Newspaper Page Text
THE OMAHA DAILY BEE: TUESDAY. J ANT AH Y 5. 1000.
Secret Service and Interests of Public I ) ) President Roosevelt Answers the House Resolution Calling for Detailed Information Concerning the Bureau. WORK OF THE DETECTIVES Crime Unearthed, Criminal- Punished : and Money Saved to Govern' ment Through Their Efforts. iTrdldrOl Roosevelt has sent to the house of representatives the following message In reply to tlie resolution' adopted by thnt body or) December 17 last: . To the House of Representatives: I havo received thn resolution of th house of representatives of Decerrtber 17, ir, running aa foflowa: "Wheras there was contained In the sundry civil appropriation bill which Ixned congress at Its laat session and b'cnme a law a provttriort In reference o the employment of the aecret servlc In the Treasury department; and "Whereas In the laet annual message of the president of the United States to the two houses of congress It was stated In reference to that provision: 'It la not too much to any that this amendment lias own of benefit only, and could be of brneflt only, to the criminal classes,' and It was further stated, "The chief argu mi nt In favor of the provision was that 1 he congressmen did not themselves wish to be Investigated by secret service men,' and It was further stated: 'But If this Is i.ot considered desirable a peclnt except ion could be made by the law, prohibiting the uso of tho arciet force In Investigating members of congress. It would be far better to. do this than to do what actually was dine, and strive to prevent or at lee st to hamper effective action against criminals by the executive branch of the government;' nnd "Whereas the plain meaning of the above wolds la. that the majority of congress men were ,ln fear of being Investigated by secret service men and that congress as a whole, was .actuated by that motive In rnnotlng that provision In n.uestlon; and "Wl'.ereaa ycur ' committee appointed to consider these statements of the president and to report to the house can not find in tho hearings before committees nor In the records of the house or senate, any Ji'i tiflcatlon of thla Impeachment of tha 1 oni r and Integrity of the congress; and "Whereas your commute i would prefir In order to make an Intelligent and com prehensive report, just to the president aa veil as to tho congress, to have all the Information which the president may have to communicate: Now, therefore, fc it "Resolved, That the president be requested to trartsmlt to the house any evi dence upon which he based, his atatementa that the 'chief argument In favor of the provision 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 representative of the Hlxtleth congress with corrupt action In his official rapacity, and to Inform the house whether he hue Instituted proceed ings fpr. .the punishment of , any such Indi vidual by the courts or has reported any such alleged delinquencies to the house of representatives." Makes No Charges. " I am wholly at a loss to understand the concluding portlona of the resolution. 1 have made no charges of corruption against congress nor against any member of the present house. If I had proof of smh corruption affecting any member of the house In any matter aa to which the federal government haa Jurisdiction, action would at once be brought, aa was dona In the crses of Senators Mitchell and Bur ton, and Representatives Williamson, Herrmann and Drtggs. at different times since I havo , been president, Thla would simply he doing my duty in the execution and enforcement of the law's with respect to persons. But I do not regard It as within the province or the duties of the prtsldent to report to the house "alleged delinquencies" of men bers, or the' sup posed "corrupt action" of a member "in his official capacity," The membership of the house Is by the constitution within the power of th house alone. In the prosecu tion of crlmlnala and enforcement of the laws tho president must resort to the courts of the T nlted Blutea. He-states Ills Position. In tho third and fourth clauses of the preamble It la slated that the meaning ot ii. y words is that "the majority of the congressmen are in fear of being Invest!- gattd by aecret service men" and that "congress aa a whole was actuated by that motive In enuctlng the provision In que' tion," and that thla la sn Irnpeuchmvnt vt the honor and integrity of congress. Those statements are not, I think. In ac cordance with the facts. The portion of n y message referred to runa aa follows; "Last year an amendment waa Incorpor ated In the measure providing for the se cret service, which provided that there should bo no detail from the aecret aervlce and no transfer therefrom. It la not too much to say that thla amendment haa been of benefit only, and could be of benefit only, to the criminal classes. If deliber ately Introduced for the purpose of dimin ishing the effectiveness of war against crime it rould not have been better de rtsed to this end. It forbad the practices that had been followed to a greater 'or less extent by the executive heads of vari ous departments of twenty years. To these practices we owe th securing of the evidence which enabled us to drive great lotteries out of business and secure (260,000 In fines' from their protnotors. These prac tices have enabled us to disoover 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 ua to get aotna of tha evidence in dispensable In order to secure th convic tion of tha wealthiest and most formidable criminals with whom the government has to deal, both those operating In violation of the aatl-trust law and others. The amendment In question was of benefit to no one excepting to these criminals, and It serloualy hampers the government In the detection of crime and the securing of Jus lice. Moreover, It not only effect depart sVenta outside ot the treasury, but It tend to hamper th