Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T01:19:19.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congressional Investigations of Matters of International Import

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

James A. Perkins
James A. Perkins
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent congressional debates on neutrality legislation have once more focused attention on the problem of control of American foreign policy. On the one hand, the President has demanded that leadership in formulation of foreign policy be concentrated in the hands of the executive; on the other hand, Congress has insisted that its powers be employed to provide for adequate control of that leadership on behalf of the people. This problem of executive leadership and proper control is, perhaps, the central problem of the machinery of democratic government, but in the field of foreign policy it is a particularly difficult one because constitutional construction and usage have failed to draw definite boundaries as to congressional and executive powers. If Congress is the instrument through which popular control of the executive is to be exercised, it is important to study the adequacy or inadequacy of such control.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1940 , pp. 284 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Corwin, Edward S., The President's Control of Foreign Relations (Princeton, 1917), pp. 205–207.Google Scholar

2 Important works on this subject include Green, James F., “The President's Control of Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Reports, Apr. 1, 1939 Google Scholar; Mathews, John M., American Foreign Relations: Conduct and Policies (New York, 1938 ed.)Google Scholar; Poole, D. C., The Conduct of Foreign Relations (New Haven, 1924)Google Scholar; Williams, Benjamin H., American Diplomacy: Policies and Practice (New York, 1936)Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, The Control of American Foreign Relations (New York, 1922).Google Scholar

3 Important studies of investigating committees are: Dimock, Marshall E., Congressional Investigating Committees (Baltimore, 1929)Google Scholar; Eberling, Ernest J., Congressional Investigations (New York, 1928)Google Scholar; Galloway, George B., “The Investigative Function of Congress,” in this Review, Vol. 21, pp. 47–70 Google Scholar; Rogers, Lindsay, The American Senate (New York, 1926).Google Scholar

4 Special Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 206, Congressional Record, 75: 1 (Apr. 12, 1934).

5 Memorandum on the History of the Munitions Campaign of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, June, 1934, prepared by Detzer, Dorothy Google Scholar, national executive secretary.

6 St. Lawrence Waterway. Investigation by Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 278, 72: 1 (Jan. 15, 1932).

7 Second Annual Report of the Power Authority of the State of New York for the Year Ended December 31, 1932. Legislative Document, No. 70, pp. 14–21 (1933).

8 Commercial Relations with China. Investigation by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 256, 71: 3 (June 2, 1930). For Senator Pittman's attitude, see Hearings, parts 1–4, passim.

9 Communist Propaganda. Investigation by Special Committee of U. S. House of Representatives, pursuant to S. Res. 220, Congressional Record, 71: 2 (May 22, 1930).

10 The “main purpose of the resolution is to get facts in order to legislate intelligently so that we can deport from the United States every single alien communist.” Congressional Record, 71: 2, p. 9393.

11 Un-American Activities. Investigation by Special Committee of the U. S. House of Representatives, pursuant to H. Res. 198, 73: 2 (Mar. 20, 1934).

12 See Saunders, D. A., “The Dies Committee: First Phase,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Apr., 1939, pp. 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Sale of Foreign Bonds or Securities in the United States. Investigation by the Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 19, 72:1 (Dec. 10, 1931). For purpose of investigation, see Hearings, pp. 149–150, 2122–2123; also Congressional Record, 72: 1, pp. 6052–53.

14 Mexico. Investigation by a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 106, Congressional Record, 66: 2 (Aug. 8, 1919).

15 Callahan, James M., American Foreign Policy in Mexican Relations (New York, 1932), pp. 577–581 Google Scholar; Bekker, L. J. de, The Plot Against Mexico (New York, 1919)Google Scholar; Nation, Aug. 16, 1919, p. 195; New York Times, Sept. 9, 1919, p. 16; New York Globe, Sept. 9, 1919, p. 1; Vagts, Alfred, Mexico, Europa und America unter besonderer Beruchsichtigung der Petroleumpolitik (Berlin, 1928), Chap. 10.Google Scholar

16 Haiti and Santo Domingo. Investigation by a select committee, U. S. Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 112, Congressional Record, 67: 1 (July 27, 1921).

17 The Literary Digest admitted that the Nation was the leader in the campaign to publicize conditions in Haiti and Santo Domingo (Oct. 20, 1920, p. 16). Other magazines soon followed. Current History, Dec., 1919, pp. 542–548, and Nov., 1920, pp. 342–348; New Republic, Dec. 15, 1920, pp. 71–72; Outlook, Nov. 24, 1920, pp. 542–545; Forum, Sept., 1920, pp. 216–227; Independent, Oct. 30, 1920, pp. 160–161.

18 Nation, Oct. 6, 1920, p. 367. See also Outlook, Nov. 24, 1920, p. 545, and New Republic, Dec. 29, 1920, pp. 117–118.

19 Nation, Nov. 3, 1920, pp. 493–494; Dec. 1, 1920, p. 615.

20 See Congressional Record, 74: 2, p. 501.

21 Senator Johnson's investigation received an appropriation of only $5,000; the St. Lawrence Waterways investigation, $2,500; Communism, $25,000; un-American activities asked for $65,000, but received $30,000; silver, $20,000; munitions, $135,000.

