Newspaper Page Text
: - hit.
( 'JLT3LE FAB Mtatrr HY 4. 1909. MESSAGE ON THE SECRET SERVICE President Replies to Gongres i sional Resolution. JAYS HE DID HOT HIT AT HOUSE lLanguage In Annual Communication ' . Called Objectionable by Representa . ,'&9 Will Stand Analysis, Declares Executive Ho Renews His Argu ment For Repeal of Law Limiting Activities of.. Treasury Agents Cites Cases In Which They Have Aided i in Punishment of Violator of Fed eral Laws.. ( . ' '' c Washington, Jan.,;4. In a special message., to ie house of representa tives; today President Roosevelt says: To the House of Representatives: . ' I have received the resolution of the house; of -i representatives of Dec. 17, 1908, running as follows: Whereas, There was contained in the sundry civil appropriation bill which passed congress at its last session and be came a law a provision in reference to the employment of the secret service in the treasury department; and, . Whereas, In the last annual message of the president of the United States to the 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 be of bene fit only to the criminal classes," and it wras further stated, "The chief argument In favor of the provision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be Investigated by secret service men, ' andit was further stated, "But if this is kt considered desirable a . special excep could be made n the law -prohibiting the use of the secret service force in in vestigating members of: congress," it would be far better to do this than to do what actually was i dpne , and strive to prevent or at least to ; hamper effective ; action against criminals by the executive branch of the government;" and. Whereas, The plain ; meaning of the ' above words is that the majority of the congressmen were in fear of being Inves tigated by secret service men and that congress as a whole wa actuated by that motive In enacting the : provision in ques- ;' Hon; and, :-' f- vHJ-- Whereas, Tour committee appointed to consider these statements, of, the presl-. dent and to report to the : house , cannot find in tfee hearings before committees nor in the records of the house or sen ate any Justification of this impeach ment of the honor and integrity of . the congress; and, Whereas, Your committee would prefer In order to make an Intelligent and com prehensive report. Just to the president 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 iBvldence upon which "hie based his state ments that the "chief argument in favor of the provision was that the congress men; did not themselves wish to be in vestigated by secret i'service men" and also to transmit to the house any evi dence connecting any . member of the house of representatives of the Sixtieth congress with corrupt action In his offi cial capacity and to Inform the . house whether he has instituted proceedings for the punishment of any such ' individual by -he courts or has) reported any such alleed delinquencies to the house of rep resentatives. - - . 'rsfV - MI 'Cannot Understand Resolution." I am wholly at a loss to understand the1 -concluding portion of the resolu tion. I have made no charges of cor ' ruption against congress nor against any-member of the, present, house. If I had proof of such corruption affect ing any member of the house in any matter as , to which the federal gov-; ernmerit has jurisdiction, action would at once' be brought, as was done In the cases of Senators Mitchell and Burton JK- . A tTI w wmjtiejpresenxauves w niiamson, jtierr . Minn jtnd Drlggs at, different times inot I have, ;beea president. This (would simply jbe doing my duty in the execution apd enforcement of the laws (without respect to persona. But I do bot 7 regard It as within the province lor tile duties of the president to report to , the house "alleged delinquencies" of members , or the supposed "corrupt action" of a.member "In his official ca pacity." - The membership of the bouse Is by the constitution placed 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 States. - ' ,V Portion of Message Quoted. In the third and fourth clauses of the preamble it Is stated that the meaning of my words is that "the majority of the- congressmen are In fear of being Investigated by secret service men," and that 'congress as a whole was ac tuated by that motive in enacting the provision in question," and that this Is an impeachment of the honor and Integrity of the congress. . These state ments are cot, I think, in accordance with the facts. The portion of my message referred to runs as follows: Lost year an amendment was Incor porated 1n the measure providing for the . secret servloa which provided that there should be no. detail from the secret serv ice and no-transfer therefrom. It Is not too much to say that this amendment has been of "benefit only and could be of bene fit only to tho criminal classes. If delib erately .Introduced for the purpose of di minishing the effectiveness of war against crime it . could not have been better de vised to this end. It forbade the prac tices that had been followed to a greater or less extent by the executive heads of various departments for twenty years. To these practices we owe the securing of the evidence which enabled us to . drive great lotteries out of business and secure a .quarter of a million of dollars in fines frotn their promoters. These practices have enabled us to discover some of the most outrageous frauds In connection with the theft of government land and government timber by great