secretary of tha treasury himself In th effort to utilise th employe of his department so a to beat meet th requirement of the public service. It for- WATC H YOUR DOOR KNOB bid him from preventing frauds upon th customs service, and Investigating irreg ularltlea In branch mints and assay of fices, and haa aeriously crippled him. It prevents the promotion of employes Jh the secret service, and this further discourages good effort. In Its present form the res triction operates only to the advantage of the criminal, of the wrongdoer. "The chief argument In favor of the pro vision was that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be Investigated by se cret service men. Very little of such InV vestlgatln haa been done In the past; but it la true that the work of the secret service agents waa partly responsible for the In dictment and conviction of a senator anTl a congressman for land frauds In Oregon. I do not believe that it Is in the public in terest to protect crlmlnala 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 government, so In my belief wo should be 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 service force In investigating members of the con gress. It would be far better to do this than to do what actually was done, and strive to prevent or at least to hamper ef fective action against criminals by the ex ecutive branch of the government." Nothing to Warrant Assertion. A careful reading of this message will show that I said nothing to warrant the statement that "tha majority of the con gressmen were In fear of being Investi gated by the secret service men," or "that congress, as a whole, was actuated by that motive." I did not make any such state ment In this message. Moreover I have never made any such statement about con gress as a whole, nor, with a few Inev itable exceptions, about tho members of congress, In any message or article or speech. On the contrary I have always not only deprecated but vigorously resented the practice of Indiscriminate attack upon congress, and Indiscriminate condemnation ot all congresmen, wise and unwise, fit and unfit, good and bad alike. No one realize more than I.the Importance of co-operation between the executive and congress, and no One holds the authority and dignity of the congress of the United States in higher re spect than I do. I have not the slightest sympathy with the practice of Judging men, for good or for HI, not on their sev eral merits, but In a mass, as members of on 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 senator, or member of the house of representatives, and to class them all, without regard to their individual dif ferences, a good or bad, seems to me ut terly Indefensible; and It Is equally lnde- fenalble whether the good are confounded with th bad In a heated and unwarranted championship of all, or In a heated and un warranted assault upon alj. I would neither attack or defend all executive officers in a mass, whether presidents, governors, cab Inct 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 cltisen to discrim inate between those public servants who serve him well and those public servants who serve him 111. lie can not thus dis criminate if he Is persuaded to pass judg ment upon man, not with reference to whether he la a fit or unfit public servant, but with reference to whether he is an executive or legislative officer, whether he belongs to one branch or the other of th government. . This allegation in the resolution, there fore, must certainly be due to an entire failure to understand my message. The resolution oontlnuea: "That the president be requested to transmit to the house any evidence upon which he based his statements that the 'chief argument In favor ot the provision was that the con gressmen did not themselves wish to be in vestigated by secret service men." This statement, which was an attack upon no one, still less upon tha congress. Is sus tained by tha facta. I'roof from the Record. If you will turn to the Congressional Record for May 1 last, pages 6oo3 to 65UO, Inclusive, you will find the debate on this subject Mr. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Sherley of Kentucky and Mr. Fttxgerald of New York appear In this debate as the special champions of the provision referred to. Messrs. Par. sons, Bennet and IViscoll were the leaders of those who opposed the adoption of the amendment and upheld the right of the government to use the most efficient means possible. In order to detect criminals and to prevent and punish crime. The amendment waa carried In the committee of thu whole, where no votea of th individual members are recorded, so I am unable to discrim inate by mentioning tha member who voted tor and th member who voted against the provision, but Its passage, the Journal re cords, was greeted with applause. I am well aware, however, that in any case of this kind many members who have no par ticular knowledge of. the point at issue are content simply to foow the lead of the committee which had considered the mat ter, and I have no doubt that many mem ber Ot th house simply followed the lead of Measrs. Tawney and Smith, without hav ing had the opportunity td know very fliuvil tu Vila figut snu wiuiigs or. Ule question. I would not ordinarily attempt in this way to discriminate between members of th house, but as objection Ha been taken to my language. In wblcj I simply spoke or the action or the house as a whole. and as apparently thcr Is a desire that I should thus discriminate, I will state that I think th responsibility rested on the commute on appropriations, under the lead ot th member whom I have men tioned. Butil on ttulth's Remarks. Now as to the request ot the congress that I giv tha evidence for my statement that th chief argument in favor of the provision waa that the congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by ae cret service men. The part ot the