22 U.S. Senate, Preliminary Report and Hearings of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Congressional Record, 66: 2. Senate Document No. 285. See pp. 71–73, 207–294, 365–370, 403–423. Nation, Sept. 20, 1919, p. 387.

23 Fong Yue Tong v. U.S., 149 U.S. 689 (1893); U.S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905).

21 Investigation of Communism. Recommendations in House Report No. 2290, 71: 3. Legislative results: H.R. 16296 (exclusion and expulsion of alien communists), reported favorably (H.Rep. 27970), not debated; H.R. 16348 (denied mails to communist literature), died in Committee on Judiciary, 72: 1. Seven bills to exclude communists died in Committee on Naturalization and Immigration: H. Res. 4579, 10975, 10979, 11389, 11733, 11924, 11946. H.Res. 12044: introduced by Mr. Dies, reported favorably (H.Rep. 1353), passed by House (Congressional Record, 72: 1, p. 12099), reported favorably by Senate Committee on Immigration. (S.Rep. 808), three times bill passed over and never debated (Congressional Record, 72: 1, pp. 13983, 15465, 15689).

Investigation of Un-American Activities (Mr. Dickstein, 1934). Recommendations in House Report No. 153, 74: 1. Legislative results: H.R. 8623 (registration of foreign agents) died in Committee on Foreign Relations: H.R. 5839 and H.R. 7221 (shorten stay of foreigners on temporary visas), H.R. 5839 reported favorably (H.R. 1057), never debated on objections in House (Congressional Record, 74: 1, pp. 2154, 4975). H.R. 5845 (forbade propaganda in military or naval forces), died in Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. Dickstein proposed another investigation on the same subject in April, 1937 (75: 1, H.R. 88), but it was quashed by the House (Congressional Record, 75: 1, p. 4215). See also New York Times, Apr. 9, 1937, p. 1.

Investigation of Un-American Activities (Mr.Dies, , 1938–1939).Google Scholar A number of bills providing for the deportation of aliens have been submitted to the House, but only that of Representative Dempsey has been passed. New York Times, Mar. 24, 1939, p. 13.

25 See statement of SenatorJohnson, Hiram, Congressional Record, 75:1, p. 2234 Google Scholar: “I congratulate the Munitions Committee, Mr. President, upon finally a goal achieved‥‥ Finally the State Department has yielded to the Munitions Committee and has adopted their theory.”

26 See note 5, supra.

27 See particularly Warren, Charles, “Troubles of a Neutral,” Foreign Affairs, Apr., 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry, “Report on Existing Legislation.” Sen. Rep. No. 944, Part 5; 74: 2.

29 Congressional Record, 75: 1, p. 3692.

30 Senator McCormick stated before the investigation was authorized that the solution would be to centralize responsibility under one head (letter to the Nation, Dec. 1, 1920). The committee's interim report recommended the appointment of “a special representative of the President, a high commissioner,” who would act as the American diplomatic representative and would direct the American treaty officials and marine brigade in Haiti, (New York Times, Dec. 26, 1921, p. 15).Google Scholar The final report corroborated the interim report (Senate Report No. 794, 67: 2); reprinted in appendix to Congressional Record, 67: 4, p. 1121. See Millspaugh, Arthur C., Haiti under American Control (Boston, 1931).Google Scholar

31 Hearings, part 4; especially exhibits 413, 423–425.

32 Witness the recent case involving sale of American airplanes to the French. New York Times, Feb. 19, 1939, IV, p. 3.

33 In lieu of a committee report, Senator Johnson took the floor on March 15, 1932, reviewed the work of the investigation, and urged the passage of two bills submitted on January 28, 1932. (S. 3350, providing for publicity on foreign loan transactions, and 3351 setting up a foreign loan board, Congressional Record, 72: 1, pp. 6052–6062). These bills were sent to the Committee on Rules, where they expired.

34 Report of Senator Albert B. Fall to the Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Examining into Mexican Affairs. Senate Committee Print, 66: 2. Dec. 9, 1919. Reprinted in Hearings, op. cit., pp. 843A–843J. Also Partial Report of the Committee, Senate Department No. 645, 66: 2. Reprinted in Hearings, op. cit., pp. 3307–3373.

35 See Dillon, E. J., Mexico on the Verge (New York, 1921)Google Scholar; Rippy, , Stevens, , and Vasconcelo, , Mexico (Chicago, 1929)Google Scholar; New Republic, June 22, 1920, p. 96; Callahan, op. cit., pp. 577–582.

36 U.S. Senate, 72: 2. St. Lawrence Waterways, Hearings, pp. 962, 979.

37 House Report No. 153, op. cit.

38 Senate Report No. 1600, 71: 3. Reprinted in Congressional Record, 71: 3, p. 470. Sen. Res. 442 reported favorably from Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Sen. Rep. 1716, 71: 3), and passed by Senate, (Congressional Record, 71: 3, p. 5493).Google Scholar

39 New York Times, June 4, 1921, p. 1.

40 For opposition to the Pittman proposal, see Tucker, Rufus, The Annalist, Feb. 27, 1931, p. 429 Google Scholar; Willis, H. Parker, New Republic, Mar. 11, 1931, pp. 92–94 Google Scholar; SirSalter, Arthur, New York Times, June 2, 1931, p. 2.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.