OCR Text |
Show PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S ANSWER TO CHARGES MADE BY CONGRESS In His Special Message, He 'Cites Many Cases in Which the Secret Service Officials Have Been Instrumental in the Conviction of Crafty, Power-- Power-- ful Men, Who Used Thzir Public Trusts for Personal Gain i within the power of the house alone. In the prosecution of criminals and the enforcement of the laws the president must resort to the courts of the United State. In the third and fourth clause of tho preamble it is stated that the meaning mean-ing of my words is that "the majority of the congressmen are in fear of be- : ing investigated by secret service men' ' and that "congress as a whole waj actuated by that motive in enacting the provision in question," and that this is an impeachment of the honor and integrity of the congress. These I statements are not I think in accordance accord-ance with the facts. The portion of my message referred to runs as follows: fol-lows: "Last year an amendment was incorporated in-corporated in tho measure providing for the secret service .whkh provided lhat there should be no detail from the secret service and no transfer therefrom. there-from. It Is not too much to say that this amendment ha3 been of benefit only, and could be of 'benefit only, to the criminal classes. If deliberately Introduced for the purpose of diminishing dimin-ishing the effectiveness of war against crime It could not have been better devised to this end. It forbade the practices that had been followed to a greater or les3 extent by the executive cd with the bad in a heatod and unwarranted un-warranted championship of all, or In a neated and unwarranted assault upon up-on all. I would neither attack nor defend de-fend all executive officers In a mas?, whether presidents, governors, cabinet cabi-net officers, or officials of lower rank; nor would I attack or defend all legislative leg-islative officers in n mass. The safe-ty safe-ty of free government rests very large- ly in the ability of tho plain, evcry-! evcry-! day citizen to discriminate between those public servants who serve him veil and those public servants "who serve him 111. He cannot thus discriminate discrim-inate If he is persuaded to pass Judgment Judg-ment upon a man. not with referenco to whether he is a fit or unfit public servant, but with reference to whether wheth-er he Is an executive or legislative officer, of-ficer, whether he belongs to ono branch or the other of tho govern-ment- 7hls allegation in the resolution, therefore, must certainly bo due to an tntire failure to understand my message. mes-sage. The resolution continues: 'That tho President be requested to transmit trans-mit to the house any evidence upon (Continued on. Page Two) v .Washington, Jan. 4. Unusual at- 1 temion was paid In the house of rep- I resrntatlves today to the reading of n message from the President replying reply-ing to a resolution of that body calling call-ing on him for an explanation of the intimation in his annual message that iiiembers of congress were afraid to be investigated by the secret service. The galleries were packed. The President's specific references fi certain ppeechea by Mensrs. Ta.v-tey, Ta.v-tey, Minnesota; Smith. Iowa; Shir-lev. Shir-lev. Kentucky, aud Fitzgerald. New York, when the provision for the re-ffction re-ffction of the operations of the, fee-ret fee-ret bcrvl-e was up for discussion, and fi' jO to Mr. llusby, the speaker's prl-v prl-v e secretary, called a storm of .I'Ughler. The speaker several times -. tgorously inpped for order. As the reading of the message proceeded, pro-ceeded, many of - the members chuckled, others laughed outright, while some were prone to joke with their neighbors. When the reading of the message had ibeen concluded, Mr. Perkins of New York, chairman of the special committee, which originally conldered the matters, recommended that the resolution be returned to the committee. commit-tee. "Is a resolution In order to that effect?" ef-fect?" asked Mr. Griggs. ."It is," replied the ppenkcr. "Then." said Mr. Griggs. "I move that this message be returned." "Oh no!" phouted neveral of Mr. Griggs' Tteiuociatlc colleagues. Mr. Perkins Jnpiftted that the- message mes-sage should go to the special eommlt-ice, eommlt-ice, and In the meantime, Mr. Grlgga withdrew his motion, saying he took that action at the recommendation of the party leader. The message Is as follows: To the. House of, Repreaentatlvogj , 1 rnae received the resolution of tho llouee of Reprepcntallves of December 17. l&OS, running as follows: "Whereas thTn ivrs contaluer In the sundry civil appropriation bill which passed oongTess at Its last bcs-Hon bcs-Hon aDd bccAme a law, a provision In reference to the employment of