The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-01-05
Nothing Warrants 1t.

| Nothing Warrants 1t.
A careful reading of this message
will show that / said nothing to war
rant the statement that the majority
| OF the congressman were ~ fear of
being investigated by the secret ser
vice men," or that congress as a
whole was actuated by that motive"
] did not make any such statement
III this message Moreover | have
never made any such statement about
/ congress as a whole. nor, with a few
| Inevitable exceptions, about the men,
| bers of congress, in any message or
article or speech. On the contrary 1
| have always not only deprecated but
( vigorously resented the practice of
| indiScriminate attack upon congress,
and indiScriminate condemnation of
/ all congressman, wise and uuwise, fit
and unfit, good and bad alike. No one
realizes more than I the importance
of cooperation between the executive
and congress, and no one holds the
authority and dignity of the congress
of the United States in higher respect
than / do. ] have not the slightest
sympathy with the practice of judging
men, for good or for i'll, not on their
several merits, but in mass, as men,
bers of one particular body or or
caste. To put together all mCT
D
flee, whether it be the off :e
ident or judge, or senator, or IL .-. .r--
&C the house of representatives and
to class them all. without regard to
| their Individual differences, as good
or bad. seems to be utterly indefensi-
bic; and it is equally ,ndefensible
whether the good are confounded with
the bad in heated and unwarranted
championship of all, or in a heated
n tod oil 1
would neither attack nor defend all
executive officers in a mass, whether
presidents, governors, cabinet officers,
OF lower rank. nor would I attack or
defend all Legislative officers in a
mass. The safety of free government
rests yeTN largely in the ability of the
plain, everyday citizen 10 discrimi-
nate between those public servants
who serve him we'll and those public
servants who serve him III. He can
not thus discriminate if ne is per-
suaded to pass judgment upon q man,
Tot with refernce to whether he is a
fit or unfit public servant. but with
reference to whether he is an execu-
tive, or legislative OFFICER, whether he
belongs TO one branch or the other of
the government.
They Don't Understand
This allegation in the resolution,
therefore, must certainly be due to
an entire failure to understand my
message.
The resolution continues: "T1at |
the president be requested to transmit |
C the house any evidence Upon which |
he based his statements that the chief |
srgumen in favor of the provision was |
that the congressman did not Flem- |
selves wish to be investigated by Sc
cret service men," This statement, /
which was an attack upon no one, |
still less upon the congress, is sustain |
CT by the. facts.
IF you will turn to the Congressional |
Record for May 1 last, pages 5553 to |
$3.50 you will find the debate on this |
subject. Mr.. Tawney of Minnesota, |
Mr. Smith OF Iowa Mr. Shelby of Ken /
lucky, and Mr.. Fitzgerald of New |
York. appear in this debate as the /
special champions of the provision /
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 /
cient means possible in order 20 de /
tect criminals and to prevent and |
punish crime. The amendment was |
carried in the committee of the whole,
where no votes of the individual mem
beTS are recorded. so / am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the mem
bers who voted for and the members
who voted against the provision. put /
its passage the journal records, was
greeted with applause. l am well /
aware. however, that in any case of
this kind many members VINO nave
no particular knowledge of the point
at issue, are content simply to follow
the lead of the committee which had
considered the matter, and i have no
doubt that many members Of the house /
simply followed the lead of M9ssrs
Tawney and Smith, without having
had the opportunity to know very
much as TO the rights and wrongs of
the question.
I would not ordinarily attempt in
this way TO discriminate between
members OF the house. but as ohjec- !
ton has been taken to my language.
in which / simply spoke of the action
of the house as a whole, and as appaT.
emily there is a desire that | should |
thus discriminate, / will state that | |
think the responsibility rested on the /
committee on appropriations, under
the lead of the members whom | have |
mentioned.
Now as to the request of the con-
gTess that I give the evidence for nv
statement that the chief argument in
favor of the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish
TO be investigated by secret service
men.
Refers to Record.
The part of the Congressional Rec
ord to which I have referred above /
entirely supports this statement Two