Devils Lake inter-ocean and Devils Lake free press. (Devils Lake, Ramsey County, N.D.) 1905-1909, 1909-01-08

=
!piy spoke of the action 90 the house
asa whole, and as apparently there Is:
il desire that should thus 5discri,n-
mate 7 will state that ! think the re-:
!sponsibflity rested on the committee,
ON appropriations under the lead Of the
members whom + have mentioned
g. Replies 10 Request For Evidence. Ss5
Now as \ to the request OF the con-
GEES that 4 give the evidence for my
statement that the chief argument III
favor OF the ID provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish:
tn be investigated BY secret service.
men. s Il 81 ;s5;S " Hi
The part Of the Cong essionalH Record
10 which have referred above en-
Shreiy supports this tatement. Two
distinct lines Of argument were fol
lowed IN the debate. One concerned
the question whether the law war
!ranted the emplo ynent of the secret
Iservics Fin depaf tmieilts other than the:
treasury, and this stlid not touch the:
merits OF the service Id the least. The
other line Of argument went to the
merits Of the service, whether lawfully
Eor unlaw fully smpl6y and hers the.
chief Sif not the only argument used
was that the service should s be cut
down and restricted because its mem.
Shers had .'shad lowed q 81 investigated
members Of congress and other officers
Sof the government. IL we examine the
debate Fl detail II appears that most
sof what was urged In favor. Of the
amendment took the form OF the sim;
pie statement that the committee held
that there had been a violation Of
law BY the use OF the secret service
for other purposes than suppressjng
acounterf eiting (and one or two other
matters which can be disregardeD and
that such language was now to be
used as would effectually prevent all
such .yio la ton of la W. 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 II 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 $of the argument against the en-
ployment Of the secret service was con-
fined to the statement that 1t was IN
violation sof Law. AZ OF course such a
statement is not In any way an argu-
ment IN favor of the justice Of the
oyision. It is not an argument for
the provision at all. It Is simply a
statement OF what the gentlemen maxi
Ing II conceive to have been the law.
There was both by Implication and
direct statement the assertion that It
was the law and ought to be the Law.
that the secret service should only 10
used to suppress counterfeiting and
that the law should be made more
rigid than ever ii this respect.
No Restrictions on Service.
Incidentally may say that In my
Judgment there is ample legal author
for the ttemantS Tint this appro-
priation law to which reference was
made imposes no restric tions whatever
upon the use Of the secret service men,
but relates solely to the expenditure OF
the money appropria ted. Mr.. Tawney
In the debate stated that he had In his
possession "a letter from the secretary
Lot the treasury received Ia few days
ago. IN which the secretary Il OF the
treasury himself admits that the pro-
Visions under n hich the appropria
has been made have been violated year
after year for a number OF years ii
his own departme it e append here
with as Appendix "a the letter re
ferred to. Appendix a Is a letter from
Secretary of$ the Treasury Cortelyou to
the CHI irman OF the COMMIT ttee Oh APP
propria lions OF the house Of represent
Eatiyes lated IA pril 1908, protest.
ing against tile proposed law a bridg-
ing the light Of the secretary of5 the
treasury to detail secret service men
III work IN other d divisions Of his de-
partmen Such abrid cement. he de-
Eclared would be distinctly to the ad-
|yantage Of VIC lators OF criminal stat.
Eutes Of the United States 81 IT makes
no such admission Us that which Mr..
TaWney alleges 1t contains. on the
contra ~ J, as you WI Il see by reading IT,
ga Temp tic protest against any such
|sabrsd cement Of the rights delegated to
the secretary Sof the treasury by ex-
isting w, and concludes by assert
Ing that be %f.'is quite within his rights
in; thus emp ying the service OF these
agents. and that the spropo sed naodif-
cation which Mr.. "a whey succeeded Ia
carrying through would be- distinctly
To- the advantage or violators of crimi-
nal statutes of the United States. &
call attention to the fact thar Id this
letter of Secretary CorteIyou to Mr..
Eawney, as In my letter TO the speaker
quoted below, the explicit statement