The White Pine news. [volume], January 05, 1909, DAILY EDITION, Page TWO, Image 2

About The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910

Image provided by: University of Nevada Las Vegas University Libraries

                
, PAGE TWm• _I
PRESIDENT USES MANY
WORDS IN MAKING DENIAL
(Contit.iM'd front page one.)
therefore, must certainly he due t<
an entire failure to understand ntv
message.
The resolution continues: "That
the president In- requested to trans
mit to the house any evidence upon
which he based his statement that
the ‘chief argument in favor of th«
provision vvtts that the congressmen
did not themselves wish to lie in
vestigated by secret service men
This statement, which was an attack
upon no one. still less upon (he con
gress, is sustained by the facts.
If you will turn to the con
gressional record for May 1 last,
pages 555:: 556ft. inclusive, you will
And the debate on litis subject. Mr.
Tawney of Minnesota. Mr. Smith of
Iowa, Mr. Sheri.v of Kentucky, ami
Mr. Fitzgerald of New York, appear
in this lb-bate as the special cham
pions of the provision referred to.
Messrs I’arsotis. IteliDet, and Dris
coll were the leaders of those who
opposed the adoption of the amend
ment and upheld the right of the
government to use the most efficient
moans possible in order to detect
criminals and to prevent and punish
crime, The amendment was carried
in the committee of the whole.
Where t o votes of the individual
members are recorded, so I am un
able to discriminate by mentioning
the members who voted for and the
members who voted against the pro
vision. Init its passage, the journal
records, was greeted with applause.
1 am well aware, however, that in
any case of this kind many members
who have no particular knowledge
of iht' 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 ot Messrs. Tawney
and Sin it It, without having had the
oppnrtimiM to determine very
nttieli as to tin- right and wrong of
t he question.
I would not ordinarily attempt ill
this way to discriminate Itetween
members of the house, hut its objec
tion has been taken to my language,
in which I simply spoke of tite action
of tite house as a whole, and its ap
parently there is a desire that I
should thus discriminate. I will state
that I think the responsibility rested
on the committeee on appropriations,
under the lend of the members whom
1 have mentioned.
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
wjsit to be investigated by secret
service men.
The part of the congressional re
cord to which- I have refered above
entirely supports this statement.
Two distinct lines of argument were
followed jn the debate. One con
cerned the question whether the law
warranted 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 em
ployed. and here the chief if not the
only argument used was that the
service should lie cut down and re
stricted because its mem tiers had
“shadowed" or investigated members
of congress and other officers of the
government. If we examine the de
bate in detail it appears that most
of wliat was urged in favor of the
amendment took the form of the
simple statement that the committee
held that there had been a "violation
of law" by the use of the secret
service for other purposes than siiu
nressing counterfeiting (and one or
two other matters which can he dis
regarded.) and that such language
was now to lie used as would effec
lully prevent all such "violation of
law" hereafter Mr. Tawney. for in
stance. savs: "It was for the pur
pose of stopping tite use lof this
service in every possible way by the
departments of the government that
provision was inserted;” and Mr.
Smith aa.vs: "Now, that was the
only way in which any limitation
could be put upon the activities of
the secret service." Mr. IFitzgerald
followed in the same vein, and l»y
far the largest part of the argument
against the employment of the secret
service was confined to the statement
that it was In "violation of law."
Of course such a statement is not in
any way an argument in favor ot
the justice of the provision. it is
not an argument for the provision at
all. II is simply a statement of what
the gent lenten making it conceive to
have been tbe law. There was Dot it
bv implication and direct statement
the assertion that it was the law,
and ought to lie tite law. that the
secret service should only lie used to
suppress counterfeiting; and that the
law should lie made more rigid than
ever in titiq respect.
