OCR Text |
Show I' G STICK SMASHES; ROOSEVELT DEFENDS THE SECRET SERVICE In Message to House President Declares De-clares His Statements in Previous l Words to Congress Were Grossly Gross-ly Misunderstood. 'Waahlncton. President Roosevelt's tils stick crashed down upon the heads of Representatives Tawney of Minnesota, Smith of Iowa, Slierloy of Kentucky, nnd Kltzgernld of New York, when the executive sent a special mensnije to the lioimo of representatives, berating those solons for being champions of the successful movo to place limitations upon the scope of the secret service. Tho president also declared that the Interpretation of the houso of the secret service clause In his last message was misunderstood, nnd had thcro been any evldenco which would point to the necessity neces-sity of nn InvesllRntlon of members, such evidence would long ago havo been turned over to tho proper authorities. Tho messUBe was In answer to tho resolution res-olution transmitted from tho house In which the representatives nskeil for evidence evi-dence upon which Mr. Roosevelt based his statements that tho "chief argument In favor of the provision was that tho congressmen did not themselves wish to bo Investigated by secret service men." Message of the President and Reasons Therefor. Tho messago In part: "To the Houso of Representatives: T liavo received the resolution of tho houso of representatives of December 17, 190S, running as follows: . " 'Whereas, there was contnlned In tho sundry civil appropriation bill which passed congress at Its last session and bo-enme bo-enme a law, a provision in reference to tho employment of tho secret service In tho treasury department; nnd ' 'Whereas, In the last annual messago of tho president of tho United States to tho two houses of congress It was stated In reference to that provision: "It Is not too much to say that this amendment has been of benefit only, and could bo of benefit ben-efit only, to the criminal classes," nnd It was further stated: "The chief argument In favor of the provision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to bo Investigated by secret service men," nnd It wns further stated: "But If this Is not considered deslruble a special exception excep-tion could be mndo In tho law, prohibiting prohib-iting tho use of the secret service force In Investigating members of congress. It would be far better to do this than to do whnt actually was done, nnd strlvo to prevent or at least to hamper effectivo nctlon against criminals by tho executive brunch of tho government;" and " 'Whereas, tho plain meaning of his words Is Hint tho majority of tho congressmen con-gressmen wero In fear of being Investigated Investi-gated by secret service men and that con-& con-& itress as n whole was actuated by that motive In enacting tho provision In question. ques-tion. Now, thercforo, " 'Re It Resolved, That the president bo requested to transmit to tho houso any evldenco upon which he bnsed his statements state-ments that tho 'chief argument In favor of tho provision was that tho congressmen congress-men did not themsolves wish to be Investigated In-vestigated by secret service men,' nnd nlso to transmit to tho houso any evl- ilenco connecting any member of tho 40 house of representatives of tho Sixtieth congress with corrupt action In his olllclnl capacity, nnd to Inform the houso wlictli-i wlictli-i er he hns Instituted proceedings for tho "" punishment of any such Individual by the courta or has reported any such alleged delinquencies to tho houso of representatives.' represent-atives.' Cannot Understand Trend of the House Resolution. "I am wholly at n loss to understand the concluding portion of the resolution. I hove made no charges of corruption ngulnst congress nor ngalnst any member nf the present house. If I had proof of such corruption affecting any member of the houso In any, mntter as to which tho federal government has Jurisdiction, nctlon nc-tlon would nt once bo brought, ns was done In the cases nf Senators Mitchell nnd IJurton, nnd Representatives William-, son, Herrmann uml Drlggs, nt different times since I have been president. This would simply bo doing my duty In the wccutlon und enforcement of tho laws without respect to persons. Rut I do not legard It ns within tho provlnco or the duties of the president to report to tho house 'nlleged delinquencies' of members, or tin- supposed 'corrupt action' of a member 'In his olllclnl cnpaclty.' Tho membership of the house Is by the constitution con-stitution placed within the power of the houso alone. In the prosecution of criminals crim-inals nnd the enforcement of tho laws the president must resort to tho courts of the United Btntes. "In tho third and fourth clauses of the picnmble It Is stated thnt the meaning of my words Is that 'the majority of the V congressmen are In fenr of bolnR Investigated Inves-tigated by secret scrvlco men and thnt 'congress ns a whole was actuated by that motlvn In enacting the provision In question,' and Hint this Is an Impeachment Impeach-ment of the honor and Integrity of tho congress. These statements are not I think In nrcordanco with the facts. Declares He Said Nothing to Warrant trie Statement. f "A careful reading of this messnge will ' l a '1,ow tlint 1 sn'11 "ol,llnB to warrant the tr-l. ' I statement that 'the majority of tho con s'' f- gressmen were In fenr of being invest!-IIP invest!