December 19, 1905,\3\ Mr. Webster E. Brown, of 
Wisconsin, from the Committee on Mines and Mining, reported back from 
that committee this resolution, with a favorable recommendation:

  Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, 
requested to furnish to Congress a report on the progress of the 
investigation of the black sands of the Pacific slope, authority for 
which was included in that section of the sundry civil act approved 
March 3, 1905, which provided for the preparation of the report on the 
mineral resources of the United States, and for his opinion as to 
whether or not this investigation should be continued.

  A question arose as to whether or not this resolution was privileged 
as a resolution of inquiry, whereupon the Speaker \4\ held:

  The Chair thinks the first part of the resolution privileged. The 
latter part is not privileged, and that destroys the privilege of the 
whole resolution.

  1873. On January 18, 1906,\5\ Mr. Oscar W. Gillespie, of Texas, 
claimed the floor for a privileged motion in order to move to discharge 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce from the further 
consideration of the following resolution, which had been referred to 
that committee more than a week previously:

  Resolved, That the Attorney-General of the United States be, and he 
is hereby, requested to forthwith report to the House of 
Representatives, for its information, whether there exists at this 
time, or heretofore within the last twelve months there has existed, a 
combination or arrangement between the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 
the Pennsylvania Company, the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, the 
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, the Philadelphia, Baltimore and 
Washington Railroad Company, and the Northern Central Railway Company, 
and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, or any two or more of said 
railroad companies, in violation of the act passed July 2, 1890, and 
entitled ``An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful 
restraints and monopolies,'' or acts amendatory thereof; and the said 
Attorney-General is also requested to report to this House all the 
facts upon which he bases his conclusion.

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
resolution was not privileged, as it asked for an opinion of the 
Attorney-General as well as for facts.
  After debate, the Speaker \4\ said:

  The House undoubtedly has power to call for facts. And under the 
rule, where a resolution privileged within the meaning of the rule is 
referred to a committee and is not reported within a certain time, it 
is in order to move to discharge the committee and bring the resolution 
before the House for consideration. But that rule applies to a 
resolution calling for facts and information. Now, the query
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, Speaker.
  \2\ In the rules of the Fifty-third Congress this section was 
numbered 4, instead of 5, as at present.
  \3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 591-593.
  \4\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \5\ First session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 1240.
Sec. 1874
the Chair puts to the gentleman is, Does not the concluding lines in 
these words, ``and the facts upon which he bases his conclusion,'' show 
that what is practically asked for is the conclusion or opinion of the 
Attorney-General or the head of the Department of Justice, and does not 
that destroy, under the rule, the privileged character of the 
resolution? * * * In reading the resolution without the last line the 
Chair might perhaps have a doubt as to whether it were a resolution of 
inquiry asking for facts or one asking for an opinion. Now, the Chair 
is perfectly clear that, under the precedents, if the resolution is to 
be made privileged, it must be a resolution of inquiry as to facts 
existing--something in esse. It seems to the Chair that a resolution 
asking an opinion from the head of a Department would not be 
privileged. While it is in the power, the Chair apprehends, for the 
House by resolution to ask an opinion of the head of a Department, it 
occurs to the Chair that such a resolution would not be privileged and 
would not come within the rule that is now invoked. But whatever the 
ruling of the Chair might be, were it not for the concluding line or 
lines of the resolution it is perfectly patent to the Chair that what 
is desired by the resolution is not the facts alone, if at all, but the 
conclusion or opinion of the Attorney-General. Therefore the Chair 
sustains the point of order.

  1874. On February 13, 1906,\1\ Mr. Oscar W. Gillespie, of Texas, 
moved to discharge the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads from 
the consideration of the following resolution of inquiry, which had 
been referred to that committee more than one week previously:

  Resolved, That the Postmaster-General be, and he is hereby, requested 
to furnish the House, at his earliest convenience, a comparative 
statement showing the cost to the Government for the transportation of 
the mails per ton per mile by the railroads and the cost of 
transporting express matter per ton per mile by the railroads.

  Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, made the point of order that the 
resolution called for an investigation by the Post-Office Department.
  In the course of the debate and at its conclusion the Speaker \2\ 
said:

  The Chair notices that this resolution provides that the Postmaster-
General be requested to furnish the House, at his earliest convenience, 
a comparative statement showing the cost to the Government for the 
transportation of mails per ton per mile by the railroads and the cost 
of transporting express matter per ton per mile by the railroads. The 
doubt in the mind of the Chair is that this calls for information 
touching a matter that is not at all under the Postmaster-General, so 
far as express matter is concerned; and therefore it would seem that if 
the resolution were to be adopted that it would set on foot an 
investigation in the Post-Office Department.
  It seems to the Chair--and the Chair suggests to the gentleman that 
the language goes further--that he furnish the House at his earliest 
convenience a comparative statement showing the cost for transporting 
mails and the cost of transporting express matter. Now, it might be 
assumed that if he does not have the information he will so report; but 
it will also be assumed that he will be required to enter into an 
inquiry.
  It seems to the Chair that the resolution, requesting the Postmaster-
General to report the cost to the Government of transporting the mails 
per ton per mile by the railroads, if it stopped there, would be a 
privileged resolution under the rule; but when it adds ``and the cost 
of transporting express matter per ton per mile by the railroads'' it 
does not cover a question of privilege under the rule, and it is only 
the question of privilege that is to be considered. The gentleman 
arises in his place and makes his motion to discharge the Committee on 
the Post-Office and Post-Roads from further consideration of this 
resolution because, a week having elapsed since it was referred to that 
committee, it has not reported the same back. In other words, the rule 
enables the gentleman, if he has the proper case under the rule, to 
halt the consideration of all other resolutions that are not privileged 
and the ordinary business of the House, and to halt the House in the 
consideration of business upon the Calendars from the various 
committees, and dispose of this resolution by virtue of this rule. Now, 
if the motion does not prevail
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 2494, 2495.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 1875
and it is not a question of privilege, the resolution remains with the 
Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads for disposition under the 
rules of the House, the same as other business.
  Now, the uniform ruling of the Chair in former Congresses and in this 
Congress has been by construction not to enlarge the matter of 
privilege in these cases. It does seem, following the precedents for 
the orderly transaction of business in the House, that the construction 
holding the resolution privileged should be strict, and in the opinion 
of the Chair the latter clause of the resolution is not privileged and 
vitiates the resolution as a question of privilege. Therefore the Chair 
sustains the point of order.\1\

  1875. A resolution of inquiry is usually simple rather than 
concurrent in form.--On March 28, 1902,\2\ Mr. Charles F. Cochran, of 
Missouri, moved to discharge the Committee on Rivers and Harbors from 
the consideration of the following resolution:

  Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Secretary of War is hereby instructed to send to the House of 
Representatives information as to the condition of river improvements 
heretofore constructed on the Missouri River at a point south of St. 
Joseph, Mo., whether said improvements are incomplete and, on account 
of their incomplete condition, in danger of destruction, and the sum 
necessary to complete said improvements and prevent their destruction 
by the encroachments of the current.

  The committee having been discharged, the resolution was so amended 
as to convert it into a simple resolution, and as amended the 
resolution was agreed to.
  1876. Joint resolutions are not required for calling for information 
from the Executive Departments.--On February 3, 1899,\3\ Mr. Jacob H. 
Bromwell, of Ohio, presented and the House agreed to a resolution 
requesting the President to return to the House the joint resolution 
(H. Res. 298) calling for information from the Secretary of State 
concerning certain outrages perpetrated upon American citizens in 
China. Mr. Bromwell explained that the President had called attention 
to the fact that the resolution was joint in form and if signed by the 
President might be considered a precedent that the House alone had not 
the right to call for such information.
  On February 4 the joint resolution was returned by the President and 
was by the House laid on the table.
  Mr. Bromwell then offered a simple resolution of the House calling 
for the information, and the same was agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ On April 15, 1898 (second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, 
pp. 3908, 3909), Mr. William H. Fleming, of Georgia, as a privileged 
motion, presented a resolution discharging the Committee on Naval 
Affairs from the consideration of the following resolution, which had 
been presented more than a week before:
  ``Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed to 
inform the House of Representatives if the Senate printed Document No. 
207, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, contains all the evidence 
embraced in the report of the naval court of inquiry upon the 
destruction of the U. S. battle ship Maine in Havana Harbor, February 
15, 1898, now of file in the Navy Department; and if any portion of 
said evidence has been omitted in said printed document the Secretary 
of the Navy is hereby directed to transmit to the House of 
Representatives a copy of such omitted evidence.''
  Mr. Walter Evans, of Kentucky, made the point of order that the 
resolution to discharge the committee did not present a question of 
privilege. It was urged that the direction to the Secretary of the Navy 
contained in the latter part of the resolution was not privileged, and 
that this destroyed the privileged character of the resolution.
  The Speaker (Thomas B. Reed, of Maine) sustained the point of order.
  \2\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 535; Record, p. 
3365.
  \3\ Third session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, pp. 1438, 1452, 1453.
Sec. 1877
  1877. The privilege of a resolution of inquiry may be destroyed by a 
preamble, although the matter therein recited may be germane to the 
subject of inquiry.--On March 3, 1907 [legislative day of March 2],\1\ 
Mr. Choice B. Randell, of Texas, proposed to call up as a privileged 
resolution of inquiry a resolution as follows:

  Whereas it is currently reported that negotiations have been entered 
into by the executive department of the United States, and under its 
direction, with the Government of the German Empire affecting the 
commerce between Germany and the United States and the tariffs and 
regulations on and concerning the same, thereby changing the conditions 
of trade between these countries and affecting the revenues of this 
Government received from import duties without the action of Congress: 
Therefore, be it
  Resolved, That the President of the United States is hereby 
requested, if not incompatible with the public interest, to direct the 
Secretary of State to report to him for the information of the House, 
etc.

