Washington cover-up

by Clark R. Mollenhoff

In recent years, most committees have adopted rules of procedure to assure some element of fair play. Since most hearings are held in public, there is the opportunity for the press and other interested groups and individuals to view the questioning and to point out any lapses in fair play.

Open congressional hearings do not absolutely assure fair play, but they do represent the best practical means this country has so far devised for assuring the public’s right to know about the running of its government.

It is pertinent to note here that in England, which is generally regarded by political authorities as a model for democratic procedures, the need for constant inquiry into governmental policies and administration of the laws is fully recognized.

The British Government, unlike ours, is totally responsible to the Parliament, with the Prime Minister and other ministers coming out of the Parliament. This system has resulted in the development of a number of devices to accomplish the same basic purpose that our congressional investigations should accomplish.

There is a “question time” in Parliament four days a week during which any member of the House of Commons may interrogate the various ministers and even the Prime Minister. This periodic opportunity for questioning makes it possible for the opposition either to obtain immediate answers or to demonstrate evasiveness on crucial issues.

Also the Parliament is free to investigate through select committees of the House of Commons which are unlimited in their power to compel testimony and production of records and to punish for contempt. The contempt can be punished by jailing by the Parliament for the duration of the term, and British courts have left this power unlimited over the years.

The “question time” and select committees are supplemented by Royal Commissions of Inquiry, technically established and appointed by the Crown and Tribunals of Inquiry, established by the Parliament with members named by the Crown.

The Royal Commissions have had no power to compel testimony and production of records. However, co-operation is usually obtained because of the pressure of British public opinion, as well as the ever-present threat that a select committee of the Commons can take jurisdiction and use its contempt powers to force testimony.

The Tribunals of Inquiry operate with the normal court powers of subpoena and oaths to compel testimony. This is a device for taking an inquiry out of the partisan political atmosphere of a legislative investigation.

In the United States the question is often asked whether greater congressional freedom in questioning officials of the executive branch would not interfere with the efficiency of the government. Much of the business of federal government is simply keeping records and preparing testimony to account for the custodianship of the government agencies. In most instances it would take an official far less time to go before a committee of Congress and give a frank account of the activities of his agency than it has taken to devise cover-ups for frauds, mismanagement, and embarrassing oversights.