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

merits OF the service, whether lawfully
or unlawfully employed, and here the
chief If not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because its mem
bers had Swallowed" or investigated
members of congress and other officers
Of the government. II we examine the
debate in detail it 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 violation of
law" by the use Of the secret service
for other purposes than suppressing
counterfeitfng land one or two other
matters which can be dfsregarded) and
that such language was now to be
used as would effectually prevent all
such violation Of law" hereafter. Mr..
Tawney, for instance, says, TT 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 activites-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 q
statement Is not in any way an argu-
ment in favor Of the Justice Of the
the provision at all. It is simply a
statement of what the gentlemen max
ing 1t 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 be
used to suppress counterfeiting and
that the law should be made more
rigid than ever in this respect.
No Restrictions on Service.
incidentally / 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 ga letter from the secretary
of the treasury received a 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 a number of years in
his own department" l 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 20, 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 gee by reading 1t,
an emphatic protest against any such
abridgement Of the rights delegated to
the secretary Of the treasury by ex-
listing law and concludes by assert
ing that he Ifs quite within his rights
in thus employing the service Of these
agents" and that the proposed modi6-
cation which Mr.. TawneY succeeded in
carrying through would be distinctly
to the advantage of violators Of crimi-
nal statutes Of the United States" l
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 viii
be for the benefit Of the criminals, a
statement which l 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
ly the only arguments advanced in IA
vor of the limitation proposed by Mr..
Tawney's committee beyond what may
be supposed to be contained by impii-
cation in certain sentences as to
"abuseS'' which were not specified
were 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 q question,
and In the same form further stated
that the private conduct of "mem-
bers Of congress. senators" and others
ought not to be Investigated by the
secret service and that they should
not Investigate a "member Of con-
gress~ who had been accused Of CON
duct unbecoming a gentleman and 4
member of congress- In addition 10
these assertions couehed as questions
he made one positive declaration that
''tt11s secret service at one time was
used for the purpose Of looking into
the personal conduct Of a member of
congress" This argument of Mr.. Shsr-
ley, the only resI argument as TO the
merits Of sle question made on behalf
Of the committee on appropriations,