Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-01-05

| out regard to their individual differ
| ences. as good or baG, seems to me ut
| terly lndefensibe: and it is equally in
| defensible whether the good are con-
| founded with the bad in heated and
ulwarrante6 championship of all. or in
| a heated and unWarranted assault
| upon all. / would neither attack nor
| defend all executive officers in mass,
whether Presidents. Governors Cabi-
net officers, or officials of lower rank
nor would | attack or defend all legis>
latlNe officers in IL mass. The safety OF
free government rests very largely in
! the ability OF the plain. everyday citi-
zen to discriminate between those pub
| lie servants Who serve him we'll and
| those public servants who serve him
ill., He can not thus discriminate if
| he is persuaded to pass judgment upon
a man. not with reference to whether
he is a fit or unfit public servant, but
| 18th reference to whether he is an eX-
ecutive or legislative officer, whether
he belongs TO one branch or the other
of the Government.
| This allegation in the resolution,
| therefore, must certainly be dne to an
| entire failure to understand my mes
| sage.
| The resolution continues: "That the
| President be requested to transmit to
| tn House any evidence upon which he
| based his statements that the chief
| argument in favor of the provision was
that the Congressman did not them
selves 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 May l last. pages 1858 to
$3.50, inclusive, you will find the debate
| on this subject Mr., Tawney of Min
| nesota, 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 re-
| ferred to- Messrs. Parsons, Rennet.
and Driscoll We're the leaders of those
| who opposed the adoption of the
amendment and upheld the right OF
| the Government to use the most eff
! ficient means possible in order to de-
| tect criminals and to prevent and
punish crime. The amendment was
carried in the Committee Of the Whole,
| where 10 votes of the individual mem
| bers are recorder, so I am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the men,
bors who voted for and the members
VINO 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
/ -, 10 fA11 he
! lead Of the committee which had con-
sidered the matter. and have no doubt
| that many members of the House SIM
ply followed the lead of Messrs. TaW-
ney and Smith. without having had
the opportunity to know very much as
| to the rights and wrongs of the uues-
| ton. ,,
[ would not ordinarily attempt in
| this way to discriminate between men,
bers If 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 a desire that I should TINS dis
| cTIminate. | will state that / think the
| responsibility rested on the Committee
on Appropriations. under the lead OF
| the members whom 7 have mentioned.
| Now as To the request of the Con-
| gresS that [ give the evidence for my
| statement that the chief argument in
| favor OF the provision was that the
Congressman did not themselves wish
| to he investigated by secret service
| men.
| The part of the Congressional
| Record to which | have referred aDoVt
entirely supports this statement. Two
distinct lines of argument We're tol-
| lowed in the debate. One concerned
| the question whether the law warrant
| ed the employment of tn: secret SCI
| vice 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 tho
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 mem
| bers had "ShadoWed' or investigated
members of Congress ana other Off
! GERS of the Government. If we exam
in. the d, bate i'm detail it appears that
most of what was urged in favor ol
the amendment took the form of the
simple statement tlldt lltt Co1iiiiiitlt'
held that there had been "vioaior
of law" by the use of the Secret Ser
vice for other purposes than suppress
ing countcrfciting tand one or twc
other matters which can be disregard
r,D, and that such language was nov
| to he us. Il as would cffoCtually prevent
all such violation of law hereafter
Mr. TaWney. for instance. says: "lt
was for the purpose or stopping the
use of this service in every possible
way by the departments of the Gov
eminent that this provision was inser-
teG:" and Mr.. Smith says: Now, that
was the only way in which any limi-
ltation 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 employment of the Secret
Service was confined to the statement
that it was in violation of law OF
course such 4 statement is not in any
/ way an argument in favor of the jus
tice of the provision. 1t is not an ar
gument for the provision at all 1t is
simply Il statement of what the gen
tlemen making it conceive to have
hot t,,,