"
The response of the Attorney-General was referred to the
Judiciary Committee which, on the 18th of February, made an
elaborate report exhibiting the issue as one which involved the
right of Congress to obtain information. It urged that "the
important question, then, is whether it is within the
constitutional competence of either House of Congress to have
access to the official papers and documents in the various public
offices of the United States, created by laws enacted by
themselves." The report, which was signed only by the Republican
members of the Committee, was an adroit partisan performance,
invoking traditional constitutional principles in behalf of
congressional privilege. A distinct and emphatic assertion of the
prerogative of the Senate was made, however, in resolutions
recommended to the Senate for adoption. Those resolutions
censured the Attorney-General and declared it to be the duty of
the Senate "to refuse its advice and consent to proposed removals
of officers" when papers relating to them "are withheld by the
Executive or any head of a department."
On the 2nd of March, a minority report was submitted, making the
point of which the cogency was obvious, that inasmuch as the
term of the official concerning whose suspension the Senate
undertook to inquire had already expired by legal limitation, the
only object in pressing for the papers in his case must be to
review an act of the President which was no longer within the
jurisdiction of the Senate, even if the constitutionality of the
Tenure of Office Act should be granted.
Pages:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73