Weekly journal-miner., 1909-01-06

alleges. r. contains ou the contrary.
 y.u win -cc lv reading it. an .',mpaatc protest against any such
 .tIldruou' u' ilc gh'- delegated to '.r Secretary nf ih" Ircawry by OK uJIIg UH. and conclude. by assert iru tnut hc "Is qu.Ic within bis rights
 u iiu- employing thc .cryirc pf these r4,ul,' uul tha' tnc proposed modil. cation which Mr. Tawupy succeeded iu tlrrvng through wuld be "distinct. ly to tbc advantage of tiolators of criminal statutes of thc United -ia'cs.' | cnll attention Co the fact that in this letter nf Secretary Cortcl- vou io Mr. Tawucv, as iu my letter to inc Speaker quoted below, the explicit statement is made that the proposed change will bc for the benefit of the criminals statement which 1 simply reiterated in public form in my mes. sage to the Congress this year. and which is also contained in effect in the report of inc Secretary of the Treasury to the Congress.
 A careful reading of the Congres sionnl Record will also show that prac. tically the only arguments advanced in favor of the limitation proposed by MT. Tawncy's committee. beyond what may hc supposed to he contained by implication in certain sentences as to abuses which were not specified, were those contained in the repeated statements of Mr. Shcrley. MT. Shcr. ley stated that there had been "pro. nounced abuses growing out of the use of the Secret Service for purposes
 Al II h's statement iu the form of aues. iiou. and in inc same form furth stated that the "pri,aic conduct" of '' Members of Congress. Senator's v and others ought not to bc iuyestigat cd by the Secret Service. and that they should not investigate "Mcm. Der, of Congress- who had been ac. cuscd of "conduct unbccoming a gen. tlcman and Member of Congress. v In addition to these assertions couchcd as gucstions, ac made one positive declaration. that "Tne Secret Service at one time was used for the purpose of looking into the personal conduct of Member of Congress This ar. gumcnt of Mir. Sherley. the only real argument as to the merits of the qies. tion made on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations, will he found in columns l and ? of page 5556, and column l of page 5557 of the Congres. sional Record. In column 1 of page 5JJ6 MT. Sbcrley refers to the jmpro. priety of permitting the secret service men to investigate men in the depart. ments. officers of the army and navy. and Senators and Congressman; in column ? he refers to officers of tne navy and Members of Congress; in column l, page 5j57. he refers only to Members of Congress. His speech puts most weight on the investigation of Members of Congress.
 What appears in the record is filled put and explained by an article which in the Chicago Inter. Ocean of January T, 1904, under Washing. ton headline, and which marked the beginning of this agitation agaInsy Inc Secret Service. It was special article of about 5000 words, written, ls l was then informed and now m. ierstand, by Mir. l.. W. Busbey. at that lime private secretary to the Speaker Df the House inclose copy of ger. lain extracts from the article, marked E. lt contained an utterly nnwarrnnted attack on the Secret Service Division of the Treasury De. partment and its chief. The open. ng paragraph includes, for instance, like the following:
 He (the chief of the division) and
 his men are desirous of doing the
 secret detective work for the whole Government and are not particular
 ua l..ts. L. lawmakers and the lawbrcakers. They are ready to shadow the form CT as well as the latter.
 Then, after saying that Congress will insist that the men shall only ,c used to stop counterfeiting, the Irticle goes on;
 Congress does not intend to have Fouche or any other kind of min. ister of police to he used by the executive departments against the Legislative branch of the Govern. ment. It has been so used, and it
 s suspected that it has been SO used
 recently. The legislative branch of the Government will not tolerate the meddling of detectives, whether they represent the Presi. | dent, Cabinet officers, or only them. selves. Congressman re. scntcd the secret interference of the secret service men, who for weeks shadowed some of the most respect. cd members of the House and Sen ate. When it was discoy. cred that the secret service men were shadowing Congressman, there was storm of indignation at the capitol and the bureau came near being abolished and the appropria.
 tion for the suppression of counter.
 feltlng cut oh. Al another time the chief of the Secret Service had uis men shadow Congressman with view to involving them in
 scandals that would enable the bur.
 eau to dictate to them as the price ot silence, The secret ser.
 vice men have shown m inclination
 again to shadow members of Con. gress, knowing them to be law mak. CTS and this is no joke. Several of the departments have asked Con. gross for secret funds for investiga. lion, and the Treasury Department wants the limitation removed from tde appropriation for expressing c0untorfeiting. This shows ten.