IncidentII.v I may say Dint in my
judgment there is ample legal au
thority for the statement that this
appropriation law to which reference
was made imposes no restrictions
whatever upon tite use of the secret
service men. tint relates solely to the
•zpenditure of the money appropriat
°4. Mr. Tawney in the debate stated
’hst he had in hfs possession a let
ter jforn the secretary of the treas
ury received a few da's ago” in
wlih-Y ,he
secretary of the treasury
"hi.maqi admits tlistt the provisions
under yjjjcn die appropriation has
been ttWij, have been, violated year
after yet, ,-or. a nujn|„>r of years in
his own Vepartment." I append
herewith hAppendix A the letter re
ferred to. t niakpf, nw Huch admis
sion as 1 b-w which Mr. Tawney al
leges. It «>\ng on tjjg contrary, as
you will see \ reajinB (( an “cm.
phatic prote* ;lg,a|nSf any such
•* i Sb{lllP ♦ r%
the secretary <>f the treasury by ex
isting law." and concludes hy assert
ing that he "is quite within his tights
in tints employing the service of these
agents" and that the proposed modi
fication which Mr. Tawney succeeds
| in carrying through would lie "dls
'tittctly to the advantage of violators
.of criminal statutes of the t'nited
States." I call attention to the fact
that itithis letter of Secretary Cortel
you to .Mr. Tawney. as in my letter
to the speaker quoted below, the ex
plicit statement is made that tin* pro
posed change will be for the benefit
of the criminals, it statement which
I simply reiterated in public form in
my message to the congress this year,
'ami which is also contained in effect
in the report of the secretary of t In*
treasury to the congress.
A careful reading of the con
gressional record will also show that
practically the only arguments ad
vanced in favor of the limitation pro
posed hy Mr. Tawney's committeee,
beyond what may lie supposed to lie
contained by implication in certain
sentences as to "abuse" which were
not specified, were those contained
in the repeated statements of Mr.
Slterly. Mr. Sherl.v staled that there
had been "pronounced abuses grow
ing out of the use of the seeret sev
viee for purpose other than those in
tended." putting ltis statement in the
form of a question, and in the same
form further stated that the "private
conduct" of "members of congress,
senators," and others ought not to he
to Investigate a "member of congress"
who had been accused of "conduct
unbecoming a gentleman and a mem
ber of congress." In addition to
these assertions couched as questions,
in* made one positive declaration,
that "This secret service at one time
was used for the purpose of looking
into the personal conduct of a mem
ber of congress." This argument of
Mr. Sherley, the only real argument
its to the merits of t lit* question made
on behalf of the committeee on ap
propriations, will lie found in col
umn a I and 2 of page 5550, and
column 1 5557 of the congressional
record, in column I of page 5556
Mr Sherley refers to the impropriety
of permitting the secret service men
to investigate men in the depart
ments. officers of the army and navy,
and senators and congressmen: in
column 1, page 5557. he refers only
to members of congress. His speech
puts most weight on thu investiga
tion of members of congress.
Wit at appears in the record is (lilt'd
out and explained by an article which
appeared in tile Chicago Inter Ocean
of January 1904, under a Wash
ington headline, and which marked
jthe beginning of this agitation
against the secret service. It was a
special article of a bout .‘i.ooo words,
written, as I was then informed and
now understand, by Mr. I,. W. Itus
bey, at that time private secretary
to the speaker of the house. I in
close a copy of certain extracts from
the article, marked Appendix It. It
contained an utterly unwarranted
attack on the secret service division
of the treasury department and its
chief. The opening paragraph in
cludes, for instance, statements like
tin* following:
"He (the chief of (he division I
and his men are desirous of doing
the secret detective work for the
whole government and tire not par
ticular about drawing the line be
tween 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 he used hy the
executive departments against the
legislative branch of the government.
It has been so used, and it is sus
pected that it Ims been used recently.
* * * The legislative branch
of the government will not tolerate
the meddling of detectives, whether
they represent the president,
cabinet officers, or only tIteselves.
* * * Congressmen resented
file secret Interference of the secret
service men, who for weeks shadow
ed some Of till* most respected
I mem Iters of the house and senate.
* * * When it was discovered
that the secret service men were
shadowing congressmen there was a
storm of indignation at the capitol
and the bureau came uear be
ing abolished and the appropriation
for tlu> suppression of counterfeiting
cut off * * * At another time
tlte chief of tlie secret service had
ills men shadow congressmen with a
view to involving them in scandals
that would enable the bureau to dic
tate to them as the price of silence.
* * * The secret service men
have shown an inclination again to
shadow mem Iters of congress, know
ling them to lie law makers, and this
is no joke. Several of the depart
ments have asked congress for secret
funds for Investigation, and the
, treasury department wants the limi
tation removed from the appropria
tion for suppressing counterfeiting.
