The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-03-20
PROTECTION OF PRESIDENT.
siooner and Hear Upheld the Bill.
Bailey Finds Fault With Present.
Measure.

Washington, March 19.-During the
bill providing for the protection of the
President of the United States was
under consideration. Mr.. Spooner of
Wisconsin made an extended argument
in support of the measure. He con-
tended that the government had an
absolute and inherent right to pro-
tect itself from assaults made either
upon itself or upon any of it's officers
He maintained that an assault upon
the President was in the very nature
of things an assault upon the govern
ment, for there never was a time when
the President was not in the exercise
of the duties of his office. His argu-
ment was largely legal and constitu-
tional, but throughout was forceful
and entertaining.
Mr.. Hoar, in charge of the measure
elucidated some arguments he had
made previously and Mr.. Teller of
Colorado and Mr.. Bailey of Texas
spoke briefly upon the bill. Mr..
Bailey said he could not support the
measure as it stands. because he could
conceive of an assault made upon the
official of the government. The assail-
ant, in that event, ought to be punish
ed precisely as if he had assaulted any
other citizen.
SpOOner Replies to Bacon.
Replying to Mr.. Bacon, Mr.. Spooner
contended that if Mr. Bacon's argu-
ment was crystallized into law this
would be an impotent government, I'M
able to protect itself against obvious
crimes, endangering our institutions
and obstructing the operations of the
government"
A legitimate conclusion from the SEN
ator's argument, he contended, would
be that this is the weakest government
under the sky. 1t is not, he said.
1t was an evident right of the
United States government to protect
it's own officials from assault or as
sassination while engaged in the dis
charge of their governmental duties.
"If the function is a federal one" he
said, IF it involves the safety or the
sovereignty of the government, there
are no state lines"
He asserted that there was no time
when the President of the United
States was not engaged in the per-
Torrance of his official duties. He
could perform his duties and exercise
his powers anywhere, day or night.
An assault upon him, therefore, he
said, was an assault upon the govern
ment.
Mr. Teller of Colorado objected to
the provision giving to the President
a military guard, and suggested that
the guard about him should be from
the civil department of the govern
ment.
Bailey and Bacon on Anarchy.
Mr.. Bailey of Texas maintained that
the government Had ample authority
| to protect it's Off Gals in the perform
ance of their duties, but he doubted
| its authority to punish man who
should assault or kill any government
official merely as a person.
The demand of the people was that
the government should lay it's heavy
hand upon the anarchist. He was in
accord with that demand, and would
hound the anarchist from one section
to another until he had no resting place,
but he warned the senators not to
make anarchists of themselves in the
effort to protect the President against
anarchy He could not support the
measure as it stood.
Directly in line with the suggestion
contained in Mr.. Baileys remarks, Mr..
Bacon introduced bill for the depor-
tation and exclusion of alien anar-
chiSts. It was the bill, he said, which,
introduced by ex-senator Hill of New
York, had heen passed by the Senate,
but had failed in the House. He Of
fered 1T as a suggestion to the Judi
ciary Committee. Personally he was in
favor of the most extreme legislation
that can be devised and justified for
the accomplishment of the purpose
stated.