corporations and by individuals. These practices have enabled us to get some of the evidence in dispensable tn order to secure the convic tion of the wealthiest and most formida ble criminals with whom the government has, to deal, both' those operating In viola tion of the anti-trust law and others. The amendment in question was of benefit to no; one excepting- to these criminals, and it seriously hampers the government in the detection of crime and the securing of Justice. " Moreover, it not only affects de partments outside of the treasury, but it tends to hamper the secretary of the treasury himself in the effort to utilize the, employees of his department so as to best meet the requirements of the publlo service. It forbids him from preventing frauds upon the customs service, from in vestigating irregularities in branch mints and assay offices and has seriously crip pled him. It prevents the promotion of employees 'to the secret service, and this further ..discourages, good effort. In its f resent form the restriction operates only o the advantage ox the criminal, of the wropioM. i Tne cmer argument in favor of the pro vision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by secret service men. Very little of such Investigation has been done in tho past. But it la true that the work of the secret service agents was partly responsible for the Indictment and conviction of a sen ator and a congressman for land frauds in Oregon. I do not believe that it is In the public interest to protect crim inals In any branch of the public service, and, exactly as we have again and again during the past seven years prosecuted and convicted such criminals who were In the executive branch of the govern ment, so in my belief we should be given ample means to prosecute them If found In the legislative branch. But if this is not considered desirable a special excep tion could be made in the law prohibit ing the use of the secret service force in Investigating members of the congress. It would be far better to do this than to do what actually was done and strive to prevent or at least to hamper effective action against criminals by the executive branch of the government. Asks Careful Reading of Message. ' A careful reading of this message will show that I said nothing to war rant the statement that "the majority of the congressmen were in fear of being investigated by the secret serv ice men" or. "that congress as a whole was actuated by that motive." I 'did not make any such statement in, this message. Moreover, I have never made any such statement about congress as a whole nor, with a few Inevitable ex ceptions, about the members of con gress In -any message or article or speech. On the contrary, I have al ways not only deprecated, but vigor ously resented, the practice of indis criminate attack upon congress and Indiscriminate condemnation of all congressmen, wise and unwise, fit and unfit, good and bad alike. No one real izes more than I the importance of co-operation between the executive and congress, and no one holds the au thority and dignity of the congress of the United States In higher respect than I do. I have not the slightest sympathy with the practice of Judging men for good or for ill not on their several merits, but in a mass, as mem bers of one particular body or one caste.. To put together all men holding or who have held a particular office, whether it be the office of president or Judge or senator or member of the house of representatives, and to class them all, without regard to their in dividual differences, as good or bad seems to me utterly indefensible, and it Is equally Indefensible whether the good are, confounded with the bad in a heated and ) unwarranted champion ship of all or In a heated and unwar ranted assault upon all. I would net- ; ther attack nor defend all executive officers in a mass, whether presidents,( governors, cabinet officers or officials of lower rank, nor would I attack or defend all legislative officers in a mass. The safety of , free government rests very largely In the ability of the plain, everyday citizen to discriminate be tween those public servants who serve him : well and those public, servants, who serve him ill. He cannot thus ( discriminate if he Is persuaded to pass Judgment, upon a man not with refer ence to whether he is a fit or unfit public servant, but with reference to whether he Is an executive or legisla tive officer, whether he belongs -to one branch or the other of the government. Says Message Is Misunderstood. This allegation in the resolution, therefore, must certainly be due to an entire,, failure to understand my mes sage. The resolution continues, "That the president be requested to transmit to the house any evidence upon which he based his statements that the 'chief argument In favor of the provision was that the congressmen did . not themselves wish to be investigated by secret service men.' " This statement, which was an attack upon no one, still less upon the congress. Is sustained by the facts. . If you will turn to the Congressional Record for May 1 last, pages 5553 to 5560, inclusive, you will find the de bate on this subject Mr. