The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already directed that you read it into the record. I have already taken judicial notice of that document. You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick.

Mr. CHADWICK. The letter reads as follows:

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: It has long been recognized that to assist the Congress in achieving its legislative purposes every executive department or agency must, upon the request of a congressional committee, expeditiously furnish information relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee. with certain historical exceptions-some of which are pointed out in the attached memorandum from the Attorney General. This administration has been and will continue to be diligent in following this principle. However, it is essential to the successful working of our system that the persons entrusted with power in any 1 of the 3 great branches of Government shall not encroach upon the authority confided to the others. The ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the executive branch rests with the President.

Within this constitutional framework each branch should cooperate fully with each other for the common good. However, throughout our history the President has withheld information whenever he found that what was sought was confidential or its disclosure would be incompatible with the public interest or jeopardize the safety of the Nation.

Because it is essential to efficient and effective administration that employees of the executive branch to be in a position to be completely candid in advising with each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest that any of their conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions, concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of your Department that in all of their appearances before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before if they are not to testify to any such conversations or communications or to produce any such documents or reproductions. This principle must be maintained regardless of who would be benefited by such disclosures.

I direct this action so as to maintain the proper separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the Government in accordance with my responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. This separation is vital to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power by any branch of the Government. By this action I am not in any way restricting the testimony of such witnesses as to what occurred regarding any matters where the communication was directly between any of the principals in the controversy within the executive branch on the one hand and a member of the subcommittee or its staff on the other.

Sincerely,

(Signed) DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. This letter is addressed to the honorable the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D. C. This letter was dated May 17, 1954.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I understood that order as read by Mr. Chadwick pertains solely and exclusively to the committee of which Senator Mundt was chairman, which functioned earlier this

Now, I was wondering what relative purpose this introduction had here. I thought Mr. Chadwick might help us on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chadwick.

Mr. CHADWICK. As I catch the question, it is the limitation on a certain matter to prove a certain case. Mr. Williams, I think the document speaks for itself.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It does to me, Mr. Chadwick. It speaks very clearly that it has applicability only to the Mundt committee. I wondered what its purpose was in this hearing.

Mr. CHADWICK. The purpose is to supplement the other testimony which has been read as evidence heretofore or which may be adduced hereafter with reference to the utilization, use, transmission, disclosure of classified documents or other communications, interdepartmental communications which are confidential under this directive.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Case.

Senator CASE. Will counsel state whether or not this letter from the President went to the so-called Mundt committee before or after, and was it written or issued by the President before or after the alleged invitation by Senator McCarthy to Government employees with respect to the furnishing of certain information?

Mr. CHADWICK. My best recollection, sir, is that it followed that, that it was immediately contemporaneous with it. Whether it was immediately before or immediately after, I cannot say without reference to the record.

Senator CASE. The dates, I assume, do appear in the record.

Mr. CHADWICK. They do, sir. I call the attention of the stenographer, and ask him to mark as a committee exhibit a memorandum 10 pages in length to the President from the Attorney General which was attached to and in support of the Presidential order which I have just read into the record. I ask him to advise me what number to give to the document. We understand that it is exhibit No. 3. It is offered in evidence as part of the record in this case.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already ruled the exhibit will be marked as a memorandum and be included as a part of the record at this point.

For: The President.

From: The Attorney General.

MEMORANDUM

One of the chief merits of the American system of written constitutional law is that all the powers entrusted to the Government are divided into three great departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. It is essential to the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others, but that each shall be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. The doctrine of separation of powers was adopted to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and to save the people from autocracy.

This fundamental principle was fully recognized by our first President, George Washington, as early as 1796 when he said: “* * * it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved ***." In his Farewell Address, President Washington again cautioned strongly against the danger of encroachment by one department into the domain of another as leading to despotism. This principle has received steadfast adherence throughout the many years of our history and growth. More than ever, it is our duty today to heed these words if our country is to retain its place as a leader among the free nations of the world.

For over 150 years-almost from the time that the American form of government was created by the adoption of the Constitution-our Presidents have established, by precedent, that they and members of their Cabinet and other heads of executive departments have an undoubted privilege and discretion to keep confidential, in the public interest, papers and information which require secrecy. American history abounds in countless illustrations of the refusal, on occasion, by the President and heads of departments to furnish papers to Congress, or its committees, for reasons of public policy. The messages of our past Presidents reveal that almost every one of them found it necessary to inform Congress of his constitutional duty to execute the office of President, and, in furtherance of that duty, to withhold information and papers for the public good. Nor are the instances lacking where the aid of a court was sought in vain to obtain information or papers from a President and the heads of departments. Courts have uniformly held that the President and the heads of departments have an uncontrolled discretion to withhold the information and papers in the public interest; they will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, and 52461-54-9

Executive might thereafter be quoted as a precedent for similar and repeated applications.

