Congress did deliver the Eisenhower administration one blow in 1959 in connection with the “executive privilege” issue. That was when President Eisenhower nominated Admiral Lewis Strauss to be Secretary of Commerce. The hearings before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee started on March 17, and pulled out past the middle of May. Although a good many personality clashes were involved, the role that Strauss had played in the Dixon-Yates contract and his advocacy of extreme “executive privilege” also figured.
The report favoring the Strauss confirmation stated: “Our committee spent much time in detail examination of specific instances in which it is charged that the nominee withheld or was grudging in giving information to congressional committees. The few instances charged represent a minute percentage of the nominee’s dealings with the Congress.
“In fact, the nominee showed great diligence in keeping the Congress informed,” concluded the six Republicans and two Democrats who signed the majority report.
When questioned about the Dixon-Yates contract, Strauss had said: “I thought it was a good contract and I still do ... it would have cost the people a great deal less than the plant ... is now going to cost.”
Strauss denied that he had used “executive privilege” to hold out information from Congress in the Dixon-Yates controversy.
“No information was withheld by me,” he said. “No question failed of answer except one which was several times repeated and to which I respectfully declined response on ground that to demand conversations had with the President or members of his personal staff would be in violation of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers ... I testified that the contract with Mississippi Valley Generating Company had been entered into at the direction of the President and had been terminated at the direction of the President, and that, I submit, should have been sufficient.”
Strauss claimed a total right under “executive privilege” to refuse records to Congress, and the seven-member Democratic minority concluded:
“The record ... indicates such withholding is without basis in law, and that the nominee had no concern for the law in this respect. From the record it is clear that the nominee time after time has resisted furnishing the appropriate committees of the Congress with information needed in order for Congress to properly perform its legislative functions.
“It appears to us from careful attention to the testimony, that Mr. Strauss had withheld or manipulated information to serve policy or personal ends. On the basis of the record, we have grave doubts as to whether or not information furnished by Mr. Strauss, as Secretary of Commerce, would be accurate or complete.”
The minority position was to prevail on the Senate floor where the Strauss nomination was defeated.