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Sherley of Kentucky and Mr. Fitzger ald of New York appear In this debate as the special champions of the pro vision referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Bennet and Drlscoll were the leaders of those who opposed the adoption of the amendment and upheld the right of the government to use the most effi cient means possible in order to de tect criminals and to prevent and pun ish crime. The amendment was car ried in the committee of the whole, where no votes of the Individual mem bers are recorded, so I am unable to discriminate by mentioning the mem bers who voted for and the members who voted against 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 of the point at rae are content simply to follow the ead of the committee which had con lidered the matter, and I have no doubt that many members of the house simply followed the lead of Messrs. Tawney and Smith without having had the opportunity to know very much as to the rights and wrongs of the ques tion. I would not ordinarily attempt in this way to discriminate between members of the house, but as objection has been taken to my language, In which I sim ply spoke of the action of the house as a whole, and as apparently there la a desire that I should thus discrim inate I will state that I think the re sponsibility rested on the committee on appropriations under the lead of the members whom I have mentioned. Replies to Request For Evidence. Now as to the request of the con gress that I give the evidence for my statement that the chief argument in favor of the provision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by secret service men. The part of the Congressional Record to which I 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 unlawfully employed, and here the chief if not the only argument used was that the service should be cut down and restricted because its mem bers Jiad 'Jshaj3towedj?rta 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 slm- pie statement that the committee held that there had been a "violation of law" by the use of the secret service for other purposes than suppressing counterfeiting (and one or two. other matters which can be disregarded) and that such language was now to be used as would effectually prevent all such "violation of law hereafter. Mr. Tawney, for instance, says, "It 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 by far the largest part of the argument against the em ployment of the secret service was con fined to the statement that it was In "violation of law." Of course such a statement is not in any way an argu ment, in favor .of the' Justice of the provision, ,-lt is not an argument for the provision' at all. It Is simply a statement of-what the. gentlemen mak ing 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 the law, that the secret service should only be used to suppress counterfeiting and that the law should be made more rigid than ever In this respect. No Restrictions on Service. Incidentally I may say that In my Judgment there Is ample legal author ity for the statement that this appro priation 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 appropriated. 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 pro visions under which the appropriation has been made have been violated year after year for a number of years in his own department.' I append here with as Appendix A the letter re ferred to. Appendix A is a letter from Secretary of the Treasury Cortelyou to the chairman of the committee on ap propriations of the house of represent atives; dated April 29, 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, he de clared, would be "distinctly to the ad vantage of violators of criminal stat utes of the United States." It makes no such admission as that which Mr. Tawney alleges, it; contains, on the contrary, as you will see by reading it, an "emphatic protest against any such abridgement of the rights delegated to the secretary of the treasury by ex isting 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 modifi cation which Mr. Tawney succeeded in carrying through would be "distinctly to the advantage of violators of crimi nal 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 the proposed change will be for the benefit of the criminals, a statement which I simply reiterated In public form in my message to the con gress this year and which is also con tained in effect in the report of the secretary of the treasury to the con gress. "Private Conduct" of Members. A careful reading of the Congression al Record will also show that practical ly the only arguments advanced in fa vor of the limitation proposed by Mr. Tawney's committee beyond what may be supposed to be contained by impli cation in certain sentences as to "abuses" which were not specified were those contained In the repeated statements of Mr. Sherley. Mr. Sher ley stated that there had been "pro nounced 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 "mem bers of congress, senators" and others ought not to be investigated by the secret service and that they should not Investigate a "member of con gress" who had been accused of "con duct unbecoming a 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. Sher ley, the only real argument as to the merits of the question madej on behalf of the committee on appropriations, will be found In columns 1 and 2 of page 5556 and column 1 of page 5557 of the Congressional Record. In col umn 1 of page 5556 Mr. Sherley refers to the impropriety of permitting the secret service men to investigate men in the departments, officers of the army and navy and senators and con gressmen. In column 2 he refers to officers , of the navy and members of congress. In column 1, page 5557, he refers only to members of congress. His speech, puts most