  Mr. James E. Watson, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
preamble destroyed the privilege.
  The Speaker \2\ held:

  It has been frequently held that a preamble to a resolution of 
inquiry that makes an alleged statement of fact destroys the privilege, 
although the balance of the resolution might be privileged. That has 
been frequently held by many Speakers and was ruled by the present 
Speaker at the last session of Congress on a resolution presented by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran]. Clearly this is not 
privileged, and the Chair sustains the point of order.

  1878. On June 28, 1906,\2\ Mr. W. Bourke Cockran, of New York, as a 
privileged motion, proposed to discharge the Committee on the Post-
Office and Post-Roads from consideration of the following resolution:

  Whereas at a court of general sessions of the peace in and for the 
county of New York, the same being a court of record of the State of 
New York, one Norman Hapgood was on the 31st day of October, 1905, 
indicted by a grand jury on a charge of libel, for that he had written 
and published of and concerning one Joseph M. Deuel, then and now a 
judge of the court of special sessions in the said city and county of 
New York, the following words, to wit: ``He is part owner and one of 
the editors of a paper of which the occupation is printing scandal 
about people who are not cowardly enough to pay for silence;'' and
  Whereas the said Norman Hapgood on the 3lst day of October, 1905, was 
arraigned upon the said indictment before the said court and entered a 
plea of not guilty thereto; and
  Whereas the said indictment, having been duly transferred from the 
said court of general sessions of the peace in and for the city and 
county of New York to the supreme court of the State of New York, came 
on for trial on the 15th day of January, 1906, in said court, before 
the Hon. James Fitzgerald, a justice thereof, and a jury; and the said 
Norman Hapgood having admitted that he had written and published the 
matter charged in said indictment to be libelous, justified it on the 
ground that the same was true, and the jury after hearing evidence 
rendered its verdict that he was not guilty of libel; and
  Whereas it appeared from the uncontradicted evidence given on said 
trial that the paper of which the said Joseph M. Deuel was part owner 
and one of the editors, the characterization of which as ``a paper of 
which the occupation is printing scandal about people who are not 
cowardly enough to pay for silence'' by the said Hapgood was charged in 
said evidence to be a libel, is a weekly publication entitled, called, 
and known as ``Town Topics;'' and
  Whereas the said verdict of not guilty and the judgment of aquittal 
entered thereon in favor of said Hapgood is a judicial declaration by a 
court of competent jurisdiction that the description of Town Topics 
charged in said indictment to be libelous is in fact true: Now, 
therefore, be it
  Resolved, That the Postmaster-General be, and he is hereby, requested 
to inform the House of Representatives whether said paper, periodical, 
or publication entitled, called, and known as ``Town
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 4664.
  \2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 9541-9543.
                                                            Sec. 1879
Topics,'' so adjudged by a competent court to be ``a paper of which the 
occupation is printing scandal about people who are not cowardly enough 
to pay for silence,'' is admitted now to the use of the mails, and 
whether its said occupation of extorting money by blackmail is in any 
way facilitated, promoted, or assisted by this Government through the 
operation of its Post-Office Department.

  Mr. Jesse Overstreet, of Indiana, made the point of order that the 
motion was not privileged.
  After debate the Speaker \1\ ruled:

  The only question presented to the Chair under the point of order is 
whether this motion is a privileged motion under the rules of the 
House. The motion is to discharge the Committee on Post-Offices and 
Post-Roads from the consideration of the resolution which has been 
read. After seven days the motion is privileged, providing the 
resolution has nothing in it which destroys that privilege.
  Now, this resolution is coupled with the preamble, which recites that 
there was an indictment in a State court for libel, recites that the 
defendant justified, recites that there was a trial, recites that the 
defendant was acquitted, and then in the recitation in the last whereas 
sets forth matter which does not reflect upon the party whom the State 
of New York alleged had been libeled in very complimentary terms; in 
fact, to the contrary. The resolution refers to the preamble and 
certain matters alleged in the preamble, none of which are matters that 
are privileged under the rules of the House.
  A resolution calling for information from the Department upon a 
question of fact is privileged, and if this resolution alone covered 
such information it would be privileged. The Chair has no doubt that 
the preamble destroys the privilege that otherwise would be contained 
in the resolution, and therefore the Chair sustains the point of order.

  Mr. Cockran then asked:

  Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to move to strike out the preamble 
and allow the resolution to stand?

  The Speaker replied:

  That would bring the House to a vote on that very question, and this 
is a matter not before the House. It was introduced and went to the 
committee. This is a motion to bring it before the House, and the 
privilege being destroyed by nonprivileged matter, the Chair sustains 
the point of order, which of course, if the ruling of the Chair is 
correct, prevents the House obtaining possession of the resolution in 
this way.

  1879. Resolutions of inquiry are delivered under direction of the 
Clerk.--On January 22, 1822,\2\ a rule was adopted that resolutions of 
inquiry, passed by the House, should be delivered under direction of 
the Clerk. Heretofore such resolutions addressed to the President had 
been delivered by a committee especially appointed in each case. 
Resolutions directed to heads of Departments were probably sent by the 
Clerk, no mention of method being made.
  1880. The House decided early in its history that the secretaries of 
the President's Cabinet should not be called to give information 
personally on the floor of the House.--On November 13, 1792,\3\ the 
following resolution was proposed:

  Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War 
be notified that this House intend, on Wednesday next, to take into 
consideration the report of the committee appointed to inquire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
  \2\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, p. 174; Annals, p. 
756.
  \3\ Second session Second Congress, Journal, p. 619 (Gales & Seaton 
ed.); Annals, pp. 679-683. It appears that the Secretary of War desired 
to appear before the House. See letter of General Knox, Annals, p. 685.
Sec. 1881
into the causes of the failure of the late expedition under General St. 
Clair, to the end that they may attend the House, and furnish such 
information as may be conducive to the due investigation of the matters 
stated in the said report.

  Mr. Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina, moved to strike out the 
portion respecting the attendance of the Secretaries. This motion was 
supported by Mr. James Madison, of Virginia, who thought the 
introduction of the Secretaries on the floor of the House contrary to 
the practice of the House and the spirit of the Government.\1\ He 
favored written information.
  Messrs. Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, favored the 
proposition of the resolution.
  The House agreed to the amendment, and then negatived the resolution 
as amended.
  1881. Members of the President's Cabinet appear before committees of 
the House and give testimony.--Cabinet officers frequently appear 
before committees of the House. Thus, on February 3, 1837,\2\ Hon. Levi 
Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury, appeared in obedience to a 
summons, before the committee appointed to investigate the Executive 
Departments, and gave his testimony. Also, on February 13, Hon. John 
Forsyth, Secretary of State, appeared and testified before the same 
committee.
  1882. On February 13, 1839,\3\ Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the 
Treasury, appeared before the select committee appointed to investigate 
the defalcations in the New York custom-house, and was sworn as a 
witness, and testified.
  1883. On January 16, 1861,\4\ the chairman of the select committee on 
seizure of forts, arsenals, etc., by direction of the committee, 
addressed the Secretary of the Navy requesting him to attend the 
committee and give testimony. The chairman concluded as follows: 
``Please state whether a formal subpoena will be required.''
  The Secretary attended without the subpoena.
  1884. In 1842 the House vigorously asserted and President Tyler as 
vigorously denied the right of the House to all papers and information 
in possession of the Executive relating to subjects over which the 
jurisdiction of the House extended.--On June 3, 1842,\5\ the Speaker 
laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of War in answer to a 
call of the House, of the 18th of May, for information as to the 
affairs of the Cherokee Indians and as to frauds upon them, stating 
that, as negotiations were pending with the Indians for the settlement 
of their claims and all other matters of difference between them and 
the Government, it was believed to be inconsistent with the public 
interest to disclose the information called for by the House; and that, 
as regarded the frauds referred to, the evidence being ex parte, and 
not under oath, it would be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Cabinet officers often appear before committees of the House.
  \2\ House Report No. 194, second session Twenty-fourth Congress, 
Journal of the Committee, pp. 75,104.
  \3\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, House Report No. 313, p. 
579.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-sixth Congress, House Report No. 91, p. 28.
  \5\ Second session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 913-915; 
Globe, pp. 576, 579.
                                                            Sec. 1884
unjust to the parties implicated, and would defeat the ends of justice 
to promulgate the papers called for.\1\
  On the succeeding day this communication was referred to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  On July 24,\2\ Mr. James Cooper, of Pennsylvania, from this 
committee,\3\ made a report.
  The report of the committee recommended the adoption of the following 
resolutions:

  Resolved, That the House of Representatives has the right to demand 
from the Executive such information as may be in his possession 
relating to subjects of the deliberations of the House and within the 
sphere of its legitimate powers.
  Resolved, That the reports and facts called for by the House of 
Representatives, by its resolution of the 18th ultimo, related to 
subjects of its deliberations and were within the sphere of its 
legitimate powers, and should have been communicated; Therefore,
  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
cause to be communicated to this House ``the several reports lately 
made to the Department'' of War by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock 
relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all 
information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to 
investigate; also all facts in the possession of the Executive, ``from 
any source, relating to the subject.''

