and it is under the jurisdiction of the State of Missouri in the matter of regulation of rates, and is under the jurisdiction of the little town. of Centerville. Would this resolution give the proposed Senate committee the power to summon that little corporation that owns that plant, under your interpretation of the Walsh resolution?

Mr. EMERY. It certainly would, it seems to me.

Senator HAWES. Well, it certainly would according to my opinion. Now, while I am on this subject, I will divert from that immediate topic to ask this: Under this resolution this tiny corporation could be haled to Washington and asked whether they had contributed any money to the election of a constable, or for the election of a justice of the peace, or for the election of a sheriff, or for the election of a governor, or any other State officer; is that right?

Mr. EMERY. That is my understanding of the wording of the inquiry into the influence on elections, for the word "Federal " is not used, nor the word "congressional."

Senator HAWES. There is another paragraph that I want to ask you about: Any expenditure of money intended to influence the position as to Government ownership, would cover that little plant in Centerville, Mo.; is that correct?

Mr. EMERY. Do you mean, could such a committee inquire into it? Senator HAWES. Yes.

Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir; and they could inquire into the affairs of any organization to which it belonged and which, on its behalf expressed, as I gather, either opposition to or advocacy of public ownership. The resolution does not apply merely to opposition to public ownership. It says, to quote its language:

To the extent such corporations or any officers thereof, or anyone in their behalf.

"In their behalf," I suppose means in their interest or in their employment, that it might be construed that way or either way:

Or in behalf of any organization of which said corporation may be a member, through the expenditure of money or through the control of the avenues of publicity, have made any and what effort to influence or control public opinion on account of municipal or public ownership.

It does not say in opposition to, but says on account of. And they could inquire into the subject of influencing public opinion with respect to municipal ownership or public ownership, whether for or against. Am I not correct about that, Senator Walsh?

Senator WALSH of Montana. I think so.

Senator HAWES. It gives the power to this proposed committee to summon every advertising agency in the United States, whether purely local in character or interstate in character, and ask them whether they have received any money from any public-utility corporation either to oppose or approve Government ownership of utilities. Is that correct?

Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator HAWES. Any newspaper that publishes an advertisement in any portion of the United States might be gone into for the purpose of ascertaining whether that advertisement was intended to influence the public mind on the subject of Government ownership. Am I correct about that?

66

Mr. EMERY. I think so. It is far broader, Senator, than newspapers. It says avenues of publicity." I assume that covers any means through which public opinion is approached, reached, or influenced.

Senator HAWES. Any pamphlet, magazine, or communication of any kind reaching the public could be gone into under this resolution?

Mr. EMERY. And a public speech.

Senator SACKETT. Or radio?

Mr. EMERY. Oh, yes.

Senator HAWES. Now, let me see if I am right. I am going to ask these questions of Senator Walsh and other witnesses later, but you happen to be the first one that has gone into the question of jurisdiction. The Senator can answer me if he desires, and you can too. Under this resolution, as I understand it, there is not a lighting plant or a gas plant in the United States of America, or in any portion of the United States of America, whether it is a $5,000 corporation or a $1,000,000,000 corporation, whether it is purely municipal or interstate in character, that may not be investigated by this commission. Secondly, any contribution made for any purpose to affect a municipal election, a State election, or a congressional election is covered by this resolution. It does not limit the investigation to contributions for the election of a United States Senator or a President or a Vice President, but it may authorize a Senate committee to investigate the expenditure of money in any election, including the election of Congressmen. Is that right?

Mr. EMERY. Yes, sir; and without limitation in time.

Senator HAWES. I am going to be perfectly frank; I am going to vote for an investigation under what I believe to be the jurisdiction of Congress; but when it goes into the municipalities of the State and goes into the State, I do not know of any resolution of a similar character in breadth of power to this case ever having been introduced in either branch of Congress, and I am trying to find out from you and from Senator Walsh and others where the limitation is going to be placed. In other words, I have a responsibility as a Senator. When I vote to give a power, the natural conclusion is that I give to the committee the right to exercise that power, and I am responsible.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Senator Hawes, if the witness had been discussing this resolution along the lines that you are discussing it, I should never have interrupted you. It occurs to me that your line of questioning and his line of argument proceed along entirely different lines.

