Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-04
Continued from First Page)

Continued from First Page)
gated by the secret service men, or
that Congress as whole was aCtuated
by that motive" i did not make any
such statement in this message. More
over. | have never made any such state
ment about Congress whole, nor.
with few inevitable exceptions. about
the members of Congress. in any message
or article or speech. On the contrary. l
have always not only deeply deprecated
but vigorously resented the practice or
indiscrminate attack upon Congress and
indiscrminate condemnation Of all con-
greSSmen, wise and unWiSe, fit and unnt,
good and bad alike.
No one realizes more than ! the impor-
tance of cooperation between the execu-
tive and Congress. and no one holds the
authority and dignity of the Congress OF
the United States in higher respect imam
I do. | have not the slightest sympathy
with the practice of judging men, LOT
good or for i'll, not on their several merlts,
but in mass. members of one partlc-
ular body one caste To put together
all men holding who have held par
ticuiar office. whether it be the office or
President judge or senator or mem
her of the House of Representatives.. ana
to class them ALL without regard to their
individual differences. as good or pad.
seems to me utterly indefensible: and II
is equally indefensible whether the GOOD
are COMPOUNDED with the bad in heated
and unwarranted championship of all. or
In heated and unwarranted assault
upon all.
| would neither attack nor defend all
executive officers in a mass, whethef
presidents governors. cabinet officers or
officials of lower rank; nor would L at
tack or defend all legislative officers In a
mass. me safety of free government
rests very largely in the ability of the
plain. everyday citizen to discriminate be-
tween those public servants who serve MN
well and those public servants who serve
him ILL., He cannot thus discriminate
if he is persuaded to pass judgment upon
man, not with reference to whether
he is a fit or unfit public servant, but
with reference to whether he is an eXecu-
tive or legislative officer. whether he be-
longs to one branch or the other or the
government
Message Not Understood.
This allegation in the resolution. there
fore, must certainly be due to an en-
tire failure to understand my message.
The resolution continues: THAT 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
he investigated by secret service men, .
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 1858 to
$3.50. inclusive. you will find the debate
on this subject. Mr.. Tawney of Mime
sofa, Mr.. Smith of Iowa, Mr.. Sherley of
Kentucky and Mr.. Fitzgerald of New
York. appear in this debate as the special
champions of the provision referred to-.
Messrs. Parsons. Bennett and Driscoll were
the leaders of those VINO opposed the adop-
ton of the amendment and upheld the
right of the government to use the most
efficient means possible in order to de-
tect criminals and TO prevent and punish
crime.
The amendment was carried in the COM
mttee of the whole, where no votes of
the individual members are recorded, so
i am unable to discriminate by mention
ing the members who voted for and the
members who voted against the provision,
but its passage, the journal records, was
greeted with applause. l am well aware,
however, that in any case of this kind
many members who have no particular
knowledge of the point at issue are con-
tent simply to follow the lead of the COM
mittee which had considered the matter,
and / 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 question.
Places Responsibility.
l 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 simply
spoke of the action of the House as a
whole, and as apparently there is de-
sire that l should thus discriminate,
will state that l think the responsibility
rested on the committee on appropria-
tons. under the lead of the members
whom l have mentioned.
Now as to the request of the Congress
that give the evidence for my statement
fna obi af n,f IL
provision was that the congressman did
not themselves wish to be investigated by
secret service men.
The part of the Congressional Record
to which l have referred above entirely
supports the statement. Two distinct
lines of argument were followed in the
debate. One concerned the question
whether the law warranted the employ
ment of the secret service in departments
other than the Treasury and this did not
touch the merits of the service in the
leasj. The other line of argument went
to the merits of the service, whether
lawfully or unawfully employed, and
here the chief if not the only argument
used was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because it's members
had 'shadowed' OF investigated men,
bers of Congress and other officers of the
government.
If we examine the debate in detail ii
appears that most of what was urged i'm
favor Of the amendment took the form of
tIt tHaJ the committee
held that there had been violation of
law by the use of the secret service for
other purposes than suppressing counter
feiting tand one or two other matters
which can be disregarded), and that such
language was now to be used as would
enectually prevent all such violation of
law hereafter.
Quotes Mr.. Tawney.
Mr.. Tawney, for instance, says: ct
was for the purpose of stopping the use
OF this service in every possible way by
the departments OF the government that
this provision was inserted and Mr..
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 areu-
nent against the employment of the Sc
cret service was confined to the statement
that II was lin violation of law" or
course such a statement is not in any
way an argument in favor of the Justice
of the provision. 1t is not an argument
for the provision at all. 1t is simply n