The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-01-04
PRESIDENT RooSEvELT'S
ANSWER TO CHARGES
MADE BY CONGRESS
Continued From Page one.)

kOOntihaca LAoh t6O OhOaJ
which he based his statements that
The chief argument in favor OF tho
provision was that tho congressEien
did not themselves wish to De inves-
tIgated by sccrct-service men This
statement, which was an attack upon
no one. still less upon the congress. is
sustained by the facts.
III you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May l last pages oSS3 %
$3.50. inclusive. you win find the de-
bate on this subject. Mr.. TawEey OF
Minnesota. Mr.. Smith OF Iowa. Mr..
Sherley OF Kentucky, and M Fttzger-
aid Of New York. appear in this de-
bate as the special champions of the
provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons, Bennett, and DrIscoll we're the
lenders OF those who opposed the adop-
ton of the amendment and upheld the
right OF the government TO use the
most ef1cient means possible In or
der TO detect criminals and to p event
and punish crime. The amendment
was carried in the committee OF the
whole, where no votes of the individ-
ual members are recorded. SO | am
unable to discriminate by mention
ing the members who voted for and
the members who voted against the
provision, but It's passage. the journal
records. was greeted with applause.
I am we'll aware, however, that In
any case OF this kind many members
who have no particular knowledge OF
the point at Issue are content simply
10 follow the lead of the committee
which had considered the matter, and
have no doubt that many members
OF the house simply followed the lead
OF Messrs. Tawney and Smith, with
cut having had the opportunity to
know very much as to the rights and
wrongs OF the question.
1 would not ordinarily attempt IN
this way to discriminate between
members OF the house, but as ob1ec-
tioE has been taken to my language
In which l simply spoke OF the action
OF the house as a whole, and as ap-
parently there is a desire that
should thus discriminate, / will state
that / think the responsibility hested
upon hte committee on appropriations,
under hte lead of the members whom
| have mentioned.
Now, as to the request of th2 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 Rec
ord to which | 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. mad 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. II not only, argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because It's mem
bers had "shadowed' or investigated
members OF congress and other Off
Gers of the government II we ex-
anime the debate in detail 1t appears
that most Of what was urged In favor
Of the amendment took the form OF
the simple statement that the commit.
tee held that there had been viola
ton of law" by the use OF the secret
service for other purposes than sup
pressing counterfeiting land one or
two other matters which can be dis.
regarded). and that such language
was now to be used as would effectu-
ally prevent all such violation OF
law" hereafter Mr.. Tawney, for in.
stance. says: 1T was for the purpose
Of stopping the use of this service IN
every possible way by the depart
ments of the government that this
provision was inserted" and Mt
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
confined to the statement that 1t was
In violation Of law" or course. such
statement is not on any way an
argument for the provision at all 1t
is simply statement OF what the
been the law. There was, both by
implication and direct statement, the
assertion that 1t was the law, and
ought to be the law, that the secret
service should be used only to sup
press counterfeiting: and that the law
should be made more rigid than ever
In this respect
Incidentally. l may say that. in my
jurgment. there Is ample legal author
lily Tor the statement that this aDpro-
priation law to which reference was
made imposes no restrictions what
ever upon the use of the secret SER
vice men, but relates solely to the ex-
penditure OF the mony appropriate
MIR. Tawney, In the debate. stated that
he had in his possession "a letter
from the secretary Of the treasury.
received few days ago." IN Which the
secretary of the treasury himself ad-
mits that the provisions under which
the appropriations has been made
have been violated year after year
for a number OF years In his own de-
pGrtment," / append herewith as ap-
pendix A the letter referred to. IL
makes no such admission as that
which Mr.. Tawney alleges. 1t con.
tains. on the contrary. as you Will
sec by reading it, an "mphatic pro-
test against my such abridgment of
the rights delegated to the secretary
OF the treasury by existing law" and
concludes by asserting that he rs
quite within his rights in thus en-
ploying the service Of these agents"
aud that the proposed modification