The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1909-01-08

president be requested TO transmit to tho
house any evidence upon which he based
| his statements that the chief argu mt
in favor OF the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish TO
be investigated by secret-servlee men,
| This statement. which was an attack
upon no one, still less upon the congress,
| is sustained by tho facts.
IF you win turn to the Congressional
| Record for May last. pages 5553 to $3.50,
inclusive. you win find the debate on this
subject. Mr. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr..
Smith of Iowa, Mr.. Sherley OF Kentucky.
and Mr.. Fitzgerald OF New York. appear
In this debate us the special champions
OF the provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons. Berret and Drlscoll were the lead
ers of those who opposed the adoption
of the amendment and upheld the right Of
the government TO use the most efficient
means possible In order TO detect Grim
inals and to prevent und punish crime.
The amendment was carried In the COM
mittee OF the whole. where no votes OF
the individual members are recorded. so
am unable TO discriminate by mention
ing the members who voted for and the
members who voted against the provision,
but Its passage. tho journal records. was
greeted with applause. / am well aware.
however. that In any case of this kind
many members who have no particular
knowledge OF the point at issue, are con
tent simply TO follow the lead OF the
committee which had considered the mat
ter. and have no doubt that many mem
bers of the house simply followed the
leac Of Messrs, Tawney and Smith, with
out having had the opportunity to know
very much ms 10 the rights and wrongs
OF the question.
Chip 10 knocked or
Rooscveits Shoulder.
"I would not ordinarily attempt In this
way TO discriminate between members Of
the house. but as objection has been ta-
ken TO my language. In which ] simply
spoke OF the action OF the house as a
whole, and AZ apparently there is a de-
sire that should thus discriminate. will
state that l think the responsibility rest
cd on the committee on appropriations
under the lead OF the members whom I
have mentioned.
Now as to the request OF the congress
that ! give the evidence for my state
mont that the chief argument in favor
of the provision was that the congress-
men did not themselves wish TO be inves-
tigated by secret service men.
'The part OF the Congressional Record
10 which ! have referred above entirely
supports this statement Two distinct
lines of argument were followed in the
debate. One concerned the question
whether the law warranted the employ
mont OF the secret Kervlce In departments
other than the treasury. and this did not
touch the merits OF the service in tho
least. The other line of argument went
to the merits Of the service. whether law
fully or unlawfully employed. and here
the chief II not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut down
and restricted because IFS members had
'shn lowed or investigated members OF
congress and other officers of the govern
ment. II we examine the debate In de-
tnil II appears that most of what was
urged in favor OF the al enhment took the
form OF the simple statement that the
committee held that there had been n
violation OF law by the use OF the secret
service for other purposes than suppress
ing counierfeitlng (aud one or two other
matters which can be disrcgarded) and
that such language was now TO be used
as would effectually prevent all such 'vio-
lation Of law hereafter. Mr.. Tawney. for
instance says; 1t 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 tho
secret service Mr.. Fitzgerald followed 81
the same vein. and by far the largest
par, of the argument against the employ
mept OF the secret service was confined
TO the statement that Il was in violation
OF law or course. such a abatement IA
not in any way nm argument in favor OF
the Justice OF the provision, 1t is not an
argument for the provision at ALL II Is
simply n statement OF what the gentle
men making Il conceive TO have been the
law.
-
He9aroine Nestr'etions OF
the Secret Service.
.-rbere was hath nv imp,lcation and al.
rect statement mo assertIon Tim, n was
the law ,.nd ought 10 he The law that
The sac, ~ service shoujd on,v he used
n sunnres, eo,,nterSeitinr. and that The
Law should h. made more rigid than ever
in this resnect
.IncIdentaIIv : NAV saw that in nv
Judgment there Ia annie legal autbority
for The statement that This REORGANIZATION
law 10 which reference was made Inn
noses M yestyiotIons whatever t,pon The
use OF the secret service men. but re.
lates solely 10 the exnend,ture Of the
money apnropriated. Mr.. Tawnev I'm the
deoate stated that he had I'm his DOS
session "a letter from the secretary OF the
treasury received few DAYS ago in
which the SECRETARY Of the treasury him
self admits that the provisions under