-IIP gnted by the secret service men,' or 'that "J. I'ongresH as a whole wns actuated by that motive.' I did not make any such qtnte-ment qtnte-ment In this message. Moreover I have tT W never mnde nny such statement nbout - congress as a whole, nor, with a few In evitable exceptions, about tho members of congress. In any message or.nrllclo or speech. On tho contrnry I have always not only deprecnted but vigorously resented re-sented the practice of Indlscilmlnnto nt-tack nt-tack upon congress, nnd Indlscrlmlnntn condemnation of nil congressmen, wise and unwise, lit nnd unfit, good nnd bad ' nllke. No ono realizes more than I the Importance of co-operation between tho executive nnd congress, nnd no one holds the authority and dignity of the congress nf the United (States In higher respect than I do. I hnve not the slightest sympathy sym-pathy with tho practice of Judging men, for good-or for III. not on their several merits, but In a muss, as members of ono particular body or ono caste. To put V together all men holding or who have f CrT held n (particular olllce, whether It bo the nlllce of president, or Judge, or senator, sena-tor, or member of the house of represent- atlvi'8. nnd In class them all. without, ro-gard ro-gard to their Ini1lvldu.nl differences, as good or bad, seems to me utterly Indefensible; Inde-fensible; nnd It Is equally Indefensible, whether the good nro fonfoumled with the bad In a heated and unwarranted championship cham-pionship of nil, or In a hented and unwarranted un-warranted assuult upon nil. Charge, In Resolution Due to Density of the Solons. A tt "This allegation In the resolution, there- " fore, must certainly bo duo tg an entire failure to understand my message "The resolution continues: That the president bo requested to transmit to the house nny evldenco upon which ho based his statements that tho 'chief argument In favor of the provision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be Investigated by sccret-servlco men.' This statement, which was an attack upon no one, still lest upon the congress, Is sustained by tho facts. "If you will turn to the Congressional Record for May 1 last, pages 6553 to 560, Inclusive, you will find the debate on this subject. Mr. Tawney of Mlnnesotu, Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Sherley of Kentucky, anil Mr. Fitzgerald of New York, appear In this debate as the special champions of tho provision referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Par-sons, Rennet and Drlscoll wero tho leaders lead-ers of those who opposed tho adoption of tho amendment and upheld the right of tho government to use tho most efficient means possible In order to detect criminals crim-inals and to prevent and punish crime. The amendment was carried In tho committee com-mittee of tho whole, whero no votes of tho individual members are recorded, so I am unablo to discriminate by mentioning mention-ing tho mombers who voleiLfor nnd tho members who voted against tlie provision, but Its pnssage, the Journal records, wns greeted with applause. I mil well aware, however, that In any enso of this kind ninny members who havo no particular knowledge of the point nt Issue, are content con-tent simply to follow the lend of tho commltteo which hnd considered tho mntter, mnt-ter, and I have no doubt that many members mem-bers of tho house simply followed thn leail of Messrs. Tawney and Smith, without with-out having had tho opportunity to know very much ns to tho tights nnd wrongs of tho question. Chip Is Knocked Off Roosevelt's Shoulder. "I would not ordlnnrlly attempt In this way to discriminate between members of the house, but as Tibjectlon has been tn-ken tn-ken to my language, In which I simply spoke of the action of the houso us n whole, and ns apparently thero Is a desire de-sire that I should thus discriminate. I will state that T think the responsibility rested rest-ed on tho committee on appropriations, under tho lead of tho members whom I have mentioned. "Now us to tho request of the congress that I give the evidence for my stato-meiit stato-meiit that the chief argument In favor of tho provision wns that tho congressmen congress-men did not themselves wish to bo Investigated Inves-tigated by secret service men. "Tho part of tho Congressional Record to which I have referred nbovo entirely supports this statement. Two distinct lines of nrgumcnt wero followed In tho debate. One concerned the question whether tho law warranted tho employment employ-ment of tho secret service In departments other than the trensury, und this did not touch tho merits of the service In the least. Tho other line of argument went to tho merits of the service, whether lawfully law-fully or unlawfully employed, and here the chief If not tho only argument used was that tho service should bo cut down nnd restricted becnuso Its members hnd 'shadowed' or Investigated members of congress nnd other otllcers of tho government. govern-ment. If wo examine tho debate tn detail de-tail It nppears that most of whnt was urged In favor of tho nmendment took the form of tho simple stntcment that tho commltteo held that thero had been n 'violation of law' by tho uso of tho secret service for other purposes than suppress ing counterfeiting (and ono or two other matters which can bo disregarded), and thnt such Innguago wns now to bo used as would effectually prevent nil such 'violation 'vio-lation of law' hereafter. Mr. Tawney, for Instance, says: 'It wns for tho purpose of stopping tho uso of this service