This shows a tendency toward
Fotichelsm and ft secret watvh on
other officials than themselves.'
At the tittle of litis publication tile
work of the secret service, which was
tints assailed, included especially the
investigation of great land frauds in
the west, and tlte securing of evi
dence to help the department of
justice in the beef trust Investiga
tions at Chicago, which resulted in
successful prosecutions
In view of Mr. Husliey's position.
I have accepted the above quoted
statements as fairly expressing the
real meaning and animus of the at
tack made in general terms on the
tiso of the secret pervlce for the
punishment of criminals. Further
**wi**o In ( hi) iMirfMemonoi r*f I* rfitlr
1X11X1J 1 J.'II
to endeavor to find the feelings °l
congressmen on public questions ot .
note, I have frequently discussed this j
particplar matter will) members of
congress; and on such oecassions the^
reasons alleged to me for the hostili
ty 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. Bushev's arti
cle. I may udd, bv the way. that
tnese allegations as to the secret ser
vice arc wholly without foundation
in fact.
But all of tiiis is of insignificant
importance compared with the main,
the real issue. This issue is simply.
Docs congress desire that the govern
ment shall have at its disposal the
most effeient instrument for the de
fection of criminals and the preven
tion and punishment of crime, or
j does it not? The action of the house
last May was emphatically an action
against the interest of jiist'ee and
against the interest of law abiding
, people, and in its effect of benefit
| only to lawbreakers. 1 am not now
'dealing with motives; whatever may
have boon the motive that induced
tile action of which I speak, this was
beyond all question tile effect of that
action. Is the house now willing to
remedy the wrong?
For a long time I contented my
I self with endeavoring to persuade
| the house not to permit the w rong,
speaking Informally on the subject
' with those members who, I believed,
knew anything of the matter, and
coiiiiiiHiiicatiug officially only in the
I ordinary channels, as through the
secretary of the treasury, in a let
ter to the speaker on April 50, pro
testing against the cutting down of
tlic appropriation vitally necessary it
I the Interstate commerce commission
I was to carry into effect tin* twentieth
} section of the Hepburn law. I added:
j "The provision ulsuit the einploy
| ment of the secret service men will
j work very great damage to the gov
ernment In its endeavor to prevent
land punish crime. There is no more
! foolish outcry Hum this against
spies;' only criminals need fear our
detective*.’ (I inclose copy ot the
whole letter, marked "Appendix C
' The postscript is blurred In my ropy
i book, and two or three of the words
i can not be deciphered, t These
j methods proved unavailing to prevent
i the wrong. Messrs. Tawuey and
Smith, and their fellow members on
the appropriation comniitteee paid no
heed to the protests; and as the ob
I noxious provision was incorporated
| In the sundry civil bill, it was im
possible for me to consider or dis
cuss 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 dis
cussing it in my message to congress:
and as all efforts to secure what I
regarded as proper treatment of the
subject without recourse to plain
speaking had failed. I have spoken
plainly and directly, and have set
fortli the facts in explicit terms.
in connection with the Nebraska
prosecution the government has by
decree secured the return to the gov
ernment of over a million acres of
grazing land, in Colorado of more
than 2,000 acres of mineral land,
and suits are now pending involving
150,000 acres more.
All these investigations in the land
cases were undertaken in conse
quence of Mr. Hitchcock, the then
pecretury of the inferior, becoming
convinced that there were extensive
frauds committed In his department:
and the ramifications of the* frauds
were so far-reaching ttutt he was
afraid to trust his own officials to
deal in thoroughgoing fashion with
them. One of the secret service men
acordinglv resigned and was appoint
ed in the interior department to car
ry on this work. The Hist tiling he
discovered was that the special
agents' division or corps of detectives
of the land office of the interior de
partment was largely tinder the con
trol of the land thieves: anil in con
sequence the investigations alcove re
ferred to had to lie made by secret
service men.