weight on the Investigation of members of congress. Newspaper Article Reproduced. "What appears in the record is filled out and explained by an article which appeared In the Chicago Inter Ocean of Jan. 3, 1904, under a Washington headline and which marked the begin ning of this agitation against the se cret 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. Appendix B consists of an article from the Chicago Inter Ocean of Jan. 3, 1904. In this John E. Wilkie, chief of the secret service of the treasury department, is described as ambitious of becoming "the Fouche of the United States," In imitation of Fouche, chief of the secret police of Napoleon I. The article declares that the secret service bureau exists without warrant of con gressional action and that congress has alwaja been antagonistic to, the bo. H contained an utterly unwar- (division of the treasury department and its chief. The opening paragraph includes, for Instance, statements like the following: .He (the chief of the division) and his men are desirous of doing the secret de tective work for the whole government and are not particular about drawing the line between the lawmakers and the law breakers. They are ready to shadow the former as well as the latter. 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 a Fouche or any other kind of minister of police to be used by the executive de partments against the legislative branch of the government. It has been so used, and it is suspected that it has been so used recently. The legislative branch of the government will not toler ate the meddling of detectives, whether they represent the president, cabinet offi cers or only themselves. Con gressmen resented the secret Interference of the secret service men who for weeks shadowed some of the most respected members of the house and senate. When it waa discovered that the secret service men were shadowing congress men there was a storm of indignation at the capltol, and the bureau came near being abolished and the appropriation for the suppression of counterfeiting cut off. At another time the chief of the secret service had nis men shadow congressmen with a view to Involving them in scandals that would enable the bureau to diotate to them as 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 la no joke. Several of the departments have asked congress for secret funds for In vestigation, and the treasury department wants the limitation removed from the appropriation for suppressing counter felting. This shows a tendency toward Foucheism and a secret watch on other officials than themselves. At the time of this publication the work of the secret service which was thus assailed Included especially the in vestigation of great land frauds In the west and the securing of evidence to help the department of Justice in the beef trust investigations at Chicago, which resulted in successful prosecu tions. ' In view of Mr. Busbey's position I have accepted the above quoted 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 per formance of my duty to endeavor to find the feelings of congressmen on public questions of note I have fre quently discussed this particular 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 same as those set forth In Mr. Busbey's 1 article. I may add, by the way, that these allegations as to the secret serv ice are wholly without foundation in fact , Real Issue Named. But all of this Is of insignificant im portance compared with the main, the real, Issue. This issue is simply, Does congress desire that the government shall have at Its disposal the most efficient Instrument for the detection of criminals and the prevention and punishment of crime, or does it not? The action of the house last May was emphatically an action against the in terest of Justice and against the Inter est of law abiding people and in its ef fect of benefit only to lawbreakers. I am not now dealing with motives. Whatever may have been the motive that Induced the action of which I speak, this was beyond all question the effect of that action. Is the house now willing to remedy the wrong? ' For a long time I contented myself with endeavoring to persuade the house not to permit the wrong, speak ing Informally on the subject with those members who, I believed, knew anything of the matter and commu nicating officially only In the ordinary channels, as through the secretary of the treasury. In a letter to the speaker on April 30, protesting against the cut ting down of the appropriation vitally necessary if the Interstate commerce commission was to carry into effect the twentieth section of the Hepburn law, I added: "The provision about the employment of the secret service men will work very great damage to the government in its endeavor to pre vent and punish crime. There is no more foolish outcry than this against 'spies.' Only criminals need fear our detectives." (I Inclose copy of the whole letter, marked "Appendix C." The postscript Is blurred In my copy book, and two or three of the words cannot be deciphered.) Appendix 0 is a letter dated April 30, 1908, from President Roosevelt to Speaker Can non protesting against the cutting down In the sundry civil bill of the ap propriation for secret service work. "The only people benefited would be the very worst of the big railroad men whose misdeeds we are trying to pre vent or correct," were the words of the president. These methods proved un availing to prevent the wrong. Messrs. Tawney and Smith and their fellow members on the