The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-01-04
IN SELF DEFENSE.
econtinued from Page ones

|
in question was of benefit to no one
excepting to these criminals, and it seri-
ously hampers the government in the
detection of crime and the securing of
Justice. Moreover, it not only affects
departments outside of the treasury,
| but It tends to hamper the secretary of
| the treasury himself in the effort to
utilize the employees of his department
so as to best meet the requirements of
the public service. 1t forbidS him from
preventing frauds upon the customs ser
vice from investigating irregularities
in branch minis and assay offices, and
has seriously crippled him. 1t prevents
the promotion of employees in the secret
service, and this further dfScourages
good effort In its present form the re-
Istriction operates only to the advantage
of the criminal, of the wrOngdoer.
| THE chief argument in favor of the
provision was that the congressman did
not themselves wish to be investigated
| by secret service men. Very little of
such Investigation has been done in the
past; but it is true that the work of
the secret service agents was partly re-
sponSible for the Indictment and con-
for land frauds in Oregon. do not be-
lieve that it is in the public interest to
protect criminals in any branch of the
public service, and exactly as we have
again and again during the past seven
years prosecuted and convicted such
criminals who were in the executive
branch of the government. so in my be-
| lief we should be given ample means
to prosecute them if found in the leg
| islative branch. But if this is not con-
sidered desirable a special exception
could be made in the law prohibiting
the use of the secret service force in in
vestigating 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 effec-
tive action against criminals by the, eX-
Nothing to Warrant It,
A careful reading of this message will
show that 1 said nothing to warrant
the statement that the majority of the
congressman were in fear of being in
vestigated by the secret service men,
or that congress as a whole was
actuated by that motive" I did not
make any such statement in this mes
sage. Moreover / have never made any
such statement about congress as
whole, nor. with a few inevitable ex-
ceptions, about the members of con-
gress in any message or article or
speech. On the contrary have always
not only deprecated but vigorously re-
sented the practice of indiscriminate
attack upon congress- and indiscrimi-
nate of all congressman, wise and I'M
wise, fit and unfit, good and bad alike
No one realizes more than the inn
portance of cooperation between the
executive and congress, and no one
holds the authority and dignity Of the
congress of the United States in higher
respect than 1 do 1 have not the slight
est sympathy with the practice OF
judging men, for good or for ill. not on
their several merits. but in a mass. as
members 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
! h-ad
seems to me utterly indefensible; and
it is equally indefensible whether the
good are COMPOUNDED with the bad in
heated and unwarranted championship
of all or in a heated and unwarranted
assault upon all. I would neither at
tack nor defend all executive officers
in a mass. whether presidents. gov
ernors. cabinet officers, or officials OF
lower rank; nor would l attack or de-
fend all legislative officers in mass.
The safety of free government rests
very largely in the ability of the plain
everyday citizen to discriminate be-
him well and those public servants who
serve him i'll. He can not thus DIS
criminate if he is persuaded to pass
Judgment upon q man, not with REFER
ence to whether he is a fit or UNIT pup
lie servant but with reference to
whether he is an executive or legis- |
lative officer whether he belongs to one |
branch or the other of the govern |
ment.
Failed to Understand.
This allegation in the resolution, |
therefore. must certainly be due to an |
entire failure to understand my mes
sage.
The resolution continues: THAT the |
president be requested to transmit 70
the house any evidence upon which ne
based his statements that the chief /
argument in favor Of the provision was
that the congressman did not them
selves wish to be investigated by secret |
service men, This statement, which |
was an attack upon no one, still less
upon the congress, is sustained by the |
facts. Il
If you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May 1 last, pages 1888 to
1850 inclusive, you will find the de-
bate on this subject. Mr.. Tawney of |
Minnesota. Mr.. Smith of Iowa, Mr.
of Kentucky, and Mr.. Fitzgerald |
of New York. appear in this debate as |
the special champions of the provision |
referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Benne+,
and Driscoll were the leaders of those |
who opposed the adoption of the
amendment and upheld the right of the |
to use the most efficient |
means possible in order to detect Grim
mails and to prevent and punish crime
The amendment was carried In the
committee of the whole. where no votes
of the individual members are record
ed so ! am unable to discriminate by |
the members who voted |
for and the members VINO voted
a gainst the provision, but its passage,
the Journal records. was greeted with
applause. 1 am well aware, however.
that in any case of this kind many |
members who have no particular
knowledge of the point al issue, are
content simply 20 follow the lead of
the committee which had considered /
the matter, and I have no doubt that
many members of the house simply |
the lead of Messrs. Tawney |
and Smith, without having had the
to know very much as to |
the rights and wrongs Of the question.
would not ordinarily attempt in this