148 



as quiet and inactive as possible. The reiuainiug 40 which 

 inaUe reports soem to have had part of their recommendations 

 adopted eventually, although in some instances the lapse of time 

 was so long that other factors or forces probably should be 

 given chief credit. 



In evaluating this showing, it must be borne in mind 

 that many of the interim committees were given no 

 funds with which to employ expert assistance and were 

 expected to do little more than report the results of 

 their own consideration of the subjects assigned them. 

 Even so, the showing is one that would indicate that re- 

 search work of this kind by legislative bodies is worth 

 while. Mr. Christian Larsen, who made a somewhat 

 similar study for the State of California, found that a 

 surprisingly large number of the major recommeda- 

 tions of committees and commissions of inquiry were 

 enacted into law.^" 



Choice of Agency.— A. second question is as to the 

 character of agency that should be made use of in con- 

 ducting an inquiry after the legislature has become 

 convinced that need for its undertaking exists. The 

 answer that should be given to this depends upon the 

 nature of the proposed inquiry. When the matter to 

 be inquired into is not a complicated one and has a 

 direct bearing upon proposed legislation, it would seem 

 that it could be most advantageously conducted by the 

 standing committee having jurisdiction of the matter 

 or by a joint committee of the two Houses, the mem- 

 bership of which is selected from the memberships of 

 the two committees having jurisdiction. "When the sub- 

 ject is one not clearly within the jurisdiction of any 

 particular standing committee, or where consideration 

 of the matter from various points of view is desired, 

 the device of a special or select committee is indicated. 

 An example in which action in this way was desirable is 

 furnished by the House Special Committee on the 

 Budget which framed the Budget and Accounting Act, 

 1921, and the modification of the rules of the House 

 regarding the consideration of appropriation bills. 

 When the objective is the mere assembling and presenta- 

 tion of facts, action should preferably take the form 

 of directing the inquiry to be made by the appropriate 

 administrative agency rather than by the legislature 

 creating an ad hoc body for the purpose. An example 

 of where this desirable action was taken is the direction 

 given by the act of January 29, 1907, to the Secretary 

 of Conmierce and Labor to make a special investigation 

 of the conditions of labor of women and children, the 

 published reports of which embraced 19 volumes cover- 

 ing almost every phase of the subject (S. Doc. 643, 61st 

 Cong., 2d sess., 1910). 



National Resources Committee 



When the matter is one demanding not so much the 

 assembling of data as the ascertainment of public 

 opinion, the position held by the special interests 

 affected and the judgment and opinions of expert stu- 

 dents regarding the factors of a complicated problem ; 

 or when it is desired to inquire uito the matter in 

 which certain private interests, such as utility corpo- 

 rations, are conducting their business, it is desirable, if 

 not essential, that the inquiry be conducted by a direct 

 agency of the legislature. For the conduct of an in- 

 quiry of this character the legislature has a great 

 advantage over an administrative agency. This con- 

 sists in the fact that the information desired, m great 

 part, can only be secured through the use of the meth- 

 ods of a grand jury; that is, by the summoning of 

 witnesses, the placing of them under oath, and the 

 compelling of the giving of testimony by them and the 

 production of pertinent papers and records." This 

 authority possessed by legislative bodies to conduct in- 

 quests constitutes one of their important powers and 

 is often employed with great public benefit. It is thus 

 difficult to see how the facts regarding the attitude 

 of employers toward their employees, and particularly 

 the employment by them of espionage methods over 

 employees' organizations, could have been otherwise 

 developed to the extent that they have been by the 

 subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education 

 and Labor under the direction of Senator Kobert La 

 Follette. 



It goes almost without saying that inquiries touching 

 their own affairs, such as those into campaign expendi- 

 tures and other acts by candidates for Federal office, 

 the lobby and the like, should be conducted by legisla- 

 tive committees. The same is true when the inquiry 

 is one into the manner in which an administrative 

 agency has conducted itself. 



The foregoing considerations are fairly obvious. 

 When one turns, however, to the making of investiga- 

 tions into the organization staffing, and methods of 

 procedure of the administrative branch, many differ- 

 ences of opinion have existed as to whether such in- 

 quiries should be conducted by the legislative or execu- 

 tive branch. Most of the economy and efficiency com- 

 missions created by the States for an examination into 

 the organization and methods of business of their ad- 

 ministrative establishments have partaken of the nature 

 of executive inquiries. Though their establishment was 



^ Christian Larsen, The Use of Special Committees and Comm,i!iswns 

 by the California Leffislature. California Bureau of Public Adminis- 

 tration, 19.37. 



•"Where the legislature has created agencies, such as the i'ederal 

 Trade Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Securities 

 and Exchange Commission, ^^^th the status of subordinate agencies of 

 the legislative branch rather than parts of the administrative branch, 

 and has conferred upon them inquisitional powers to compel testimony 

 and the production of papers, the inquiries can at times be entrusted 

 to them. After much discussion in Congress, the decision was thus 

 made to have the investigation of the propaganda activities of public 

 utility corporations made by the Federal Trade Commission instead of 

 by a committee of Congress. 