  On August 13, after a debate extending over several days,\4\ the 
first resolution was amended by adding after ``Executive'' the words 
``or heads of Departments,'' and as amended was agreed to, yeas 140, 
nays 8. The second resolution was agreed to, yeas 94, nays 64, and the 
third was also agreed to, yeas 83, nays 60.
  The committee in their report \5\ took the ground that the House of 
Representatives had a right to all the information in the possession of 
the Executive, when such information related to subjects over which the 
jurisdiction of the House extended. This was one of the incidental 
powers of the House, like the power to punish for contempts. The 
committee denied that the relations with the Indian tribes were the 
same as those with foreign nations, and therefore denied the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Executive and Senate over treaties or agreements 
with the Indians. The committee concluded by deeming it conclusive of 
the question that in the fifty years of the history of the Government 
there was no single precedent to justify the refusal to communicate the 
information required.\6\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ This resolution of inquiry was as follows: ``That the Secretary 
of War be required to communicate to this House the several reports 
lately made to the Department by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock relative 
to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all information 
communicated by him concerning the frauds which he was charged to 
investigate; also all facts in the possession of the Department, from 
any source, relating to the subject. (Journal, pp. 831, 832.)
  \2\ Journal, p. 1183; Globe, p. 810.
  \3\ This committee consisted of Messrs. James Cooper, of 
Pennsylvania; Robert L. Caruthers, of Tennessee; Thomas C. Chittenden, 
of New York; Augustus R. Sollers, of Maryland; William Butler, of South 
Carolina; Harvey M. Watterson, of Tennessee; William A. Harris, of 
Virginia; John B. Weller, of Ohio, and John C. Edwards, of Missouri.
  \4\ Journal, pp. 1284-1289; Globe, pp. 888, 889. The Globe does not 
report the debates on these resolutions.
  \5\ House Report No. 960, second session Twenty-seventh Congress.
  \6\ For authorities in support of this position the report cites 
Jefferson's Memoirs, vol. 4, p. 464, the Journal of the House of 
Representatives, 1793, 1797, p. 499, and debates in the House of 
Commons, on motion of Lord Limerick, to appoint a committee to inquire 
into the conduct of affairs at home and abroad for the last twenty 
years, Debates in the Commons, 1741-42, vol. 13.
Sec. 1885
  1885. On December 30, 1842,\1\ Mr. James Cooper, of Pennsylvania, 
from the Committee on Indian Affairs, reported the following resolution 
which seems to have been agreed to by the House:

  Whereas a resolution calling on the President of the United States 
``to cause to be communicated to this House the several reports lately 
made to the Department of War by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock relative 
to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all information 
communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to 
investigate; also all facts in possession of the Executive from any 
source relating to the subject,'' was adopted by this House on the 13th 
day of August last; and whereas the information received by the said 
resolution has not been communicated, nor any reason assigned for the 
delay; Therefore,
  Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this 
House when the information called for by the aforesaid resolution may 
be expected.

  On February 1 President Tyler responded to this resolution. He 
communicated the papers called for, but at the same time he dissented 
from any doctrine that might imply the right of the House of 
Representatives to demand from the Executive or the heads of 
Departments all papers without regard to the discretion of those 
officers:

  If, by the assertion of this claim [says the President], of right to 
call on the Executive for all the information in its possession 
relating to any subject of deliberation of the House and within the 
sphere of its legitimate powers, it is intended to assert, also, that 
the Executive is bound to comply with such call, without the authority 
to exercise any discretion on its part in reference to the nature of 
the information required, or to the interests of the country or of 
individuals to be affected by such compliance, then do I feel bound, in 
the discharge of the high duty imposed upon me, ``to preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States,'' to declare, in the 
most respectful manner, my entire dissent from such a proposition. The 
instrument from which the several Departments of the Government derive 
their authority makes each independent of the other in the discharge of 
their respective functions. The injunction of the Constitution that the 
President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' 
necessarily confers an authority, commensurate with the obligation 
imposed, to inquire into the manner in which all public agents perform 
the duties assigned to them by law. To be effective, these inquiries 
must often be confidential. They may result in the collection of truth 
or of falsehood; or they may be incomplete, and may require further 
prosecution. To maintain that the President can exercise no discretion 
after the time in which the matters thus collected shall be 
promulgated, or in respect to the character of the information 
obtained, would deprive him at once of the means of performing one of 
the most salutary duties of his office. An inquiry might be arrested at 
its first stage, and the officers whose conduct demanded investigation 
may be enabled to elude or defeat it. To require from the Executive the 
transfer of this discretion to a coordinate branch of the Government is 
equivalent to the denial of its possession by him and would render him 
dependent upon that branch in the performance of a duty purely 
executive.
  Nor can it be a sound position that all papers, documents, and 
information of every description, which may happen by any means to come 
into the possession of the President or of the heads of Departments, 
must necessarily be subject to the call of the House of 
Representatives, merely because they relate to a subject of the 
deliberations of the House, although that subject may be within the 
sphere of its legitimate powers. It can not be that the only test is 
whether the information relates to a legitimate subject of 
deliberation. The Executive Departments and the citizens of this 
country have their rights and duties, as well as the House of 
Representatives; and the maxim that the rights of one person or body 
are to be so exercised as not to impair those of others is applicable 
in its fullest extent to this question. Impertinence or malignity may 
seek to make the executive department the means of incalculable and 
irremediable injury to innocent parties by throwing into them libels 
most foul and atrocious. Shall there be no discretionary authority 
permitted to refuse to become the instruments of such malevolence?
  And although information comes through a proper channel to an 
executive officer, it may often be of a character to forbid its being 
made public. The officer charged with a confidential inquiry, and who
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Twenty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 117, 296, 
465; Globe, p. 102.
                                                            Sec. 1885
reports its result under the pledge of confidence which his appointment 
implies, ought not to be exposed individually to the resentment of 
those whose conduct may be impugned by the information be collects. The 
knowledge that such is to be the consequence will inevitably prevent 
the performance of duties of that character, and thus the Government 
will be deprived of an important means of investigating the conduct of 
its agents.
  It is certainly no new doctrine in the halls of judicature or of 
legislation that certain communications and papers are privileged, and 
that the general authority to compel testimony must give way in certain 
cases to the paramount rights of individuals or of the Government. 
Thus, no man can be compelled to accuse himself, to answer any question 
that tends to render him infamous, or to produce his own private papers 
on any occasion. The communication of a client to his counsel and the 
admissions made at the confessional in the course of religious 
discipline are privileged communications. In the courts of that country 
from which we derive our great principles of individual liberty and the 
rules of evidence, it is well settled, and the doctrine has been fully 
recognized in this country, that a minister of the Crown or the head of 
a department can not be compelled to produce any papers, or to disclose 
any transactions relating to the executive functions of the Government 
which he declares are confidential, or such as the public interest 
requires should not be divulged; and the persons who have been the 
channels of communication to officers of the State are in like manner 
protected from the disclosure of their names. Other instances of 
privileged communications might be enumerated, if it were deemed 
necessary. These principles are as applicable to evidence sought by a 
legislature as to that required by a court.
  The practice of the Government since its foundation has sanctioned 
the principle that there must necessarily be a discretionary authority 
in reference to the nature of the information called for by either 
House of Congress.
  The authority was claimed and exercised by General Washington in 
1796. In 1825 President Monroe declined compliance with a resolution of 
the House of Representatives calling for the correspondence between the 
Executive Departments of this Government and the officers of the United 
States Navy and others, at or near the ports of South America on the 
Pacific Ocean. In a communication made by the Secretary of War in 1832 
to the Committee of the House on the Public Lands, by direction of 
President Jackson, he denies the obligation of the Executive to furnish 
the information called for and maintains the authority of the President 
to exercise a sound discretion in complying with calls of that 
description by the House of Representatives or its committees. Without 
multiplying other instances, it is not deemed improper to refer to the 
refusal of the President at the last session of the present Congress to 
comply with the resolutions of the House of Representatives calling for 
the names of the Members of Congress who had applied for offices. As no 
further notice was taken in any form of this refusal it would seem to 
be a fair inference that the House itself admitted that there were 
cases in which the President had a discretionary authority in respect 
to the transmission of information in the possession of any of the 
Executive Departments.
  Apprehensive that silence under the claim supposed to be set up in 
the resolutions of the House of Representatives under consideration 
might be construed as an acquiescence in its soundness, I have deemed 
it due to the great importance of the subject to state my views that a 
compliance in part with the resolution may not be deemed a surrender of 
a necessary authority of the Executive.

  President Tyler's message was referred to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, and on February 25, this committee, submitted to the House a 
report \1\ which combats the argument of the President:

  It is undoubtedly true [says this report, after a review of the 
origin and circumstances of the controversy] to a certain extent, that 
the Constitution, from which the several Departments of the Government 
derive their power, had made each of them independent of the other in 
the discharge of their several functions. But what are the functions 
which are exercised independently of each other by the several 
Departments of the Government? The President exercises the office or 
function of Commander in Chief
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ House Report No. 271, third session Twenty-seventh Congress. The 
committee making this report consisted of Messrs. James Cooper, of 
Pennsylvania; Thomas C. Chittenden, of New York; William Butler, of 
South Carolina; Abraham Rencher, of North Carolina; Joseph L. White, of 
Indiana; Harvey M. Watterson, of Tennessee: John B. Weller, of Ohio; 
John C. Edwards, of Missouri; and William A. Harris, of Virginia.
Sec. 1885
of the Army independently of Congress; his power to grant reprieves and 
pardons for offenses against the United States is exercised 
independently of Congress; he has the power, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, to make treaties independently of the House of 
Representatives; he has the power to nominate, and, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, ministers, 
consuls, and judges of the Supreme Court, independently of the House of 
Representatives, etc. But what has all this to do with the right of the 
House to institute inquiries and investigate abuses? It is a function 
of the House of Representatives to investigate abuses--sometimes for 
the purpose of legislating to prevent their recurrence--sometimes for 
the purpose of punishing the offenders; but in either case its power to 
examine witnesses, to compel the production of papers, to exercise all 
the powers of a judicial tribunal in the investigation of like offenses 
subject to certain well-established rules has never been doubted, and 
is as clearly implied in the Constitution as the right of the President 
``to inquire into the manner in which all public agents perform the 
duties assigned to them by law.''
  The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The 
President himself, in the discharge of his most independent functions, 
is subject to the exercise of this power--a power which implies the 
right of inquiry on the part of the House to the fullest and most 
unlimited extent. The committee need not say that the right of inquiry 
without the right to produce evidence would be nugatory. They will 
presently look further into this subject, but before proceeding to do 
so they will remark that the exercise of this right does not in any 
wise abridge the independent discharge of the Executive functions. In 
the exercise of the right, claimed by the House in its resolutions, to 
demand from the Executive such information as may be in his possession 
relative to subjects of its deliberations and within the sphere of its 
legitimate power, is not, as the President alleges, ``equivalent to the 
denial'' of a right of inquiry by him into the same matter. The 
exercise of this right by the House is not in design and can not be in 
effect ``to arrest inquiry by the Executive and enable officers whose 
conduct demands investigation to elude and defeat it.''

