10
E. J. Bean
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information 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 requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.
The Supreme Court was careful to note that Congress’ authority to investigate was not limitless. It had to be “in aid of the legislative function.” The Court prohibited Congress, for example, from inquiring into the “private affairs” of individuals without a legislative purpose. Nor could Congress take on the judicial branch’s role of adjudicating specific disputes, or the executive branch’s role of prosecuting wrongdoers.8 Instead, Congress had to design its investigations to inform and guide its legislative duties. The Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Senate’s inquiry was invalid because it had essentially put the Attorney General on trial, which was a “judicial function.” The Court stated that the investigation provided “no warrant for thinking the Senate was attempting … to try the Attorney General … for any crime or wrongdoing. Nor do we think it is a valid objection to the investigation that it might possibly disclose crimes or wrongdoing on his part.” The Supreme Court ruled instead that a congressional inquiry could proceed even if it disclosed wrongdoing that might merit law enforcement or court proceedings, so long as it was founded upon a legislative function. The 1927 Supreme Court case made it crystal clear that Congress possessed inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct investigations tied to a legislative purpose. While Congress had no authority to prosecute crimes or resolve specific disputes, the Supreme Court confirmed Congress’ broad authority to engage in fact-finding to support its legislative function. It also made clear that Congress could use the federal courts to enforce congressional subpoenas compelling testimony or documents. While later cases added nuance and detail, rovided an unshakable the broad principles laid out in McGrain v. Daugherty p foundation for congressional oversight over the ensuing decades.
Compelling Information My congressional education also led me deep into the laws and rules controlling when Congress could compel information, a key issue in every investigation. I learned that Congress had enacted statutes that explicitly granted the
