the control of the Congress, and, if so, can you give us at least a brief idea of the mechanics of such control. I am sure the Senator does not feel that this individual should be supreme, and if that is not the case, how is the Congress to regulate his activity?

Mr. NYE. He would not be the agent of the Congress, except to the extent that he was employed by the joint committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate. He would have the same standing, be subject to the same regulations and requirements as any other prosecuting attorney. Maybe Mr. Raushenbush would like to add a word in clarification of our thinking on that particular question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Raushenbush, would you be sworn to testify? Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I do.

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN RAUSHENBUSH, RESEARCH EXECUTIVE AND CLERK, NYE COMMITTEE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Raushenbush, will you give for the record your full name?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Stephen Raushenbush.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you reside?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. In Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I am an economic consultant.

The CHAIRMAN. And you were counsel for what was known as the Nye committee?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. No, sir, there was no counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your position?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I was the executive in charge of the research work.

The CHAIRMAN. In charge of the research work?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. And clerk of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you with the committee?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I think 2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed to answer this question. Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. Mr. Berkovitch's question was whether Congress would control the attorney. As former Senator Nye and I were talking about this thing the other day, one of the main objectives of the suggestion was that Congress would have confidence in its ability to get action where action was desired. Necessarily we thought of two things: First, an attorney who would be chosen nonpolitically, who would be acceptable to both parties, and probably would be chosen by common vote of the two Judiciary Committees.

He would not be paid by Congress necessarily, although that might be possible, but then he would have the power-perhaps some of the laws would have to be changed to give him that--to impanel a grand jury at any time. We talked a while about having Members of Congress on the grand jury. Then it was called to our attention that the courts did not allow silk-stocking grand juries, as they call them. They have to be juries of people of equals and peers.

So anybody who got in trouble with such a grand jury might object. So, we left it that this attorney, with the confidence-the main thing is he would have the confidence of Congress-would be empowered to impanel any grand jury, whenever he wanted to, keep it there as long as he wanted to. Perhaps the joint committee should have the say as to when a jury was impaneled.

The attorney couldn't be dismissed by any administration. He would not be subject to the administration. He would not be responsible to the administration. He would be responsible to the courts, the District Court for the District of Columbia, perhaps.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you select the grand jury?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. With committee authorization he would select it just as in any normal

The CHAIRMAN. In other words this one man would select the grand jury?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. No, I did not mean that; he could call for a grand jury and it would be impaneled in the usual way the grand jury is, by the District Court.

Mr. NYE. Why could not the Joint Senate-House Judiciary Committee afford the machinery to impanel a grand jury?

Mr. RAUSHENBUSH. I would guess that it could-I am not a lawyer-but I would guess it would have the same trouble that these grand juries have had that have been selected only from property owners and the like. The courts have thrown them out as not being a jury of peers and equals. To avoid that, I think he would have to go and get an ordinary jury. But he could keep it there as long as he wanted to. He could get it to look at all the evidence he had and he could get some indictments out of it.

RESUMPTION OF TESTIMONY OF GERALD P. NYE, A FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Morris, do you have any questions?

Mr. MORRIS. Senator Nye, did you find as a result of your investigations that some wrongdoing was uncovered in the executive branch of the Government which never would have been uncovered had it not been for your congressional investigation?

Mr. NYE. Oh, very definitely.

Mr. MORRIS. I wonder if you would amplify a bit on that to the committee, Senator, because in determining, in trying to evaluate the work of the committees, we are trying to make a record of their accomplishments.

Mr. NYE. Let's confine ourselves to one very specific experience. I think my friend Senator Hayden will recollect the circumstances which prevailed at the time very well. There never would have been an uncovering of the scandals that attended the Teapot Dome investigation had it not been for the operation of the Senate committee. There never would have been an uncovering of the existence of the Continental Trading Co., a Canadian incorporation formed by a half dozen of the executives of American oil companies who were buying oil at one price and selling it back to their companies at a much higher price, and using the gain for what I think would be fairly described as a slush fund with which to buy their way to further favors from governmental agencies.

That never would have been uncovered except for the existence of the Senate Public Lands Committee and particularly the prosecution by Thomas Walsh of Montana, then a member of the Senate.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Senator, on that subject, returning to the munitions inquiry, that took about 3 years, as I understand it, and yet at the opening of the hearings you, as chairman, made this statement, and it is a commentary on how a committee might start out to do one thing and events cause it to do something else.

Mr. NYE. I knew I should have pleaded the fifth amendment.
Mr. BERKOVITCH. The statement was:

For 3 weeks the committee will engage in what will amount to a very general study, though perhaps not a detailed study, of the American munitions industry

and it seems that 3 weeks must have rolled into 3 years.

Mr. NYE. That's right.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. And you might want to comment as to how these things develop in investigations, where you start off on a brief survey and you wind up with a very exhaustive 3-year job.

Mr. NYE. I think the statement that the chairman made at the opening of the proceedings was of a thought that existed in the mind of every member of the committee at that stage.

We found ourselves, as we proceeded, moving deeper and deeper into things that we never knew existed; for example: Understandings between munitions makers, domestic and international, finding the extent to which these vendors were ganging up on one nation, frightening them with what the neighbor nation was getting ready to do, loading them up with arms and then going to the neighbor nations and demonstrating how they had to be as well prepared as their neighbor had made himself prepared for the emergency that was coming.