In every posslblo wny by thn departments of tho government thnt this provision wns Inserted'; nnd Mr. Smith snya: 'Now, that wns the only way In which nny limitation could be put upon tho nctlvltles of tho secret service.' Mr. Fitzgerald followed In tho snmo vein, nnd by far tho largest part of tho argument against the employment employ-ment of the secret service wns confined to the statement thnt It was In 'violation of law.' Of course, such n .statement Is not In nny way un argument In favor of tho Justlco of the provision. It Is not an nrgumcnt for the provision at nil. It Is simply a statement of what the gentlemen gentle-men making it conceive to have been the law. Regarding Restrictions of the Secret 8ervlce. "There wns both by Implication and direct di-rect statement the assertion that It was the law, and ought to bo the law, that the secret servlro should only be used to suppress counterfeiting; and that the law should be made more rigid than ever in this respect. "Incidentally I may say that In my Judgment there Is ample legal authority for tho statement that this appropriation law to which reference wns made imposes im-poses no restrictions whntover upon the use of the secret service men, but relates re-lates solely to the expenditure of the money appropriated. Mr. Tawney In the debate stated that Im ha'd in his possession pos-session 'a letter from tho secretary of tho treasury received n few days ago' In which tho secretary of tho treasury 'lilm-Belf 'lilm-Belf admits that the provisions under which the appropriation has been made have been violated year after year for a number of years In his own department,' I append herewith ns appendix A, tho letter let-ter referred to, It makes no such admission admis-sion as that which Mr. Tawney alleges, It contains on tho contrary, ns you will see by reading It. nn 'emphatic protest against nny such abridgment of tho rights delegated to tho secretary of tho treasury by existing law,' nnd concludes by asserting thnt ho 'Is quite within his rlgJits In thus employing tho service of these agouti' and that the proposed modification modi-fication which Mr. Tawney succeeded In currying through would bo 'distinctly to the ndvnntngo of violators of criminal statutes of the United States.' I call attention at-tention tn the fact that In this letter of Secretary Corttilyotl to Mr. Towney, us In my letter to tho speaker quoted below, be-low, tho explicit statement Is mnde that tho proposed change will bo for the benefit bene-fit of tho criminals, n statement which I simply reiterated In public form In my messago to tho cnngresB this year, and which Is also contnlned In effect In 'he leport nf the secretary of tho treuury tn tho congress. "A careful reudlng of tho Congressional Congression-al Record will nlso nhow that practically the only arguments advanced In fnvor of tho limitation proposed by Mr. Tawney's committee, beyond whnt mny be supposed to bo contained by implication In certain cer-tain sentences as to 'abuses' which wero not specified, wero those contained In thu repented statements of Mr. Sherley. "Mr Sherley slated thnt there had been 'pronounced abuses growing out of tho use of tho secret service for purposes other than those Intended,' putting his statement in the form of a question, and In the same form further stated thnt tho 'private conduct' of 'members of congress, senators,' and others ought not to be Investigated In-vestigated by the secret service, and that they should not Investigate a 'member of congress' who had been accused of 'conduct 'con-duct unbecoming a gentleman nnd a member of congress,' In addition to theso assertions couched ns questions, he nude one positive declaration, thnt 'This secret service nt one time wns used for the purpose' pur-pose' of looking nlto tho pcrsonnl conduct con-duct of a member of congress.' This nrgumcnt nr-gumcnt of Mr. Sherley, the only real argument ar-gument ns to the merits of the question made on behalf of tho commltteo on appropriations, ap-propriations, will be found In columns 1 nnd 2 of page nnd column 1 of page 5T57 of the Congressional Record. In column col-umn 1 of page K5fl Mr. Sherley refers to tho Impropriety of permitting the secret service men to Investigate men In the departments, officers of the army and navy nnd members of congress; In column col-umn 1, page 6557, he refers only to members mem-bers of congress, His speech puts most weight on tho Investigation of members of congress. "What appears In the record Is filled out and explained by an article which np-peared np-peared In the Chicago Inter-Ocean of Jnnunry 3, 1904, under a Washington headline, nnd which marked tho beginning begin-ning of this agitation ngalnst the secret service. It wns a special article of about 3.000 words, written, as I wns then Informed In-formed nnd now understand, by Mr. I W. Husbey, at that time private secretary to tho speaker of the house. It contnlned con-tnlned un utterly unwnrrnntnl nttack on tho secret service division of the treasury treas-ury department and Its chief. "At the time of this publication tho work of the secret service, which was thus assailed, Included especially the Investigation In-vestigation of great land frauds In the west, nnd tho securing of evidence to help tho department of Justice In the beef-trust Investigations nt Chicago, which resulted in successful prosecutions. Efforts to Kill Move Found to Do Unavailing. "These methods proved unavailing