The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1909-01-04
Legal Authority.

Incidentally j may say that i'm my
judgment there is ample legal authority
for the statement hat this appropria-
ton law TO which -eferpnce was made
imposes no restrictions whatever upon
the use Of the Secret Service men, but
relates solely to the expenditure Of The
money appropriated. Mr. TaNaey in
the debate stated that he had in his
possession "a letter from the Sec
Rotary Of the Treasury received a
few days ago. In which the Secretary
OF The Treasury himself admits that the
provisions under which the apprOpria-
tjOn has been made have been violated
year after year for a number Of years
i'm his own department. ] append here
with as Appendix 4 the letter referred
20. Tt makes no such admission az
that which Mr. TaWuev alleges. u con
1aius 0u the contrary. as yT,: viii see
by reading &C.. an emphatic protest
against any such abridgemeut Of the
rights delegated TO the Secretary Of the
Treasury by existing law and con
cludes bv asserting that he lis quite
within his rights I'm TINS employing the
service or these agents" and that the
proposed modification which Mr. IaW-
uey succeeded in carrying through would
he distinctly To the advantage Of ViO-
larors of criminal statutes Of the United
States" J call attention To the fact
that I'm this letter of Secretary COrlel-
YOU TO Mr.. TawHey. IS IN my letter 10
the Speaker quoted below, the explicit
statement is made tIat the proposed
change viii be for the benefit of the
criminals. q statement which j simply
reiterated iu public form In nv mes
sage 10 the Congress this year, and
which is also contained I'm effect in tho
report Of Secretary Of the Treasury 10
tHe Congress.
A careful reading Of the Congressional
Record viii also show that practically
the only arguments advanced IN favor
of the limitation proposed by Mr. Taw-
neys committee beyond what may he
supposed 10 be contained by implica-
ton in certain sentences as to abuses
which were not specified. were those
contained iu the repeated statements Of
Mr. ShcTIcy Mr. Shcrley stated that
there had been pronounced abuses
growing out Of the use of the Secret
Service for purposes other than those
intended putting his statement i'm the
form of e. question, and Iu the same
form further stated that the private
conduct OF members Of Congress,
Senators" and others ought not TO be
Investigated 10y the Secret Service and
that they should not Investigate 20
member Of Congress WHO had been
accused of conduct unbcCOmiug a gen
t}emau and "a member of Congress In
addition TO these assertions cOuChcd
as questions, me made one positive dec
1arafiou. that 'tHis Secret Service at
one time was used for the purpose Of
LOOKING lut0 the personal conduct Of a.
member of Congress" This argument
OF RIr. SherIey. the only real argument
az to the merits of the question made
ON behalf of tine Committee on ApprO-
Driati0u-. will bee found I'm columns
and 2 of page 655G. and column ] Of page
5l57 Of the Congressional Record. Tn
column ] of page $500 MI. SheTley refers
10 The improperly OF permitting the
Secret Service men to investigate men
so the departments. officers Of the army
and navy. and Senators and Congress
men. iu column he refers 10 officers of
tho navy and members OF Congress: I'm
column I, page 5j5I Le refers only 20
members OF Congress His speech puts
most weight ON the investigation or