Bisbee daily review., 1909-01-05
hcers in a mass.

ficers in a mass
 This allegation iu the resolution therefore. must certainly be due tr an entire failure to understand m message.
 The resolution continues: "Thai the President be requested to trans init 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 in vestigated by secret service men" This statement, which was an attack upon no one, stiIl less upon the Con gress, is sustained ty the facts.
 If you will turn to the Congression- Record for May 1 last. page 5553 to 5560, in9usiye, you will find the de- bate on this subject. MT. Tawney of Minnesota, Mir. Smith of Iowa, MT. Sherley of Kentucky. and Mir. Fitz- gerald of New York. appear In this debate as the special champions of the provision referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Bonnet and Driscoll were the leaders of those who opposed the adoption of the amendment and up held the right of the Government to use the most efficient means possible III OTutT lO anu NO prevent and punish crime. The amendment was carried in the Com mittee of the Whole, wnere no votes of the individual members are re corded, so l am unable to discrimi- nate by mentioning the members who voted for and the members who voted agaipst the provision, but it's passage. the Journal records. was greeted II rnN however, that in case of this kind many members who have no pariicu- eard it as within the province or the lar knowledge of the point at issue. are content simply to follow the lead of the committee which had consid- cred 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 question
 I would not ordinarily attempt in this way to discriminate between members of the House, but as ob jection has been taken to my ian guage. in which I simply spoke Of the action of the House as a whole and as apparently there is a desire that I should thus discriminate, I will state that I think the responsibility rested on the Committee on Appropri- ations, under the lead of the members whom l have mentioned.
 Now as to the request of the Con gress that I give the evidence for my statement that the chief argu- ment in favor of the provision was that the Congressman did not them selves wish to be investigated by secret service men.
 The part of the Congressional Rec ord to which l have referred above entirely supports this statement. Two distinct lines of argument were followed in the debate. One con cerned the question whether the law warranted the employment of the se- cret service in departments other than the Treasury, and this did not touch the merits of the service in the least The other line of argu- ment went to the merits of the ser vice, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, and here the chief if not the only argument. used was that the service should be cut down and re- stricted because it's members had "shadowed' or investigated members of Congress and other officers of the Government. If we examine the de
 (Continued on Page Eightl