  The report goes on to say that the Executive has limited powers of 
inquiry, its commissions not having the power to compel the testimony 
of witnesses, and then continues:

  But the power of the House to pursue an investigation of this kind is 
as ample as that of any other tribunal. All the means to enforce the 
attendance of witnesses, the power to issue commissions to take the 
testimony of those who are absent, as well as to procure all the 
necessary instruments of evidence relative to any subject of inquiry in 
which it may be engaged, is possessed by the House in as much 
plentitude as by the judicial tribunals of the country. We shall show 
hereafter that the House has the right to compel the production of 
evidence which, for reasons of state policy, may be withheld from the 
courts.

  The committee next take up the paragraph of the message which denies 
the right of the House to demand documents and papers of every 
description that may relate to the subject of its deliberations, and 
continues:

  This is principally but a reiteration of the assertion of the 
President that the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives 
declaratory of its rights is too broad and would invest it with powers 
not conferred upon it by the Constitution and which, if carried into 
practice, would invade the rights of the Executive. The latter part of 
this proposition has already been fully disproved. It has been shown 
that the exercise of the right to demand from the Executive and heads 
of departments such papers or copies of papers, or other information, 
as may be in their possession is no invasion of the rights of the 
Executive, impairs none of its just powers, nor suspends any of its 
functions.
  But is the resolution adopted by the House more comprehensive than a 
fair construction of the Constitution warrants? The resolution asserts 
that the ``House has a right to demand from the Executive and heads of 
departments such information as may be in their possession relating to 
subjects of the deliberations of the House and within the sphere of its 
legitimate powers.''
  The question involved in this resolution is: Does the House of 
Representatives possess the right to investigate abuses?--a right 
virtually denied to the House is the Executive doctrines prevail. For 
the right to investigate abuses without full power to procure 
information and evidence would present the anomaly of the existence of 
a right without the means of enforcing it.
                                                            Sec. 1885
  By the Constitution of the United States the President, Vice-
President, and all civil officers of the Government are liable to 
impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and 
misdemeanors, and the sole power to impeach is vested in the House of 
Representatives. If the House possess the power to impeach it must 
likewise possess all the incidents of that power--tee power to compel 
the attendance of witnesses and the production of all such papers as 
may be considered necessary to prove the charges on which the 
impeachment is founded. If it did not the power of impeachment 
conferred on it by the Constitution would be nugatory. It could not 
exercise it with effect. But is the power of the House to compel the 
production of papers or the attendance of witnesses limited to 
proceedings in cases of impeachment? Has the House of Representatives 
no power to inquire into offenses not impeachable? Does not the power 
to impeach for great offenses involve the power to inquire into all 
offenses? It necessarily does so. In its character of grand inquest of 
the nation it possesses this right and in this character the House 
acts, whether it be engaged in investigation of some petty fraud 
committed by some subordinate officer of the Government or the 
impeachment of the President for high crimes and misdemeanors. This 
right to demand information belongs to its character--is one of its 
attributes, not merely an accidental right which it acquires when it 
takes upon itself the duty of impeachment. It is not a right which it 
derives from the act of proceeding to investigate a particular kind of 
offense and which it loses when it is engaged in the investigation of 
another or smaller offense. It is a permanent right inherent in it and 
not an incident of some peculiar function.
  The power of the House to institute inquiries and investigate abuses 
has been exercised by it from the beginning of the Government to the 
present day. Such inquiries and investigations have at various times 
been made in every department of the Government and every branch of the 
public service, civil and military, and the power of the House to 
inquire into all official abuses and misconduct and into the management 
of public affairs at home and abroad, as far as the knowledge of the 
committee extends, has never been denied or questioned until now. Let 
this power to investigate the abuses which may exist in the several 
departments of the Government be surrendered by the House and there 
will be no check upon extravagance; the responsibility of public 
officers will be at an end; profligate and corrupt agents, unawed by 
the fear of exposure, will riot in the spoils of a plundered treasury, 
whilst Congress will have lost all power to bring them to account or to 
protect the public interest against their rapacity.
  By claiming for the House ``the right to demand from the Executive 
and heads of departments such information as may be in their possession 
relating to subjects of the deliberation of the House and within the 
sphere of its legitimate powers,'' the committee do not mean to assert 
that there may not be at some times information and papers in their 
possession which should not be made public. Such there no doubt are; 
but the House has the right to inspect them, and it, and not the 
Executive, is to be the judge of the propriety of making them public. 
The President has all along assumed in his message that the publication 
of all information and papers is a necessary consequence of their 
communication to the House. In this he is mistaken. It does not follow 
that all information communicated to the House must be made public. 
Confidential communications are almost daily made by the Executive to 
the Senate and secrecy is always observed in regard to them as long as 
the public interest requires it. There is nothing in the constitution 
of the House to prevent it from doing the same thing. Information 
transmitted to it by the Executive, on his suggestion that it is of 
confidential character, may be referred to a committee under the charge 
of secrecy until an examination of it can be made, when, if the 
committee concur in opinion with the Executive, its publication will be 
dispensed with. This is the true parliamentary course. It furnishes at 
once a security against secret abuses and the irresponsibility of the 
public officers and agents which would follow the denial of the right 
of the House to demand information, and at the same time protect the 
state against the discovery of facts important for the time to be 
concealed. In the present case on the suggestion of the President, the 
report and other papers were referred to the committee under at least 
an implied injunction of secrecy, and if the committee had concurred 
with the President in opinion nothing would have been easier than to 
have returned them to the Executive department, their contents 
remaining unknown excepting to the committee. Thus it will be seen that 
the resolution protested against by the President requires nothing from 
the Executive which can ever prove detrimental to the interest of the 
State, unless it be presumed that those interests would be more safe in 
his keeping than in that of the House--a presumption which finds no 
warrant in the Constitution and as little in the executive history of 
the Government.
Sec. 1885
  Taking up the President's contention in regard to privileged 
communications which involve the paramount rights of individuals, in 
regard to the right of the citizen to refuse to incriminate himself, 
and to the privilege of ministers of the Crown in England, the report 
proceeds:

  The general rule of law is that no one will be permitted to withhold 
any communication which is important as evidence, however secret and 
confidential the nature of that communication may have been. There are, 
however, some instances where the courts exclude particular evidence on 
the ground of public policy, because greater mischief and inconvenience 
would result to the State from the reception of it than would 
overbalance the injury which individuals might sustain by its 
exclusion. The interests of individuals are made to give way to the 
paramount interest of the community. Thus a witness is not allowed to 
reveal facts in a court of justice the disclosure of which might be 
injurious to the State; and of course the same rule prevails in 
relation to papers the contents of which would have a like tendency. 
The communication of evidence to a jury is a promulgation of it to the 
country, and the law so regards it, and it is so in fact. Hence the 
rule which excludes evidence the disclosure of which would be 
detrimental to the interests of the State. But this rule is only 
applicable to the judicial, and not to parliamentary tribunals; and the 
error of the President consists in not having observed the distinction.
  The reason of the rule which excludes certain evidence is founded on 
the fact that its reception by the courts is equivalent to a 
publication, which principles of public policy forbid in particular 
cases. The reason of this rule, however, does not extend to 
parliamentary tribunals, which may conduct their investigations in 
secret, without divulging any evidence which may be prejudicial to the 
State. The practice of conducting investigations by secret committees 
has constantly prevailed in the British House of Commons ever since the 
Revolution of 1688, and perhaps from an earlier period; and the 
committee are aware of no instance in which evidence has been excluded 
in pursuance of the above rule. There is no reason for its observance 
in such cases, because there is no necessity for the publication of the 
evidence which may be delivered before such a tribunal. Thus it appears 
there exists no rule which would exclude any evidence from the House or 
a committee of the House, which are as competent to guard the interests 
of the State, and have as high motives for doing so as the Executive 
can have. On the other hand, it has already been shown that to withhold 
such evidence at the mere discretion of the Executive would be in 
effect to strip the House of the right to institute inquiries and 
investigate abuses. The consequence of this everyone foresees. Public 
officers and agents will become irresponsible, peculations and abuses 
of every kind will be perpetrated with impunity, and fraud and 
corruption will walk abroad unrebuked in open day. Such would be the 
practical operation of the rule laid down by the President; but this 
rule, it had been shown, is applicable only to judicial and not to 
legislative investigations.
  It is certainly a sound rule of law that a witness is not bound to 
answer questions when, by doing so, he would criminate himself; nor is 
he under any obligation to produce his private papers when they would 
have a similar tendency. But in what manner does this rule conflict 
with the resolutions of the House asserting its right to call upon the 
Executive and heads of Departments for such information as may be in 
their possession relating to subjects of its deliberations? The 
information referred to in the resolution is the official information 
spread upon the records of the Departments or contained in their 
archives or on their files. This information is not the private 
property of the Executive or heads of Departments; nor is there any 
rule of law which would exclude it from being given in evidence in the 
impeachment of the President or any of the heads of Departments or 
other persons. It is not privileged in the sense spoken of by the 
President. All the information in the possession of the Executive and 
of the Departments is subject to the demands of the courts, legally 
made, for purposes of evidence, except when it is of such a character 
as would be prejudicial to the State. The President himself is subject 
to the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses. He 
is liable to the writ of subpoena ad testificandum; and in the trial of 
Aaron Burr it was decided he was liable to be served with a subpoena 
duces tecum. It was intimated, however, by the court that he would not 
be bound to produce confidential communications or papers, the 
disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public safety. This 
rule of the courts, which excludes evidence on the ground of State 
policy, the committee have already shown is applicable to judicial and 
not parliamentary proceedings. This distinction should be constantly 
borne in mind. Forgetfulness of it is believed to be a principal cause 
of the errors into which the President has fallen.
                                                            Sec. 1886
  The report goes on to discuss and deny the citation of the President 
in regard to the Crown ministers of England, and having done this, 
takes up the language of the resolution which declares the right of the 
House and says:

  This, it will be remarked, does not include any assertion of right on 
the part of the House to demand from the Executive the information in 
his possession relating to negotiations with foreign governments or 
appointments to office. By the Constitution the power of making 
treaties is vested in the President and Senate. The House has no 
participation in the treaty-making power, nor in that of appointment to 
office; and the resolution, only asserting the right of the House to 
demand information relative to subjects over which its power extends, 
will be found not to conflict in the slightest degree with the cases 
cited. On the other hand, a majority of these cases will be found not 
only to admit as broad, but a broader right than the resolution 
asserts. But although the terms of the resolution do not assert the 
right of the House to demand from the Executive information of 
negotiations and appointments to office, the committee do not intend to 
disclaim its right. It will be time enough to settle this question when 
it shall arise.