Senator HAWES. I am quite well satisfied that the Senator take his own point of view, but I take the liberty of having this witness who is discussing this matter answer my questions in a continuous

manner.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I have not the slightest objection to that, but I merely desire to have you understand that I was not objecting to any discussion along those lines by this gentleman.

Senator HAWES. I thank you for your permission to proceed. Senator WALSH of Montana. He was discussing the constitutional principles-the application of the fourth amendment.

Senator HAWES. Senator Walsh has practically answered each witness in turn with some newspaper article or in some other way. It seems to me that as a member of this committee I have the right to inquire in my own way on the question that concerns me, and that is the limitation of Federal power in the matter of an investigation. While this witness is here I want to ask him some questions about it.

Mr. Emery, do you know, since you have made a study of this, of any other investigation that has been proposed, either in Congress or in the Senate, that is as broad in scope and as inclusive as this resolution?

Mr. EMERY. I do not, Senator.

Senator HAWES. We have had investigations of broad scope, but the scope of the investigation has been defined and limited and described. This covers municipal activities, State activities, as well as national activities. I want to draw the line between the State and the Nation, if I can, and I would like you to discuss that point. Mr. EMERY. Í am endeavoring to point out now, if I may, Senator, that this resolution is as general in terms as you have described it, and that a general inquiry is precisely the kind of an inquiry that is prohibited, even where the subject matter of investigation is within the power of Congress; that the limitations of the fourth amendment apply there, and I want to show you the cases which have gone in that direction. I called your attention to the case of the Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson as stating the principle, and I called your attention to the early case of United States v. Boyd. I can cite a great number of cases, but I only want to cite enough to illustrate the principle. I called your attention to Harriman v. the Interstate Commerce Commission, and I call your attention to Ellis v. the Interstate Commerce Commission (237 U. S. 442), where an attempt was made to do the thing that is suggested here. The Interstate Commerce Commission was inquiring into the relations between the carriers subject to this jurisdiction, and other corporations, for the purpose of determining whether by any means they were undertaking to establish a rebate system or give advantages to private corporations which were forbidden by the law, and they undertook to make an inquiry in the Armour Car Lines through the witness Ellis. That was a company engaged in the manufacture of refrigerating cars which leased them to the railroads and iced them and made a charge therefor.

The witness refused to answer questions, according to the Supreme Court's opinion, because it was frankly stated to him by the examiner that the inquiry was made of him because they intended to go into the affairs of the Armour Packing Co. to determine whether or not through the Armour Packing Co. and its relations to the Armour Car Lines any attempt was being made by intercorporate relations to obtain advantages for the Armour Co. which were forbidden by the act, and the witness declined to make an answer.

The court in sustaining him in the position which he took repeated the decisions which I have called to your attention, and Mr. Justice Holmes said:

A fishing expedition into the affairs of a stranger for the chance that something discreditable may turn up is forbidden.

Now, we believe that this general inquiry into the affairs of all other corporations, financial, contracting corporations, engineering corporations, constructing corporations, for the purpose of determining what relation their stockholders, who are also stockholders in the holding company may have to the public utility, which is one of the stocks which may be a part of the holdings of the holding company, is a fishing expedition for the purpose of finding out what may turn up with respect to possible abuses that exist in the operation of holding companies or other corporations related to them. That is precisely the matter that we object to.

Senator HAWES. I may disagree with the gentleman on that contention. But I would like to have you discuss the breadth of this investigation where it gets away entirely from the interstate transactions, either through commercial paper or holding companies. I want to know if this resolution does not include purely municipal and State activities that have no connection whatever with interstate commerce or with interstate exchange of securities even.

