Evening star., 1935-02-05
The Senate's Power.

1He supreme court OF the united
States in its decision in the MacCrac-
ken case again upholdS the authority
Of the Senate to punish for contempt.
The decision handed down by the
court does not extend the privilege
Of the Senate. 1t merely sustains a
power that has been the Senate's and
which has been exercised in the past.
The power of the Senate-and of the
House-to punish for contempt, as the
court points out, is limited. 1T is
true" says the court in its decision,
that the scope of the power is mar
row." And the court adds, mo act
Is so punishable unless it is of a ma
ture to obstruct the performance of
the duties of the legislature. In
other words, the act for which the
Senate may punish for contempt must
be obstructive of legislation. Where
there is no legislative duty to perform
or where it can be proved that the
act complained of is not of a char
acter to obStruct legislation the SEN
ate may not punish for contempt.
Nor may the power to punish for con-
tempt be extended to slanderous at
tacks upon the Senate which present
no immediate obstruction to legislative
processes.
The refusal of witnesses to answer
questions put by a Senate committee
when it is engaged in Investigations
looking to future legislation has been
held to be contempt of the Senate and
punishable by the Senate. Refusal to
produce papers in such proceeding
by Senate committee, when sub
pOenaS have been issued, is held to be
equally an act of contempt of the
Senate. To deny the power to
punish for contempt in cases of re-
fusal to answer questions or to produce
papers would in effect greatly reduce
the effectiveness of senatorial inquiries,
perhaps nullify it. Congressional in
quiries have frequently in the past
been valuable to the country because
they uncovered corruption and prac-
tices that were inimical to the public
interest.
The case now decided by the Su-
preme Court involved William P. Mac
Cracken, former Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for aviation During the
Senate inquiry into airmail contracts
Mr.. MacCracken served as attorney
for some of the executives of air
lines holding contracts for carrying
the mails. The Senate committee
called upon him for the papers in his
files relating to airmail contracts. He
answered that some of the papers
amounted to confidential communica-
tions between an attorney and his
clients. The Senate committee, how
ever, insisted upon the delivery of all
the papers. In the meantime Mac
Cracken and a partner permitted two
airline officials to examine the files in
their office and to remove some of the
papers. Although some of these pa
pers so withdrawn from the files were
later given to the Senate committee,
others were not, having been de-
stroyed. The Senate adjudged Mac
Cracken in contempt.
The contention of the defense was
that the Senate had no right to pun-
ish for contempt since the act COM
planned Of, the removal and destruc-
ton Of papers after subpoena, was
"the past commission of a completed
act which prior to the arrest and pro-
ceedings to punish had reached such
q stage Of flnality that it could not
longer affect the proceedings of the
Senate or any committee thereof"
The defense further insisted that the
Senate could punish for contempt
merely as a means of removing an
existing obstruction to the perform
ance of its duties. MacCracken, it
held, had not declined to answer any
questions. and had produced all the
papers that were necessary and that
existed. The court overruled this
contention of the defense, holding
that the Senate had a right to punish
for a past and completed act, citing
precedents to uphold its decision.
The Senate, quite naturally, jealousy
guards its powers. The greater its
powers, the greater the duty of the
Senate, however, to use them wisely
and justly. Inquisition may easily