Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1909-01-07

as the special champions Of the pro
vision referred to. McsSrs. Parsons.
Bennett and DriScol were the leaders
of those who opposed the adoption of
the amendment and upheld III" right of
The government to use the most ell
cicnt means possible III order To de
trrt criminals and t. prevent anl pun
iSh crime The amendment was car
ried in he committee Of the whole.
where no votes of the individual mem
hcrs are recorded. So | am unable to
discriminate by mentioning the mem
bcrS who voted for and The members
who voted against the provision. but
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 n"
particular knowledge If the point at
issue are content simply to follow the
lead Of the committee which had cen
siIered the matter. and | have no
doubt that many members Of the house
simply followed the lead of McsSTS.
Tawney and Smith without having had
the opportunity TO know very much as
to the rights and wrongs of the Ques-
ton
! would not ordinarily attempt in this
way to discriminate bct wcen members
of the house. hut as objection has been
taken to my language in which sim
oily spoke of the action Of the house
as u whole, and as apparently there is
desire that should thus discriin-
lnate l will state that think the re-
sponsibility rested on the committee
Oh appropriations under the lead Of the
members whom l 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
NEIL
The part Of the Congressional Record
to which l 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
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 unla aWfully employed. ald here The
chief If not the only argument used
was that the service should he cut
down and restricted hc'n,i"c its rlpn-
berS had ''Shadowcd" cr investigated
members of congress and nlhcr officers
of the government If we cNa.uinc the
debate in detail ii 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 had been II "violalion of
| law by the use of the secret service
for other purposes than supprcsSing
counterfeiting Hnd one or two OF her
matters which can be diSregar,lcdh and
that such language was now to be
used as would eifectually prevent all
such "Violation of law" herca fter Mr..
Tawney. for instance says. 1T was
for the purpose of stopping the use of
this service in every possible way by
the departments of the government
/ that this 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 in
the same vein. and 10y far the largest
part of the argument against the EN-
| ployment of the secret service was con
/ fined to the statement that it was in
"violation Of law" OF course such Il
statement Is not in any way an argu-
mcnt in favor of the justice of the
! provision. 1t is not an argument for
the PROV ia ut al! 1t * simply a