Senator Richard Russell, the veteran Georgia Democrat, joined McClellan in denouncing the arbitrary secrecy in the East-West trade investigations. He said it presented “a very shocking picture of the failure of co-operation with the Congress in a field in which we have as direct a responsibility or a greater responsibility than the executive department in attempting to maintain a superiority in arms, in order that we may defend our country.”
Senator Wayne Morse, the Oregon Democrat, also lashed out at the secrecy, and declared that such hiding of government records would justify voting against the whole foreign-aid program.
“We have a right to know what goods foreign-aid countries ship to Russia,” Morse said. “We are not asking for the disclosure of secrets which involve the war plans of our country, [and] which should be kept secret.”
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and Senator Morse were rarely together on an issue. But on the question of secrecy in the Eisenhower administration, Senator McCarthy lined up with Morse, McClellan, Russell, and such liberals as Senator Paul Douglas (Dem., Ill.) and Senator Thomas Hennings (Dem., Mo.).
“I was extremely critical of the Democrat administration for withholding information from Congress,” McCarthy said in a Senate speech. “During the hearings which the very able Senator from Arkansas has been conducting, I was appalled by the even greater secrecy maintained by the executive branch today. As the years go by the Executive is becoming more and more arrogant and highhanded toward legitimate congressional requests for information.”
By this time I was starting to feel optimistic about breaking the secrecy barrier, for it seemed that political figures of all complexions were aroused about the danger it created for a democratic government. Additionally, at this time there came a report, dated May 3, 1956, from the House Government Operations Committee, parent of the Moss subcommittee. It stated that the Eisenhower administration’s claim to an inherent right to secrecy “has never been upheld by the courts. It has been a mere Executive ipse dixit [say so].”
The five-point conclusion of this report seemed to me to be as fine a résumé of the legal situation as I had seen:
“1. Refusals by the President and heads of departments to furnish information to the Congress are not constitutional law. They represent a mere naked claim of privilege. The judiciary has never specifically ruled on the direct problem involved in a refusal by Federal agencies to furnish information to the Congress.
“2. As far as access to information is concerned the courts have not distinguished basically between executive agencies and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies. Both appear to stand in the same status.
“3. Judicial precedent shows that even the President has been held to be subject to the power of subpena of the courts. While this is so, it may be that the only recourse against the President himself is impeachment if he fails to comply with a subpena of either the courts or the Congress.