Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-01-04

favor of the provision was that the
congressman did not themselves wish
70 be Investigated by secret service
men.
The part Of the Congressional Record
TO which have referred above en-
t.rely supports this statement. two
distinct lines of argument were fol
lowed in the debate. One concerned
the question whether the law war
ranted the employment of the secret
service iu departments other than the
treasury, and this did not touch the
merits Of the service In the least. The
other line of argument went to tho
merits Of the service. whether lawfully
or unlawfully employed, and here the
chief IL not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because it's mem
bers had Swallowed" or investigated!
members of congress and other officers
OF the government. If we examine the
debate in detail 1t appears that most
Of what was urged In favor OF the
amendment took the form OF the sim
pie statement that the committee held
that there had been a violation OF
law" by the use Of the secret service
for other purposes than suppressing
counterfeiting (and one or two other
matters which can be disregarde6 and
that such language was now to be
used as would effectually 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 way by
the departments Of the government
that this provision was inserted" and
Mr.. Smith says, Nov. that was the
only way in which any Limitation could
be put upon the activities Of the secret
service Mr.. Fitzgerald followed in
the same vein, and by far the largest
part Of the argument against the en-
ployment of the secret service was con-
fined to the statement that 1t was in
violation Of law" OF course such a
statement Is not In any way an argu-
ment in favor Of the justice Of the
provision. 1t Is not an argument for
the provision at all. 1t is simply a
statement Of what the gentlemen max
ing it conceive to have been the law.
There was both by implication and
direct statement the assertion that 1t
was the law and ought to be the law,
that the secret service should only DO
used to suppress counterfeiting and
that the law should be made more
rigid than ever In this respect.
No Restrictions on Service.
incidentally l may say that In my
Judgment there Is ample legal author
ity for the statement that this appro-
priation law to which reference was
made imposes no restrictions whatever
upon the use Of the secret service men,
but relates solely to the expenditure OF
the money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney
in the debate stated that he had in his
possession "a letter from the secretary
of the treasury received few days
ago" In which the secretary Of the
treasury "himself admits that the pro-
visions under which the appropriation
has been made have been violated year
after year for number Of years in
his own department" append here
with as Appendix A the letter re-
ferred to. [Appendix A is letter from
Secretary Of the Treasury Cortelyou to
the chairman Of the committee on ap-
propriations Of the house Of represent
atives, dated April 90. 1908, protest.
ing against the proposed law abridg-
ing the right Of the secretary Of the
treasury to detail secret service men
to work in other divisions Of his de-
partment. Such abridgement, he de-
clared, would be distinctly to the ad-
vantage OF violators Of criminal stat
utes Of the United States."l 1t makes
no such admission as that which Mr..
Tawney alleges 1t contains, on the
contrary, as you will see by reading 1t.
an emphatic protest against any such
infringement of the rights delegated to
the secretary of the treasury by e1r
listing law" and concludes by assert,
ing that he us quite within his rights
in thus employing the service Of these
agents" and that the proposed modif
cation which Mr.. Tawney succeeded "
carrying through would be distinctly
to the advantage Of violators Of crimi
nal statutes of the United States"
call attention to the fact that In thir
letter Of Secretary Cortelyou to Mr..
Tawney, as in my letter to the speaker
quoted below. the explicit statement
is made that the proposed change will
be for the benefit of the criminals, Q
statement which simply reiterated in
public form in my message to the con.
gress this year and which is also con-
tanned in effect in the report Of the
secretary Of the treasury to the con.
gress.
@Private Conduct" Of Members.
A careful reading Of the Congression-
al Record will also show that practical
~ the only arguments advanced in ia
vor of the limitation proposed by ME-.
Tawney's committee beyond what may
be supposed to be contained by impli-
cation in certain sentences rs to
"abuses'' which were not specified
we're those contained in the repeated
statements Of Mr.. Sherley. Mr.. Sher-
ley stated that there had been ''pro-
nounced abuses growing out Of the
use of the secret service for purposes
other than those intended" putting his
statement in the form Of question,
and in the same form further stated
that the 'private conduct" Of "mem-
hers of congress, senator's" and others