Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1909-01-07
BIG STICK SMASHES;
ROOSEVELT E
THE SECRET SERVICE
In Message to House President De-
clares His Statements in Previous
Words to Congress Were Gross
ly Misunderstood.

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.
eff you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May l last, pages 555S 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, Bennett and Driscoll were the lead
ers of those who opposed the adoption
of the amendment and upheld the right or
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
I 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. l am well aware,
however, that in any case of this kind
many member who have no particular
| knowledge of the point at issue, are con-
tent simply to follow the lead of the
| committee which had considered the mat
| ter, and 1 nave no doubt that man mem
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.
| chin lie Knnnkad OFF
RooseveIt's Shoulder.
~ would not ordinarily attempt in this
way to discriminate between members of
the house, but as objection has been ia
ken to my language, in which I 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 I think the responsibility rest
ed on the committee on appropriations,
under the lead of the member whom 1
have mentioned.
'Now as to the request of the congress
that l 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
l HupDOllS LII oNdNN3tiSAANs
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 or unlnwfully employed, and here
the chief If not the only argument used
- IT, 49, .nrx,ton ahpty1l he ont 6nUr
and restricted because it's members hat
shadowed' or investigated member 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 thu
form of the simple statement that thu
committee held that there had been
violation of law by the use of the secre
service for other purposes than suppress
ing counterfeiting (and one or two othe
matters which can be disregarded), ant
that such language was now to be use'
? as would effectually prevent all such VIC
. lation of law hereafter. Mr.. TaWney, TO
, instance. says 1T was for the purpos
of stopping the use of this service Il
!, every possible way by the departments o
! The government that this provision wa
Inserted; and Mr.. Smith says: Now, tina
= was the only way in which any tmltatlo
: could be put upon the activities OF tn
: secret service Mr.. Fitzgerald followed |
: the same vein, and by far the larges
7 part of the argument against the employ
ment of the secret service was conf1ne
to the statement that it was in 'violatio
of law OF course, such a statement
a not in any way an arEument IN faVor {
q the Justice of the provision. 1t is not a
argument for the provision at all. 1t
q / simply a statement of what the gentl'
: NV. D'AN'N :
Regarding Restrictions Of
the Secret Servic
,f ''There was both by implication and d
Ie rect statement the assertion that it wt
the law, and ought to be the law, thu
# the secret service should only be ust
to suppress counterfeiting and that II
n law should be made more rigid than ev'
l. in this respect.
,e "~Incidentally I may say that in N
I Judgment there Is ample legal authori
for the statement that this appropriate
law to which reference was made II
poses no restrictions whatever upon Il
y. use of the secret service men, but r
III lates solely to the expenditure of q
le money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney in t
n debate stated that he had in his pc
Il session "a letter from the secretary of t
at treasury received a few days ago
which the secretary of the treasury 'hii
e. self admits that the provisions und
We which the appropriation has been ma
nave been violated year after year for
n number of years in his own department
1 append herewith as appendix A, the Il
ter referred to. 1t makes no such adm
US sion as that which Mr.. Tawney alleg
g It contains on the contrary, as you "
VI see by reading 1t, an emphatic prot
against any such abrldgment of I
sc rights delegated to the secretary Of I
az treasury by existing law and conclut
by asserting that he is quite within
ne rights in thus employing the service
as these agents and that the proposed mo
'ss fcation which Mr.. Tawney succeed
sct IL carrying through would be 'distinc
M to the advantage Of violators of crimii
statutes of the United States ! call
RAJ tention to the fact that in this letter
OF Secretary C%ortelyou to Mr.. Tawney,
'ut In my letter to the speaker quoted
we low. the explicit statement is made Il
pc the proposed change will be for the be
IA fit of the criminals. a statement VIII
nt- I simply reiterated in public form In
message to the congress this year, {
as which Is also contained In effect in
ue- report of the secretary of the treas
ue to the congress.
ny ga careful reading Of the Congressi
oil Record will also show that practices
- the only arguments advanced In favor
the limitation proposed by Mr.. Tawnf
committee, beyond what may be suppo
re. to be contained by Implication in {
re- tain sentences as to abuses when "
tire not specified, were those contained In
repeated statements Of Mr.. Sherley.
"HN# LHNLLN. .MH. ~