the rc-cret rc-cret servlco In the treasury department; depart-ment; and "Whereas In the last annual message of the president of the United States to the two houses of congress It was ated In reference to that provision: 'It Is not too much to say that this amendment has been of bene tit only, acjl could be of benefit only, to the cr. minal classes," and It was further RU' 'ed. "The chief argument in favor of 1 1 provision was that the congrefR-ntri'did congrefR-ntri'did not themselves wish to be Investigated In-vestigated by secret service men." and If was further stated: "But if this Is lot considered desirable a epedal ex-, ex-, tptlon could be made In the law, pro- ftih tho U6e of the eercet service rce In Investigating members of con-" con-" 'ret. It would be far better to do ils than to do what actually was done, nd 6trlve to prevent or at least to tamper effective action against crlml- nals by the executive branch of the , government ; and "Whereas the plain meaning of tho above words Is that the majority of the congressmen were in fear of being Investigated In-vestigated by secret service men and that congress as a whole was actuated by that motive In enacting the provision pro-vision in question; and "Wber.-'a vour committee appointed to consider theso statements of the t,.c:Uv.-ui aud to report to the house 1 can not find in the hearings before committees nor In the records of the house or senate, any Justification of this Impeachment of the honor and integrity in-tegrity of the congress; and "Whereas your committee would prefer pre-fer In order to make an Intelligent and comprehensive report. Just to the president presi-dent as well as to the Congress, to have all the Information which the president may have to communicate: Now, therefore, "Be It resolved. That the president be requested to transmit to the house any evidence upon which he based hi MatoineulB that'he 'chief argument in favor of the provlblon was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by secret service men.' and also to transmit to the house any evidence connecting any member of the house of representatives of tie sixtieth congress with corrupt action In his official capacity, and to Inform heads of various departments for twenty years. To theso practices we owe the securing of the evidence which enabled us to drive great lotteries out of business and secure a quarter of a lnTllion dollars In fines from their promoters. pro-moters. These practices have enabled us to discover some of the most outrageous out-rageous frauds In connection with tho theft of government land and government govern-ment timber by great corporations and 'by individuals. These practices have enabled us to get tome of the evidence indispensable in order to gc-, cure"Tfie eonvicFion of "the weafthTest and most formidable criminals with whom the government ha3,to deal, both those operating in violation of the antitrust anti-trust law and others. The amendment In question was of benefit to no ono excepting to these crlmnals, and it seriously hampers the government In Hie detection of crime and the securing of Justice. Moreover, it not only affects af-fects departments outside of the treasury, treas-ury, but It tends to hamper the secretary secre-tary of the treasury himself In the effort to utilize the employes of his department so as to best meet the requirements re-quirements of tho public service. It forbids him from preventing frauds upon the customs service, from Investigating Investi-gating Irregularities in branch mints and assay offices, and has seriously crippled him. It prevents the promotion promo-tion of employes in tho secret servico and this feature discourages good effort. ef-fort. In its present form the restriction restric-tion operates only to the advantage of the criminal, of the. w rongdoer. "The chief argument in favor of the provision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated investi-gated by secret service men. Very little of such investigation has been done in the past; but it is true that the work of the secret service agents was partly responsible for the Indictment Indict-ment and" conviction of a senator and a congressman for land frauds in Oregon. Ore-gon. I do not ihelieve that it is in the public Interest' to protect criminals in any branch of the public service, and exactly as we have again and again during the past peven years prosecuted and convicted such criminals who were In the executive branch of the govern-, govern-, ment, so In ray belief we should bo given ample means to prosecute them if found in the legislative branch. But if this is not considered desirable a special exception could be made In the law prohibiting the use of the secret se-cret service force in investigating members of