100 L INVESTIGATION OF THE ACTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 5147- Statement by HON. GEORGE HOLDEN TINKHAM, Member of Congress INVESTIGATION OF THE ACTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SERIAL NO. 21, PART 1. SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee assembled at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. James W. Husted (chairman) presiding. Mr. HUSTED. We will be glad to hear your statement now, Mr. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE HOLDEN TINKHAM, A Mr. TINKHAM. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you read the resolution under which the committee is acting, for the purposes of the record. Mr. HUSTED. It is not necessary to read it; but it will be inserted in the record at this point. 2-1 (The resolution referred to is as follows:) [H. Res. 469, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session.] Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary or any subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized and empowered to investigate in relation First. To the admitted concurrence of the Attorney General in a maximum, agreed, or fixed price of 17 cents for Louisiana clarified sugar at the plantation and of 18 cents for Louisiana clear granulated sugar at the plantation made in a telegram dated November 8 last to the United States attorney at New Orleans, Louisiana, or otherwise. Second. Whether directly or indirectly immunity from prosecutions under the statutes against profiteering in any way was given to Louisiana sugar growers or others in the sugar traffic in Louisiana. Third. The facts and the authority of law, if any, upon which the Attorney General or his representatives or agents fixed, agreed, or concurred in the price of 17 cents for Louisiana clarified sugar at the plantation and of 18 cents for Louisiana clear granulated sugar at the plantation and how such facts were obtained. Said committee shall report its conclusions to the House at the earliest possible date, together with such recommendations as it may deem proper and desirable to submit. And said committee shall have power to send for persons and papers, and administer oaths, and shall have the right to report at any time. Mr. TINKHAM. The questions involved in this investigation are: First, the admitted concurrence of the Attorney General in a maximum agreed or fixed price of 17 cents for Louisiana clarified sugar at the plantation, and of 18 cents for Louisiana clear granulated sugar at the plantation, made in a telegram dated November 8 last, to the United States attorney at New Orleans, La. Second, whether immunity from prosecution under the statutes against profiteering was given to Louisiana sugar growers, or others, in the sugar traffic in Louisiana. Third, what authority of law the Attorney General had for these acts. Fourth, what effect his action had, if any, upon the price of sugar, particularly in Cuba; and lastly, a misleading and false statement made by the Attorney General December 5th last, when he stated, in relation to the sugar question: "Congress, although requested to do so, has failed to extend the life of the board," meaning the Sugar Equalization Board. As a base for the order of investigation, there were certain interrogatories passed by the House of Representatives December 18, 1919, and those interrogatories were as follows: Resolved, That the Attorney General is hereby requested to report to the House of Representatives, forthwith- (1) Whether he made, assented to, or approved in any way, of a price for Louisiana sugar on the plantation of 17 cents a pound for yellow clarified and 18 cents per pound for plantation granulated. (2) Upon what authority of law he has fixed, or agreed that the price of Louisiana sugar on the plantation should be 17 cents per pound for yellow clarified and 18 cents per pound for plantation granulated. (3) Whether it has been usual for the office of the Attorney General, in advance of legal action, to render an official opinion in relation to the United States criminal statutes and notify possible violators of his interpretation of them, and whether he notified Louisiana sugar producers that, under laws against profiteering, they would not be prosecuted if they sold yellow clarified at 17 cents per pound and plantation granulated at 18 cents per pound. (4) The facts upon which he fixed or agreed upon the maximum price of 17 cents per pound for yellow clarified and 18 cents per pound for plantation granulated, and how these facts were obtained. I want to offer an attested copy of those interrogatories. Mr. SUMNERS. Would it interrupt you if I asked you a question at this point? I understood you to make a statement a moment ago about the effect of this upon the price of Cuban sugar. I have looked over the resolution rather casually and I was wondering what section of the resolution that comes under. Mr. TINKHAM. The first part of the resolution says that the committee is empowered to investigate in relation, first, to the admitted concurrence of the Attorney General in a maximum, agreed, or fixed price Mr. SUMNERS (interposing). Perhaps I have not the correct resolution. Mr. HUSTED. The resolution is House resolution 469. Mr. TINKHAM. That is the first section, lines 4 to 9, page 1. Mr. TINKHAM. The committee is to investigate in relation to the admitted concurrence of the Attorney General. Now, any facts surrounding that, either which might immediately precede or which might subsequently follow, or which are involved in it, or which his admitted concurrence may have produced, it seems to me are perfectly competent. And therefore I want to offer later to the committee what I believe was the effect, without going too deeply into it, however. You are asked to investigate that action, and, therefore, anything which might precede it or might be affected by that action, it seems to me, would be perfectly competent for the committee to consider. If the committee thinks it has not the power under the resolution to accept this evidence I should suggest that the committee go to the House Committee on Rules and obtain an amendment to the resolution which would allow the consideration of that evidence. Mr. HUSTED. I think under the form of the resolution, Mr. Tinkham, we have no authority to consider any consequential matters, but any facts leading up to the matter might be considered Mr. TINKHAM (interposing). Or any facts that might follow the matter would be competent, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUSTED. Well, I think any facts leading up to the determination of the Attorney General would be competent under the resolution. Mr. TINKHAM. And would not the results that are claimed to have immediately flowed from his action, even if those facts were of an economic nature, be competent? You are asked here to investigate as to this fact, namely, the admitted concurrence of the Attorney General, and then as to other things. Now, as long as you are asked to investigate as to this general fact it seems to me that facts leading up to it, or facts following it immediately-in other words, the effect of it ---would be reasonably competent. I also would say to the chairman that, when there is any doubt in relation to a statute or legislative enactment-and I suppose this may be called, in a way, a legislative enactment-that it is competent for even a court of law to examine the debates in order to understand the purpose; and in the debates which took place in relation to this resolution these two questions were raised: One was as to the legal authority; and the other one as to the immediate economic effect, and particularly in relation to the Cuban crop. I would suggest, if there is any doubt at all in the mind of the chairman as to whether it is not competent, that the question of the |