Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1909-01-08


~ on appropriations under the lead of tho
% members whom have mentioned
4 Replies to Request For Evidence.
3 Now as 70 the request Of the con
+ gress that give the evidence for my
Z statement that the chief argument in
Z favor Of the provision was that the
. congressman did not themselves wish
70 be Investigated BY secret service
men
The part Of the Congressional Record
: 70 which I have referred above en-
tirely supports this statement. Two
distinct lines Of argument were fol-
lowed IN The debate One concerned
the question whether the law war
FaEted the employment Of the secret
service ~ 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 uniawfully employed, and here the
chief II not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because its men,
bers had Swallowed" or investigated
members OF congress and other officers
OF the government. II we examine the
debate Ia detail 1t appears that most
Of what was urged in favor OF the
amendment took the form Of the sim
pie statement that the committee held I
that there had been a violation OF (
law" by the use OF the secret service /
for other purposes than suppresslng
eounterfeltlng (and one or two other
matters which can be disregarded) and
that such language was now to be
used as would eifectually prevent all
such violation Of law" hereafter. Mr..
Tawney, for instance. says, ut was
for the purpose Of stopping the 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 en-
ployment of the secret service was con-
nned to the statement that 1t was In
statement Is not In any way an argu-
ment IN favor of the justice of the r
provision. 1t Is not an argument for c
the provision at all IL Is simply a n
statement OF what the gentlemen max =.
Ing II conceive to have been the law
There was both by implication and
lirect statement the assertion that 1t
was the law and ought to be the law,
hat the secret service should only be
ised to suppress counterfeiting and II
hat the law should be made more
'igld than ever IN this respect ~
No Restrictions on Service.
incidentally | may say that in my I'll
Judgment there Is ample legal author. Sc
ty for the statement that this appro OF
rlation law TO which reference was h
made imposes no restrictions whatever vi
pom the use Of the secret service men, 80
mt relates solely to the expenditure of s
he money appropriated Mr. Tawney an
a the debate stated that he had In his an
ossesslon "a letter from the secretary tn
I the treasury received few days 10
so" In which the secretary Of the vi'
'casury himself admits that the pro. ne
islons under which the appropriation -,
as been made have been violated year !
ftcr year for number Of years IN ,,s
Is own department" I append here \
18th as Appendix A the letter re- ion
rred TO. Appendix A Is a letter from pln
acrctary Of the Treasury Cortelyou to die
e chairman Of the committee on ap- the
OPERATIONS of the house Of represent pa
Ives. dated April %, 1908. protest ~"
z against the proposed law abridg- a.,
& the right Of the secretary of the VIII,
aasury TO detail secret service men aga
work In other divisions Of his de con
rtment Such abridgement, he de- 81
'red. would be distinctly to the adj ever
ntaee OF violotors of criminal st,t shiT
es Of the United States"l II makes TO-
such admission as that which Mr. o,ar
wncy alleges. II contains. on the out.
ltrary. as you viii see by reading 1t. deb,
emphatic protest against any such wha
Judgement OF the rights delegated to plat
, secretary Of the treasury by ex- viii
Ing law" and concludes by assert ME
, that he sis quite within his rights Al
thus employing the service Of these a. .p =
hts 4
Ion which Mr. Tawney succeeded In plai,
rying through would be distinctly Gh
the advantage Of vlolators of crlmi. Dist
statutes OF the United States" OF IA
attention 20 the fact that In this Lines
er Of Secretary Cortelyou to Mr.. oi Gu
whey. as In my letter to the speaker
tied below. the explicit statement o..
made that the proposed change will for .
for the benefit Of the criminals. a -
cement which | simply reiterated in
lie form IN my message 70 the con
IS this year and which Is also con-
'ed IN effect In the report Of the De
'etary Of the treasury to the con- Lane
s.. 1908.
.priVst. cond,,ty ~ n,...s No
eors,,,, roaa,,,. =, a.. cS,' Carp
N'''sa"l ,vauiuN ot 'ue Oongresslon- Janu
'ecord viii also show that practical entr,
he only arguments. advanced in "a III