congress. It would be far bettor to do this than to do what actually ac-tually was done, and strive to prevent or at least to hamper effective action against criminals by the executive branch of the government." A careful reading of this message will show that I said nothing to warrant war-rant th statement that "the majority of the congressmen were in fear of being investigated by tho secret service ser-vice men." or "that congress as a whole was actuated by that motive." I did not make anv such statement in tnis message. Moreover 1 have never made anv such statement about congress con-gress as "a whole, nor, with a few in-! in-! vvltuble exceptions, about the mem- the house whether he has instituted proceedings for the punishment of any R;ich individual by the eourts or has I reported any such allegf d dellnquln-den dellnquln-den to the house of repreeentaUvea." "V I anv wholly nt n lojg to underatand theerm.?Iudlng portion of the rern.lu- j tlon. I have made nu charges of cor-1 ruption against congress nor as;alnxt any member f the present house. f I had proof of such corruption nfTectlnj any member f the house In any mm. ter as to which the federal government has jurisdiction, action wouH at once be brought, as was -dune In the cases of Senator Mitchell and Burton, and Representatives Williamson. Herrmann, Herr-mann, and Drigg. at different times Mncc I have been president. This v would simply be ding my duty in the evecuttou and euforrerucnt of the lawn Without respecc to per .ns. Hut I do Inet regard It as within the province W the dutle of the president to report In the house "aileged delinquencies" Uf members, i-r the juppnsed "carnipt ,ctlnn'' of a mernW ' "In hi ofTicliil capacity." The membership of the foue Is by the constitution pliec hers of congress, in any message or arthle or speech. On the contrary I have ahvavs not onlv deprecated but vigorously resented the practice of Indiscriminate In-discriminate attack upon congress, and indiscriminate condemnation of all Congressmen. wis and unwise. !U aud unfit, good and bad alike. No one icnllzen more than I the importance of co-operation between the executive rnd congress, and no one holds the authority and dignity of the conre?s of the United States in higher re-fpect re-fpect than I do. I have not the slightest slight-est sympathy with tho practice of judging men. for good or for ill. net oil their noveral merits, but in a mass. jir members of one particular body or e,ne canto. To put together a'l men ' hn'dlng or who hnve held a partlcu-i partlcu-i iiir office, whether It be the office of I 11 etddnt, or judge, or penator. cr member of tho house fd" represent J-tives. J-tives. and to class them all. without regard to their individual -'.ifferciici-s. j m good or bad, seems to iiie ijilcily j inoefonsiblo: and It In equally tn.!elfn-I tn.!elfn-I hible whether tho goo,i are conl'ouni- PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S ANSWER TO CHARGES MADE BY CONGRESS (Continued From Page One.) which he based his statements that the 'chief rrgument in favor of tho provision was that tho congretfr.ien did not themselves wish to oe Investigated Inves-tigated by secrot-servlce men.' " This statement, which' was an attack upon no one, still less upon tho congress, Is sustained by the facts. if you will turn to tho Congressional Record for May 1 lant, pages 5Ftf. to ED60, Inclusive, you will Und the debate de-bate on this Bubject Mr. Tawuey ot Minnesota. Mr. Smith of Jowa. Mr. Sherley of Kentucky, and M". Fttzger-aid Fttzger-aid of New York, appear In this debate de-bate as the special champions or tho provision referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Par-sons, Bennot, and Drlscoll were the leaders of those who opposed the adoption adop-tion of the amendment and upheld the right of tho government to use tho most efficient means possible In order or-der to detect criminals and to p -event and punish crime. The amendment was carried in the committee of the whole, where no votes of the individual individ-ual members are recorded, so 1 am unable to discriminate by mentioning mention-ing tho members who voted for and the members who voted agalust the provision, but its passage, the Journal records, was greeted with applause. I am well aware, however, that in any case of this kind many members who have no particular knowledge or the point at issue are content simply to follow the lead of the committee which had considered the matter, and I have no doubt that many members of the house simply followed the lead of Messrs. Tawney and Smith, without with-out having had the opportunity to know very much as to the rights and wrongs of the quostlon. I would not ordinarily attempt In this . way to discriminate between members of the house, but