The Green Forest tribune., 1909-01-08

house any evidence upon which he based his statements tha the chief argument | in favor of the ppvision was that the congressmen did mt themselves wish to be investigated b, secret-service men, l This statement. which was an attack upon no one still sss upon the congress, | is sustained by tb facts.
 'If you will turi to the Congressional Record for May hst, pages 5553 to 5560, l inclusive you will lind the debate on this | subject. MT. TaMey of Minnesota, MT. | Smith of Iowa. MI Sherley of Kentucky, | and Mir F'itzgeralt of New York appear | in this debate aslthe special champions
 of the provision rserred to. Messrs. Par 1 sons Bonnet andDriscoll were the lead | CTS o of those wht opposed the adoption
 of the ajnendmenflnd upheld the right of | the government use the most efficient l means possible i order to Geteet crim- l inals and to preent and punish crime. 1 The amendment las carried in the com | mittee of the wole, where no votes of | the individual mmbers are recorded, so
 I am unable to dscriminate by mention- ing the members who voted for and the | members who word against the provision,
 but its passage, he journal records, was | greeted with Appause. I am we'll aware. ! however that il any case of this kind | many members who have no particular | knowledge of4th point at issue. are con
 tent simply ito follow the lead of the
 committee whicl had considered the mat
 ter, and have D doubt that many mem-
 bers of the hose simply followed the lead of Messfs. 'awney and Smith, with | out having hadthe opportunity to know
 very much as D the rights and wrongs
 of the question
 Chip Is knbShd Off
 | RooseveIt's Shoulder.
 "I would nctjrdinarly attempt in this
 way 60 dsdfiriiate between members of
 the house. kttbs objection has been ta-
 ken to my&]ajuage, in which I simply
 spoke of t&e Etion of the house as a
 whoie. andHAsEpparently there is a de-
 sire dhat Wvld thus discriminate, will
 statel that Etbk the responsibility rest
 ed ofh the Eco lnttee on appropriations,
 undelr the HeaI of the members whom I
 hayd mentlpnt
 "Nbw aSSlbe request of the congress
 thati I4G a evidence for my state
 meht. fiatv f chief argument in favor of IfFa pTUs c si was that the congress- men did no amselves wish to be inves tiga.ed by ret service men.
 ."rhe part, the Congressional Record to which ve referred above entirely supports thI1 statement Two distinct lines Of ars1 hent were followed in the debate. One concerned the question whether the HIw warranted the employ meut of the stcref service in departments other than thu treasury. and this did not toudh the merits of the service in the least. The ofher line of argument went to the merits Jof the service, whether law fuilF or unldvfully employed, and here the chief if not the only argument used was that t-ie service should be cut down and re Iictel because it's members had 'shatlo d or investigated members of congrez and other officers of the govern ment r we, examine the debate in de- tail it 1plesEs that most of what was urged f1kd of the amendment took the form ri incl simple statement that the committee held that there had been a violation of law by the use of the secret service for other purposes than suppress ing eounterfeiting (and one or two other matters which can be dsregarded), and that such language was now to be used as would effectually prevent all such 'vio- laton of law hereafter MT. Tawney, for instance says: It 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 lr1 MT. Smith says: Now, that was the only way in which any limitation could be put upon the activities of the secret SCI yice.' MT. Fitzgerald followed in the san vein. and by far the largest part of tAa argument against the employ ment O. he secret service was confined to the st, cement that it was in violation of law At, coprse, such statement Is not in at vay an argument in favor of the iustik t.$f the provision. It is not an aryumenNh br the provision at all. It is simply 4H latement of what the gentle men nal l 1t conceive to have been the law
 Regard Restrictions of
 the Secret Service. ,Therd Is both by implication and d- relct sta aAent the assertion that 1t was the law ,1d ought to be the law. that the sect Yservice should only be used i'd supp M counterfeiting; and that the lalu shoI be made more rigid than ever i i1 this beet.
 ' IT billy I may say that in my
 here is ample legal authority
 tna5 sns vaa apprsssatsn %ass % ', ss + cestrictions whatever upon the sf Sso secret service men. but re- laI1G G to the expenditure of the ls,rOled that he Ai had h'sh in his ' pos ss
 etter from the secretary of the lt eceived a few days ago in
 ,5 secretary of the treasury him { ss H s that the provisions under ' ta & Appropriation has been made Ef-8 ANiolated year after year for a