Weekly journal-miner., 1909-01-06
ROOSEVELT RETURNS
 ANSWER TO CONGRESS
(Continuei from Page Five.)

ilat.t, rn,rr. whether hc bcIoug. to pYr b1u. pr tuo other ut thc Gov
 r.m.al
 This utcsa u tbc resolution, trct.tc u.., DD|a.ulv hc due to an ,.IIr fl.ur [, WdD.HHl mr mes
 age
 Tuc ro-um'.uu ,outuuc-. "That Inc
 pt.,.Hru. loo rrqu,-io. ll transmit Co th. iluu.t uur evidence upon which
 hr based h.. sinirWcut- that thc 'cliri argument ip favor of inc pro
 vision was tuli the Cungrcssmen did
 rut thcm-clNc. wish tu br invcsiigat. cd tv secret service men, This stlI cmeut, which was an attack upon no one. stll less upon the Congress, is sustained by inc facts.
 1T you win turn to the Congressiou. al Record for May 1 last, pages jjJ3 to 5jGn, inclusive. you will find the de
 bate on this subject. Mir Tawucy of Minnesota. Mir. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Sherley of Kentucky. and Mr. Fitz- gerald of New York appear in this debate as the special champions of the provision referred to. Mcssrs Par sons. Bonnet, and Driscol were the leaders of tuc-r who opposed inc adop ton of the amendment and upheld the right of the Government to use the most efficient means possible in order Co detect criminals and to prevent and punish crime. The amendment was carried in the Committee of the Whole where ro votes of the individual mem. hers are recorded. so 1 am un, blc to discriminate by mentioning inc men. bers who voted for and ho members who voted agaiGs' the provision. but ifs passage. ihc Journal records. was greeted with aIp'ausc. 1'n well bwarc. however, 'Ln' in any ease of this kind manv Members who have no particular ku.wlc ,ge of inc point at issue, are content simply to follow the lead of the committee which had con sidered the matter. and [ have no doubt that many Members of tdc
 House simply followed the lead of Messrs. Tawncy and Smith, without having had the opportunity to know very much as Co the rights and wrongs of the question.
 would no, ordinarily attempt in this wny to discriminate between mem bers of the House. but as objection has been taken to my language, in which l simply spoke of the action of the House as a whole. and as apparent ly there K a desire that | should thus discriminate. | will state that think the responsibility rested on the Com. mittce on Appropriations. under the lead of the members wnom | have mentioned
 Now as 10 the request of the Con. gress that l 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 Re cord to which 1 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 warrant cd the employment of the secret ser. vice in departments other than the Treasury and this did not touch the merits of the service in the least. The other line or argument went to the merits of the service, whether lawfully ar unlnwfully 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 shadowcd' 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 tho | simple statement that the. committee | held that there had been a violation ! or law by the use of the Secret Ser | vice Tor other purposes than suppress. sing countcrfciting (and one or two other matters which can be disregard | ed), and that such language was now to be used as would effectually prevent | all such "vioation of law" hereafter. NIT. Tawney, for instance, says; "lt was for the purpose of stopping the use of this service in every possible wny by the departments of the Gov. ernment that this provision was in. serted,' and Mir. Smith says "N0w, that was the only way in which any limitation could be put upon the acti yities of the Secret Scrvice.' MT. Fitzgerald followed in the same vein, and by far the largest part of the argument against the employment of the Secret Service was confined to the statement that it was In "violation of law Of course such statement IS not in any way an argument in favor of the justice of the provision. lt IS not m argument for the provi- sion at all. It Is simply statement of what the gentlemen making 1t con. ceive t0 have been the law There was both by implication and direct statement the assertion that it was the law, and ought to he the law, that the Secret Service should only be used to suppress countcrfeiiing; and that tho law should be made more rigid than ever in this respect.
 Incidentally l may say that in my judgment there K ample legal author. ity of 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 Mir. Tsw ncy in the debate stated that no had | in his possession Ca letter from the Secretary of the Treasury received . few days sgc' in which the Secretary of the Treasury "himsclf admits that