Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1909-01-05

further discourages good ehoft In IT'S
| present form the restriction operates only
| to the advantage OF the criminal Of the
wrongdoer.
The chief argument in favor of the pro-
vision was that the congressman did not
themselves wish to be investigated by
secret service men. Very little of such
] investigation has been done in the past.
| But 1t is true that the work OF the secret
service agents was partly responsible for
| the Indictment and conviction Of q SEN
! ator and a congressman for land frauds
| in Oregon l do not believe that 1t is
| in the public interest to protect GRIM
| inals in any branch of the public service
| and, exactly as we have again and again
/ during the past seven years prosecuted
and convicted such criminals who were
| in the executive branch OF the govern
ment, so in my belief we should be given
| ample means to prosecute them II found
| in the legislative branch But IL this In
i not considered desirable a special excep-
tion could be made in the law prohibit
I ing the use of the secret service force in
! investigating members Of the congress
It would be far better to do this than to
| do what actually was done and strive TO
| prevent or at least to hamper effective
action against criminals by the executive
branch of the government
A careful reading of this message
will show that 1 said nothing to war
rant the statement that "the majority
of the congressman were IN fear Of
| being investigated by the secret serv-
ice men" or that congress as a whole
was actuated by that motive" did
not make any such statement IN this
message. Moreover. / have never made
any such statement about congress as
a whole nor, with few Inevitable ex-
ceptions. about the members Of con-
gress in any message or article or
| speech. On the contrary, l have al
ways not only deprecated, but vigor-
ously resented, the practice Of indis-
criminRte attack upon congress and
indiscriminate condemnation of all
congressman. wise and unwise, at and
unfit, good and bad alike. No one real
ICES more than l the importance of
cooperation between the executive
and congress. and no one holds the au-
thority 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 Ill not Oh their
several merits, but in a mass, as men,
bers Of one particular body or one
caste To put together all men holding
or who have held a particular Office,
whether 1t be the ONCE Of president
or judge or senator or member Of the
house of representatives. and to class
them all, without regard to their in
dividual differences, as good or bad
seems to me utterly indefensible, and
It is equally indefensible whether the
good are COMPOUNDED with the bad in
a heated and unwarranted champion
ship of all or in a heated and unwar-
ranted assault upon all. l would mel
Their attack nor defend all executive
officers In mass. whether presidents.
governors, cabinet officers or officials
of lower rank, nor would l attack or
defend all legislative officers In mass.
The safety OF free government rests
very largely in the ability Of the plain,
everyday citizen to discriminate be-
tween those public servants who serve
him well and those public servants
who serve him Ill. He cannot thus
discriminate If he is persuaded to pass
Judgment upon a man not with refer
ence to whether he is a At or unfit
public servant, but with reference to
whether he is an executive or legisla-
tive officer, whether he belongs to one
branch or the other Of the government.
Says Message 10 Misundersto&.
This allegation in the resolution,
therefore, must certainly be due to an
entire failure to understand my mes
sage.
The resolution continues, THAT the
president be requested to transmit to
the house any evidence upon which he
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 VIII turn to the Congressional
Record for May / last, pages 1858 to
$3.50, inclusive, you will find the de-
bate on this subject. Mr.. Tswney of
Minnesota, Mr. Smith Of Iowa, Mr..
Sherley of Kentucky and Mr.. FitZger
aid of New York appear in this debate
as the special champions Of the pro-
vision referred to. Messrs. Parsons,
Bennet and Driscon were the leaders
Of those who opposed the adoption of
the amendment and upheld the right Of
the government to use the most ett-
cient 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
bers are recorded, 30 I am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the mem
bers who voted for and the members
VINO voted against the provision, but
fits 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
issue are content simply TO follow the
lead of the committee which had coz
sidered the matter, and I have no
doubt that many members of the house
simply folloYed the lead Of Nessxs.
Tawney and Smith without having had
the opportunity to know very much a.
10 the rights and wrongs Of the Ques-
ton
I mould 1,ak rfI- . In thia