as objection objec-tion has been taken to my language in which I simply Bpoke of the action of tho house as a whole, and as apparently ap-parently there is a desire that 1 should thus discriminate, I will 6tate that I think the responsibility heated upon hte committee on appropriations, under hte load of the members whom I have mentioned. Now, as to the request of thy congress con-gress that I give the evidence for my statement that the chief argument In favor of the provision was that tho congressmen did not themselves wish to be Investigated by secret service men: The part of tho Congressional Record Rec-ord to which I have roferrod abovo entirely supports this statement. Two distinct lines of argument were followed fol-lowed In the debate. One concerned the question whether the law warranted war-ranted the employment of the secret service In departments other than tho treasury, nad this did not touch tho merits of the service in the least Tho other line of argument went to the merits of the service, whether lawfully law-fully or unlawfully employed, and here tho chief, if not only, argument used wbb that tho service should be cut down and restricted because Its members mem-bers had "shadowed" or investigated members of congress and other offl-cere offl-cere of the government. If we examine ex-amine the debate In detail it appears that most of what was urged In favor ot the amendment took the- form of the simple statement that the committee commit-tee held that there had been a "violation "viola-tion of law" by the use of the secret service for other purposes than suppressing sup-pressing counterfeiting (and one or two other matters which can be disregarded), dis-regarded), and that such language was now to be used as would effectually effectu-ally prevent all such "violation of law" hereafter. Mr. Tawnej', for instance, in-stance, says: "It was for the purposo of stopping thti use ot this service In every possible way by the departments depart-ments 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 by far the largest part of the argument against the employment em-ployment of the secret service was confined to the statement that it was in "violation of law." Of iour6e, such a statement is not on any way an argument for the provision at all. It Is simply a statement of what the gentlemen making It conceive to have been the law. There was, both by Implication and direct statement, the assertion that it was the law, and ought to be tho law, that the secret service should be used only to suppress sup-press counterfeiting; and that the law should be made more rigid than ever in this respect. Incidentally, I may say that, in my Jurgment, there is ample legal authority author-ity for tho statement that this appropriation appro-priation law to which reference was made Imposes no restrictions whatever what-ever upon the uso of the secret service ser-vice men, but relates solely to the expenditure ex-penditure of the mony appropriate 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," ,'n which tho becretary of the treasury "himscir admits ad-mits that the provisions under which the appropriations has been made have been violated year after jear for a number of years In his own department." de-partment." 1 append herewith as appendix ap-pendix A the letter referred to. It makes no such admission as that which Mr. Tnwnc-y alleges. It contains, con-tains, on tho contrary, as you will sec by reading it, an "mphatlc pro-tebt pro-tebt agalust ony such abridgment or the rights delegated to tho secretary of tho treasury by existing law" and concludes by asserting that he "is quite within his rights in thus employing em-ploying the service of these agents" mid that the proposed modification which Mr. Tawney succeerer in carrying car-rying through would be "distinctly to tho advantage of violators of criminal crim-inal statutes of the United States." I call attention to the fact that in this letter of Secretary Cortelyou to Mr. Tawney, as in my letter to the speaker, quoted below, the explicit statement is made that tho proposod change will be for the benefit of tho ciimlnals, a statement which I Blmply rolterated In public form in my mes-pago mes-pago to the congress this year, and which is also contained in effect in the report of tho secretary of the treasury to the congress. A careful reading of the Congressional Congres-sional record will also show that practically prac-tically the only arguments advanced In favor of the limitation proposed by Mr. Tawncy's committee, beyond what may bo supposed to be contained by implication in certain sentences as to "abuses" which were not specified, srero those contained In the repeated ( 1 statements of Mr. Sherley. Mr. Sherley stated that there had been "pronounced