appropriations com mittee paid no heed to the protests, and as the obnoxious provision was incorporated In the sundry civil bill it was Impossible for me to consider or discuss it on its merits, as I should have done had it been In a separate bill. Therefore I have now taken the only method available, that of discuss ing it in my message to congress, and as all efforts to secure what I regard as proper treatment of the subject without recourse to plain speaking had failed I have spoken plainly and di rectly and have set forth the facts in explicit terms. Here the president gives Instances In which the secret service men have been Instrumental In securing convic tions of offenses against federal laws, citing especially the land fraud cases. In connection with the Nebraska prosecution the government has by de cree secured the return to the govern ment of over a million acres of graz ing land, in Colorado of more than 2,000 acres of mineral land, and suits are now pending involving 150,000 acres more. Department's Agents Dishonest. All these Investigations In the land cases were undertaken In consequence of Mr. Hitchcock, the then secretary of the interior, becoming convinced that there were extensive frauds com mitted in his department, and the ramifications of the frauds were so farreachingjhat hp was .afraid to trust I reau.T Two Pair of Trousers with Each Suit! IjjSE have just driven the biggest Hard Time Bargain since the hard times struck the coun try. Ten thousand remnant pieces of Fine Suitings and Overcoatings from the largest Eastern Woolen Mill. Come, look them over. We guarantee every piece worth' double our price for it. Don9 1 wear Hand-Me-Down Clothes. Two Pair of Trousers with Each Suit ! - The big Sanger Mills, Dover, New Hampshire, the largest individnal mill in the East, had on hand seven thousand pounds of odd lots of wool yarns which, to dispose of, they wove up into rich suitings and over coatings. s Some lots contained only enough for two to five yards each, other lots enough for ten to fifteen yards. We drove the biggest bargain of our lives when we secured for our chain of stores the whole amount, not a yard excepted, at ONE-FOURTH THE SELLING PRICE AT THE MILLS. i 1134 MAIN STREET his own officials to deal m thorbugn going fashion with them. One of the secret service men accordingly resign ed and was appointed in the interior department to carry on this work. The first thing he discovered was that the special agents' division or corps of de tectives of the land office of the Inte rior department was largely under the control of the land thieves, and In con sequence the investigations . above re ferred to had to be made by secret service men. If the present law, for which Messrs. Tawney, Smith and the other gentle men I have above mentioned are re sponsible, had then been In effect this action would have been impossible and most of the criminals would unques tionably have escaped. No more strik ing instance can be Imagined of the desirability of having a central corps of skilled investigating agents who can at any time be assigned, If necessary in large numbers," to investigate some violation of the federal statutes, in no matter what branch of the public serv ice. In this particular case most of the men investigated who were public servants were in the executive branch of the government. But In Oregon, where an enormous acreage of fraudu lently alienated public land was recov ered . for the government, a United States senator, Mr. Mitchell, and a member of the lower house, Mr. "Wil liamson, were convicted on evidence obtained by men transferred from the secret service, and another member of congress was indicted. Stopped Naturalization Frauds. From 1901 to 1904 a successful inves tigation of naturalization affairs was made by the secret service, with the result of obtaining hundreds of convic tions of conspirators who were convict ed of selling fraudulent papers of nat uralization. (Subsequently congress passed a very wise law providing a special service and appropriation for the prevention of naturalization frauds, but unfortunately at the same time that the action against the secret serv ice was taken congress also cut down the appropriation for this special serv ice, with the result of crippling the effort to stop fraud? in naturalization.) The fugitives Greene and Gaynor, im plicated In a peculiarly big government contract fraud, were located and ar rested in Canada by the secret service, and, thanks to this, they have since gone to prison for their crimes. The secret service was used to nssist in the investigation of crimes under the peonage laws, ad owing partly thereto numerous convictions were 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 of the treasury department was investigated by agents of the se cret service in New York and Seattle and a successful prosecution of the of fenders undertaken. Assistance of the utmost value was rendered to the de partment of Justice in the beef trust investigation at Chicago; prosecutions were followed up and fines inflicted. The cotton leak scandal in the agri cultural department was investigated and the responsible parties located. What was done in connection with lottery investigations is disclosed In a letter just sent to me by the United States attorney for Delaware, running' as follows: Tho destruction of the Honduras Na-, tionai Lottery company, successor to tha1 Louisiana Lottery company, waa entirely One Block the work of the secret service. This