The daily sentinel., 1909-01-04


use of the secret service for other
purposes than suppressing counter
teiting (and one or two other mat
ters which can be disregarded) and
that such language was now to be
used as would effectually prevent all
such violation of law hereafter.
Mr.. Tawney, for instance, says:
1t was for the purpose of stopping
the use of this service in every pos
sible 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 ac-
tivities OF the secret service" Mr.
Fitzgerald followed in the same vein,
and by far the largest part of the ar
gument against the employment 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. It is simply n statement of what
the gentlemen making il conceived to
have been the law. There was, both
by Implication and direct statement
the assertion that it was the law, and
ought to be the law, that the secret
service should only be used to sup
press eounterfeiting and that the
law should be made more rigid than
ever in this respect.
incidentally | may say that, in
my judgment. there is ample legal
authority for the statement that this
appropriation 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 appropri
ated. Mr.. Tawney in the debate
stated that he had in his possession
"A letter from the secretary of the
treasury Il few days ago in which
the secretary of the treasury himself
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. l append here
with as Appendix A the letter re
ferred to. 1T MAX ES NO SUCH AID
MISSION AS THAT WHICH MIR.
TAWNEY ALLEGES. IT CONTAINS
ON THE CONTRARY. AS YOU WILL
SEE BY READING IT, AN EN-
PHATIC PROTEST AGAINST ANY
SUCH ABRIDGMENT or THE
RIGHTS DELEGATED TO THE SEC
RETARY OF THE TREASURY BY
EXISTING LAW and concludes by
asserting that he lis quite within his
rights in thus employing the service
of these agents, and that the pro-
posed modification which Mr.. Tawney
succeeded in carrying through would
be distinctly to the advantage of vio-
lators of criminal statutes of the
United States
81 call attention to the fact that,
in this 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, a statement which | sim
ply 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 Congress
sional Record will also show that
practically the only arguments ad-
vanced in favor of the limitation pro-
posed by Mr. Tawney's committee. be-
yond what may be supposed to be
contained by implication in certain
sentences as to abuses which We're
not specified, We're those contained in
the repeated statements of Mr. Sher-
ley.
"Mr. Sherley stated that there had
of the use of the secret service for
purposes other than those intended,
putting his statement in the form of
a question. and in the same form fur-
ther stated that the private con-
duct of members of congress, sena-
tors and others ought not to be IN
yestigated by the secret service, and
that they should not investigate a
member of congress who had been
accused of conduct unbecominS a
gentleman and a member of con-
gress' In addition to these, asser-
tions couched as questions, he made
one positive declaration, that this Sc
cret service at one time was used for
the purpose of looking into the per
sonal conduct of member OF con-
gress.' This argument of Mr. Sher-
ley, the only real argument as to the
merits of the question made on be-
half of the committee on appropria-
tions, will be found in columns | and
. of page 5556. and column l of page
5557 of the Congressional Record.
'In column of page 5556 Mr.
Sherley refers to the impropriety of
permitting the secret service men to
Investigate men in the departments,
officers of the army and navy, and
senators and congressman; in column
| he refers to officers of the navy and
members of congress; in column /,
page 5557, he refers only to members
of congress. His speech puts most
weight on the Investigation OF mem
! bers of congress.
What appears in the record is
filled out and explained by an article
which appeared in the Chicago Inter
Ocean of January 3, 1904, under q
| Washington headline. and which
marked the beginning of this agita-
tion against the secret service. II
was a special article of about 1900
words. written. as l was then in
| formed and now understand. by Mr.