abuses gTowlng out of the use of the Secret Service for purposes other than those intended," intend-ed," putting his statement in tho form of a question, and In tho samo form further stated the the "private conduct" con-duct" of "Members of Congress. Senators," Sen-ators," 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 ac-cused of "conduct unbecoming a gentleman gen-tleman and a Member of Congress." What appears In the record Is filled out and explained by an article which appeared in the Chicago Intcr-Occan of January 3, 1904, under a Washington Washing-ton headline, and which marked tho beginning of this agitation against tho Secret Service. It was a special article of about 3,000 words, written, as I was then Informed and now understand, by Mr. L. W. Busbey. at that time private secretary to the Speaker of the House. I Inclose a copy of certain extracts from the article, marked Appendix B. It contained an utterly unwarranted attack at-tack on the Secret Service Division of the Treasury Department and its chief. The opening paragraph includes, for Instance, In-stance, statements like the following: "Ho (the chief of the division) and his men are desirous of doing the secret se-cret detoctlve work for the whole government gov-ernment and are not particular about drawing the line between the lawmakers law-makers and the lawbreakers. They are ready to shadow the former as well as the latter." . At the time of this publication tho work of the Secret Service, which was thus assailed, .Included especially the Investigation of great land frauds in the West, and tho securing of evidence to help the Department of Justice In the becf trust Investigations at Chi-cago. Chi-cago. which resulted la successful prosecutions. In view of Mr. Busby's position, I have accepted the above quoted statements state-ments as fairly expressing the real meaning and animus of the attacks made in general terms on the use of the Secret Service for the punishment of criminals. Furthermore, in the performance per-formance of my duty, to endeavor to find the feelings of congressmen on public questions of note, I have frequently fre-quently discussed this particular matter mat-ter with members of congress; and on such occasions the reasons alleged to me for the hostility of congress to the secret service, both by those who did and by those who did not share this hostility, were almost invariably the samo as those set forth In Mr. Busbey's article. I may add. by the way. that these allegations as to the Secret Service Ser-vice are wholly without foundation in fact. Bince 1901 tho investigations covered by the Secret Service division under the practice which had been for many years recognized as proper and legitimate, legiti-mate, and which had received the sanction sanc-tion of the highest law officers of the government have covered a w'de range of offenses against the federal law. By far the most important of these related to the public domain, as to which there was uncovered a far reaching reach-ing and widespread system of fraudulent fraudu-lent transactions involving both the illegal il-legal acquisition and the illegal fencing fenc-ing of government land; and, in connection con-nection with both these offenses, the crimes of perjury and subornation of perjury. Some of the persons involved involv-ed In these .violations were of great wealth and of wide political and social Influence. Both their corporate associations asso-ciations and their political affiliations, and the lawless character of some of their employees, made the Investigations Investiga-tions not only difficult but dangerous. dan-gerous. In Colorado one of the secret service men was assassinated. assas-sinated. In Nebraska It was necea sary to remove a United States attorney attor-ney and a United States m.irsbal before be-fore satisfactory progress could be made In the prosecution of the offenders. offend-ers. The evidence In all these c:ses was chiefly secured by men trained In the eecret service and detailed to the department de-partment of Justice at the request of that department and of the department depart-ment of the interior. In the Stat ot Nebraska alone sixty defendants were indicted; and of the tWrty two cases thus far brought to trial tw-inty-eight have resulted In conviction; two ot the principals. Messrs. Comstock and Richards, men of wealth and wide Influence, In-fluence, being sentenced to twelve months In Jail and fined $1,500 each. The following socret sen ice memcr-andum memcr-andum made in the course of a pend-iue; pend-iue; case illustrates the ramifications of interest with which the government Lat to deal: "Charles T. Stewart, of Council Bluffs, was indicted at Omahn tor conspiracy con-spiracy to defraud the government ot tne title to public