The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1909-01-09

AAAtt Will tlhtA AtA4l H. kullA tue 10
sponsibIlity rested On the committee
on appropriations under The lead az the
members whom ! have mentioned
Replies TO Request For Evidence.
Y NOW as to the request 81 the con
4 gross that l give the evidence for ally
statement that the chief argument a.
favor of the provision was that The
congressman did not themselves wish
10 be investigated by secret service.
men.
The part Of the Congressional Record
TO which / have referred above en-
tlrely supports this statement Two
distinct lines Of argument were fol-
lowed IN the debate. One concerned
the question whether the law war
ranted the employment OF the secret
service in departments other than the
/ treasury. and this did not touch the
merits OF the service In the least The
! other line OF argument went 10 the
merits OF the service. whether lawfully
or unlawfully employed. ana here the
chief II DSs the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because It's menu
beers had Swallowed" or investigated
members Of congress and other officers
OF the government n we examine the
debate IN detail Il appears that most
OF what was urged IN favor OF the
amendment took the form Of the sim
pie statement that the committee held
that there had been a violation OF
law" by the use OF the secret service
for other purposes than suppresSlng
counterfeiting (and one or two other
matters which can be disregardcd) and
that such language was now 10 be
used as would effectually prevent all
such violation OF law" hereafter. Mr.
/ Tawney, for instance, says. at was
i for the purpose Of stopping the use or
1 this service I'm every possible Way by
4 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 en-
! ployment OF the secret service was con
fined 10 the statement that Il was IN
violation OF law" OF course such
statement is not in any way an argu-
ment In favor OF the justice OF the
provision. It Is not an argument for
the provision at all. II Is simply
statement Of what the gentlemen max
ing Il conceive TO have been the law.
There was both by Implication and
direct statement the assertion that II
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.
No Restrictions on Service.
Incidentally may say that in my
Judgment there Is ample legal author
ity for the statement that this appro-
prlation law 10 which reference was
made imposes no restrictions whatever
upon the use OF the secret service men.
but relates solely TO the expenditure Of
the money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney
In the debate stated that he had in HIS
/ possession "a letter from the secretary
OF the treasury received few days
ago" in which the secretary OF the
treasury himself admits that the pro-
visions under which the appropriation
has been made have been violated year
after year for a number Of years in
HIS own department" I append here
with as Appendix A the letter re-
forred to- fAppendlx A Is a letter from
Secretary OF the Treasury Cortelyou 70
] -.
propriations OF the house Of represent
atlves dated April 20, zoos, protest
Ing against the proposed law abridg-
ing the right OF the secretary OF the
treasury 20 detail secret service men
20 work IN other divisions Of his de-
partment Such abrIdgemcnt. he de-
clared, would be distinctly 20 the ad-
vantage OF violators OF criminal stat
utes OF the United States"l IL makes
no such admission az that which Mr..
Tawney alleges IL contains. on the
contrary, as you VIII see by reading It,
an emphatic protest against any such
abridgement 81 the rights delegated 90
the secretary ~ the treasury By ex-
listing law and concludes by assert
Inc thsS he IFS quite within bis rights
In thus employing the service ~ these
agents and that the proposed modin.
cation which Mr.. Tawney succeeded In
carrying through would be distinctly
10 the advantage ~ violators 81 crifui-
nal statutes Of the United states"
call attention 10 the fact that IN this
letter Of Secretary Cortclyou ~ Mr
Tawney, as In my letter 10 the speaker
quoted below. the explicit statement
r. made that the proposed change WIN
be for the benefit Of the criminals. a
statement which I simply reiterated ~
public form IN my mcssaee 90 the con
gross this year ard which g. also con-
tained In eject IN the report az the
secretary OF the treasury 60 the con.
gress
~Privste Conduct" Of Members.