Gilpin observer., 1909-01-07
BIG STICK SlNASHES:
; ROOSEVELT DEFENDS
! THE SECRET SERVICE
In Message to House President De-
Clares His Statements in Previous
Words to Congress Were Gross
ly Misunderstood.

Inc continues. 'lndt tne
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.
III you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May l last, pages 5553 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 the special champions
of the provision referred to. Messrs. Par
sons, Bennet 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 well aware.
however. that in any of this kind
many members who have particular
knowledge of the point at issue, con-
tent simply to follow the lead of the
committee which had considered the mat
ter, and have no doubt that many mem
bers of the house simply followed the
lead of Messrs. Tawney and Smith. with
out having had the opportunity to know
very much to the rights and wrongs
of the question.
Chip Is Knocked OF
RooseveIt's Shoulder
IT 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 / simply
spoke of the action of the house as a
whole. and as apparently there is a de-
sire that l should thus discriminate. I will
state that l think the responsibility rest
ed on the committee on appropriations,
under the lead OF the members whom
have mentioned.
Now as to the request OF the congress
that 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 / 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
least The other line OF argument went
to the merits of the service. whether law
fully unlawfully employed and here
the chief IL not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut down
and restricted because its members had
'shadowed' or Investigated members of
congress and other officers of the govern
ment. II we examine the debate in de-
tail II 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 tand 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 II was in violation
OF law OF course such n 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 IL conceive to have been the
law.