The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-01-04

secret service men. Very little of such
 investigation has been done in the past. But 1t is true that the work of the secret service agents was partly responsible for the indictment and conviction of sen ator and congressman for land frauds in Oregon. I do not believe that it is | In the public interest to protect crim- inals in any branch of the public service, l and, exactly as we have again and again | during the past seven years prosecuted | In the executive branch of the govern ment. so in my belief we should be given ample means to prosecute them if found in the legislative branch. But If this is | not considered desirable a special excep- ton could be made in the law prohibit Ing the use of the secret service force in Investigating members of the congress It would be far better to do this than to do what actually was done and strive to prevent or at least to hamper effective action against criminals by the executive branch of the government.
 Asks Careful Reading of Message. A careful reading of this message
 will show that I said nothing to war
 rant the statement that 'the majority of the congressman were in fear of
 being investigated by the secret serv-
 ice men" or. 'that congress as a whole
 was actuated by that motive" I did
 not make any such statement in. this
 message. Moreover, have never made
 any such statement about congress as
 whole nor, with few inevitable ex- captions, about the members of con- gross in any message or article or
 speech. On the contrary, I have al-
 ways not only deprecated, but vigor-
 ously resented, the practice of indis-
 criminate attack upon congress and
 indiscriminate condemnation of all
 congressman, wise and unwise, fit and
 izes more than I the importance of
 cooperation between the executive
 and congress, and no one holds the au- thority and dignity of the congress of the United States in higher respect
 than I do. have not the slightest sympathy with the practice of judging
 men for good or for i'll not on their
 several merits, but in a mass, as mem bers of one particular body or one caste. To put together all men holding or who have held a particular office, whether it be the office of president or judge or senator or member of the
 house of representatives, and to class
 them all, without regard to their in-
 divfdual differences, as good or bad
 seems to me utterly tndefensible, and it is equally tndefensfble whether the good are confounded with the bad in
 heated and unwarranted champion ship of all or in a heated and unwar-
 ranted assault upon all. would nei- q lofo oil officers in mass, whether presidents, governors, cabinet officers or officials of lower rank, nor would I attack or defend all legislative officers in mass. The safety of free government rests very largely in the ability of the plain, everyday citizen to discriminate be- tween those public servants who serve him well and those public servants who serve him i'll. He cannot thus
 discriminate If he is persuaded to pass
 judgment upon a man not with refer
 ence to whether he is a fit or unfit
 public servant, but with reference to whether he is an executive or legis1a-
 tive officer, whether he belongs to one branch or the other of the government. Says Message Is Misunderstood.
 This allegation in the resolution, therefore, must certainly be due to an
 entire, failure to understand my mes-
 sage.
 The resolution continues, ''rhat the
 president be requested to transmit to the house any evidence upon which he
 based his statements that the chief argument in favor of the provision
 was that the congressman did not
 themselves wish to be Investigated by
 secret service mem" This statement,
 which was an attack upon no one, still
 less upon the congress, is sustained by
 the facts.
 If you will turn to the Congressional
 Record for May 1 last, pages 5553 to
 556O, inclusive, you will find the de-
 bate on this subject. MT. Tawney of
 Minnesota, Mr. Smith of Iowa, MT.
 Sherley of Kentucky and MT. Fitzger-
 aid of New York appear in this debate
 as the special champions of the pro-
 vision referred to. Messrs. Parsons,
 Bonnet and Driscoll were the leaders
 of those who opposed the adoption of the amendment and upheld the right of LAC &OFCAAA4OAI Io 0SS CAAO AASHS SAAA
 cient means possible in order to de- tect criminals and to prevent and pun
 ish crime. The amendment was car
 ried in the committee of the whole,
 where no votes of the individual mem
 bers are recorded, so I am unable to
 discriminate by mentioning the mem-
 bers who voted for and the members
 who voted against the provision, but
 it's passage, the journal records, was
 greeted with applause. I am well
 aware, however, that in any case of
 this kind many members who have no
 particular knowledge of the point at mae are content simply to follow the
 fead of the committee which had con- | sidered the matter, and I have no doubt that many members of the house
 simply followed the lead of Messrs.
 Tawney and Smith without having had the opportunity to know very much as
 to the rights and wrongs of the ques- l ton.
 would not ordinarily attempt in this
 way to discriminate between members
 of the house, but as objection has been
 taken to my language, in which I sim l ply spoke of the action of the house 1 aa whole and as anna ront1v +horo is