The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-01-05

examine the debate in detail it appears
that most of what was urged in favor
of the amendment took the form OF
the simple statement that the com
m1ttee held that there had been a
violation of law BY the use of the
secret service for other purposes than
suppressing eoUnteFfeiting land one
Or two other matters which can be
disTegaTded) and that such language
was now TO be used as would effectual
ly prevent all such violation of law"
hereafter. Mr.. Tawney, for instance
says: 1T 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. MIR.
Fitzgerald followed in the same vein
and by far the largest part of the ar
Sument against the employment OF the
secret service was confined to the
statement that it was in violation of
law OF course such a statement Il
not in any way an argument in favor
Of the justice of the provision. It IS
not an argument for the provision at
all. 1t is simply a statement of what
the gentlemen making it conceive to
have been the law. There was both
by implication and direct statement
the assertion that it was the law, and
ought to be the law. that the secret
service should only be used to sup
press coUnterfeiting; and that the
law should be made more rigid than
ever in this respect.
No Restrictions Imposed.
Incidentally I may say that in my
judgment there is ample legal author
ity for the statement that this appTO-
pTiatfOn law 10 which reference was
made imposes no restrictions what
ever upon the use of the secret serv-
ice men, but relates solely to the ex.
penditUre 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
a few days ago" in which the secTe-
tary of the treasury himself admits
that the provisions under which the
appropriation has been made have
been violated year after year for
number of years in his own depart
ment." 1 append herewith as appen
dix A the letter referred to. 1t makes
no such admission as that which Mr.
Tawney alleges. 1t contains on the
contrary, as you will see by reading
it, an emphatic protest against any
such abridgment of the rights delegat- =
ed to the secretary of the treasury by
exisiDg law and concludes by as
sorting that he lis quite within his
rights in thus employing the service
of these agents. and that the pro-
posed modification which Mr.. Tawney
succeeded in carrying through would
be distinctly to the advantage of VIC
lators of criminal statutes of the Unit
~
fact that in this letter of Secretary Cor !
teIyoU to Mr.. Tawney, as in my letter
to the speaker quoted below, the ex-
plicit statement is made that the pro
posed change will be for the benefit
of the criminals, statement which |
simply reiterated in public form in !
my message to the congress this year, |
and which lis also contained in effect |
In the report of the secretary of the /
treasury to the congress.
A careful reading of the Congress |
sional Record will also show that |
the only arguments ad- |
vanced in favor of the limitation pro- /
posed by Mr.. Tawney's committee. /
beyond what may be supposed to De /
contained by implication in certain |
as to "abuses" which were |
not specified, were those contained in /
the repeated statements of Mr.. Sher- /
ey. Mr.. Sherley stated that there |
had been pronounced abuses growing \
put of the use of the secret service [
for purposes other than those in /
ended" putting his statement in the /
form of a question, and in the same |
form further stated that the private |
conduct" of members of congress,
senator's" and others ought not to be /
Investigated by the. secret service, |
and that they should not investigate
4 member of congress" who had
1een accused of Conduct unbecoming
! gentleman and a member of con
yress." In addition, to these asser-
ions couched as questions, he made
)ne positive declartiOn, that this
secret service at one time was used /
or the purpose of looking into the per
sonaL conduct of member of con-
sress" This argument of Mr.. Sher-
ey, the only real argument as to the
merits of the question made on behalf |
IF the committee on appropriations, |
will be found in columns 1 and of
page $3.50, and column 1 of page 5557
If the Congressional Record In col
INN l of page $50 Mr.. Sherley refers
o the improperly Of permitting the
secret service men to investigate men
n the departments, officers of the
army and navy, and senators and
in column he refers
O officers of the navy and members
If congress; in column L, page 5557
le refers only to members of con-
ress. His speech puts most weight
N the investigation of members of
congress.
Agitation Against Service.
What appears In the record Is filed !,
mt and explained by an article which