Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1909-01-05

in mass. The safety of free govern
ment rests very largely in the ability
of the plain, everyday citizen to dis
F., crimlnate between those public serv-
ants who serve him well and those
public servants who serve him i'll. He
can not thus discriminate if he is
persuaded to pass judgment upon a
man, not with reference to whether
| he is a fit or unfit public servant. but
with reference to whether he is an
executive or legislative officer, wheth-
! er he belongs to one branch or the
other of the government.
! Congress Fails to Understand
| This allegation in the resolution,
therefore, must certainly be due to an
entire failure to understand my mes
sage
| The resolution continues: "That the
president be requested to transmit to
the house any evidence upon which
| he based his statements that the chief
argument in iavor 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 sus-
4 tanned by the eactS.
| If you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May / last, pages $3.50 to
$3.50, inclusive, you will find the de-
| bate on this subject. Mr. Tawney of
| Minnesota. Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr.
! Sherley of Kentucky. and Mr. F'itzger-
aid of New York, appear this de-
bate as the special champions of the
provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons, Bennett, and Driscoll We're the
/ leaders Of those who opposed the
adoption of the amendment and up
| held the right of the government to
use the most efficient means possible
| in order to detect criminals and to
I! prevent ard punish crime. The
! amendment was carried in the COM
! mittee of the whole, where no votes
| of the individual members are record
! ed, SO I am unable to discriminate by
| mentioning 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, are
content simply to follow the lead of
the committee which had considered
the matter and I have no doubt that
many members of the house simply
followed the lead of Messrs Tawney
and Smith, without having had the
opportunity to know very much as to
the rights and wrongs of the question.
would not ordinarily attempt in
this way to discriminate between
members of the house, but as objec-
ton has been taken to my language,
in which l simply spoke OF the action
of the house as a whole, and as APP
parently there is desire that I should
thus discriminate, / will state that T
think the responsibility rested on the
committee o" appropriations, under
the lead of the members whom L have
mentioned.
Evidence Is on Record q
Now as to the request of the con-
gress that i give the evidence for my
statement that the chief argument in
favor of the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish
to be investigated by secret service
men.
The part of the Congressional Rec
ord to which I have referred above
entirely 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 to the
merits of the service, whether law
fully or unlawfully employed, and
here the chief if not the only areu-
ment used was that the service should
be cut down, and restricted because its
members had "shadowed' or investi-
gated members of congress and other
officers of the government. If we ex-
anime 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
mittee held that there had been a
violation of law by the use of the
secret service for other purposes than
suppressing counterfeiting (and one
or two other matters which can be
disregarded), and that such language
was now to be used as would effect
ually prevent all such "violation of
law hereafter. Mr. Tawney, for in
f.
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 ar
gument against the employment of the
secret service was confined to the
statement that it was in violation Of
law" OF course such a statement is
not in any way an argument in favor
of tho 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 20 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.
INSTRUCTED by Tawney
incidentally I may say that in nv
Judgment there is ample legal author