It all had a tendency to lead us ever deeper into the machinations that the industry did create.

Then came a study that reached, oh, so much further than anyone had anticipated, involving only the matter of bidding for ships and munitions under Government contracts that were invited. The similarly of the bids that were put in for a given ship and how they divided up the awards that were to be made by the Government in a way that was anything but competitive.

All of those things had a tendency to lead us deeper and ever deeper.

We got into the study of the actual conditions that prevailed, leading us into the First World War, which involved the going into the records of Morgan & Co., reaching into the records of the State Department; and the State Department was very helpful in that time in helping us to an understanding and the facts that would let us know what are the things that really contribute in exercising a nation to a point where it is ready to go to war.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Senator, I take it in the course of your investigation, from time to time, derogatory material was presented with respect to particular individuals, reflecting on their character to some degree at least. You mentioned the protection of witnesses and I think it will be interesting to have a summary of what steps or what

procedure your committee followed to protect a witness, or a person mentioned in the course of the hearing in an unfavorable way; whether you permitted that person to come in and testify, to cross-examine those who made the charges against him, and so on.

Mr. NYE. My memory, right now, does not let me recall any case where there was ever a contention before the committee that there had been false representation by any witness or by any member of the committee.

We always permitted witnesses, if they wanted, to have their counsel at their side, at the witness table. We never denied them that.

I think in that particular inquiry we so well organized our case beforce calling for hearing that we pretty nearly knew what the answers had to be to the questions that were propounded and we had no difficulty with appearing to harm the reputations of innocent people in the whole conduct of that extended hearing.

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Senator, as the chairman noted a few minutes ago, we are reviewing the records of many investigations and perhaps you will be so good as to cooperate with us in the future; if there is any inquiry or any question we want to address to you or Mr. Raushenbush, I am sure you would want to answer it.

Mr. NYE. Let me assure you of my happiness and great willingness to cooperate with you in this matter in any way I can. I am sure I speak for Mr. Raushenbush too.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Green is here. He is not a member of the subcommittee but he is a member of the full Rules Committee. Do have any questions, Senator Green?

Senator GREEN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to have you.

Mr. Berkovitch, did you explain we would like to have Senator Nye cooperate with us in our comprehensive hearing?

Mr. BERKOVITCH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We are going into this very thoroughly and fully and we may be calling on you because the staff is making a study of your hearings and the investigations that you conducted.

Mr. NYE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Tydings, will you come forward? Will you be sworn to testify, sir? Do you swear the testimony given in this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Senator TYDINGS. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, do you have a statement?

Senator TYDINGS. I just finished it this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. All right then, will you proceed in your own fashion?

TESTIMONY OF MILLARD E. TYDINGS, A FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here at the invitation of the committee and will attempt to make some suggestions that I hope the committee will find have some merit.

Such public polls as are available and reports of mail received by Members of Congress clearly show that present procedures, both in the

Congress itself and in investigating committees, have met with widespread disapproval on the part of a large segment of our people. Impliedly such people want Congress to do something about it. Therefore, the problem is to try to find a remedy for the conditions complained against, on the one hand, without depriving the Congress and any of its committees of their proper function, upon the other.

Both on the floor of Congress and in congressional investigating committees, all Members of Congress are immune from both civil and criminal suits for libel and slander as a result of remarks made by Members of Congress. No other group of citizens enjoys such a high privilege, but with so high a privilege must go accompanying responsibility. It seems appropriate, therefore, that the Senate should adopt some rule which will forestall excesses of the immunity privilege. I suggest that the Congress adopt a rule which would make a Member out of order who makes a speech or statement, in any place where the Member enjoys immunity, which reflects on the honesty or the loyalty of a Government official or a private citizen, unless prior thereto appropriate investigating committees of the Congress have established facts upon which such a statement by a Member of Congress can be fairly based. Such a rule should be confined only to matters involving loyalty to the United States and the honesty of an official or a citizen. Such a rule should be so drawn as not to prevent an ample and full discussion of policy. In short, a Member of Congress would be free to criticize or condemn any act or statement of an official or citizen so long as it did not involve his honesty or his loyalty to the Government. When facts supporting a proper charge of a lack of honesty or a lack of loyalty to our Government have been adduced, then a Member of Congress would be free to comment upon such matter in any way he sees fit.

If any Member of Congress feels he has fact which establishes a prima facie case involving the honesty or the loyalty of any government official, before such official is publicly charged with a dereliction of duty, that matter should be referred by the congressional Member to the appropriate congressional committee for complete examination. Not to have such a rule as is suggested permits Government officials and citizens to be smeared by opprobrious statements before the sure facts to support such a statement are developed.

The ultimate purpose of such a rule would be to make Congress a legislative body with full and proper investigatory rights and privileges but without allowing the Congress to become a forum for the repetition of evil gossip-as yet unproved by facts-or a place where statements of obloquy concerning a Government official or a citizen. would be justiciable as to libel or slander if the congressional immunity provision did not exist.

Of course, any Member of Congress can make any statement he wants; if such a rule were adopted outside of the forum where the immunity privilege exists.

To permit statements to be made under the privilege of immunity which reflects on the integrity or loyalty of Government officials or citizens, who may in fact be innocent, is to allow guilt to be assumed on the mere accusation of a Member of Congress.

False charges, not thereafter supported by fact, made under the aegis of congressional immunity, damage not only the reputation of