"Such a result, if acquiesced in, would ultimately subject the independent constitutional action of the Executive in a matter of great national concern. ment to the domination and control of the Senate; ***

"I therefore decline a compliance with so much of the resolution of the Senate as requests 'copies of the charges, if any,' in relation to Mr. Fitz, and in doing so must be distinctly understood as neither affirming nor denying that any such charges were made; ***" (ibid. p. 134).

One of the best reasoned precedents of a President's refusal to permit the head of a department to disclose confidential information to the House of Repre sentatives is President Tyler's refusal to communicate to the House of Repre sentatives the reports relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians and to the frauds which were alleged to have been practiced upon them. A resolution of the House of Representatives had called upon the Secretary of War to com municate to the House the reports made to the Department of War by Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians together with all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to investigate; also all facts in the possession of the Executive relating to the subject. The Secretary of War consulted with the President and under the lat ter's direction informed the House that negotiations were then pending with the Indians for settlement of their claims; in the opinion of the President and the Department, therefore, publication of the report at that time would be inconsistent wtih the public interest. The Secretary of War further stated in his answer to the resolution that the report sought by the House, dealing with alleged frauds which Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate, contained information which was obtained by Colonel Hitchcock by ex parte inquiries of persons whose statements were without the sanction of an oath, and which the persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or ex plain. The Secretary of War expressed the opinion that to promulgate those statements at that time would be grossly unjust to those persons, and would defeat the object of the inquiry. He also remarked that the Department had not been given at that time sufficient opportunity to pursue the investigation, to call the parties affected for explanations, or to determine on the measures proper to be taken.

The answer of the Secretary of War was not satisfactory to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House, which claimed the right to demand from the Executive and heads of departments such information as may be in their possession relating to subjects of the deliberations of the House.

of the Executive.

President Tyler in a message dated January 31, 1843, vigorously asserted that the House of Representatives could not exercise a right to call upon the Executive for information, even though it related to a subject of the delibera tions of the House, if, by so doing, it attempted to interfere with the discretion The same course of action was taken by President James Buchanan in 1860 in resisting a resolution of the House to investigate whether the President proper means sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the or any other officer of the Government had, by money, patronage or other impassage of any law relating to the rights of any State or Territory (see Richardson, "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," vol. 5, pp. 618-619).

President to inform it whether any executive offices, acts, or duties, and if any, In the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant, the House requested the what, have been performed at a distance from the seat of government established by law. It appears that the purpose of this inquiry was to embarrass the PresiPresident Grant repied that he failed to find in the Constitution the authority dent by reason of his having spent some of the hot months at Long Branch, \given to the House of Representatives, and that the inquiry had nothing to do with legislation (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. VII.

pp. 362-363).

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S ADMINISTRATION

In 1886, during President Cleveland's administration, there was an extended scussion in the Senate with reference to its relations to the Executive caused by the refusal of the Attorney General to transmit to the Senate certain documents concerning the administration of the office of the district attorney for the Southern district of south Alabama, and suspension of George W. Durkin, the late incumbent. The majority of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary con

cluded it was entitled to know all that officially exists or takes place in any of the departments of Government and that neither the President nor the head of a department could withhold official facts and information as distinguished from private and unofficial papers.

In his reply President Cleveland disclaimed any intention to withhold official papers, but he denied that papers and documents inherently private or confidential, addressed to the President or a head of a department, having reference to an act entirely executive such as the suspension of an official, were changed in their nature and became official when placed for convenience in the custody of a public department (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 8, pp. 378-379, 381).

Challenging the attitude that because the executive departments were created by Congress the latter had any supervisory power over them, President Cleveland declared (Eberling, Congressional Investigation, p. 258):

"I do not suppose that the public offices of the United States are regulated or controlled in their relations to either House of Congress by the fact that they were created by laws enacted by themselves. It must be that these instrumentalities were created for the benefit of the people and to answer the general purposes of Government under the Constitution and the laws, and that they are unencumbered by any lien in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the price of their creation."

