The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1909-01-04
Try q West ylrgtnian want id.
Pres't Roosevelt
CONTINUED from Page one,

would not ordinarily tempt In this
way to discriminate between members
Of the House, but as objection mas
been taken to my language, In which
! simply spoke OF the action Of the
House as whole, and as apparently
there Is n desire that should thus
discriminate, / will state that .aink
the responsibility rested on the COM
mlttee on Appropriations. under the
lead of the members whom have
mentioned.
Now rs to the request OF the Con.
gress that give the evidence FOR my
statement that tae chief argument In
favor as the provision was thu. the
congressman did not themselves wish
to DO investigated by secret service
men.
The part Of the Congressional! Rec.
ord TO which have referred above en-
tireiy supports this statement. Two
distinct lines Of argument were fol-
lowed in the debate. One concerned
the question wnether the law. war.
rantcd the employment OF the secret
service in departments other than the
Treasury. and this did not toucn the
merits nt the service in the least. The
other line of argument went to the
merits Of the service. whether law
fully or nnlawfully employed. and here
the chief il not t.ae only argument used
was that the service should he cut
down and restricted because It's MEM
bers had Swallowed" or inyestIgat-
Ell members Of Congress and other off,
GERS of .he Government. II we exam
inc the debate in detail It appears that
most OF what was urged In favor OF
the amendment took the form o! the
simple statement that the committee
held that there mad been violation
of law by the use Of the Secret Ser
vice for other purposes than suppress.
ins countarfelting land one or two 9th.
cr matters which can be lisregal, ied),
and that such language was now 10 be
used as would effactually prevent all
such violation of law hereafter. Mr..
Tawney. for Instance, says: ut was
for the purpose OF stopping the use Of
this service in every possible why by
the departments OF the government
that provision was Inserted" and Mr..
Smith says: "Now. that was the only
way In witch any limitation could be
put upon the activities OF the Secret
Service" Mr.. Fitzgerald followed In
the same rein, and BY far the largest
part Of the argument against the en-
p!Oyment OF The Secret Service was
confined to the statement that Il was
in violation OF law" OF course such
a statement Is not in any way an ar.
gument in favor Of the justice OF the
provision. II Is not nm argument for
the provision at all. It is simply n
statement Of what the gentlemen max
ing II conceive TO have been the Inv.
There was both by Implication and
direct stftament he assertion that It
was the law. and ought to be the law.
that the Secret Service should be
used to suppress counterIeltlng: and
that the law snould be made more rigid
than ever In this respect.
Incidentally | may say that In MY
juderGen. there Is ample legal aut.ior-
!ty for the statement that this appro-
prIattOn law 10 which reference was
made imposes no restrlctqps whatever
upon the use OF the secret service
men, but relates solely to the expendl.
ture OF the money appropriated Mr..
Tawncy in the debate stated that he
had In his possession 70 letter from