The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-09
Committee Reports on Message. q tssss4s 4 3ss,---z.. .s ss-saas fsst-ess. l WILL NOT RECEIVE
 INSULTS 10 BODY
 ---s-- Offensive Statements Laid on the
 Tables axxraeves Members speak Tn No Un- esrssas Way of Inpetueas words ct President Cencerning
 Representatives of
 People.

Washington. Jan. ar--Actlng upon the recommendation of the special committee appointed to deal with the Presidents criticism of Congress in regard to the secret service. which filed It's final report today, the House tonight by vote of 2f2 to 35,' rebuked the President by tabling so much Of his message as reflected on members of Congress in connection with his re- commendations as to the secret service detectives.
 It also declared 1t to be the sense of the House to decline to consider any communication from any source wiiich is not, in it's judgment respectful.
 Mir. Gardner of Massachusetts. tried vainly to secure, first, the adoption of substitute for the resolution. m the way of an addition and then the postponement of the whole matter uii- til Monday, but he was overwneiinsns-
 When Chairman Perkins. Of New York. of the special committed, arose to make his report. he faced an almost full membership, while the galieraes were packed with interested spectators. Messrs. Tawney, Smith of Iowa. SheE-. ley. and Fitzgerald. were on the noor. prepared by word of mouth to, resent what they deemed to be the insinua- tions of the President upon them as members of the Committee on Appro- priations. They were not alone in their indignation. Indeed, for some time past. the feelings of the members had been growing more and more intense. and some of them have been giving wax to their sentiments In language which fully testified to their. wounded pride
 Mir. Perkins Speaks.
 
 follows:
 .To Congress-:
 sYour committee was referred to cer- tain passages contained in the annual message of the President. We were to decide whether, In our opinion. these porttoffa of the niesEawe were ,coHched In such form that \ proper regard fer the dignity of a great legislative hody Ahould forbid their reception We are Of the opinion that portions of the message do constitute breach of ths priyileEds of this House, and that. therefore, following the precedent set in similar cases, the House shall de- cline to consider the message.
 with the merits of the question with reference to the secret service men, this committee has nothing to do. We fully recognize the right of the President to express his disapproval of legislation adopted by the Congress, to point out It's defects and to ask that they be remedied. The question will doubtless be considered by Congress and such action taken as may seem to be in the public interest.
 "But> your committee has to consider the criticisms made by the President upon the motives of Congress in it's action last session; to consider his sug zestIons as to future legislation. and to report whether Congress. with prop or self-respect, can receive the mes. sage.
 Tt is said in the message that the chief argument in favor of the provis- lon was that the Congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated hy secret service men, and this Is repeated in the additional, message. If this is the chief argument, 1t must have been by this argument that the majority of members. were led to vote in favor of the offending provision.
 '.In the arguments of the House. the gentleman from Kentucky, speaking in favor of the amendment. asked if it was Intended that If a, member of Congress was guilty of unbecoming conduct the department would be warranted in in- yestiEating his conduct by secret serv- ice men. And the gentleman from New York. opposing the amendment, stated that we all know. as lawyers, that we were not Federal officers: that we were competent members of the Government. and there was not one over us. Then the gentleman from Kentucky said. not withsta nding the views of the gentle~ man from New York. the private con. duct of a member of Congress had once been investigated by secret service men. hut the gentleman from New York de- nIed even this one and solitary instance and stated the investigation in the case cited had not been made by member of the secret service. but by . police officer of Washington.
 we do not think that even the most timorous of ConRressmen should have been induced by these arguments to vote in favor of the adoption from fear that if he voted no the secret service might ferret out bis secret sides.
 "NOr does 1t seem that statement statements made in 1904. even by a newspaper reporter. are convincing ev- idence of the motive which actuated Congressmen in their votes In 1908. The statements made in newspapers arc sometimes questioned, even at the White House.
 5AeeunatlOm of Improprsety.
 "The statement contained in the mes- sage that the chief argument in favor of the provision was that the Congress, men did not themselves wish to be in- vestigated, can have but ono meaning
 "It means that Congress voted for the measure from an improper motive. Any CongreRsman whose vote can be de termined by unwillingnesS to have his own conduct investigated by secret service men, or by any other men. must surely be in fear of the law. If 1t was believed that Q majority of this body were in fear that their acts might be investigated. and their crimes discover ed. tho respect of the people which tt is important for the Republic that Con- gress should protect. would be impaired, if not destroyed.
 Tt is dangerous to the Republic that "a large portion of our people should have their confidence shaken in ths judges who interpret the law; 1t is equally dangerous that their confidence shodld be impaired in those who enact the laws, aud it is for this reason that the duty evolves upon the lawmakers ..o& 4m a1lnvs Rt,a tmN0RrffY If ehesF