Willmar tribune., 1909-01-13

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 will turn to the Congressional
Record for May 1 last, pages $3.50 to $3.50,
inclusive, you will find the debate on this
subject. Mr.. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr..
Smith Of Iowa, Mr.. Sherley of Kentucky,
and Mr.. Fitzgerald of New York, appear
in this debate as the special champions
of the provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons. Bcnnet and Driscoll were the lead
ers of those who opposed the adoption
of the amendment and upheld the right of
the government to use the most efficient
means possible in order to detect GRIM
inals and to prevent and punish crime.
The amendment was carried in the COM
| mittee of the whole, where no votes of
the individual members are recorded, so
am unable to discriminate by mention
| ing the members who voted for and the
members who voted against the provision,
but its passage, the journal records, was
| greeted with applause. I am we'll aware,
however, that in any case of this kind
many members who have no particular
hAO"1CuSc VI IAc punt DIT issue, are con.
! tent simply to follow the lead of the
committee which had considered the mat
| ter, and l have no doubt that many men,
bers of the house simply followed the
lead of Messrs Tawney and Smith, with
! out having had the opportunity to know
! very much as to the rights and wrongs
| of the question.
Chip 10 Knocked or
RooseveIt's Shoulder.
Il would not ordinarily attempt in this
way to discriminate between members of
| the house. but as objection has been ta-
| ken to my language, in which I simply
| spoke of the action Of the house as a
whole, and as apparently there is de-
| sire that should thus discriminate, will
| state that think the responsibility rest
| ed on the committee on appropriations,
| under the lead of the members whom I
have mentioned
"Now as to the request of the congress
| that I give the evidence for my state
] ment that the chief argument in favor
! of the provision was that the congress
men did not themselves wish to be inves-
tigated by secret service men.
''The part of the Congressional Record
| to which I have referred above entirely
| supports this statement. Two distinct
| lines of argument were followed in the
| debate. One concerned the question
| whether the law warranted the employ
| ment of the secret service in departments
| other than the treasury, and this did not
touch the merits of the service in the
leask The other line of argument went
| to the merits CT the service. whether law
fully or unlawfully employed, and here
| the chief if not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut down
| and restricted because it's members had
| shadOwed' or investigated members of
| congress and other officers of the govern
! ment. If we examine the debate in de-
tail 1t appears that most of what was
| urged in favor of the amendment took the
| form of the 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 counterfeiting (and one or two other
| matters which can be disregarded, and
that such language was now to be used
as would effectually prevent all such 'vio-
| latiOn of law hereafter. Mr.. Tawney, for
instance says: 1T 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: Now, 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 employ
ment of the secret service was confined
to the statement that it was in violation
| of law OF course, such a statement is
not in any way an argument 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 gentle
! men making it conceive to have been the
| law.
Regarding Restrictions Of
the Secret Service.
'There was both by implication and d-
rect statement the assertion that 1t was
the law, and ought to be the law, that
the secret service should only be used
to suppress counterfeiting; and that the
law should be made more rigid than ever
in this respect.
Incidentally I may say that in my
| Judgment there is ample legal authority
| for the statement that this appropriation
law to which reference was made i'm
poses no restrictions whatever upon the
| use of the secret service men, but re-
| lates solely to the expenditure Of the
| money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney in the
debate stated that he had in his pos
session a letter from the secretary of the
treasury received few days ago. in
| which the secretary Of the treasury him
| self admits that the provisions under
| which the appropriation has been made
have been violated year after year for a
| number of years in his own department.
I append herewith as appendix A. the let
ter referred to. It makes no such ailmis-
sion as that which Mr.. Tawney alleges.
1t contains on the contrary, as you will
see by reading it, an emphatic protest
| against any such abridgment of the
| rights delegated to the secretary Of the
treasury by existing law and concludes
by asserting that he is quite within his
| rights in thus employing the service Of
| these agents and that the proposed modi-
| fcation which Mr.. Tawney succeeded
In carrying through would be distinctly
! to the advantage Of Violators Of criminal
statutes of the United States.' call at
tention to the fact that in this letter Of
Secretary Cortelyou to Mr.. Tawney, as
in my letter to the speaker quoted be-
| low, the explicit statement is made that
the proposed change will be for the bene-
| fit of the criminals. a statement which
| I simply reiterated in public form in my
| message to the congress this year, and
which is also contained in effect in the
report Of the secretary of the treasury
| to the congress.
"a careful reading of the Congression-
| al Record will also show that practically
| the only arguments advanced in favor Of
| the limitation proposed by Mr.. Tawney's
committee, beyond what may be supposed
| to be contained by implication in GER
| tain sentences as to abuses which were
| not specified, were those contained in the
| repeated statements Of Mr.. Sherley.