The Ordway new era., 1909-01-08

MS statements that the chief argument
In favor OF the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish to
be Investigated by sccret-scrvice men,
This statement. which was an attack
upon no one. still less upon the congress.
Is sustained by the facts.
III you will turn to the Conversational
Record for May last. pages 5553 TO $3.50.
inclusive, you will rnd the debate on this
subject. Mr. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr..
smith OF Iowa. Mr.. Sherley of Kentucky.
and Mr.. Fitzgerald OF New York. appear
In this debate as the special champions
OF the provision referred to. Mcssrs. Par
sons, Bennett and Driscoll were the lead
ers of those who opposed tho adoption
OF the amendment and upheld the right OF
the government to use the most efficient
means possible in order to detect Grim
lnals and to prevent and punish crime.
The amendment was carried In the COM
mittee Of the whole. where no votes OF
the individual members are recorded so
l am unable to discriminate by mention
Ing the members who voted for and tho
members who voted against the provision.
but Its passage. the journal records, was
greeted with applause. I am well aware.
however. that In any case OF this kind
many members who have no particular
knowledge OF the point at issue. are con-
tent simply to follow the lead of the
committee which had considered the mat
ter. and have no doubt that many mem
bers of the house simply followed the
lead Of Messrs Tawncy and Smith. with
out having had the opportunity to know
very much as to the rights and wrongs
OF the question.
Chip Is Knocked OF
Roosevelt's Shoulder.
II would not ordinarily attempt In this
way to discriminate between members of
the house. but as objection has been ta-
ken to my language, In which I simply
spoke OF the action of the house as n
whole. and as apparently there IL de
sire that I should thus discriminate. I will
state that think the responsibility rest
ed on the committee on appropriations.
under the lead of the members whom /
have mentioned.
Now as to the request Of tho congress
that ! give the evidence for my state
mcnt that the chief argument In favor
OF the provision was that the congress-
men did not themselves wish to be inves-
tigat"d by secret service men.
THE part OF tho Congressional Record
to which I have referred above entirely
supports this statement. Two distinct
lines OF argument were followed in the
debate. One concerned the question
whether the law warranted the employ
mcnt OF the secret service In departments
other than the treasury. and this did not
touch the merits OF the service In the
least. Tho other line OF argument went
to the merits OF tho service. whether law
fully or unlawfully employed. and here
the chief II not tho only argument used
was that the service should be cut down
and restricted because its members had
'shndowed' or Investigated members Of
congress and other officers OF the govern
m.nt. II We examine the debate In de-
tail II appears that most Of what was
urged in favor Of tn. amendment took the
form OF the simple statement that the
committee held that there had been a
violation Of law by the use OF the secret
service for other purposes than suppress
ing countcrfCitinG ,Rnd one or two other
matters which can lie disrcgnrdcdp. ana
that such language was now to be used
rs would cfrectunllv prevent all such 'vio-
Ia ton OF law hereafter. Mr.. Tawncy. for
instance, says: 1t was for tho purpose
OF stopping tho use of this service In
every possible way by the departments of
the government that this provision was
inserted; and Mr. Smith says: Now. that
was the only way in which any limitation
could be put upon the activities OF the
secret service Mr.. Fitzgerald followed In
the same vein. and by far the largest
part of the argument against the employ
mcnt OF the secret service was confined
to the statement that II was In violation
of law or course. such statement Is
not in any way an argument In favor OF
the justice Of the provision. IL Is not an
argument for the provision at all. 1t Is
simply statement OF what the gentle
men making It conceive to have been the
law.
Regarding Restrictions Of
the Secret Service.
"Thcre was both by implication and d.
rect statement the assertion that 1t was
the law and ought to be the law. that
the secret service should only be used
to suppress counterfeiting; and that the
law should be made more rigid than ever
in this respect.
"Incidentally I may say that In my
Judgment there is ample legal authority