excellent work was accomplished by Mr. Wilkie and his subordinates. I thought it might be .timely to recall this prosecution., Lottery Cases and Others. Three hundred thousand dollars . in fines were collected by the govern ment in the lottery cases. Again, the Ink contract fraud In the bureau of engraving and printing (a bureau of the treasury department) was investi gated 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 serv ice, but by a clerk "down there," con veying the impression that the clerk was not in the secret service. As a matter of fact, he was in the secret service. His name was Moran, and he was promoted to assistant chief for the excellence of his work in this case. The total expense for the office and field force of the secret service last year was $135,000, and by this one investigation they saved to the government 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 freely even in his own department for instance, to use them to repeat what they did so ad mirably In the case of this ink con tract. The government is further crip pled by the law forbidding it to em ploy detective agencies. Of course the government can detect the most dan gerous crimes and punish the worst criminals only by the use either of the secret service or of private detectives. To hamper it In using the one and for bid it to resort to the other can inure to the benefit of none save the crimi nals. Secretary Cortelyou Sustained. The facts above given show beyond possibility of doubt that what the 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 class and can be of benefit only to the crim inal class. If it had been embodied in the law at the time when I became president, all the prosecutions above mentioned and many others of the same general type would either not have been undertaken or would have been undertaken with the government at a great disadvantage, and many and probably most of the chief offend ers would have gone scot free instead of being punished for their crimes. Such a body as the secret service, such a body of trained investigating agents, occupying a permanent posi tion in the government service and separate from local investigating forces in different departments, is an absolute necessity if the best work is to be done against criminals. It is by far the most efficient instrument possible 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 be misused it is only necessary to answer that the condition of its use fulness if handled properly is that it shall be so efficient as to be dangerous if handled improperly. Any instance of abuse by the secret service or other investigating force in the departments should be unsparingly punished, and congress should hold itself ready at any and ail times to investigate the North Fairfield Avenue executive departments Whe&ever then ;.' Is reason to believe that any such in stance of abuse has occurred. I wish to emphasize my more than cordial ac quiescence in the view that this. is not only the right of congress, but em phatically its duty. . To use. the secret service in the investigation of purely"" private or political matters? would be a gross abuse. But there has been no -single instance of such abuse during1 my term as president. ' , . m The President's Appeal.. - In conclusion, I most earnestly, ask in the name of good government and decent administration, in the name of. honesty and for the purpose of bring ing to justice violators of the federal laws wherever they may be" found, whether in public or private life, that the action taken by the house, last year be reversed. When this action was' taken the senate committee, under the lead of the late Senator. Allison, hav- . ing before it a strongly wordedpTrotest (Appendix D) from Secretary i CorteK , you like that he had sent; to jMr. Taw- ney, accepted the secretary's, views, ' and the senate passed the bill in the' shape presented by Senator Allison.' In the conference, however, the house conferees Insisted on the retention of the provision they had inserted, and the senate yielded. Appendix D con-, slsls of a letter from fc-retary Cortel you to the late William B. Allison. i; chairman of the senate committee on appropriations, dated May 5; 1908. In. it the secretary protests vigorously' against the amendment, to the sundry civil bill prohibiting the payment of . "any person detailed or transferred from the secret service division." lie gives reasons for such details and in an appendix cites instances in which the secret service men have been de tailed effectively in cases outside the, treasury department. : - The chief of the secret service 1 paid a salary utterly inadequate to the importance of his functions and to the admirably way in which be has performed them. I earnestly urge that it be increased to $6,000 per annum. I also urge that the secrei; service be placed where it properly belongs and made a bureau In the department of justice, as .the chief of the secret service has repeatedly rK , quested. But, whether this is done or not, it should be explicitly provided that the secret service can be used to detect and punish crime wherever it is found. ' V THEODORE ROOSEVELT.: - The White House, Jan. 4, 1909. . DON'T YOU THINK IT IS ABOUT TIME TO GIVE US A CALL FOR , TEA. YOU WILL NEVER ItEGRET, THE AMOUNT ' lib; BE SURE AND CALL Direct Importing . Co. . , 1050 Main St., Up one Flight.? Opp. Howland's Ttome 13 ny OatwilM r f , feat hi 48 ihmm Mol-J laconTcnieiKw, affections If 1 1 f jm EacuemST W A I .i . " I , t "