If the present law, for which
Messrs. Tawney. Smith, and the
other gentlemen I have above men
tioned are responsible, had then been
in effect, this action would have
been impossible, and most of the
■ criminals would unquestionably
have escaped. .No more striking in
| stance can be Imagined of the desir
ability of having a central corps of
skilled Investigating agents who can
at any time lie assigned. If neces
sary in large numbers, to investigate
some violation of the federal stat
utes, in no matter what branch of
the public service In this particu
lar case most of tin- men Investlgat
| ed who were public servants were in
'the executive branch of the govern
ment. But in Oregon, where an
enormous acreage of fraudulently
alienated public land was recovered
for tiie government. ,c Bulled States
senator. Mr. Mitchell, and a member
of tlio lower house. Mr. Williamson,
were convicted on evidence obtained
by men trail • '‘erred from- the secret
service, and unoihor member of con
gress was indicted
Frui.i I'i c in I nut a successful in
vestigation oi uat iirali/.iition affairs
was made by the secret service, with
! result of obtaining hundreds of con
' vlctions of eouspirators who were
convicted of selling fraudulent pa
pers of naturalization. I Sulisequeiii
j ly, congress passed a very wise law
providing a special service and np
i pronriatlnn for the prevention of nat
uralization frauds; but unfortunate
ly. at the same time that the action
against the secret service was taken,
congress also cut down ihe appro
Ti find for lilts special service, with
he result of crippling the effort to
-top frauds in naturalization.» The
,itiv‘ (»reeiie ami tiaynqr. impli
' ‘d in a peculiarly big government
contract fraud, were located and ar
rested in Canada by the secret ser
vice, and thanks to this they have
since gone to prison for their crimes.
TV" secret service was used to as
sist iu the Investigation of crimes
under the peonage laws, and owing
partly thereto numerous convictions
were secured and the objectionable
practice war. practically stamped out,
at least in many districts. The most
rvf<y»io|iin iMnnirirllfiv
opium in the history of the treasury ;
department was investigated I
agents of the secret service m N '
York and Seattle and a suoressfu
prosecution of the offenders 'tnd.r
taken. Assistance of the minus
value was rendered to the deport
ment of justice in the beet trust In
vestigation at Chicago prosecutions
were followed up and tines indicted.
The cotton leak scandal In the agri
cultural department was investigat
ed and the responsible parties local
ed. What was done In connection
with lottery investigations is dis
closed in a letter just sent to me by
the 1’nlted States attorney for Dela
ware, running as follows:
The destruction of the Honduras
National Lottery Co., successor to
tlie Ismisiana Lottery Co., was <11
tireD 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 tills prosecution.
Three hundred thousand dollars
in tines were collected hy the govern
ment in the lottery cases. Again, the
ink contract fraud In the bureau ot
engraving and printing ta bureau ot
the treasury department) was inves
tigated hy the secret service and the
guilty parties brought to justice. Mr.
Tawtiey stated in tie* debate that this
was not investigated hv the secret
service hut hy 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 se
cret service; his name was Moran,
and he was promoted to assistant
chief for the excellence of his work
in tills case. The total expense for
tile office and field force of the se
cret service Iasi year was $ tn.i.nioi;
and by this one investigation they
saved to the government over $ I
(Hit) a year. Thanks to the restric
tion imposed hy 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 repeal
what they did so admirably in tin
case of 1 liis ink contract The gov
ernment is further crippled by tin
law forbidding It to employ detective
agencies Of course the government
can detect the most dangerous
crimes, and punish the worst crim
inals. only by the use. either of tin*
secret service or of private detect
ives: to hamper it in using the one,
and forbid b to resort to the other,
can inure to the beneflt ol none sav*
tin* criminals.