  The committee next goes on to discuss the precedents cited by the 
President, and to argue that they do not sustain the contention which 
he makes. During this discussion the committee say:

  But if the Constitution did not by the clearest implications confer 
upon the House the right to demand from the Executive and heads of 
Departments the information and papers in their possession, the 
uninterrupted exercise of this right, acquiesced in and admitted as it 
has been for almost half a century, would give it the force and 
sanction of a customary law. The history of the Government from its 
foundation to the present day, as far as the committee have been able 
to discover, does not furnish an instance, except that already referred 
to, where the Executive has refused to communicate the information 
required by either House of Congress, unless the discretion to do so 
was conferred upon him by the resolution containing the demand. 
Whenever the resolution has been positive and imperative in its terms 
there has always been a compliance. It has, however, been the usual, 
perhaps the almost universal practice of both Houses of Congress, in 
demanding information from the President, to invest him with the 
discretion of communicating it or not, as he should judge proper. There 
is often a convenience in doing so. But if, by virtue of his office or 
constitutional functions, he possesses this discretion, why has it 
always been deemed necessary to invest him with it by special grant? It 
is plain, from what has been the practice in such cases, that both the 
President and Congress have concurred in regarding this discretion as 
belonging to the latter. If it does not, both branches of Congress have 
been practicing a continued usurpation upon the Executive for a period 
of more than fifty years; and, what is singular, the Executive has 
acquiesced in it during all the time without complaint and probably 
without having discovered it. It was left for the sharper scrutiny of 
the present Chief Magistrate to discover, and to his more intrepid 
firmness to resist, this usurpation.

  The report of the committee recommends no action of the House in 
regard to this matter.
  1886. The House having asserted its right to direct the heads of the 
Executive Departments to furnish information, the Secretary of War 
returned an answer to a portion of the inquiry, declining to respond to 
the remainder.--On December 2, 1861,\1\ the House agreed to the 
following resolution:

  Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested, if not incompatible 
with the public interest, to report to the House whether any, and, if 
any, what, measures have been taken to ascertain who is responsible for 
the disastrous movement of our troops at Balls Bluff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 10.
Sec. 1887
  The Secretary of War having replied that a compliance with the 
resolution would, in the opinion of the general in chief, be injurious 
to the public service, on January 6, 1862,\1\ Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of 
New York, submitted the following:

  Resolved, That the said answer is not responsive nor satisfactory to 
the House, and that the Secretary be directed to return a further 
answer.

  In the debate on this resolution it was urged, on the one hand, that 
the management of the armies belonged to the executive department of 
the Government, and that an investigation into failures belonged rather 
to the military tribunals than to the House. On the other hand, it was 
urged that as the Congress raised the armies it had a right to inquire 
as to their management. It was also urged that the House had a right to 
direct the heads of Executive Departments to furnish information and 
that this right, exercised also by the Parliament of Great Britain, had 
been recognized by a rule of the House adopted in 1820.\2\
  The House agreed to the resolution--yeas 80, nays 54.
  On January 10, 1862,\3\ a communication was received from the 
Secretary of War, in response to the resolution, acknowledging the 
receipt of the resolution, and saying:

  In reply, I have respectfully to state that ``measures have been 
taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous movement of 
our troops at Balls Bluff,'' but that it is not deemed compatible with 
the public interest to make known those measures at the present time.

  This communication was referred to the Joint Select Committee on the 
conduct of the War.
  1887. President Jackson declined to furnish to the Senate a copy of a 
paper purporting to have been read by him to the heads of the Executive 
Departments.--On December 11, 1833,\4\ after considerable debate as to 
the propriety of the proceeding, the Senate agreed to a resolution 
requesting the President of the United States to communicate to the 
Senate ``a copy of the paper which had been published, and which 
purports to have been read by him to the heads of the Executive 
Departments, dated the 18th day of September last, relating to the 
removal of the deposits of the public money from the Bank of the United 
States and its offices.'' On December 12 President Jackson responded in 
a message denying the constitutional right of the Senate to make such 
an inquiry, and declining to send the paper in question.
  1888. On request, President Johnson furnished to the House the 
minutes of a meeting of the Cabinet.--On July 8, 1867,\5\ the House 
passed a resolution asking the President if certain publications 
relating to action of the President and Cabinet were authorized and 
accurate, and that he be requested to furnish to the House the full 
minutes of the meeting. On July 20 the President (Mr. Johnson) sent a 
message stating that the publication was made by proper authority, and 
transmitting the desired documents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Journal, pp. 134-137; Globe, pp. 191-198.
  \2\ Rule 53 at this time had this language: ``A proposition 
requesting information from the President of the United States, or 
directing it to be furnished by the head of either of the Executive 
Department or by the Postmaster-General,'' etc. This rule dated from 
December 13, 1820.
  \3\ Journal, p. 162; Globe, p. 274.
  \4\ First session Twenty-third Congress, Debates, pp. 30-37.
  \5\ First session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 171, 249; Globe, p. 
515.
                                                            Sec. 1889
  1889. President Grant declined to answer an inquiry of the House as 
to whether or not he had performed any executive acts at a distance 
from the seat of Government.--On April 3, 1876,\1\ on motion of Mr. J. 
C. S. Blackburn, of Kentucky, and under suspension of the rules, the 
House agreed to the following:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
inform this House, if, in his opinion, it is not incompatible with the 
public interest, whether since the 4th day of March, 1869, any 
executive offices, acts, or duties, and, if any, what, have been 
performed at a distance from the seat of government established by law, 
and for how long a period at any one time, and in what part of the 
United States; also whether any public necessity existed for such 
performance, and, if so, of what character, and how far the 
performances of such executive offices, acts, or duties at such 
distance from the seat of government established by law was in 
compliance with the act of Congress of the 16th day of July, 1790.

  On May 4,\2\ the President (Mr. Grant) replied in a message, 
declining to make any specific and detailed answer, saying:

  I have never hesitated and shall not hesitate to communicate to 
Congress, and to either branch thereof, all the information which the 
Constitution makes it the duty of the President to give, or which my 
judgment may suggest to me or a request from either House may indicate 
to me will be useful in the discharge of the appropriate duties 
confided to them. I fail, however, to find in the Constitution of the 
United States the authority given to the House of Representatives (one 
branch of the Congress in which is vested the legislative power of the 
Government) to require of the Executive, an independent branch of the 
Government, coordinate with the Senate and House of Representatives, an 
account of his discharge of his appropriate and purely executive 
offices, acts, and duties, either as to when, where, or how performed.
  What the House of Representatives may require as a right in its 
demand upon the Executive for information is limited to what is 
necessary for the proper discharge of its powers of legislation or 
impeachment. The inquiry in the resolution of the House as to where 
executive acts have within the last seven years been performed and at 
what distance from any particular spot, or for how long a period at any 
one time, etc., does not necessarily belong to the province of 
legislation. It does not profess to be asked for that object.
  If this information be sought through an inquiry of the President as 
to his executive acts in view or in aid of the power of impeachment 
vested in the House, it is asked in derogation of an inherent natural 
right, recognized in this country by a constitutional guarantee which 
protects every citizen, the President as well as the humblest in the 
land, from being made a witness against himself.

  1890. The President having failed to respond to a resolution of 
inquiry, the House respectfully reminded him of the fact.--On December 
3, 1866,\3\ the House asked a second time of the President for 
information, respectfully reminding him of the first application.
  1891. The head of a Department having declined to respond to an 
inquiry of the House, a demand for a further answer was entertained as 
a matter of privilege.--On January 6, 1862,\4\ Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of 
New York, submitted as a question of privilege, the following:

  Whereas on the second day of the session, this House adopted a 
resolution, of which the following is a copy:
  Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested, if not incompatible 
with the public interest, to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Forty-fourth Congress, Journal, p. 724; Record, p. 
2158.
  \2\ Journal, pp. 916, 917; Record, p. 2999.
  \3\ Second session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 11.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, p. 134; Globe, 
p. 191.
Sec. 1892
report to this House whether any, and if any, what measures have been 
taken to ascertain who is responsible for the disastrous movement of 
our troops at Ball's Bluff.
  And whereas, on the 16th of December, the Secretary of War returned 
an answer whereof the following is a copy:

                                War Department, December 12, 1861.
  Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution of 
the House of Representatives calling for certain information with 
regard to the disastrous movement of our troops at Ball's Bluff, and to 
transmit to you a report of the Adjutant-General of the United States 
Army, from which you will perceive that a compliance with the 
resolution, at this time, would, in the opinion of the general-in-
chief, be injurious to the public service.
  Very respectfully,
                                  Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.

  Hon. G. A. Grow,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives.
                               Headquarters of the Army,          
                                    Adjutant-General's Office,    
                                    Washington, December 11, 1861.
  Sir: In compliance with your instructions, I have the honor to 
report, in reference to the resolution of the honorable the House of 
Representatives, received the 3d instant, that (here quotes the 
resolution), that the general-in-chief of the Army is of opinion an 
inquiry on the subject of the resolution would, at this time, be 
injurious to the public service. The resolution is herewith 
respectfully returned.
  Respectfully submitted.
                                      L. Thomas, Adjutant-General.

