Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-01-05

tNtCulNS VI ~ tiS'eN''' o"N ~
whether he belongs 10 one branch or
the other OF the government.
This allegation in the resolution,
therefore. mus, certainly be due 10
an entire failure to understand my
message.
"\ow as 20 the request Of the Con
gress tina, give tn" evidence for my
statement that the chief argument in
favor Of the provision was that IN"
Coneressmen did not themselves
wish TO be investigated by secret ser
vice men.
Congressional Debate.
THE part OF tn" Congressional
Record to which have referred
above tdchate on the provision or
amendmenn entirely supports this
statement, Two distinct lines of
argument, were followed in the de-.
bate. One concerned the question
whether the law warranted the en-
rloymcnt of the secret service IN de
narimcnls other than the treasury
and this did not touch the merits OF
the service in the least. TIL" other
line of arrument went TO III" merits
of the service. whether lawfully or
unlawfuliy employed and here the
chief If not the only argument use"
vas that the scrviC" should be cut
down and restricted because It's mem,
hcrs had .shaIowed' or investigated
nj hpp
ficlals of the government. If We fX-
anime the debate in detail II appear
that most of what MAS urged IN laN"T
of the amendment took the form o.
the simple statement that tn" comm,
tee held that there had been Viola
ticn of law by the us" OF tn" secret
service for other purposes than sup
messing COun,crfci'lng tand on" or
two other matters which can b" dl7.
rcrardcll and that such language
was now TO he used as would encc'
ually prevent all such violation OF
law hereafter Mr.. Tawney. for IN
stance. says: 1T was fer the purpose
of stopping the us" OF this service
in every possible way by the d"par =
monts of the government that TINS
provision was Inserted: and MI.
Smith SAYS: Now. that was tn" only
way III which any limitation could be
put uYon the activities of the secret
service Mr.. Fitzgerald followed IN
the same vein ami by far the largest
part of the argument against the EN-
Dlovment OF the secret service was
confined to the statement that II was
in violation of law. OF course
such a statement is not in any waG
an argument in favor OF the justice
, of the provision. 1t is not an argN'
! ment fos the provision at all. 1t Is
simply d statement of what the gen
| tlemen making it conceive to have
been the law. There was both ps
implication and direc. statement tn
| assertion that 1t was the law. and
! ought to be the law, that the secret
service should be used TO sup
press counterfeiling: anu that the
Law should be made more rigid than
ever in this respect.
Ample Authority.
intellectually I may say that in my
! iud gment tht r.. is ample legal author
ty fer the statement that this ap-
propriation law to which reference
was made imposes no restrictions
| whatever upon the use Of the secre'
service men, but relates solely to tne
expenditure of tn money appropriat-
Cd. Mr.. TawEey in the debate stated
::.?. he had in his possession "A let
err from the secretary OF the treas
u.v received a few d.'yS ago In which
he secretary OF tn" treasury him
self admits that the prOvic ons under
which the appropriate n shas been
made have been violated year after
wear for a number Of yeHrs in his
ow". department
This issue is simply. Does Con
gress desir" that the government
shall have at is disposal the most
fic:ent instrument for TIT election
or criminals and the r",~, ntion and
pr:'' = lment Of crime. or GC"S II mot:
~" action OF the Hons" last May
f!:c provision, w. III I.natic2lly an
aero. against the i..t' rpS' OF jus ic"
and against the interest OF law abid-
ing people. and III us tHe't oI "eh'
fiji only to awbreakers. am MOI
now dealing wi h motives: whatever
NAV have l""n tn" motive that in
Gucsd the actor o. which ! speak.
this was beyond all questions tn" ef-
feet Of that action. Is the House now
willing 20 remedy the wrong"
Covered a Wide h7nse.
Since 1901 he uvcstira;iOns GOV
cred by the secret service division
under thr practice which had h. on
for many years r"co gnizrd as proper
and legitimate. and which had r"ceiv-
ed the sanction az the higbcs: law Of
iiccrs OF III govcrnment-havc GOV
cred q wide rance OF 0fenscs against
sac Federal law. BY far the most i'm
pOri ant Of these related 10 III, public