New-York tribune., 1909-01-05

for May last. pages 5553 to $3.50 inclusive,
you will find the debate on this subject Mr
Tawney, of Minnesota: Mr. Smith. of Iowa; MI.
Sherley. of Kentucky. and Mr.. Fitzgerald OF
New York. appear in this debate the special
champions OF the provision referred TO MessIs.
Parsons. Bennett and Driscoll were the ieadeIS
of those who opposed the adoption of the aifehu
ment and upheld the right of the governlnsn. - -
use the most efficient means possible IN oruei =.
detect criminals and to prevent ana punssi pG
crime. The amendment was carried In .ne - - IL
mittea of the Whole where votes OF the ~.
dvidual members are recorded, so am u uiiat t,,
to discriminate by mentioning the nlehloers tst
voted for and the members VINO Noteo I az -
the provision. but its passage, the Jpuliioi IN
cords. was greeted with applause ! ti aia LID
many members who have no particular knowi-
edge of the point at issue are coI'e. ,,sL "a
to follow the lead of the coininlo , 80 donbt that
considered the matter, and nave -, ~ soII,,,,-ed
many members of the House smplS ..,.
the lead of Messrs. Tawney ana ei..i - " ,1,,cb
having had the opportunity ~ y, ,he question
as to the rights and wrongs OF tne Quss@t @ +
7 would not ordinarily attempt IN 'IIls May ~. -
discriminate between members on III ,iG Gneoeee in
as objection has been taken TO my iaus ing, III
hio,, s;,,nI1- smoke of the action OF the Rouse
as a whole and as apparently 'nere Is oeslo go
that should thus reeted on the Com
r,ttes on Appropriations. under the lead OF the
members whom have mentioneo NJ s1,o fo,o-ess that
-, the evidence for my statement that the
chief argument in favor OF the provision W., VIZ
tba+ the ConsressEfen did not themselves WISH
' NO. y e. ,.,-astigated by Secret Service men.
The mart of the Congressional Record to which
have referred above entirely supports TINS
,a+en1ent Two distinct lines of argument were
followed In the debate. One concerned the
question whether the law warranted the en-
ploynr&nt of the Secret Service in departments
other than the Treasury, and this did not touch
the merits OF the service in the least. The otner
line, of argument went TO the merits of the ser
vice whether lawfully or 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 shad-
owed" OF investigated members of Congress and
other officers of the government If We examine
the debate in detail II 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 violation Of law by
the use of the Secret Service for other purposes
than suppressing counterfeiting (and one or two
other matters which be dsregarded), and
that such language was now TO be used as would
effectualy prevent all such violation of law
hereafter Mr.. Tawney. for instance, says 1T
for the purpose of stopping the use of this
service in every possible way by the departments
of the government that this provision was in
serted: 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 employment of the Secret Service was con-
fined to the statement that 1t was in violation
OF law OF course such a statement is not in
any way argument in favor of the justice of
the provision. II is not an argument for the pro-
vision at all. It IS simply a statement of what
the gentlemen making il conceive to have been
direct statement the assertion that it the
law, and ought to be the law, that the Secret
Service should only be used 10 suppress coun-
terfeiting: and that the law should be made
more rigid than ever in this respect
incidentally l may say that in my Judgment
there is ample legal authority for the statement
that this appropriation law to which reference
made imposes no restrictions whatever upon
the of the Secret Service men, but relates
solely to the expenditure Of the money appro-
priated. Mr.. Tawney in the debate stated that
he had in his possession "a letter from the Sec
retary 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
wear after wear for q number of years in his
own department" ] append herewith as APP
pendix the letter referred to- 1t makes no
such admission that which Mr.. Tawney al
leges. 1t contains the contrary, as you will
see by reading it, 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 lis quite
within his rights in thus employing the service
Of these agents and that the proposed mOdf1ca-
tion which Mr. Tawney succeeded in CARRYING
through would be distinctly to the advantage
of violators of criminal statutes of the United
States" I call attention to the fact that in this
letter of Secretary Cortelyou to Mr.. Tawney, as
in my letter to the Speaker quoted below. the
explicit statement is made that the proposed
change will be for the benefit Of the criminals,
a statement which I simply reiterated in public
form In nv message TO the Congress this year,
and which is also contained in effect in the re-
port of the Secretary of the Treasury to the
Congress
A careful reading of the Congressional Record
Will also show that practically the only argu-
ments advanced in favor of the limitation pro-
posed by Mr.. Tawneys committee. beyond what
NAV be supposed TO be contained by implica ton
in certain sentences as to abuses" which were
not specified. those contained in the re-
peated statements Of Mr.. Sherley. Fir. Sherley
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 in the form of a question and in the
same form further stated that the private con-
duct of members Of Congress, Senator's. and
others ought not tc be Investigated by the Sc
cret Service. and that they should not investi-
gate a member Of Congress who had been ac-
q member of Congress" In addition to these
assertions couched questions, he made one
positive declaration, that This Secret Service
at one time used for the purpose of looking
into the personal conduct of member of Con-
gress'' This argument of Mr.. Sherley, the only
real argument as to the merits of the question
made on behalf of the Committee on Approprfa-
tions, will be found in columns 1 and of page
5556, and column 1 OF page 5557 Of the Con-
gressiona1 Record. In column l OF page 5556
Mr. Sherley refers 10 the impropriety of per-
rnitting the Secret Service men to Investigate
men in the departments. officers of the army and
he refers TO officers of the navy and members
Of Congress; in column 1, page 6557, he refers
only to members of Congress. His speech puts
most weight on the investigation OF members Of
Congress.
ATTACK ON SECRET SERVICE
What appears in the Record is filled out and
explained by an article which appeared in THE
Chicago Inter Ocean of January 3, 1904, under
2 Washington headline. and which marked the
beginning of this agitation against the Secret
Service II was a special article of about three
thousand words. written. as was then Informed
and now understand, by L. W. Busbey, at that
time private secretary TO the Speaker of the
House incIose a copy of certain extracts from