Omaha daily bee., 1909-01-05

the debate in detail ii appears that most
of what was urged in favor of the amend
ment took the form of the simple state
ment that the committee held that there
had been a violation Of law" by the use
Of the secret service for other purposes
than suppressing= counterfeiting (and one
or two other matters which can be disre-
garded), and that such language was now
to be used as would effectually prevent all
such violation Of law hereafter. Mr..
Tawney, for instance, says: ut was for
the purpose of stopping the use of this
service in every possible way by the de-
partments 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.. F1tz-
gerald followed in the same vein, and by
far the largest part of the argument against
tho employment of the secret service was
confined to the statement that it was in
violation of law" OF course such a state
ment 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 a statement of what the gen.
tlemen making it conceive to have been the
law. There was both by implication and
direct statement the assertion that it was
the law, and ought to be the law, that the
secret service should only be used to sup
press counterfeiting and that the law
should be made more rigid than ever in
this respect.
Legal Authority for Expenditure.
I~ncidently 1 may say that in my judgment
there is ample legal authority for the state
ment that this appropriation 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. Mr.. Tawney in
the debate stated that he had in his pos
session "a letter from the secretary of the
treasury received a few days ago., in
which the secretary of the treasury him
self admits that the provisions under which
the appropriation has been made have been
violated year after year for a number of
years in his own department" l append
herewith as Appendix A, the letter referred
to. 1t makes no such admission as that
which Mr.. Tawney alleges. 1t contains on
the contrary, as you VIII see by reading it.
an 'empathic protest against any such
a%bridgment of the rights to delegate to
the secretary of the treasury by the exist
ing law" and concludes by asserting that
he sis quite within his rights in thus
employing the service of these agents and
that the proposed modification which Mr..
Tawley succeeded in carrying through
would be distinctly to the advantage OF
violators of criminal statutes of the United
States.' l call attention to the fact that
in this letter Of Secretary Corteyou to Mr..
Tawley, as in my letter to the speaker
quoted below, the explicit statement is
made that tire roposed change will be for
the benefit of the criminals, a statement
which l simply reiterated in public form
in my message to the congress this year,
and which is also contained in effect in the
report of the secretary of the treasury to
the congress.
Answers T~Rwney's Argument.
A careful reading of the Congressional
Record will also show that practically the
only advanced in favor of the
limitation proposed by Mr.. Tawney's com
mittee, beyond what may be supposed to be
contained by implication in certain SEN
fences as to abuses which were not
specified, were those contained in the re-
peated statements Of Mr.. Sherley. Mr..
Sherley stated that there had been PRO
nounced abuses growing out Of the use OF
the Secret Service for purposes other thar
those intended" putting his statement in
the form Of a question, and in the same
form further stated that the private con.
ducts of Of congress-, senator's
and others Ought not to be investigated
by the secret service, and that they should
not investigate a member of congress-" who
had been accused of conduct unbecomins
a gentleman and a member of congress-
In addition to these assertions couched az
questions, he made one positive declaration
that secret service at one time was
used for looking into the personal con.
duct of a member OF congress-" This argu.
ment of Mr.. Sherley, the only real argu.
ment to the merits of the question made or
behalf of the committee on appropriations
will be found in columns one and two OF
page 1856, and column one Of page 5,557 Of
the Congressional Record. In column on,
OF page 1855, Mr.. Sherley refers to the i'm
propriety of permitting the secret servic,
men to investigate men in the departments
officers of the army and navy, and sena
tors and congressman; in column two h,
refers to the officers of the navy and mem
beTs of congress; in column one, page 5.557
he refers only TO members of congress. Hi
speech put most weight on the investlga
ton of Members of congress.
Close to "UncIe JOe.'
What appears in the record is filled on
and explained by an article which appeare,
in the Chicago Inter-Ocean Of January q
1904, under a Washinton headline. and whicl
marked the beginning Of the aggitatiol
against the secret service. 1t was a specia
article Of about 5000 words, written, as l wa
then informed and now understand, by MI
L. w. Busbey, at that time private secretary
to the speaker of the house. enclose
copy Of certain extracts from the article
marked Appendix b.. 1t contains an utterl
unwarranted attact on the secret seryic
division of the Treasury department an
It's chief. The opening paragraph includes
for instance, like the follow ne
He (the chief of the diyisionl and hi
men are DESTROYS OF doing the secre
detective work for the whole goVernmen
ana are not particular about drawing th
line between lawmakers and lawbrsakers
they are ready TO shadow the former. a
well as the latter.
Then after saying that congress Wi
insist that the men shall only be used I
stop counterfeiting, the article goes on:
Congress does not intend TO have
Fouche or any other kind Of minister q
police to be used by the executive denar RI
. nAnA a-a aW ~