  Hon. Secretary of War, Washington.
  Therefore,
  Resolved, That the said answer is not responsive nor satisfactory to 
the House, and that the Secretary be directed to return a further 
answer.

  Mr. William A. Richardson, of Illinois, having raised a question as 
to whether or not the resolution involved a question of privilege, the 
Speaker\1\ submitted the question to the House, and the House decided 
to entertain the resolution as a question of privilege.
  1892. A demand that the head of an Executive Department transmit a 
more complete reply to a resolution of inquiry may not be presented as 
a matter of privilege.--On February 12, 1847,\2\ Mr. George Rathbun, of 
New York, claiming the floor for a question of privilege, stated that 
the Secretary of the Treasury had made to the House an inadequate reply 
to its call for information concerning the secret inspectors of 
customs, and offered this resolution:

  Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
directed to report forthwith to this House the names of all persons who 
now are, or have been since the 4th day of March, 1845, secret agents 
or inspectors of customs.

  Mr. George C. Dromgoole, of Virginia, objected to the introduction of 
the resolution on the ground that it did not involve a question of 
privilege.
  The Speaker \1\ said that, having read the report made in answer to 
the resolution calling on the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chair was 
constrained to decide that the resolution was not a question of 
privilege. The Chair did not intend to rule that the House could not 
call for the names at any time. All that the Chair decided was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, Speaker.
  \2\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 333; Globe, p. 
400.
  \3\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
                                                            Sec. 1893
that this resolution was not, in the parliamentary sense, a question of 
privilege, because the Secretary did not seem to have acted in 
derogation of the order or dignity of the House.
  Mr. Rathbun having appealed, the appeal was laid on the table.
  1893. A proposition to investigate whether or not the head of an 
Executive Department had failed or declined to respond to an inquiry of 
the House was held not to be a matter of privilege.--On January 25, 
1847,\1\ Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, offered the following 
resolution as a question of privilege:

  Resolved, That a select committee of five be raised to inquire 
whether the Secretary of the Treasury has failed or refused to furnish 
to this House any information called for by it of him; and also to 
inquire into the cause of such failure or refusal; and that said 
committee have power to send for persons and papers, and report to this 
House.

  The Speaker \2\ decided that the subject-matter of the resolution did 
not involve the privilege of the House, and was not therefore a 
question of privilege.
  Mr. Davis having appealed, the decision of the Chair was sustained.
  1894. In 1886 the refusal of the Attorney-General to transmit certain 
papers called for by the Senate led to a discussion of prerogatives and 
a declaration by the Senate.--In 1886,\3\ there was a prolonged 
consideration in the Senate of the relations of the Senate and the 
Executive, caused by the declination of the Attorney-General to 
transmit to the Senate certain documents concerning the administration 
of the office of the district attorney of the southern district of 
Alabama.
  The Senate had called for ``all documents and papers that have been 
filed in the Department of Justice since the 1st day of January, 1885, 
in relation to the management and conduct of the office of district 
attorney of the United States of the southern district of Alabama.'' 
The papers which the Attorney-General refused to transmit were those 
having ``exclusive reference to the suspension by the President of 
George M. Duskin, the late incumbent,'' and he stated that ``it was not 
considered that the public interest would be promoted by a compliance'' 
with the request of the Senate.
  On February 18 Mr. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, from the Committee 
on the Judiciary, made an exhaustive report on the obligations of the 
Executive to transmit to Congress documents called for, and concluding 
with a resolution condemnatory of the Executive for this refusal. The 
minority of the committee presented views in opposition to this 
proposed action.
  The report included the following:

  The important question, then, is whether it is within the 
constitutional competence of either House of Congress to have access to 
the official papers and documents in the various public offices of the 
United States created by laws enacted by themselves. It may be fully 
admitted that except in respect of the Department of the Treasury there 
is no statute which commands the head of any Depart-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Twenty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 229; Globe, pp. 
252-254.
  \2\ John W. Davis, of Indiana, Speaker.
  \3\ First session Forty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 1584, 1893, 1902, 
2211, 2784-2814; Senate Report No. 135.
Sec. 1894
ment to transmit to either House of Congress on its demand any 
information whatever concerning the administration of his Department, 
but the committee believes it to be clear that from the very nature of 
the powers entrusted by the Constitution to the two Houses of Congress 
it is a necessary incident that either House must have at all times the 
right to know all that officially exists or takes place in any of the 
Departments of the Government.
  So perfectly was this proposition understood before and at the time 
of the formation of the Constitution that the Continental Congress, 
before the adoption of the present Constitution, in establishing a 
department of foreign affairs and providing for a principal officer 
thereof, thought it fit to enact that all books, records, and other 
papers in that office should be open to the inspection of any Member of 
Congress, provided that no copy should be taken of matters of secret 
nature without special leave of Congress. It was not thought necessary 
to enact that the Congress itself should be entitled to the production 
and inspection of such papers, for that right was supposed to exist in 
the very nature of things, and when, under the Constitution, the 
department came to be created, although the provision that each 
individual Member of Congress should have access to the papers was 
omitted (evidently for reasons that can now be quite well understood), 
it was not thought necessary that an affirmative provision should be 
inserted, giving to the Houses of Congress the right to know the 
contents of the public papers and records in the public offices of the 
country whose laws and whose offices they were to assist in creating.
  It is believed that there is no instance of civilized governments 
having bodies representative of the people or of States in which the 
right and the power of those representative bodies to obtain in one 
form or another complete information as to every paper and transaction 
in any of the executive departments thereof does not exist, even though 
such papers might relate to what is ordinarily an executive function, 
if that function impinged upon any duty or function of the 
representative bodies.
  A qualification of this general right may under our Constitution 
exist in case of calls by the House of Representatives for papers 
relating to treaties, etc., under consideration and not yet disposed of 
by the President and Senate.
  The committee feels authorized to state, after a somewhat careful 
research, that within the foregoing limits there is scarcely in the 
history of this Government until now any instance of a refusal by a 
head of a Department, or even of the President himself, to communicate 
official facts and information, as distinguished from private and 
unofficial papers, motions, views, reasons, and opinions, to either 
House of Congress when unconditionally demanded. Indeed, the early 
Journals of the Senate show great numbers of instances of directions to 
the heads of Departments, as of course, to furnish papers and reports 
upon all sorts of affairs, both legislative and executive.
  The instances of requests to the President and commands to the heads 
of Departments by each House of Congress from those days until now for 
papers and information on every conceivable subject of public affairs 
are almost innumerable, for it appears to have been thought by all the 
Presidents who have carried on the Government now for almost a century 
that, even in respect of requests to them, an independent and 
coordinate branch of the Government, they were under a constitutional 
duty and obligation to furnish to either House the papers called for, 
unless, as has happened in very rare instances, when the request was 
coupled with an appeal to the discretion of the President in respect of 
the danger of publicity, to send the papers if, in his judgment, it 
should not be incompatible with the public welfare.
  Even in times of the highest party excitement and stress, as in 1826 
and 1844, it did not seem to occur to the Chief Executive of the United 
States that it was possible that any official facts or information 
existing, either in the Departments created by law or within his own 
possession, could, save as before stated, be withheld from either of 
the Houses of Congress, although such facts or information sometimes 
involved very intricate and delicate matters of foreign affairs as well 
as sometimes the history and conduct of officers connected with the 
administration of affairs.

  The Senate, on February 18, agreed to this resolution:

  Resolved, That it is, under these circumstances, the duty of the 
Senate to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals of 
officers the documents and papers in reference to the supposed official 
or personal misconduct of whom are withheld by the Executive or any 
head of a Department when deemed necessary by the Senate and called for 
in considering the matter.
                                                            Sec. 1895
  The President,\1\ on March 1, transmitted a message in which he said:

  While, therefore, I am constrained to deny the right of the Senate to 
the papers and documents described, so far as the right to the same is 
based upon the claim that they are in any view of the subject official, 
I am also led unequivocally to dispute the right of the Senate, by the 
aid of any documents whatever, or in any way save through the judicial 
process of trial on impeachment, to review or reverse the acts of the 
Executive in the suspension, during the recess of the Senate, of 
Federal officials.
  I believe the power to remove or suspend such officials is vested in 
the President alone by the Constitution, which in express terms 
provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of 
the United States of America,'' and that ``he shall take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed.''
  The Senate belongs to the legislative branch of the Government. When 
the Constitution by express provision superadded to its legislative 
duties the right to advise and consent to appointments to office and to 
sit as a court of impeachment, it conferred upon that body all the 
control and regulation of Executive action supposed to be necessary for 
the safety of the people; and this express and special grant of such 
extraordinary powers, not in any way related to or growing out of 
general Senatorial duty, and in itself a departure from the general 
plan of our Government, should be held, under a familiar maxim of 
construction, to exclude every other right of interference with 
Executive functions.
  In the first Congress which assembled after the adoption of the 
Constitution, comprising many who aided in its preparation, a 
legislative construction was given to that instrument in which the 
independence of the Executive in the matter of removals from office was 
fully sustained.

  As to the law of 1867, Mr. Cleveland said:

  The first enactment of this description was passed under a stress of 
partisanship and political bitterness which culminated in the 
President's impeachment.
  This law provided that the Federal officers to which it applied could 
only be suspended during the recess of the Senate when shown by 
evidence satisfactory to the President to be guilty of misconduct in 
office, or crime, or when incapable or disqualified to perform their 
duties, and that within twenty days after the next meeting of the 
Senate it should be the duty of the President ``to report to the Senate 
such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the 
case.''
  This statute, passed in 1867, when Congress was overwhelmingly and 
bitterly opposed politically to the President, may be regarded as an 
indication that even then it was thought necessary by a Congress 
determined upon the subjugation of the Executive to legislative will to 
furnish itself a law for that purpose, instead of attempting to reach 
the object intended by an invocation of any pretended constitutional 
right.
* * * * * * *

  The requests and demands which by the score have for nearly three 
months been presented to the different Departments of the Government, 
whatever may be their form, have but one complexion. They assume the 
right of the Senate to sit in judgment upon the exercise of my 
exclusive discretion and executive function, for which I am solely 
responsible to the people from whom I have so lately received the 
sacred trust of office. My oath to support and defend the Constitution, 
my duty to the people who have chosen me to execute the powers of their 
great office and not to relinquish them, and my duty to the Chief 
Magistracy, which I must preserve unimpaired in all its dignity and 
vigor, compel me to refuse compliance with these demands.

