Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1909-01-08

ply spoke Of the action of the house
as a whole, and as apparently there is
a desire that l should thus discriin-
sponsibility rested on the committee
ON appropria tons under the lead of the
members whom l have mentioned.
Replies to Request For Evidence.
Now as to the request of the con-
gress that | 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 Record
to which l have referred above en-
tirely 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 lawfully
or unlawfully employed, and here the
chief If not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because it's mem
bers had Swallowed" or investigated
members of congress and other officers
of the government. If we examine the
debate in detail it appears that most
of what was urged in favor Of the
amendment took the form of the sim
pie statement that the committee held
that there had been Il 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 effectually prevent all
such violation of law hereafter. Mr.
Tawney, for instance, says, ct 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 en-
plOyment of the secret service was CON
fined to the statement that it was in
violation of law" OF course such a
statement is not in any way an argu-
ment in favor of the justice of the
provision. 1t is not an argument for
the provision at all 1t is simply Il
statement of what the gentlemen max
ing it 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 be
used to suppress counterfeiting and
that the law should be made more
rigid than ever in this respect
No Restrictions on Service.
incidentally l may say that in my
judgment there is ample legal author
ity for the statement that this appro-
priation law to which reference 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.. Tawney
in the debate stated that he had in his
possession "a letter from the secretary
of the treasury received a few days
ago" in which the secretary of the
treasury himself admits that the pro-
visions under which the appropriation
hrC ~ VII toI y.
after year for number of years in
his own department" | append here
with as Appendix \ the letter re-
ferred to. Appendix A is a letter from
Secretary of the Treasury Cortelyou to
the chairman Of the committee on ap-
preparations Of the house of represent
atives. dated April 20, 1908, protest
ing against the proposed law abridg-
ing the right of the secretary of the
treasury to detail secret service men
to work in other divisions of his de-
partment. Such abridgement, he de-
clared, would be distinctly to the ad-
vantage of violators Of criminal stat
utes of the United States."l 1t makes
no such admission as that which Mr..
ldWHey ulleSeS. II contains, on the
contrary as you will see by reading it,
an 'emphatic protest against any such
abridgement of the rights delegated to
the secretary Of the treasury by ex-
listing law" and concludes by assert
ing that he sis quite within his rights
in thus employing the service of these
agents" and that the proposed modifi-
cation which Mr.. Tawney succeeded in
carrying through would be distinctly
to the advantage of violators of crimi-
nal statutes of the United States"
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 l simply reiterated In
public form in my message to the con-
gress this year and which is also con-
tanned in effect in the report of the