with the measures which the Executive has pursued and proposes
to take for suppressing or defeating the same.1'51
President Jefferson replied by detailing the activities of Aaron Burr, but declined
to mention the names of other alleged participants. Jefferson declared:
The mass of what I have received in the course of these transac
tions is voluminous, but little has been given under the sanction of
an oath so as to constitute formal and legal evidence. It is chiefly
in the form of letters, often containing such a mixture of rumors,
conjectures, and suspicions as renders it difficult to sift out the
real facts and unadvisable to hazard more than general outlines,
strengthened by concurrent information or the particular cred
ibility of the relator. In this state of the evidence, delivered
sometimes, too, under the restriction of private confidence, nei
ther safety nor justice will permit the exposing names, except that
of the principal actor, whose guilt is placed beyond question.1'61
4. Monroe Administration
Stewart Incident
In 1825, the House of Representatives requested by resolution that the Presi
dent provide the Congress with documents concerning charges against certain
naval officers, so far as he deemed such disclosure compatible with the public
interest.17 President Monroe refused to submit the documents, stating:
In consequence of several charges which have been alleged
against Commodore Stewart, touching his conduct while com
15 16 Annals of Cong. 336 (1806) (emphasis added). Professor Raoul Berger has argued that the exception clause
in the House resolution refutes any argument that Jefferson's subsequent withholding of documents was based on an
executive privilege R. BeTger, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth 179-81 (1974) (descnbing Jefferson’s
explanation for withholding information as “gratuitous” ). See also Cox, Executive Privilege, 122 U ft L. Rev.
1383, 1397-98 (1974) (arguing that those historical examples of executive withholding which are preceded by a
congressional authorization to withhold do not qualify as examples of executive pnvilege) One could just as well
read the exception clause, however, as an early illustration of congressional recognition of the executive privilege.
See § 1, C, supra, note 19 infra.
Moreover, it is highly unlikely Jefferson actually relied upon the exception clause as the basis for withholding
information from the House, given the conclusions he reached while serving in President Washington’s Cabinet, see
§ 1, A, supra, and given the views he expressed in a letter to the United States District Attorney for Virginia, who
was then in charge of the Burr prosecution*
Reserving the necessary right of the President of the U.S. to decide, independently c f all other
authority, what papers, coming to him as President, the public interests permit to be communicated,
& to whom, I assure you of my readiness under that restriction, voluntanly to furnish . . whatever
the purposes of justice may require.
9 The Wntings of Thomas Jefferson 55 (P. Ford ed 1898) Professor Berger also fails to note other occasions on
which President Jefferson let it be known that he regarded himself free to withhold certain “ confidential”
information “given for my information in the discharge of my executive functions, and which my duties & the
public interest forbid me to make public.” Id. at 63-64 (certificate to the court in Burr prosecution).
16 1 Richardson, supra, at 412
17 House Journal, 18th Cong , 2d Sess. 102-03 (1825).
755