Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-01-04
TAWNEY IS CENSURED SECRET SERVICE PRAISED

j ~ ~
! statement of what the gentlemen making
| it conceive to have been the law Ihere
was both by implication and direct state
| ment 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 law shouid
| be made more rigid than ever In this re-
/ spect.
! incidentally 1 may say that in my judg-
ment there is ample legal authority Tor
| 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 TO
] the expenditure of the money appropri-
ated.
Record Drawn on Tawney.
| Mr. Tawney in the debate stated that
| he had in his possession "a letter from
| the Secretary of the Treasury received
| a few days ago. in which the Secretary
of the Treasury himself admits that the
provisions under which the appropriation
| has been made have been violated year
after year for number of years In his
! own department.. l appear herewith
| as appendix A the letter referred to. 1t
makes no such admission as that which
Mr.. Tawney alleges. 1t contains, on the
| contrary, as you will see by reading 1t,
an emphatic protest against any such
| abridglnent of the rights delet ated to
| the Secretary of the Treasury by exist
| ing law and concludes by asserting that
he lis quite within his rights in thus en-
| ploying the service of these agents., and
| that the proposed modification which Mr..
Tawney succeeded in carrying through
| would be distinctly to the advantage OF
| vioators of criminal statutes of the
| United States
| 1 call attention to the fact that in this
80 NJ
ney. as in my letter to the Speaker quoted
below, the explicit statement Is made that
| the proposed change will be for the ben
efitSof the criminals, a statement which l
simply 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 the Congress.
A careful reading of the Congressional
Record will also show that practically
the only arguments advanced in favor of
the limitation proposed by Mr.. Tawney'S
committee beyond what may be supposed
| to be contained by implicated in certain
| sentences as to abuses which were not
| specified. were those contained in the re-
peated statements of Mr.. Sherley.
Mr.. Sherley's Argument.
Mr.. 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 Con-
gress, senator's and others ought not to
be investigated by the secret service. and
that they should not investigate 'mem-
Der of Congress who had been accused
| of conduct unbecoming gentleman and
a member of Congress" In addition to
| these assertions, couched as questions, he
made one positive declaration, that this
secret service at one time was used for
the purpose of looking into the personal
conduct of a member Of Congress"
This argument of Mr.. Sherley, the only
real argument as to the merits of the
question made on behalf of the commit
columns 1 and Of page $3.50. and column
1 OF page 5557 of the Congressional
Record In column ! Of page $3.50 Mr..
Sherley refers to the improperly of per-
hitting the secret service men to inves.
| tigate 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 Con-
gress; in column 1, page 1857. he refers
only to members of Congress. His
speech puts most weight on the investi-
| CATION of members of Congress.
Charged to L. W. Busbey.
What appears in the record is filled
appeared in the Chicago Inter-Ocean
of January 3. 1904, under a Washington
headline, and which marked the begin
ming of this agitation against the secret
service. 1t was a special article of about
1000 words, written, as / was then inform
ed and now understand, by Mr.. L. WBus-
hey, at that time private secretary to the
Speaker Of the House. 1 inclose a copy
of certain extracts from the article,
marked appendix B. 1t contained an ut
terly unwarranted attack on the secret
service division of the Treasury Depart
ment and its chief. The opening para
graph includes, for instance, statements
! like the following:
He Ohe chief of the division) and his
| men are DESTROYS Of doing the secret
| detective work for the whole govern
| ment and are not particular about draw
| ing the line between the lawmakers and
| the lawbreakers. They are ready to
| shadow the former as we'll as the lat
ter.
| Then. after saying that Congress will
! insist that the men shall only be used to
| stop counterfeiting, the article goes on:
| Congress does not intend to have
Fouche or any other kind of minister of
|. police to be used by the executive de-
partments against the legislative branch
of the government. 1t has been so
| used, and it Is suspected that it has
| been SO used recently. The leg
islative branch of the government will
not tolerate the meddling of detectives,
| whether they represent the President.
cabinet officers or only themselves.
congressman resented the secret
interference of the secret service men,
who for weeks Swallowed some of the
most respected members of the House
! and Senate When it was dis
covered that the secret service men
were shadowing congressman there was
storm of indignation at the Capitol
| and the bureau came near being abol-
ished and the appropriation for the sup
preston of counterfeiting cut off.
At another time the chief of the
| secret service had his men shadow con-
gressmen with view to involving them
| in scandals that would enable the bu-
reau to dictate to them the price of
| silence. The secret service men
| have shown an inclination again to
| shadow members of Congress, knowing
them to be lawmakers, and this is no
| joke. Several of the departments have
| asked Congress for secret funds for in
| vestigation. and the Treasury Depart
| ment wants the limitation removed
from the appropriation for suppressing
| counterfeiting. This shows a tendency
toward Foucheism and a secret watch
on other officials than themselves
! At the time of this publication the work