lands id McPher-ron McPher-ron county, Neb.; also lndiotej for mointalnlng an unlawful ine'.osuro of the public lands, and also under Indictment In-dictment for perjury In connection vsitb final proof submitted by him on lands filed on by him as a homestead. In his final proof he swoi'3 that he j ana his family had resided on the luuds In McPherson county (which ere within his unlawful Inclosurej, when as a matter of fact his family ' has at all times resided In Council Biuffs, Iowa. Ho is engaged in the wholesale grocery business, his, store being located In Omaha, in the wholesale whole-sale district there. He is reputed lo to quite wealthy. Stewart's attorneys attor-neys are Harl & Tlnlcy, ot Council l;luffs. Iowa, who are also the attorneys attor-neys at that place for the Omaha and Council Bluffs Street Ra'.lwaj . company, com-pany, In which company Harl holds considerable stock, Stewart being also a stockholder and possibly a director cf the company. He Is also represented repre-sented In Omaha by W. J. Council, one 'A tho attorneys there for th- rimo company. Stewart Is also represented represent-ed in his perjury case by "illir (jr-ley, (jr-ley, of Omaha. Neb , who at one tlmo was quite closely connected In a political po-litical way with tho U. P. R. R. company; com-pany; Stewart is also closely associated associ-ated with C. B. Hazelton. postmaster at Council Bluffs. Harl & Tinloy jrnd Hazelton are all members cf tho Fame lodge. Another close persons! friend of Stewart's Is Ed. Hart, allu.i "Waterworks" "Water-works" Hart, president of the Council Liuffs Water company, and Intense 1 In the street railway. Stewart's father fath-er was Interested In, and practically owned and controlled, during his lifetime, life-time, a largo ranch along tho U. P. R: R. In Nebraska, and did a great i'al of business with that road." Concerning this case tho United states attorney at Omaha state?: "There are three cases agn'nsl Stev-art, Stev-art, one for fencing, ono conspiracy, one perjury, all good cases rnd chances of conviction good." in connection with the Nebraska prosecution the governnu'Pt has by C.ocree secured the return to the government gov-ernment of 4ver a million acres of Rrnzlng land;: in Colorado ct mere than 2,000 acre of mineral land, ana -. ' suits are now pending involving 150,-000 150,-000 acres more. All theso investigations in the land cap.es wore taken in coosoqaenc-3 of Mr. Hitchcock, tho then aecrotary of the interior, becoming convinced that tLero were extensive fraudi committed commit-ted in hia department; and the ramifications rami-fications of the frauds wore bo far-reaching far-reaching that h was afraid to trust hit own officials to deal in a thorouga-j thorouga-j going fashion with them. Ono of tho eecret servico mon accordingly ro-tignod ro-tignod and was appointed in tho interior in-terior department to carry on this pork. The -first thing ho dlscoverol was that the special agent' division or corps of detectives of chj land uf-fctr uf-fctr of the Interior department, was largely under the control of the innd thieves; and In consequeice the investigations in-vestigations abovo referred to had to bo made by secret servico mon. If the present law, for wtlc.l Messrs. Tawney, Smith, and the other gentlemen 1 have above mentioned are responsible, had then been In effect, ef-fect, this action would havo been im-roislble, im-roislble, and most of the criminals would unquestionably have escaped. No more striking instance can bo imagined of the desirability of having a central corpB of skilled investigating investigat-ing agents who can at any -lime be SRflgned, if necessary in large numbers, num-bers, to investigate some io;atiou ot the federal statutes, in no matter what branch of the public servico. In this particular ccee most of the men Investigated Inves-tigated who were public servants were In the executive branch of the government. But in Oregon, whero aa enormous acreage of fraudulently alienated public land was recovered for the government, a United states senator, Mr. Mitchell, and a member of tho lower house, Mr. Williamson, were convicted on evidence obtained by men transferred from the secret service, and another member of congress con-gress was Indicted. From 1901 to 1904 a successful Investigation In-vestigation of naturalization affairs was made by the secret service, with the result of obtaining hundreds of ' convictions of conspirators who wero convicted of selling fraudulent papera of naturalization. (Subsequently, congress con-gress passed a very wise law providing provid-ing a special service and appropriation appropria-tion for tho prevention of naturalization naturaliza-tion frauds: but unfortunately, at the tame time that the action against the secret service