Bisbee daily review., 1909-01-05
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE CAUSE
 OF IMPAIRMENT ID CONGRESS
CcontInaed From Page Four

bate in detail it appears that most of what was argued in favor of the amendment took the form of the sim pie statement that the committee held that there had been a violation of law" by the use Of the Secret Ser vice for other purposes than sup pressing counterfeiting (and one or two other matters which can be dis regarded), and that such language was now to be used as would effectu- ally prevent all such violation of law" hereafter. Mir. Tawney, for in- stance, says: "lt was for the pur- pose of stopping the use of this ser vice in every possible way by the de partments of the Government that this provision was inserted;" and Mir Smith says: Now. that was the only way in which any limitation could be put upon the activities of the Secret Service" Mir. Fitzgerald followed in the same vein, and by far the largest part of the argument against the em- ployment of the Secret Service was confined to the statement that 1t was in violation of law" Of course such a statement is not in any way sl ar gument in favor of tie justice of the provision. It is nCt an argument for the provision at all It is simply a statement of what the gentlemen making it conceive 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 suppress counterfeiting; and that the jaw should be made more rigid than ever in this respect.
 Incidentally l may say that in my judgment there is ample legal au- thority for the statement that this appropriation law 70 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 iD his possession "a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury received few days ago. ip which the Secretary of the Treas ury himself admits that the pro visions under which the appropria- ton has been made have been vio- lated year after year for a number of years in his own Department" I ap- pend herewith as Appendix A the let ter referred to. It makes no such ad- mission as that which Mir T-wney alleges. l. contains on the contrary, as you will see by reading it, an "em- , phatic protest against any such abridgment of the rights delegated to the Treasury by existing law" and concludes by asserting that he lis quite within his rights in thus em- ploying the service of these agents" and that the proposed modification which Mir Tawney succeeded in car rying through would be distinctly to the advantage of violators of criminal statutes of the United States" I call attention to the faer that in this let ter of Secretary COrtelyou to Mir. Tawney, as in my letter to the Speak CT quoted below, the explicit state ment is made that the proposed change will be for the benefit of the criminals, a statement which I 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 Congress.
 4 careful reading of the Congres- sional Record will also show that practically the only arguments .ad- vanced in favor of the limitation pro posed by Mir. Tawney's committee, beyond what may be supposed to be contained by implication ih certain sentences as to abuses" which were , not specified, were those contained in the repeated statements of Mir. Sherley. MT. Sherley stated that there had been pronounced abuses growing out 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 further stated that the private conduct" of members Of Congress, Senator's and others ought not to be investigated by the Secret Service, and that they should not investigate a member of Con gress7 who had been accused ot conduct unbecoming a gentleman and q member of Congress" In ad- dition to these assertions couched as questions, he made one positive acc laTation. that This Secret Servics at one time was used for the purpose of looking into the personal conduct of a member of Congress" This ar gument of Mir SherIey, the only real argument as to the merits of the question made on behalf of the Com mittee on Appropriations, will be found in columns 1 and 2 of page 5556, and column 1 of page 5557 of the Congressional Record. In col umn 1 of page 555G NIT. Sherley re- fers to the impropriety Of permitting the secret service nIen to investigate men in the departments. officers of the army and navy, and Senators and Congressman; in column 2 he refers to officers of the navy and members of Congress; in column ], page 5557. he refers only to Members of Con gress. His speech puts most weight on the investigation of members of Congress.
 What appears in he record is filled out and explained by an article which appeared in Chicago IDter-Ocean of January 3, 1904. under a Washing , ton headline, and which marked the beginning of this agitation against the Secret Service. It was a special article of about 3.000 words, written, as I was then informed and now un- derstand, by Mir. L. W. Busbey, at that time private secretary to the Speaker of the House. I inclose a copy of certain extracts from the ar ticle. marked Appendix B. It con tained an utterly urwarranted attack on the Secret Service divisiof of the Treasury department and Its chief. The opening paragraph includes, for instance, statements like the follow ing:
 He Qhe chief of the division) and his men are desirous of doing the Frr fh. -fsnt