  From March 9 to March 26 the Senate debated the issue involved, and 
concluded with a condemnation of the action of the Attorney-General 
as--

in violation of his official duty and subversive of the fundamental 
principles of the Government and of a good administration thereof.

  1895. It has been considered proper to use the word ``request'' in 
asking for information from the President and ``direct'' in addressing 
the heads of Departments.--On January 21, 1837,\2\ the select committee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Grover Cleveland, President. 
  \2\ House Report No. 194, second session, Twenty-fourth Congress, 
journal of the committee, pp. 4, 6, 7.
Sec. 1896
appointed to investigate the Executive Departments of the Government, 
was considering a resolution calling for information, in terms as 
follows:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States and the heads of 
the several Executive Departments be required to furnish this committee 
with a list or lists of all officers, etc.

  Mr. Dutee J. Pearce, of Rhode Island, moved to amend the resolution 
so that it would read ``requested'' as to the call upon the President 
and ``directed'' as to the call upon heads of departments.
  This amendment was agreed to, yeas 7, nays 1.
  1896. Resolutions of inquiry addressed to the President have usually 
contained the clause ``if not incompatible with the public interest,'' 
especially when on the subject of diplomatic affairs.
  In some instances the House has made its inquiries of the President 
without condition, and has even made the inquiry imperative.
  On January 16, 1807,\1\ Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, offered this 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby 
is, requested to lay before this House any information in possession of 
the Executive, except such as he may deem the public welfare to require 
not to be disclosed, touching any illegal combination of private 
individuals against the peace and safety of the Union, or any military 
expedition planned by such individuals against the territories of any 
power in amity with the United States; together with the measures which 
the Executive has pursue for suppressing or defeating the same.

  Question arose as to the propriety of the resolution, and reference 
was made to similar resolutions passed in 1797 \2\ and 1798.\3\
  The resolution was agreed to, yeas 109, nays 14, and yeas 67, nays 
52, a separate vote having been taken on the latter portion of the 
resolution, ``together with the measures which the Executive has 
pursued'' etc., the words ``and proposes to take'' having been stricken 
out on motion of Mr. Randolph.
  Mr. John Randolph and Mr. Lloyd were appointed a committee to present 
the resolution to the President, and on January 19 Mr. Randolph 
reported that the President signified that he would

cause the information requested to be laid before the House.

  On January 22, the President \4\ communicated the information to the 
House.
  1897. On February 27, 1856,\5\ the House agreed to the following 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to this 
House so much of the correspondence between the Government of the 
United States and that of Great Britain touching the Clayton-Bulwer 
convention, not heretofore communicated, as be shall deem not 
incompatible with the public interest.

  On April 9, President Pierce transmitted the information called for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 533-536, 545 (Gales & 
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 334-359.
  \2\ January 2, 1797, Journal second session, Fourth Congress, p. 634 
(Gales & Seaton ed.)
  \3\ April 2, 1798.
  \4\ Thomas Jefferson, President.
  \5\ First session Thirty-fourth Congress, Journal, pp. 609, 802; 
Globe, pp. 521, 841.
                                                            Sec. 1898
  1898. On March 30, 1798,\1\ Mr. John Allen, of Connecticut, proposed 
this resolution:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
communicate to this House the dispatches from the envoys extraordinary 
from the United States to the French Republic, mentioned in his message 
of the 19 instant, or such parts thereof as consideration of public 
safety and interest, in his opinion, may permit.

  Discussion arose as to the last clause of the resolution, objection 
being made that it proposed to transfer to the President a right which 
the House itself should exercise of determining what it was proper to 
publish in consideration of the public interest. This case differed 
from that when papers relating to the British treaty were called for, 
since this was a subject within the constitutional authority of the 
House. The House, without division, struck out the objectionable 
clause, and the resolution was agreed to in this form, yeas 65, nays 
27:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
communicate to this House the instructions to, and dispatches from, the 
envoys extraordinary from the United States to the French Republic, 
mentioned in his message of the 19th ultimo.
  Ordered, That Mr. Allen and Mr. Hanna be appointed a committee to 
present the foregoing resolution to the President of the United States.

  The same day Mr. Allen reported that the committee had performed that 
service, and that the President signified to them that he would take 
the subject into his consideration, and do thereon what it should 
appear to him the public safety required.
  On April 3 \2\ the President \3\ transmitted, ``in compliance with 
the request of the House of Representatives,'' the papers mentioned in 
the resolution, ``omitting only some names and a few expressions 
descriptive of the persons.'' The President then said:

  I request that they may be considered in confidence until the members 
of Congress are fully possessed of their contents, and shall have had 
opportunity to deliberate on the consequences of their publication; 
after which time I submit them to your wisdom.

  The House then proceeded to consider the papers in secret session.
  1899. On June 1, 1868,\4\ the House agreed to a resolution 
``directing'' the President to send to the House certain information in 
regard to the return of John C. Breckinridge to the United States. Mr. 
James G. Blaine, of Maine, called attention to the fact that the usual 
word was ``requested,'' but the resolution was passed in the original 
form.
  1900. On December 17, 1821,\5\ Mr. Ezekiel Whitman, of Maine, 
proposed the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
cause to be laid before this House such information as he may think 
proper to communicate in relation to any misunderstanding which may 
have existed between Andrew Jackson, as governor of the Floridas, and 
Elijius Fromentin, as judge of the court therein; and also in relation 
to any delay or omission on the part of the officers under his
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifth Congress, Journal, pp. 248, 249 (Gales & 
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 1357-1371.
  \2\ Journal, p. 252.
  \3\ John Adams.
  \4\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 99, 785, 786; 
Globe, p. 2756.
  \5\ First session Seventeenth Congress, Journal, pp. 65, 108, 109, 
198; Annals, pp. 558-559, 610-620, 826.
Sec. 1901
Catholic majesty to surrender to the officers and commissioners of the 
United States, duly authorized to receive the same, any of the archives 
and documents which relate directly to the property and sovereignty in 
and over the said Floridas, etc.

  On motion of Mr. Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, the words ``thin 
proper to communicate'' were stricken out and in their place was 
inserted the word ``possess.''
  Also, on January 2, this amendment was added at the end of the 
resolution:

  And also such part of the correspondence as it may be consistent with 
the public interest to disclose, and which has not heretofore been 
communicated, which may have taken place between the Executive and the 
said Andrew Jackson touching the proceedings of the latter during his 
continuance as governor of said Territory.

  Considerable debate was occasioned as to the propriety of the 
resolution, but it was agreed to.
  On January 29 President Monroe responded to the request, saying in 
his message:

  Being always desirous to communicate Congress or to either House all 
the information in the possession of the Executive respecting any 
important interest of our Union which may be communicated without real 
injury to our constituents, and which can rarely happen except in 
negotiations pending with foreign powers, and deeming it more 
consistent with the principles of our Government in cases submitted to 
my discretion, as in the present instance, to hazard error by the 
freedom of the communication rather than by withholding any portion of 
information belonging to the subject, I have thought proper to 
communicate every document comprised within this call.

  1901. On December 31, 1849,\1\ Mr. Abraham W. Venable, of North 
Carolina, offered the following:

  Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to 
communicate to this House, as early as he conveniently can whether, 
since the last session of Congress, any person has been by him 
appointed either a civil or military governor of California or New 
Mexico. If any military or civil governor has been appointed, their 
names and their compensation. If a military and civil governor has been 
united in one person, whether any additional compensation has been 
given for said duties, and the amount of the same, etc. (The resolution 
continues in other paragraphs relating to the same subject.)

  A suggestion was made by Mr. Henry W. Hilliard, of Alabama, that the 
words ``if not incompatible with the public interest,'' be inserted 
after the word ``House,'' where it first occurs.
  Mr. Venable declined to accept the modification. He said he believed 
that this clause was usually inserted in resolutions calling for 
information relating to foreign relations, and not necessarily in other 
calls. He intended no discourtesy to the President, but wanted the 
information.
  Mr. Hilliard then moved to insert the clause, but the House decided 
the motion in the negative without division.
  The resolution was then agreed to.
  On January 21, 1850, the President transmitted the information called 
for.
  1902. A discussion in the Senate as to its powers in calling for 
papers from the President.
  The clause, ``if not, in his judgment, incompatible with the public
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Thirty-first Congress, Journal, pp. 207, 208, 379; 
Globe, p. 90.
                                                            Sec. 1903
interest,'' is generally used by the Senate in resolutions of inquiry 
directed to the President.
  On January 28, 1904,\1\ in the Senate, in open session, Mr. Charles 
A. Culberson, of Texas, called up for consideration the following 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the President be requested to inform the Senate 
whether all the correspondence and notes between the Department of 
State and the legation of the United States at Bogota, and between 
either of these and the Government of Colombia for the construction of 
an isthmian canal since June twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred and two, 
and all the correspondence and notes between the United States and any 
of its officials or representatives or the Government of Panama 
concerning the separation of Panama from Colombia, have been sent to 
the Senate, and, if not, that he be requested to send the remaining 
correspondence and notes to the Senate in executive session.

  To this Mr. Shelby M. Cullom, of Illinois, proposed to add the 
following amendment:

if not, in his judgment, incompatible with the public interest.