The facts above given show be
yond possibility of doubt that what
the secretary of th- treasury and )
had lsitli written prior to the enact
ment of 1 In* obnoxious provision, and
what I have since written in my mes
sage to the congress, slate the facts
exactly as they are. The obnoxious
provision is of benefit only to the
criminal class and ran he of lieiietit
only to the criminal class If it had
been embodied in the law at tin* time
when I became president all tin*
prosecutions above mentioned, and
many others of the same general
type, would either not have been un
dertaken or wi hi have been under
taken with tin government at a great
disadvantage: ami many, and proba
bly most of the chief offenders would
have gone scot-free instead of be
ing punished for tln-ir crimes
Such a hod 1 as tin* see re I service,
such a body of trained investigating
agents, occupying a permanent po
sition in tin* govern incut service, and
separate from local investigating
forces in different departments, is an
absolute necessity If the best work is
to In* done against criminals. It is
hy far the mo. 1 efficient Instrument
possible' to use agaiusl crime Of
course tin* more efficient an Instru
ment Is, the more dangerous It Is
if misused To tin* argument that a
force like this can In* misused It Is
only necessary to answer that the
condition of its usefulness if handled
properly is that it shall tie so effi
cient as to In* dangerous If handled
improperly. Any instance of abuse
hy the secret service or other Inves
tigating force In the departments
should la* unsparing iy punished, and
congress should hold itself ready at
any and all times to Investigate the
executive departments whenever
there Is reason to believe that any
such instance of abuse lias occurred
1 I w isli to emphasize my more than
cordial acquiescence ill the view that
ibis is not only the right of congress,
lint emphalicitlly its duty To use
tin* secret service in the invent Iga
tIon of purely private nr political
matters would la* a gross abuse. Hut
there has been no single Instance of
siu*h abuse during my term as presi
dent.
In eoiiclilsiou. I most earnestly
ask. in the name of good govern
ment and decent administration. In
tin* name of honesty and for the pm
pose of bringing to justice violators
of the federal laws wherever tliev
may In* round, whether In public or
private life, that the aetion taken
by the house last year In* reversed
When this aetion was taken, the sen
ate committee, nilder tin* lead of (hi*
tale Senator Allison, having before
it a It mngh w 01 dcil protest 1 \op, 11
dix l>) from Secretary Oortelyou
like that he had sent to 1 Tawtiey,
accepted the secretary's views; and
, the senate passed the hill in the
shape presented by Senator Allison.
In the conference, however, the
house conferees insisted on the re
tention of the provision they had In
serted, and tin* senate yielded.
tin* child nl tin* secret service is
paid a salary utterly Inadequate to
till* importance of his functions and
to the admirable way in which |„. j,UH
performed them. I earnestly urge
that it be increased to $tl.nun per
annum I also urge that the secret
service tie placed where ii prop.-t ly
belongs, and made a bureau in th,
department of justice, as the chief
of the secret service has repeated ly
requested: but whether this is done
or not it should ho explicitly pro
vided that the -orrot service can lit*
used to detect and punish crime
wherevi r It Is found.
THBODOKK UuuSKYKLT.
) judge In Washington lined .1
loan a very small sum the other day
heeau.-c he smashed a man who
•ailed him a liar. The judge said a
liar should expect something in re
turn, It may lie that the judge was
thinking of one his neighbors.
f national bank j
A. B. WITCHER, Pres. NEIL MIINRO, Cashier ♦ i
JOHN WEBER, Vice-Pres. L.STADTFELD, Ass’t Cash ♦
♦ . *
! TINGLEY BLOCKELY, NEVADA j
I
STEPTOE VALLEY LUMBER M COAL CO.
Lump Coal, per ton . . . $10.00
Nut Coal, “ “ . . • • 9.50
I Run of Mine “ “ ... . 9.00
Coal at above pri<ev delivered at Lly or tly City
Delivered to lane City $2.00 per ton additional
I’ltoiic Main 30.
Get off at East Ely and Stop at
The Steptoe Hotel
Finest Hotel in Eastern Nevada. Handsomest
and best conducted Cafe in the state.
MUV J:, nl l.lN. Mauotfer.
t rmerly of the I’alare end St. Frsn
rlf* Hotels. Sun Frsnrlsm
. — ■—
-
|
HELP 1 :
YOUR I
I TOWN I
Bv Helping B
The man who ■
nuts an electric! TOUrscii ■
s
I
! J 5v> hi
I Pure Whiskey Ollcn Prevenls Sickness
I ruinous i-'-n by the _
I Sunny Brook I
1 rT»E PUREFOOD I
I Whiskey I ,
n Wlant in B
wjM rfioMkl ^B
■ r* .(<4- the ^B
HHOOK I* . , * . • " *•<!' C rnulnii SUNNV
■ ...« 1
SUNNY’ IIRUUK UISTlLLl.lt Y t.U . U, ■
^ J K,KHK,‘ * General