The Lamar register., 1909-01-06

| mousse any evidence upon winch ne Daseu
his statements that the chief argument
| in favor of the provision was that the
| congressman did not themselves wish to
| be Investigated by secret-service men,.
| This statement. which was an attack
upon no one, still less upon the congress.
| is sustained by the facts.
"If you will turn to the Congressional
| Record for May last. pages 1858 to $3.50.
| inclusive. you will find the debate on this
| subject. Mr.. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr..
| Smith of Iowa. Mr.. Sherlcy of Kentucky.
and Mr.. Fitzgerald of New York. appear
| in this debate as the special champions
of the provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons. Bennett and Driscoll were the lead
ers of those who opposed the adoption
| of the amendment and upheld the right of
| the government to use the most efficient
means possible in order to detect Grim
inals 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
| I am unable to discriminate by mention
| ing the Members who voted for and the
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, sre 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. Tawney and Smith. with
out having had the opportunity TO know
very much to the rights and wrongs
Of the question.
Chip Is Knocked OFF
Roosevelts Shoulder.
81 would not ordinarily attempt in this
way to discriminate between members of
the house. but objection has been ia
ken to my language. In which l simply
q 10 lOtlse ag n
whole, and apparently there is n de-
sire that 1 should thus discriminate will
state that 1 think the responsibility rest
ed the committee on appropriations.
under the lead of the members whom /
have mentioned.
Now as to the request of the congress
that 1 give the evidence for my state
ment that the chief argument in favor
OF the provision was that the congress-
men did not themselves wish TO be inves-
tigated by secret service men.
1.-THE part of the Congressional Record
to which l 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
ment 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
to the merits of the service. whether law
fully unlawfully employed. and here
the chief II not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut down
and restricted because its members had
'shadowed' or Investigated members of
congress and other officers of the govern
ment. II we examine the debate in de-
tail 1t appears that most of what was
urged in favor of the amendment took the
form of the simple statement that the
committee held that there had been a
violation of law by the of the secret
service for other purposes than suppress
ing counterfeiting land one two other
matters which can be disregarded). and
that such language was now to be used
would effectually prevent all such 'vio-
lation of law hereafter. Hr. 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 Mr.. Fitzgerald followed in
the same vein. and by far the largest
part of the argument against the employ
ment of the secret service was confined
to the statement that 1t was in violation
of law of course. such "A statement Is
not in any way an argument in favor of
the Justice of the provision. cit is not an
argument for the provision at all. 1t is
simply statement of what the gentle
men making II conceive to have been the
law.
Regarding Restrictions Of
the Secret Service.
There was both by Implication and d.
rect 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.
Incidentally I may say that in my
| Judgment there is ample legal authority
for tha Mt nAnf hot n nr,rfaf Ito,
| law to which reference made i'm
poses no restrictions whatever upon the
use of the secret service men. but re-
| lntes solely to the expenditure of the
| money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney in the
debate stated that he had in his pos
| session a letter from the secretary of the
| treasury received few days ago in
| which the secretary of the treasury him
| self admits that the provisions under
which the appropriation has been made
| have been violated year after year for a
| number of years in his own department.
| l append herewith as appendix A, the let
| ter referred to. 1t makes no such admis-
| sion as that which Mr.. Tawney alleges.
| 1t contains on the contrary. as you will
| see by reading 1t. an emphatic protest
| against any such abridgment of the
| rights delegated to the secretary of the
treasury by existing law and concludes
| by asserting that he is quite within his
| rights in thus employing the service of
| these agents and that the proposed mod-
| hcation which Mr. Tawney succeeded
| in carrying through would be distinctly
| to the advantage of violators of criminal
| statutes of the United States I call at
tention to the fact that in this letter of
| Secretary Cortelyou to Mr.. Tawney. as
in my letter to the speaker quoted be-
low. the explicit statement is made that
| the proposed change will be for the bene-
| fit of the criminals. a statement which
simply reiterated in public form in my
| message to the congress this year. and
| which is also contained in effect in the
| report of the secretary of the treasury
| to the congress.
"a careful reading of the Congression-
al Record will also show that practically
| the only arguments advanced in favor of
the Limitation proposed by Mr.. Tawney S
committee. beyond what may be ST opposed
| to be contained by implication m GER
tain sentences as to abuses which were
| not specified. were those contained in the
| repeated statements of Mr.. Sherley.