The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1909-01-08
JAMES a. TAWNEY.

entire failure to understand my mes
sage.
The resolution continues, THAT the
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 mem" This statement,
which was an attack upon 10 one, still
less upon the congress, is sustained by
the facts.
If you will turn to the Congressional
Record for May 1 last, pages 5553 to
$3.50, inclusive. you viii find the de-.
bate on this subject Mr.. Tawney Of
Minnesota. Mr.. Smith of Iowa, Mr..
Sherley of Kentucky and MI. Fitzger
aid of New York appear in this debate
as the special champions of the pro-
vision referred to. MessrS. Parsons,
Bennett and Driscoll were the leaders
of those who opposed the adoption Of
the amendment and upheld the right of
cient means possible in order to de-
tect criminals and to prevent and pun
fish crime The amendment was car
ried in the committee of the whole,
where no votes of the individual men,
bers are recorded, so | am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the mem
bers who voted for and the members
10, - l~,,L
it's 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 to follow the
lead of the committee which had con-
Sidered 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 know very much as
to the rights and wrongs of the ques-
ton
I would not ordinarily attempt in this
way to discriminate between members
Of the house. but as objection has been
taken to my language. In which sim
ply spoke of the action of the house
as whole, and as apparently there is
a desire that [ should thus discriln
mate l will state that | think the re-
sponsibility rested on the committee
on appropriations under the lead Of the
members whom | have mentioned.
Replies to Request For Evidence.
Now as TO 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
to be investigated by secret service
men.
The part of the Congressional Record
to which ! have referred above en-
tirely supports this statement. Two
distinct lines of argument were fol-
lowed in the debate. One concerned
the question whether the law war
ranted the employment Of the secret
eeryice 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 employed. and here the
chief it not the only argument used
was that the service should be cut
down and restricted because its mem
bers had Swallowed" or investigated
members of congress and other officers
of the government. If we examine the
debate in detail il appears that most
Of what was urged in favor Of the
amendment took the form of the sim
pie statement that the committee held
that there bad been Il violation of
law BY the use Of the secret service
for otheg purposes than Suppressing
counterfeiting (and one or two other
matters whica can be disregardedD and
that such larguc. re WIS now to be