The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1909-01-05

a desire That should thus discriln-
mate / will state that 1 think the re
sponsibility rested on the committee
on 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
men.
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 way
| 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 unlawfully employed, and here the
| chief If not the only argument used
| was that the service should he cut
| down and restricted because It's mem
bers had Swallowed" or investigated
| members Of congress and other officers
| Of the government. If we examine the
debate IN detail it 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 violation Of
| law by the use Of the secret service
| for other purposes than suppressing
| counterfeting and one or two other
| matters which can be disregGrdedJ aud
| that such language was now 10 lie
used as would effectually, prevent all
such violation Of law hereafter. Mr.
/ Tawney, for instance, says. ut 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
l Mr.. Smith says, Nov. that was the
| onlS way IN which any limitation coulL
+. be put upon the activities of tie secre.
service" Mr. Fitzgerald followed In
| the same vein, and by far the largest
| part Of the argument against the GU
| ployment Of the secret service was CON
| fined 10 the statement that it was H.
violation Of law" OF course such
statement IS not IN any way an argu.
meut in favor Fl the justice Of the
/ provision. II is not al argument for
| the provision at all Ii Is simply a
statement ST what the gentlemen max
! Iva I,sf a.
There was both by Implication AID
/ direct statement the assertion that Il
was the law and ought to he the law
| that the secret service should cnly DC
used 10 suppress counterfeitiDg and
! that the law should be made more
rigid than ever In this respect.
No Restrictions en- Service.
Incidentally may say that in my
| Judgment there is ample legal author
lily for the statement that this apuro-
| priation law TO which reference was
,nade imposes no restrictions whatever
upon the use Of the secret service men,
| but relates solely TO the expenditure Of
the money appropriated. Mr.. Tawney
IN the debate stated that he had In bis
possession al letter from the secretary
Of the treasury received a few days
ago" In which the secretary Of The
treasury himself admits that the pro-
visions under which the appropriation
has been made have been violated year
after year for a number Of years In
his own department" append here
with as Appendix "A the letter re-,
ferred TO. IAppendix 4 is letter from
Secretary of the Treasury Cortelyou TO
the chairman of the committee on APP
preparations of the house OF represent
atiVes, dated April %, 1908, protest.
ing against the proposed law abridg-
ing the right of the secretary Of the
treasury to detail secret service men
to work in other divisions Of his de-
partment Such abridgement. lie Ge-
clared, would be distinctly 10 the nd
vantage of violators Of criminal stat.
utes Of the United States''l Ii makes
no such admission as that which Mr.
Tawney alleges. Il contains. ON the
contrary, as you viii sec by reading II,
an emphatic protes; against any such
abridgement of the rights delegated to
me secretary OF the treasury by eN-
listing law and concludes by assert
ing that he is quite within his rights
in thus employing the service Of these
agents" and that the proposed modif
cation which Mr.. Tawney succeeded ~
carrying through would he distinctly
to the advantage of vioIators of crimi
nal statutes of the Cnited States
call attention to the fact that IN this
letter Of Secretary Ccuelyoa Sc NJ
Tawney, as n my letter to The speaker
quoted below, the exlli it statement
is made that the proposed change win
be for the benefit Of the criminals. 6
statement which simply reiterated in
public form in my message 10 the con
gress this year and which is also cca-
tanned in effect IN the report of the
secretary Of the treasury to the con
gross.
"Private ccncucto of Members.