The Washington herald., 1909-01-05
EXPLAINS CHARGE
AGAINST CONGRESS
Continued from Page One.

Continued from Page One.
heated and ,lnwarrauted championship q all. or IN
heated and unwarranted assault upoa all I would
neither attack nor defend al executive offers IN 2
mas. EheiheT Presidents governors. Cabinet OH
ceTs. officials q lower Uuk. nor sOuld attack
O defend al legislative oficers IN a mssz The
safety Of f-es government rests very largely IN the
ability Of the plain everyday citizen 10 discriminate
between those public servants who serve hin vel
and those public servants who serve him H. He
eannot thus discriminate II he is persuaded % pass
Judgment upon nan. rot with reference % whether
he Is n or unfit public servant. but With refer
euCe 70 whether he IS executive OF legislative
oaoer. whether he belongs 10 one branch Ct the
ether Of the government
Failure TO Understand.
This allegation IN the resolution. Therefore. mGS-
certainly be due to al entire failure 10 understand
ny messge
The resolution coutiuues: '-Thst the President Be
requested to transmit % the House any evidence
upon which be based bis statements thst the chief
argument II favor Of the provision was that the
ConGsssnen did not themselves Wish 20 be iavesti-
gated b. Secret SerTice men, This statement
which EAs an attack upon no one. sin les upon
the COnE6s. is sustained b the facts
II you VII tgrn 70 the Congressional Record FOR
Nay 7 last. TaCss 555s 70 5561 inciusive. you vii
Hud the debate on this subject NJ Tsvrsy, q
Mianes5ta: NJ smith. of Iowa. NJ She-ley. q
ksntuCky. and Mr.. Fitzgerald. NJ NeE Yo-k. aP-
pear Il this debate as The SPECIAL chsmpious a the
provision referred TO- Mesrs- Parsons. Bennet. and
DuscoG were the leaders q those who opposed the
adoption of ire aue-6mcnt and upheld the right
of the govsurngr- q Use the most eH1ent means
possible n order % detect criminals ard % rEevent
and punish crine- The amendment was Cared n
The Committee q the Whole where no -0tes q the
Individual H1embeTs are recorded. 50 7 am unable 10
discriminate by mentioning the members Who voted
Tor aDd The members who voted against TIE ITO
vision. bGr us passage. the S0lraAl reo01is was
g1eeted With applause. am vel aware. h0geve-
that in any csss q this kind membes who have
20 particular knowleiEe q the point 81 issue a7e
content simply n follow the lead q the csuittee
which rad considered the matter. ard I have no
d0ubt that many members q the House simply fol
lowed The .ead q MesSTs. Tawrey and smith. With
Cut having had the opportunity 20 Know Te7T much
as % the rights ard wrongs q TIE question.
I would lot ordinarily attemQt IN this way to
discriminate between members a the HoElSe bCt as
objection has teen taken 70 ny lanEage. II which
simply spoke q ere acton of the House a
whole snG IS apparently the-e Is a desire that
should thus discriminate. VII state that I think
the responsibility rested the Committee on Ap-
IToTEizti0ns under the lead of the members whom
hsFe meutioned
Now as % the request q The Congress that give
the evidence fo- M statement that ne chief arg-
meut IN favor Of the pToTision was that the Con
gTeSSren did not themselves Fish % y invest
gated b SS0Tet ScTyicr meu.
Statement Supported.
The part q the Congressional Record 70 vhich
have rsfeTTed ABOVE entirely supports this statement
Two 6istincI lines q argument were followed II tire
debate. One Concerned the question whether the
law warranted the employment q the SeCrst Service
N departments Other than the Treasury. and this
did not touch the merits q the service in the least
The other lne u argument went % the merits q
the service. whether lawfully OF unlaVfuIly en-
pioyed. ard here the CHIEF II not the Only s-zu-
meut y-sed that the service sh01id Be CIT down
and restricted because It's members had ~saadoEe6
OF Investigated members ot Congress and other CT
ces o. the government.
J: examine the debate n detail Il appears that
most q what was urEed IL favor q the snendulezt
rook the form Of The simple statement that the c1u
nlittee held that there had heen a ''vi0iation Of
law n -le use Of the Secret Service for other
purposes than sIPlressinE coIzterfeiting land one
OF txo other matters which can be disrezz75ed and
thst s1ch language was nov 20 be used as would
efeetually prevent al s'ch viola.ion Of law here
After.
Mr- TzEney. for instance. says- 1T vas fo- the
p-ruse q Stopping the use of this service n ever
possible way b. the Departments of the E0Ternmezt
that this provision vas inserted :" and NJ Smith
SAYS: 'Nov. that vas the only way IN which any
limitation could be Put upon the activities Of the
Secret Service" NJ. FtzFeTaid followed ID tie
sane vein ard b far the largest part q the ar7-
ment against the e1npioymsrt q the Sec-et Se-ice
Vas c1tned 70 the statement that II vas IL riola-
ton Il law. OF COurse such a statement is not II
any way an argument u favo- of the Justice of The
provision u Is rot Argument fer the p-uvision
at al. Il is Simply statement Of what the gentle
men making Il conceive 20 have been the law. There
was both by Implication ard direct statement tie
assertion that Il the law. ard ouFht 20 be the
law that the Secret Service should only Be u=ed 70
suppress coEntereiting; snd that The law should be
made more Tigid than ever n this respecL
Incidentally I may say that ii nv Judgment there
is ample legal authority for .he statement that this
approp-iation law % which reference was made in
poses nc restrictions whatever upon the use q The
Secret Service men. bet relates solely 70 the IL
penditU7e q the money appropriated.
Mr.. TawDey IN the debate stated that he had IN
his possession a letter from the Secretary z the
Treasury received few DAYS ago IN which the
Secretary u the Treasury himself admits that the
provisions under which the appropriation has beer
made have been violated year after year f0-
number Of wears in his osn deTOrrmeuc'
No Such Admission,
ar1end herewith the letter referred 70. It
makes 10 such admission as that which M Tszuev
alleys L contains on the oout-ary as vo VII see
b. reading il. an emphatic protest against zny
such abTidEneut Of the rights delegated % the Sec
rstzry of the Treasury BY existing laE." and con
cludes by asserting that he rs quite within his
rights n thus employing the service o. these agsuts
and that the proposed mobilization which NJ.
TaEney s1cceeded IN earring through EouId he
distinctly "a the advantage Of vioato-s Of criminal
statutes q the United States cali attention 70
the fact that IN this letter Of Secretary Co-telvr
to AIr. Tawney. as in my letter 20 the Speaker
quoted below the explicit statement Is made that
the proposed change vii be for the beneht Of the
criminals. statement which l simply reiterated In