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION

In 1909, during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, the question of the right of the President to exercise complete direction and control over heads of executive departments was raised again. At that time the Senate passed a resolution directing the Attorney Generai to inform the Senate whether certain legal proceedings had been instituted against the United States Steel Corp., and if not, the reasons for its nonaction. Request was also made for any opinion of the Attorney General, if one was written. President Theodore Roosevelt replied, refusing to honor this request upon the ground that "heads of the executive departments are subject to the Constitution, and to the laws passed by the Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, and to the directions of the President of the United States, but to no other direction whatever" (Congressional Record, vol. 43, pt. 1, 60th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 527-528).

When the Senate was unable to get the documents from the Attorney General, it summoned Herbert K. Smith, the head of the Bureau of Corporations, and requested the papers and documents on penalty of imprisonment for contempt. Mr. Smith reported the request to the President, who directed him to turn over to the President all the papers in the case "so that I could assist the Senate in the prosecution of its investigation." President Roosevelt then informed Senator Clark, of the Judiciary Committee, what had been done, that he had the papers and the only way the Senate could get them was through his impeachment. President Roosevelt also explained that some of the facts were given to the Government under the seal of secrecy and cannot be divulged, "and I will see to it that the word of this Government to the individual is kept sacred" (Corwin, The President-Office and Powers, pp. 281, 428; Abbott, "The Letters of Archie Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt," pp. 305-306).

PRESIDENT COOLIDGE'S ADMINISTRATION

In 1924, during the administration of President Coolidge, the latter objected to the action of a special investigating committee appointed by the Senate to investigate the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Request was made by the committee for a list of the companies in which the Secretary of the Treasury was alleged to be interested for the purpose of investigating their tax returns. Calling this exercise of power an unwarranted intrusion, President Coolidge said:

"Whatever may be necessary for the information of the Senate or any of its committees in order to better enable them to perform their legislative or other constitutional functions ought always to be furnished willingly and expeditiously by any department. But it is recognized both by law and custom that there is certain confidential information which it would be detrimental to the public service to reveal" (68th Cong., 1st sess., Record, Apr. 11, 1924, p. 6087).

that Congress has not the power, as one of the three great branches of the Government, to subject the executive branch to its will any more than the executive branch may impose its unrestrained will upon the Congress.

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION

In March 1792, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution: "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the failure of the late expedition under Major General St. Clair; and that the said committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries." (3 Annals of Congress, p. 493.)

This was the first time that a committee of Congress was appointed to look into a matter which involved the executive branch of the Government. The expedition of General St. Clair was under the direction of the Secretary of War. The expenditures connected therewith came under the Secretary of the Treasury. The House based its right to investigate on its control of the expenditures of public moneys. It appears that the Secretaries of War and the Treasury appeared before the committee. However when the committee was bold enough to ask the President for the papers pertaining to the General St. Clair campaign, President Washington called a meeting of his Cabinet (Binkley, President and Congress pp. 40–41).

Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State, reports what took place at that meeting. Besides Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, Secretary of War, and Edmond Randolph, the Attorney General, were present. The committee had first written to Knox for the original letters, instructions, etc., to General St. Clair. President Washington stated that he had called his Cabinet members together, because it was the first example of a demand on the Executive for papers, and he wished that so far as it should become a precedent, it should be rightly conducted. The President readily admitted that he did not doubt the propriety of what the House was doing, but he could conceive that there might be papers of so secret a nature, that they ought not to be given up. Washington and his Cabinet came to the unanimous conclusion:

"First, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public: consequently were to exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor House had a right to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move the House to address the President."

The precedent thus set by our first President and his Cabinet was followed in 1796, when President Washington was presented with a resolution of the House of. Representatives which requested him to lay before the House a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and documents relative to that treaty. Apparently it was necessary to implement the treaty with an appropriation which the House was called upon to vote. The House insisted on its right to the papers requested, as a condition to appropriating the required funds. (President and Congress, Wilfred E. Binkley (1947), p. 44).

President Washington's classic reply was, in part, as follows:

"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I have the honor to preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States and my sense of the obligation it imposes to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' will permit" (Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 194).

Washington then went on to discuss the secrecy required in negotiations with foreign governments, and cited that as a reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He felt that to admit the House of Representatives into the treatymaking power, by reason of its constitutional duty to appropriate moneys to carry out a treaty, would be to establish a dangerous precedent. He closed his message to the House as follows: