150 



National Resources Committee 



to compel the giving of evidence and the production 

 of pertinent papers, is firmly upheld when the i)ur- 

 pose of the inquiry has a bearing upon the exercise by 

 Congress of its legislative function. In that decision 

 the Court said : " 



We are of the upiniou that the power of inquiry— with process 

 to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the 

 legislative function. * * * A legislative body cannot legis- 

 late wisely and effectively in the absence of opinion respecting 

 the conditions which the legislation Is intended to affect or 

 change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess 

 the requisite information — which not infrequently is true — 

 recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience 

 has taught that mere requisitions for such information often 

 are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered 

 is not always accurate or complete ; so some means of compul- 

 sion are essential to obtain what Is needed. All this was true 

 before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. 

 In that period the power of inquiry — with enforcing process — 

 was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate 

 attribute of the power to legislate— indeed was treated as 

 inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as 

 we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the 

 legislative function to the two Hou.ses are intended to include 

 this attribute, to the end that the function may be effectively 

 exercised. 



Tills decision, it will be noted, affirms the investigatory 

 powers of Congress primarily upon the authority of 

 Congress to do what is necessary in order that it may 

 effectively perfoi-m its function as a legislative body, 

 rather than upon the function of Congress as a board 

 of directors to investigate the conduct of its admm- 

 istrative agencies. This latter function of Congress, 

 with the concomitant powers to take the necessary steps 

 to assure itself that its orders have been properly car- 

 ried out, has never, in the opinion of the writer, been 

 properly emphasized either by counsel for the Govern- 

 ment in arguing the investigatory powers of Congress, 

 or by the Supreme Court in handing down its decisions. 

 Granting, as it would seem must be gi-anted, that Con- 

 gress is the body that possesses final authority in respect 

 to administrative action, that it is the body that directs 

 what administrative activities shall be engaged in and 

 how such activities shall be performed, it would seem 

 to follow necessarily that it should have the right to 

 prosecute such inquiries as might be necessary to assure 

 itself that its orders were being properly put into effect 

 and this independently of any claim that the informa- 

 tion sought was desired with reference to possible future 

 legislation. Should the issue be raised in this form it 

 is extremely likely that the full power of Congress to 

 investigate any aspect of the organization and opera- 

 tion of the administrative branch would be sustained 

 by the courts. 



"John J. McOrain, Depttty Sergeant at Arms of the United States 

 Sinatc V. Mall]/ S. Dougherty (273 D. S. 130, 1927). 



When the investigation, however, is one having for 

 its purpose an inquiry into general economic or social 

 conditions or practices, the power of Congress to com- 

 pel the giving of testimony and the production of 

 papers would, apparently, have to be justified on the 

 ground that the information sought was needed in order 

 that Congress might properly perform its legislative 

 function. *- 



English Royal Commissions 



A consideration of the various ways in which Ameri- 

 can legislatures proceed in undertaking research work 

 would be incomplete that did not make mention of the 

 important results achieved in England through the 

 employment of the device known as royal commissions. 

 These commissions are so named because, though their 

 establishment may have a statutory basis or may be 

 the result of the initiation of the ministry, they are, 

 technicalh', created by the Crown which, in so doing, 

 determines their compostion and duties. Though 

 structurally, and as regards the methods of inquiry 

 employed, these bodies are not dissimilar from the 

 commissions created by Congress, actually their work 

 is, on the whole, of a higher character, and their reports 

 have a prestige and exert an influence upon legislation 

 and public opinion that is rarely enjoyed by American 

 commissions. The reasons for this are several. 



In the first place, it is the practice of the Crown, 

 acting, of course, on the recommendation of the min- 

 istry, to select for membership on the commission per- 

 sons of great eminence and special competence, whose 

 conclusions will carry weight with the public. Sec- 

 ondly, it is considered a high honor to be asked to 

 serve on a royal commission, and the persons so se- 

 lected, though receiving no compensation, as do mem- 

 bers of American commissions, are willing to give to 



•2 Congress has, by statute, provided the means by which Its powers 

 to enforce the giving ot testimony and the production of papers may 

 be exercised. These provisions of law now constitute sections 191-196, 

 title II of the United States Code. The signiflcant sections are 192, 

 193, and 194, which read as follows : 



"Sdc. 192. Be/usal of witness to testify. — Every person who, having 

 been summoned as a witness by the authority ot either House of Con- 

 gress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matters under 

 Inquiry before either House, or any committee of either House of Con- 

 gress, wilfully mattes default, or who, hartng appeared, refuses to 

 answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be 

 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than 

 $1,000, nor le.ss than .$100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not 

 less than 1 month nor more than 12 months (act of Jan. 2-J, 1857). 



"Sbc. 193. Privileges of ^c-itness. — No witness is privileged to refuse 

 to testify to any fact or to produce any paper respecting which he shall 

 be examined by either House of Congress, or by any committee of either 

 House, upon the ground that his testimony may tend to disgrace him 

 or otherwise render him Infamous (act of Jan. 24, 1862). 



"Sec. 194. Witness failing to testify. — Whenever a witness summoned 

 as mentioned In section 192 of this title falls to testify and the facts 

 are reported to either House, the President of the Senate or the Speaker 

 of the House, as the case may be, shall certify the fact, under the seal 

 of the Senate or House, to the district attorney for the District of 

 Columbia whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand 

 jury for their action (act of Jan. 24, 1857)." 