Mr. EMERY. I think that is apparent on its face. The first inquiry is to the growth in the aggregate liabilities and capital of all public utilities of whatever kind engaged in the production of electrical energy or manufacturing or distributing natural and artificial gas. Now, that includes, if it means anything in the language of the resolution, all such utilities.

Senator HAWES. Whether it is a little plant at Centerville, Mo., we will say of $5,000 capitalization, or a plant of $500,000,000 capitalization.

Mr. EMERY. There is no limitation on size. There is no limitation on relationship so far as the inquiry into the capital and liabilities of the public corporation is concerned. The only limitation is that it must be a corporation. If it is a utility operated by an individual or a partnership it is not subject to this inquiry.

Senator HAWES. In other words, there is no limitation whatever to this investigation?

Mr. EMERY. There is certainly no limitation in terms of the local nature of its operation.

Now, merely to illustrate, I heard the testimony of a witness whom you had before you here, Mr. Cortelyou, to the effect that the Consolidated Gas Co., of which he is president, while it is a holding company and an operating company, it has no relation to any company outside of the State of New York, and that the other companies which it operates or controls are located within the State of New York and served wholly citizens of the State of New York. Of course, that is a very large company, but so far as the committee's inquiry is concerned, while it might not waste its time on small companies, but would point apparently its attention to very large ones, there is no doubt that this resolution asserts a complete right to inquire into all the relationships of that company, and would seem to extend the inquiry into the relationships of any public utility corporation engaged in the lines of production stated in the resolution, however small, however distant, wherever stationed, and not only to do that but to require the officers of that company for the purpose of examination to appear at any place in the United States in which the committee choose to sit.

Senator HAWES. I am not concerned, Mr. Emery, with whether this committee will exercise the power that we give them. I am concerned with the responsibility of voting for the right to exercise that power in case they want to use it.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Senator Hawes, will you permit me to make a suggestion?

Senator HAWES. Yes.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I have drafted rapidly here a proviso reading as follows:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the committee to inquire into the affairs of any corporation engaged wholly in intrastate business not being a subsidiary of or whose stock or operations are not held or controlled to some extent by another corporation.

Senator HAWES. That is a great improvement, Senator. It is the first step.

The CHAIRMAN. I intended to ask Senator Walsh, personally, if he would be willing to limit the terms of this resolution. I was impelled to do that by reason of an answer that the Senator made to a question that I propounded to him in his opening statement. It turned on the question of cost; but, after all, the entire principle is involved. A little while ago I asked a question having in mind that the corrupt practices act would cover all cases of expenditure by corporations or individuals, particularly by corporations, to the election of Senators and Representatives; but if under the theory of the Senator practically all public utilities would become interstate, either because of the operation of the utility itself or because of the sales of their stocks and bonds, I was wondering how much it would cost to go into the question of campaign contributions all over the country by the people connected with these utilities, to which Senator Walsh responded, "Of course, we would have to trust a good deal to the discretion of the special committee."

Personally, I do not feel very friendly to a resolution which trusts the power of the committee to make an investigation to the discretion of that committee. I think the terms of the resolution itself ought to fix its extreme boundaries and its widest limitations, and that they ought to be compelled within those boundaries or limitations to make this inquiry and not trust to the whims, if you will permit me to use that expression, of the members of the committee. I think it cught to be fixed by the terms of the resolution itself and I have so discussed the matter with members of the committee. I intended to ask the Senator whether or not he would be willing in some way to limit the terms of this investigation so that the terms themselves would fix the limits and the terms would not rely upon the whims of the members of the committee.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That relates only to the matter of campaign contributions. In respect to that I do not agree with the chairman. I do not believe that you care by any kind of a resolution to fix the limitations within which the committee can operate any more definite than those fixed here. But I will say this: The resolution, as I have heretofore indicated, is drafted after the usual and customary form, and it provides that the committee is authorized and directed. I would be quite willing to take out the word "directed," so that the committee would be authorized, and I think you