The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1909-01-05


message.
The resolution continues That
the president he requested 10 trans
nit 10 the house any evidence upon
which he based his statement that
the chief argument in favor of the
provision was that the congressman
did not themselves wish 10 be in
vestigated by secret service men.
This statement. which was an attack
upon no one. still less upon the con
gress. is sustained by the facts.
If you will turn To the con
gressional record for May last,
pages 5553 1900. inclusive. You will
find the debate on this subject. Mr..
Tawney Of Minnesota. Mr.. Smith of
Iowa, Mr. Sherry of Kentucky. aud
Mr. Fitzgerald of New York. appear
in this debate as the special cham
pions of the provision referred TO.
Messrs Parsons. Bennet. and DTS
coll were the leaders of those who
opposed the adoption of the amend
ment and upheld the right of the
government 10 use the most efficient
means possible in order TO detect
criminals and 10 prevent and punish
crime, The amendment was carried
III iHt ADIAlu4iAtt VI the W llOl's
where 10 votes of the individual
members are recorded. so | am I'M
able TO discriminate by mentioning
the members who voted for and the
members who voted against the pro-
vision. but its passage. the journal
records. was greeted with applause.
| am well aware. however. that in
any case OF this kind many members
who have no particular knowledge
of the point at issue, are content
simply 10 follow the lead of the
committee which. had considered the
matter. and | have no doubt that
many members of the house simply
followed the lead OF Messrs Tawney
and Smith. without having had the
opportunity to determine very
much as TO the right and wrong of
the question.
| would not ordinarily attempt in
this way TO discriminate between
members of the house, but as objec-
tion has been taken to my language,
in which / simply spoke of the action
of the house as a whole, and as ap-
parently there is a desire that |
should thus discriminate. will state
that | think the responsibility rested
on the committee ON appropriations,
under the lead of the members whom
| have mentioned.
Now as 10 the request of the con-
gress that ! give the evidence for my
statement that the chief argument
In favor of the provision was that
the congressman did not themselves
wish 10 be investigated by secret
service men
The part of the congressional re-
cord TO which ! have referred above
entirely supports this statement.
Two distinct lines of argument We're
followed in the debate. One con-
cerned the question whether the law
warranted the employment 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 lawfully or unlawfully en-
ployed, and here The chief if not the
only argument used was that the
service should be cut down and re-
stricted because its members had
''shadowed" or investigated members
of congress and other officers of the
government. If We examine the de-
bate in detail il 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 SUD-
pressing cOunterfeiting land one or
two other matters which can be dis
regarded. and that such language
was now TO be used as would effec-
fully prevent all such violation of
law" hereafter Mr.. Tawney. for in
stance. SAYS: 1t was for the pnr-
pose OF stopping the use of this
service in every possible way by the
departments of the government that
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 i'm the same vein. and by
far the largest part of the argument
against the employment of the secret
service was confined to the statement
that II was in violation of law. .
or course such a statement is not in
any way an argument in favor of
the justice OF the provision II is
not an argument for the provision at
all. II Is simply a statement of what
the gentlemen making IL conceive to
have been the law There was both
by implication aud direct statement
the assertion that it was the law.
and ought to he the law. that the
secret service should only be used to
suppress eounterfeiting; and that the
law should be made more rigid than
ever in this respect.
Incidentlly ! may say that i'm my
judgment there is ample legal au-
thority for the statement that this
appropriation law to which reference
was made imposes no restrictions
whatever upon the use of the secret
service men. but relates solely 10 the