The Relationship Between Congress and the FBI, 1907-1975 Aaron Stockham Marquette University

Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Lack of Oversight: The Relationship Between Congress and the FBI, 1907-1975 Aaron Stockham Marquette University Recommended Citation Stockham, Aaron, "Lack of Oversight: The Relationship Between Congress and the FBI, 1907-1975" (2011). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 111. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/111 LACK OF OVERSIGHT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE FBI, 1907-1975 by Aaron J. Stockham A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2011 ABSTRACT LACK OF OVERSIGHT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE FBI, 1907-1975 Aaron J. Stockham Marquette University, 2011 This study fills a hole left in research about the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While previous authors have examined the Bureau’s relationship to the executive branch, especially under its long-time Director, J. Edgar Hoover, comparatively little has been written about the Bureau’s relationship with the United States Congress. Using their investigatory and appropriations powers, members of Congress could have maintained stringent oversight of Bureau officials’ activities. Instead, members of Congress either deferred to the executive branch, especially presidents and attorneys general, or developed close relationships with Bureau officials based on a shared politics, mainly anti-communism during the Cold War. Examining the relationship from 1907 through 1975 offers numerous examples of members of Congress looking beyond their oversight responsibilities. Even as Congress investigated Bureau actions, no meaningful legislation was passed limiting Bureau activities. Instead, members of Congress left it to the executive branch to correct problems. On issues like wiretapping, Bureau officials either misled Congress about the extent of their activities or ignored Congressional mandates in order to continue their anti-communist agenda. As the Cold War developed, certain Congressional committees began to use Bureau files confidentially in order to educate the public on the dangers of communism. While Bureau officials initially supported such liaison relationships, they were based on the source of the committees’ information never coming to light. Once that condition was violated, Bureau officials terminated the relationship, hampering the committees’ ability to use the communist issue to further political careers. To fully understand the FBI’s role in 20th-century America, the relationship with Congress must be further explored. Focusing solely on Director Hoover or the executive branch is too narrow. Members of Congress had equal opportunity to oversee Bureau activities. That they did not fulfill this responsibility portrays the difficulty Americans have in containing the actions of investigatory agencies. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AARON J. STOCKHAM No scholar truly works in isolation, though it may, at times, feel like it. I have incurred many debts while completing this work. I would first like to thank Dr. Athan G. Theoharis, who has advised me throughout my career at Marquette University. From the basketball court to the classroom, Dr. Theoharis always offered a kind word, a crucial suggestion, and the encouragement I needed to tackle this subject, dear to both of us. Witnessing his passion for the subject inspired me to meet his standard. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. James Marten and Dr. Kristen Foster. Their thoughts, suggestions, and support made this project possible. I would also like to thank the Marquette University Department of History and my fellow graduate students. In particular, Christopher Miller, Jason Hostutler, Daryl Webb, Jodi Eastberg, Ann Ostendorf, Steve Servais, John French and Monica Witkowski made early critiques which were of great value and made the work better. The Department also provided economic and academic support, even as I completed this work from a thousand miles away. The Marquette University Graduate School made much of the necessary research trips possible through a Smith Family Fellowship, allowing me to travel to four different universities and two different presidential libraries. I am also indebted to the Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt Institute for a Grant-In-Aid. I would like to thank David Woolner, director of the Institute, and Bob Clark, Chief Archivist of the Franklin Roosevelt Library. I also received an Abilene Travel Grant from the Eisenhower Foundation ii allowing for a week’s research trip to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library. I am grateful to the executive director of that Foundation, Mack Teasley, and the entire staff of the Library. So many archivists and librarians made this project possible, I cannot name them all. I would like to thank the entire staffs of the Cornell University’s Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Texas Tech University’s Southwest Collections/Special Collections, the Milwaukee Public Library, University of Missouri-Columbia’s Western Historical Manuscript Collection, Brooklyn College’s Archives and Special Collections, the National Archives in both Washington, D.C. and College Park, Maryland, and the S.J. Quinney School of Law Library at the University of Utah. A special thanks must be given to Marquette University’s Archives and Special Collections and, in particular, I would like to thank Director Matt Blessing and Susan Stawicki-Vrobel for their patience and their willingness to let me use their beautiful reading room. I must also thank my colleagues and students at The Waterford School, who provided support and patience while I finished this work. Nancy Heuston, Marcel Gauthier, Brandon Bennett, Ken Wade, Cindy Phillips and Jan Van Arsdell put up with my questions, my requests for advice, and were my greatest advocates. My students, who were always curious about when I would finish, also provided needed inspiration. Most important, I must thank Luana Uluave for her copy editing, her support, and the "dissertation vibes" sent out from Room 607. Lastly, I must thank my family for their patience, their love, their understanding and their smiles. My parents, Randall Stockham and Julianne Yuhasz Stockham, have always stressed the importance of critical thought, hard work, and striving for your goals. iii Being close to them in Utah as I finished was a blessing. My brother, Alex, and sister, Sarah and their spouses, Laura and Erik, provided much needed laughs and encouragement. Most important, I have to thank my editor, my confidant, and my dearest friend—my wife, Shira Fagan. The countless dinners, the long nights, and the care she provided our daughter, Cecily Rosemary, made the years this project required bearable. My final acknowledgement, and the dedication of this work, is saved for Rosemary Yuhasz and the late Joseph Yuhasz. Their stories, and their lives, inspired me to look at history in new ways. Beyond facts and figures, history is the story of people. From my earliest memories, Rosemary and Joe told the best stories and are the best people. This project can never repay those gifts. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS….……………………………………………………………..i INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...1 CHAPTER I: THE BUREAU’S BEGINNINGS: 1907-1914………………………..17 II: SCANDAL AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES: 1914-1924………...70 III: CONGRESSIONAL POWERS CHALLENGED: 1924-1941……..128 IV: NEW CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS: 1941-1956............174 V: BUREAU AUTONOMY QUESTIONED: 1956-1975……………..242 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………285 1 Introduction In his 1908 report to Congress, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte hinted at how a bureau of investigatory agents would be managed by the Department of Justice. These new agents would deliver ―daily reports‖ to their chief examiner, who would ―summarize these for submission each day to the Attorney-General…. The Attorney-General knows, or ought to know, at all times what they are doing and at what cost.‖1 An act of Congress had unintentionally forced the Department of Justice to create such a bureau in 1908 and the results had been ―moderately satisfactory.‖2 From its very beginning, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Investigation had been primarily a creation of the executive branch. Congress’s role proved to be secondary then and would continue to be so during the subsequent decades marked by the Bureau’s growth in power and stature. The scholarship on the Bureau bears this out, with very little focus on its relationship with the legislative branch. The FBI has been the subject of interest to historians, political scientists, journalists, and the general public. It has been studied as a federal bureaucracy, as reflecting changes in the popular culture, and as an institution that had a profound effect on civil liberties and the nation’s security. Writers have focused particularly on the long tenure of its famed Director, J. Edgar Hoover, on specific cases, and on its relationship with other federal intelligence agencies. Yet, few have explored the relationship between the FBI and Congress, a relative indifference that seems inappropriate given the central, 1 Annual Report of the Attorney-General of the United States for the Year 1908 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1908), 7. 2 Ibid. 2 if indirect, role of Congress in shaping the striking growth in influence and powers of the FBI—whether

Load more