v.a.3 taken, congress also cut down the appropriation for Ibis speclf.l service, with tho result ot crippling the effort to stop frauds In naturalization.) Tho fugitives Greene and Ga nor, Implicated Im-plicated In a peculiarly big government contract fraud, were located and arrested ar-rested in Canada by the Secret Service, Ser-vice, and thanks to ' this they have since gone to prison for their crimes. The Secret Service was used to assist as-sist In the investigation of crimes under un-der the peonage law, and owing partly thereto numerous convictions were secured se-cured and the objectionable practice was practically stamped out, at least In many districts. The most extensive smuggling of silk and opium In the history his-tory of the Treasury Department was Investigated by agents of the Secret Service In Now York and Seattle and a successful prosecution of the offenders of-fenders undertaken. Assistance of the utmost value was rendered to the Department De-partment of Justice In the beef-trust investigation at Chicago, prosecutions were followed up and fines Inflicted. The cotton-leak scandal in the Agricultural Agri-cultural department was investigated and the responsible parties located. What was done In connection with lottery lot-tery Investigations is disclosed in a letter just sent to me by the United States attorney for Delaware, running as follows: The destruction of the Honduras National Na-tional Lottery company, successor to the Louisiana Lottery company, wa3 entirely too work of the Secret Service. Ser-vice. . . . This excellent work was accomplished by Mr. Wilkie and his subordinates. I thought It might be timely to recall this prosecution. Three hundred thousand dollars In fines were collected by the government In the lottery cases. Again, the Ink contract fraud in the Bureau of Engraving En-graving and Printing (a bureau of the Treasury department) was investigated investigat-ed by the Secret Service - and the guilty parties brought to Justice. Mr. Tawney stated in the debate that this was not investigated by the Secret Service but by a clerk "down there," conveying the "impression that the clerk was not in the Secret Service. As a matter of fact, he was in the Secret Servico; his name was Moran, and he was promoted to assistant chief for tho excellence of his work In this case. The total expense for the office and field force of the Socret Service last year was $135,000; and by this ono Investigation they saved to the government govern-ment over $100,000 a year, Thanks to the restriction imposed by congress it Is now very difficult for the secretary of the treasury to use the Secret Service Ser-vice freely even In his own department; depart-ment; for Instance, to use them to repeat re-peat what they did so admirably In the case, of this Ink contract. The government gov-ernment is further crippled by the law forbidding It to employ detective agencies. Of course the government can detect the most dangerous crimes, and punish the worst criminals, only by the use of the Secret Service or of private detectives; to hamper It In using the one, and forbid It to resort to the other, can Inure to the benefit of none save the criminals. The facts above given show beyond possibility of doubt that what the secretary sec-retary of the treasury and I had both written prior to the enactment of the obnoxious provision, and what I have since written in my message to the congress, state the facts exactly as they are. The obnoxious provision is of benefit only to the criminal clous and can be of benefit only to the criminal crim-inal class. If it had been embodied In the law at the timo when I became president all the prosecutions abovo mentioned, and many others of tho same general type, would cither not have been undertaken or would have been undertaken with tho government at a great disadvantage; and many, and probably most, of tho chief offenders offend-ers would havo gone scot free Instead of being punished for their crimes. Such a body as tho Scret Service, such a body of trained investigating agents, occupying a permanent position posi-tion In the government Bervlce, and separate from local Investigating forces In different departments, Is an absolute necessity if the best work Is to be done against criminals It la by far the most efficient Instrument possible pos-sible to use against crime. Of course the more efficient an Instrument is, the more dangerous It Is If misused. To the argument that a force like this can bo misused It Is only necessary to answer that the condition of Its usefulness use-fulness If handled properly Is that It shall be so efficient as to be dangerous 11 handled Improperly. Any Instance of obuse by the Socret Service or other lave&UsatiDg force la tho defurUucnta i '1 |