The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1909-01-04
MESSAGE ON THE
SECRET SERVICE
Continued from First Page

O@Oes@u S6uluuV6
Continued from First Page
based his statements that .the Chief
argument in favor Of the provision
was that the congressman did not
themselves wish to be 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 Ma. 1 last, pages 1858 to
$500, inclusive, you will find the de-
bate on this subject. Mr.. Tawney of
Minnesota, Mr.. Smith Of Iowa, Mr..
Sherley Of Kentucky and MI. Fitzger-
aid Of New York appear in this debate
as the special champions of the pro-
vision referred to. Messrs. Parsons,
Bennett and Driscoll were the leaders
Of those who opposed the adoption Of
the amendment and upheld the right Of
the government to use the most eff
Client means possible in order to de-
tect criminals and to prevent and pun
ish crime. The amendment was car
ried in the committee Of the whole,
where no votes Of the individual mem
beers are recorded, so I am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the men,
bers who voted for and the members
who voted against the provision, but
its passage the journal records, was
greeted with applause. 1 am well
aware, however, that In any case Of
this kind many members who have no
particular knowledge Of the point at
issue are content simply to follow the
lead Of the committee which had con-
sidered 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 ques-
ton.
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 sim
ply spoke Of the action Of the house
as whole, and as apparently there is
q desire that I should thus discrim-
mate I will state that think the re-
sponsibility rested on the committee
on appropriations under the lead Of the
members whom have mentioned.
Replies to Request For Evidence.
Now as to the request Of the con-
gress that I give the evidence for my
statement that the chief argument in
Favor Of the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish
men.
The part Of the Congressional Record
to which I have referred above en-
tirely supports this statement. Two
distinct lines Of argument were fol-
lowed In the debate. One concerned
the question whether the law war
ranted the employment Of the secret
service in departments other than the
treasury, and this did not touch the
merits Of the service in the least. The
other line Of argument went to the
merits Of the service, whether lawfully
or unlawfully employed, and here the
chief If not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because it's men,
bers had "shadowed'' 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 the sim
pie statement that the committee held
that there had been a "violation of
law" by the use of the secret service
for other purposes than suppressing
counterfefting (and one or two other
matters which can be disregarded) 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 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 argument against the en-
ployment Of the secret service was con-
fined to the statement that it was in
violation Of law" Of course such a
statement is not in any way an argu-
ment In favor Of the justice of the
provision. It Is not an argument for
the provision at all. It is simply a
statement Of what the gentlemen max
ing 1t 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 suppress counterfeiting and
that the law should be made more
rigid than ever in this respect
No Restrictions on Service.
Incidentally I may say that in my
Judgment there is ample legal author
1ty for 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. Mr.. Tawney
In the debate stated that he had in his
possession "a letter from the secretary
Of the treasury received a few days
ago" in which the secretary Of the
treasury himself admits that the pro-
visions under which the appropriation
has been made have been violated year
aftor voar for nnmhor If vnoro IN