Report Outline
New Attacks on Congressional Investigations
Role of the Investigating Committee
Safeguards for Rights of Committee Witnesses
New Attacks on Congressional Investigations
The right of Congress to undertake investigations into the conduct of individuals has been a subject of controversy ever since the first congressional investigation was put under way in 1792. But the congressional investigation has held a firm place in the process of government in the United States, and little has been attempted in the way of limiting the power of Congress to investigate, or of regulating the procedure of its investigating committees.
As a result of recent developments, new attempts are now being made to place limits on the traditional freedom of congressional inquiry. Many witnesses have refused to answer questions of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and are challenging the constitutionality of its processes in the courts. It was announced, Jan. 20, that a Committee of One Thousand, with Harlow Shapley as acting chairman, was being organized to work for the abolition of the Un-American Activities Committee on the ground that it “threatens those freedoms that have given us for 170 years the way of life we cherish and respect.” Legislation offered by California members of the House, after the citation of ten Hollywood film figures for contempt in November 1947, proposes thoroughgoing reforms of investigating procedures to provide better protections for the rights of private citizens. On the other hand, bills introduced by Rep. McDowell (R., Pa.), a member of the Committee on Un-American Activities, would increase the maximum penalties for refusing to appear or refusing to answer questions before investigating committees from $1,000 fine and one year imprisonment to $5,000 fine and five years imprisonment.
Legislators in The Role of Judges
Once described by Woodrow Wilson as “a semi-judicial examination into corners suspected to be dirty,” a congressional investigation can take on aspects of a trial without the safeguards to the individual of regular court proceedings. If illegal activities are uncovered by a congressional committee, such cases can be, and are, referred to the proper authorities for prosecution and punishment, on conviction, by fine or imprisonment under the criminal statutes. But there are many cases in which a committee is exploring activities that are not illegal in themselves, and in these cases witnesses appearing before the committee may be exposed to penalties of a different sort. |
|
|
 |
Jan. 31, 2014 |
Whistleblowers |
 |
Feb. 18, 2011 |
Lies and Politics |
 |
Apr. 30, 2010 |
Gridlock in Washington |
 |
Jun. 22, 2007 |
Prosecutors and Politics |
 |
Jun. 16, 2006 |
Pork Barrel Politics |
 |
May 07, 1999 |
Independent Counsels Re-Examined |
 |
Feb. 21, 1997 |
Independent Counsels |
 |
May 27, 1994 |
Political Scandals |
 |
Apr. 06, 1979 |
Assassinations Investigation |
 |
Dec. 05, 1973 |
Presidential Impeachment |
 |
May 16, 1973 |
Ethics in Government |
 |
May 10, 1961 |
Secret Societies and Political Action |
 |
Jun. 29, 1960 |
Conflicts of Interest |
 |
Oct. 26, 1955 |
Businessmen in Government |
 |
Apr. 07, 1954 |
Fair Investigations |
 |
Apr. 25, 1952 |
Congressional Immunity |
 |
Dec. 05, 1951 |
Ethics in Government |
 |
Jan. 28, 1948 |
Individual Rights and Congressional Investigations |
 |
Jul. 02, 1934 |
Political Reform and Federal Patronage |
 |
Mar. 07, 1924 |
Congressional Extravagance and the Budget |
 |
Nov. 12, 1923 |
Issues Developed in the Teapot Dome Inquiry |
| | |
|