  An extended debate arose as to the powers of the Senate to call on 
the Executive for papers, with an abundant citation of precedents. Mr. 
Cullom said that so far as he had examined the qualifying clause which 
he had proposed was first inserted in a resolution of inquiry by Mr. 
Daniel Webster, when a Senator.
  After debate it was agreed that a vote should be taken on the 
resolution on the next day.
  On January 29, 1904,\2\ the debate was concluded, and the question 
being taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. Cullom, there were yeas 
39, nays 20; so the amendment was agreed to.
  Then, after certain other amendments verbal in nature had been agreed 
to, the resolution was agreed to by the Senate.
  1903. On March 11, 1905,\3\ in the Senate, the following resolution, 
offered by Mr. Henry M. Teller, of Colorado, was considered:

  Resolved, That the President is hereby requested, if, in his opinion, 
not incompatible with the public interest, to send to the Senate, for 
use in executive sessions, copies of the instructions given to 
Commodore Dillingham and Minister Dawson, or either of them, regarding 
Dominican affairs, and copies of all correspondence and telegrams 
relating to Dominican affairs, or relating to any proposed agreement, 
protocol, or treaty between the United States and Santo Domingo, from 
July 1, 1904, to the lst of March, 1905.

  The consideration of this resolution caused a debate of some length, 
which extended into the next day's session, as to its propriety, with a 
review of precedents.
  The resolution was finally referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  1904. Discussion in the Senate as to the practice of requiring 
information from the heads of Departments and requesting it of the 
President.--On December 6, 1906,\4\ the Senate was considering this 
resolution:

  Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the 
Senate, if not incompatible with the public interests, full information 
bearing upon the recent order dismissing from the military service of 
the United States three companies of the Twenty-fifth Regiment of 
Infantry, United States troops (colored).

when Mr. John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Second session Fifty-eighth Congress, Record, pp. 1303-1324.
  \2\ Record, pp. 1361-1365.
  \3\ Special session of the Senate, Fifty-ninth Congress.
  \4\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, pp. 97-106.
Sec. 1904
  Mr. President, I am opposed to the resolution offered by the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. My opposition to it is based entirely upon the form 
of it. This resolution does not, so far as the subject-matter goes, 
fall within the clam of inquiries which the Senate has ever been 
accustomed to address to the President. It implies on its face, Mr. 
President, a doubt here which I think does not exist; as to whether the 
Senate is of right entitled to all the facts relating to the discharge 
of the three named companies or not. Always the Senate, in passing 
resolutions of inquiry addressed to Cabinet officers, except the 
Secretary of State, make them in form of direction, not request. It 
rarely has happened that a request has been addressed to any Cabinet 
officer where foreign relations were involved. Where such a resolution 
has been adopted it has been addressed to the President, with the 
qualification that he is requested to furnish the information only so 
far as, in his judgment, the transmission of it is compatible with the 
public interest.
  There are reasons for that, Mr. President. The State Department 
stands upon an entirely different basis as to the Congress from the 
other Departments. The conduct of our foreign relations is vested by 
the Constitution in the President. It would not be admissible at all 
that either House should have the power to force from the Secretary of 
State information connected with the negotiation of treaties, 
communications from foreign governments, and a variety of matters 
which, if made public, would result in very great harm in our foreign 
relations--matters so far within the control of the President that it 
has always been the practice, and it always will be the practice, to 
recognize the fact that there is of necessity information which it may 
not be compatible with the public interest should be transmitted to 
Congress--to the Senate or to the House.
  There are other cases, not especially confined, Mr. President, to the 
State Department, or to foreign relations, where the President would be 
at liberty obviously to decline to transmit information to Congress or 
to either House of Congress. Of course, in time of war, the President 
being Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, could not, and the War 
Department or the Navy Department could not, be required by either 
House to transmit plans of campaign or orders issued as to the 
destination of ships, or anything relating to the strategy of war, the 
public knowledge of which getting to the enemy would defeat the 
Government and its plans and enure to the benefit of an enemy.
  There are still other cases. The Department of Justice would not be 
expected to transmit to either House the result of its investigations 
upon which some one had been indicted, and lay bare to the defendant 
the case of the Government. The confidential investigations in various 
departments of the Government should be, and have always been, treated 
by both Houses as confidential, and the President is entirely at 
liberty to permit by the Cabinet officer to whom the inquiry is 
addressed as much or as little information regarding them as he might 
see fit. I have no doubt the President would transmit everything upon 
this subject. My objection is to the form of the resolution. I think we 
ought to maintain the uniform practice upon the subject. I do not 
think, as to a matter upon which the Senate clearly has a right to be 
fully advised, it should depart from the usual form of directing the 
transmission by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy or 
the Secretary of the Interior, to adopt a resolution of request of the 
President, bearing upon its face a recognition of the fact that he is 
at liberty to withhold the information or to transmit such part of it 
as he shall see fit.
  Mr. President, in time of peace as to matters relating to the 
organization and the administration of the Army there can be no 
secrecy. It is purely domestic public business, as to which the 
Congress has a right to know. I should be very much disappointed if in 
a matter of this kind the Senate should address the inquiry to the 
President, coupled, as it must be, with the suggestion that we doubt 
our right to the information. I think it is a bad precedent to 
establish. In such matters I think we ought to maintain the practice 
which, so far as I remember, hitherto has been unbroken. Therefore I am 
opposed to the form of the resolution of the Senator from Pennsylvania. 
I am in favor of the form of the resolution of the Senator from Ohio.

  On the other hand, various Senators expressed the opinion that, in 
accordance with the precedents of the Senate, it would be perfectly 
proper to ask the information of the President. Mr. Henry M. Teller, of 
Colorado, said:

  I had occasion some time ago to consult the precedents running back 
forty or fifty years, and I have a very distinct recollection of a 
number of cases where Presidents have declined to communicate 
information both to the House and to the Senate.
                                                            Sec. 1905
  I do not think there is any impropriety in our asking the President 
in a courteous, proper manner to communicate information to the Senate. 
I am under the impression, Mr. President, that the better practice 
would be to ask the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Treasury, or 
the Secretary of the Navy, whoever it might be that had the matter 
under control, without annoying the President and adding to his work. 
But, so far as I am concerned, I am willing to vote for a resolution 
asking the President for information, or I am willing to vote for a 
resolution asking the Secretary of War for information; but I do not 
think we ought to ask them both. It seems to me we ought to confine 
ourselves to one or the other. I simply express my preference for the 
method of asking the Secretary of War, instead of asking the President.

  The Senate agreed to the resolution without changing it in respect to 
suggestions of Mr. Spooner.
  1905. Discussion of the status of the Department of State in relation 
to resolutions of inquiry.--On January 23, 1906,\1\ in the Senate, Mr. 
John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, said in the course of a speech on the 
prerogatives of the President in relation to foreign affairs:

  The act creating the Department of State, in 1789, was an exception 
to the acts creating the other Departments of the Government. I will 
not stop to refer to the language of it or to any of the discussions in 
regard to it, but it is a Department that is not required to make any 
reports to Congress. It is a Department which from the beginning the 
Senate has never assumed the right to director control, except as to 
clearly define matters relating to duty imposed by statute and not 
connected with the conduct of our foreign relations.
  We direct all the other heads of Departments to transmit to the 
Senate designated papers or information. We do not address directions 
to the Secretary of State, nor do we direct requests, even, to the 
Secretary of State. We direct requests to the real head of that 
Department, the President of the United States, and, as a matter of 
courtesy, we add the qualifying words, ``if in his judgment not 
incompatible with the public interest.'' \2\

  1906. The Postmaster-General having responded to an inquiry in a 
manner considered disrespectful, the Senate referred the matter to the 
President, whereat an explanation was forthcoming.--On March 1, 
1839,\3\ the Senate agreed to the following resolution:

  Resolved, That the letter of the Postmaster-General to the President 
of the Senate, stating that the only reason why he had not sent an 
answer to a previous resolution was because it was not ready is 
considered by the Senate as disrespectful to this body.
  Resolved, That said letter, with the resolution to which it purported 
to be an answer, be laid before the President of the United States for 
such action as he may deem proper.

  The same day a message from the President transmitted a letter of 
explanation from the Postmaster-General.
  1907. The Senate returned to the Secretary of the Navy an impertinent 
document transmitted in response to an inquiry.--On March 3, 1865,\4\ 
the Senate considered and examined, as a question of privilege, the act 
of the Secretary of the Navy in sending to the Senate, in answer to an 
inquiry, a document
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ First session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 1420.
  \2\ The statutes provide that the Secretary of War (R. S., secs. 227-
229), of the Treasury (R. S., secs. 257-264), the Attorney-General (R. 
S., secs. 384, 385), the Postmaster-General (R. S., sec. 413), the 
Secretary of the Navy (R. S., sec. 429), the Secretary of the Interior 
(R. S., sec. 445), shall make certain specified reports; but nowhere 
does there appear legislation requiring them to transmit documents or 
information in response to inquiries of either House.
  \3\ Third session Twenty-fifth Congress, Globe, p. 220.
  \4\ Second session Thirty-eighth Congress, Globe, pp. 1346, 1361.
Sec. 1908
which did not relate to the inquiry, but which embodied a reply by the 
Assistant Secretary to some remarks made in relation to him by a 
Senator. After investigation by the Judiciary Committee, the Senate 
decided that the document should not have been communicated, and 
directed that it be returned to the Secretary of the Navy.
  1908. A subordinate officer of the Government, to whom the House has 
directed a resolution of inquiry, may respond directly or through his 
superior.--On January 5, 1863,\1\ the House by resolution asked of the 
Secretary of State certain information relating to the relations of the 
United States with the Government in New Granada. On January 16 a 
response was received, not from the Secretary of State, but from the 
President.
  1909. On January 30, 1863,\2\ the House ``directed'' the General in 
Chief of the Army to inform the House as to paroles of certain 
confederate officers. On February 9 the inquiry was responded to by the 
Secretary of War.
  1910. In 1868 \3\ frequent instances occurred wherein the House 
called directly on the General of the Army for information, and in turn 
the General of the Army transmitted his communications directly to the 
House.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  \1\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 134, 196.
  \2\ Third session Thirty-seventh Congress, Journal, pp. 298, 354.
  \3\ Second session Fortieth Congress, Journal, pp. 503, 505, 650, 
678.