to prevent tho wrong. Messrs. Tawney and Smith, nnd their fellow members on the npproprlatlons commltteo paid no hoed to tho protests; nnd ns the obnoxious provision pro-vision wns Incorporated In tho sundry civil bill, It was imposslblo for me to consider con-sider or discuss It on Its merits, ns I should havo done hnd It been Jn n separate sep-arate bill. Therefore I have now iaken tho only method nvnllable, that of discussing dis-cussing It In my messago to congress; and ns nil efforts to secure what I regard as proper treatment of the subject without recourse to plain speaking had failed, I have spoken plainly nnd directly, and havo sot forth the facts In explicit terms. "Slnco 1501 tho Investigations covered by tho secret service division under the practice which had been for mnny years recognized ns proper and legitimate, and which had received the sanction of the highest law ofllcers of tho government hnve covered a wide range of offenses ngalnst tho federal law. lly far the most Important of these related to tho public domain, as to which there was uncovered un-covered n far-reaching nnd widespread system of fraudulent transactions Involving Involv-ing both the Illegal acquisition nnd tho Illegal fencing of government land; nnd, In connection with both these offenses, the crimes of perjury and subornation of perjury. Some of the persons Involved In these violations wero of great wealth nnd of wldo political nnd social Influence. Roth their corporate associations nd their polltlcnl affiliations, nnd tho lawless character of some of tholr employes, tuado tho Investigations not only dlftlcult but dangerous. In Colorado one of the secret service men was assassinated. Instances In Which Secret Service 8tarred. "In connection with the Nebraska prosecution prose-cution thu government hns by decree secured se-cured the return to the government of over n million ncres of grazing Innd; in Colorado of more than 2,000 ncres of mineral land, nnd suits nro now pending Involving UAroo ncres more. "All these Investigations In the land enses wero undertnken In consequence of Mr. Hitchcock, the then secretary of the Interior, becoming convinced thnt thero were extensive frauds committed In his department; nnd the ramifications of tho frauds were so fnr-renchlna- Hint ho was nfrnld to trust his own nfllclals to deal In thoroughgoing fashion with thoin. Ono of tho secret service men accordingly ac-cordingly resigned nnd was appointed In the Interior department to carry on this work. Tho first thing ho discovered wnB that tho special ngents' division or corps of detectives of tho land ollleo of tho Interior department wns largely under un-der the control of tho land thieves: nnd In consequenco the Investigations abovo roferrcd to had to be made by secret service men, "If tho present Inw, for which Messrs. Tawney, Smith, and tho other gentlemen gentle-men I have nbovo mentioned nre responsible, respon-sible, had then been In effect, this action ac-tion would have been Impossible, and most of tho criminals would unquestionably unquestion-ably have escaped. No moro striking Instance In-stance can be Imagined of the desirability desirabil-ity of having a central corps of skilled Investigating agents who can at any time bo assigned, If necessary In large numbers, num-bers, to Investigate some violation of the federal statutes. In no matter what branch of tho public service. In this particular par-ticular case most of the men Investigated who wero publlo servants were in the executive branch of the government. Rut In Oregon, where an enormous acreage of fraudulently alienated public land was recovored for tho government, a United States senntor, Mr. Mitchell, and a member mem-ber of tho lower house, Mr. Williamson, were convicted on evidence obtained by men transferred from the secret service, and another member of congrtss was Indicted." In-dicted." Chief Asks for Reversal of Action of Solons, The president then gave a number of othru- Instances, all of which tend to point out the efllclcncy of the secret service, nnd he concludes: "In conclusion, I most earnestly ask, In the name of good government nnd decent de-cent administration, In the name of honesty hon-esty and for the purposo of bringing to Justico violators of the federal laws wherover they may bo found, whether In publlo or private life, that the action taken by the house last year be reversed. When thlB notion wns taken, tho senate commltteo, under the lead of the late Senator Allison, h'lvlng beforo it a strongly-worded protest from Stcretnry Cortelyou like that he hnA sent to Mr. Tawney, occopted the secrotafv's views; and the senuto passed the bill In tho shape presented by Senntor Allison. In tho conference, however, the house con-fereos con-fereos Insisted on the retention nt tho provision they had Inserted, and tho sennto yielded. "Tho chlof of the secret service is paid n salary utterly Inadcquntn tn the Importance of his functions and to the ndmlrnble way In which ho hns performed per-formed them. I earnestly urge thnt It may be Increased to C,000 per nnnum. I nlso urge that tho secret service be placed whero It properly belongs, and mnde a bureau In the department of Justice, us tho chief nf tho reciet servlco lias repeatedly requested; but whether this Is done or not, It should be explicitly ex-plicitly provide thnt tho secret service can bo used tu detect und punish crime wherover It Is found. "TIIHODOR15 ROOSKVELT." |