Congressional Record to which I hav referred above entirely sup ports thia statement. Two distinct lines of argument were followed In the debate. One concerned the question whether the law warranted the employment of the se cret service in departments .other than the Treasury, and this did not touch the merits of the service to the least. The other line of argument went to the merits of the service, whether lawfully cr unlaL. employed, and here the chief, If not the I only, argument used was that the service I should be cut down and restricted because I it member had "shadowed" or Investi gated members ot congress and other of ficers of the government. If w examine the debate In detail It appears that most of what was urged In favor ot th amend ment took the form of the simple state ment 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 b disre garded), and that such language was now to be used aa 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 de partments of the government that this provision waa 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. Fiti gerald followed In the same vein, and by far the largest part of the argument against tho employment of the aecret aervlce waa confined to the statement that It waa In "violation of law." Of course such a state ment la not In any way an argument In favor ot the justice of the provision. It is not an argument tor the provision at all. It Is simply a statement of what the gen tlemen 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 the law, that the secret service should only be used to sup press counterfeiting, and that the law should be made more rigid than ever In this respect. Legal Authority tor Expenditure. Incldently I may say that In my judgment there Is ample legal authority for the state ment that this appropriation law to which reference was made imposes no restriction whatever upon the use of the secret service men, but relates solely to the expenditure of the money appropr.atel. Mr. Tawney In the debate stated that he had In his pos session "a letter from the secretary ot the treasury received a few days ago,. In which the secretary of the treasury "him self admits that the provisions under which the appropriation h is been made have been violated year after year for a number of years in his own department." I append herewith as Appendix A, tho letter referred to. It makes no such admission as that which Mr. Tawney alleges. It contains on the contrary, as you w 11 see by reading It. an "empathlc protest against any such abridgment of the right! to delegate to the secretary of the treasury by the exist ing law," and concludes by asserting that he "is quite within hi rights In thus employing the service of these agents" and that the pruposed modification which Mr. Tawley succeede'd In carrying through would be "distinctly to the advantage of violators of criminal statutes of the United States." I call attention to the fact that In this letter of Secretary Corteyou to Mr. Tawley, as in my letter to the speaker quoted below, the explicit statement is made that tle proposed change will be for the benefit of tho criminals, a statement which I simply reiterated In public form in my message to the congress tills year, nnd which is alsj contained in effect In the report of tho secretary of the treasury to the congress. Answer's Tawnry'a Argument. A cureful reading of the Congressional Record will also Bhow that practically the only arguments advanced In favor of the limitation proposed by Mr. Tawney'a com mittee, beyond what may be supposed to be contained by implication in certain sen tences as to "abuses" which were not specified, were those contained In the re peated statements of Mr. Sherley. Mr. Sherley stated that there had been "pro nounced abuses growing out of the use of the Secret Service for purposes other than thosu Intended," putting his statement In the form of a question, and in tho same form further stated that the "private con ducts" of "members of congress, senator," and others ouight not to be Investigated by the secret service, and that they ahould not Inveslgate a "member of congress" who had been accused of "conduct unbecoming a gentleman and a member of congress." In addition to these assertions couched as questions, he made one positive declaration, iuo.1 oeeiei service ai one time was used for looking into the personal con duct of a member of congress." This nrgu ment of Mr. Sherley, th only real argu ment to the merits of the question made on behalf of the committee on appropriations, will bo found In columns one and two of page 5,566, and column one of pago 6,557 of the Congressional Record. In column one of page 6,556, Mr. Sherley refers to the Im propriety of permitting the secret service men to Investigate men In the departments, officers of the army and navy, and sena tors and congressmen; In column two he refers to the officers of the navy and mem bers of congress; In column one, page 5.557, he refers only to members of congress. His speech put most weight on the invest ga tlon of members of congress. I'loso to "Uncle Joe." What appears in the record Is filled out and explained by an article, which appealed In the Chicago Inter-Oceun of January 3, 1904, under a Washlnton headline, and which marked the beginning of the uggitation against the secret service. It was a special article of about J.000 words, wi It ten, as I was then Informed and now understand, by Mr. L. W. Busbey, at that time private secretary to the speukcr of the house. I enclose a copy of certain extracts from the article, marked Appendix B. It contains an utterly unwarranted attact on the secret service division of the Treasury department and Its chief. The opening paragraph Includes, for Instance, statements like the follow ng: He (the chief of the division) and his men are desirous ot doing the secret detective work for the whole government ana are not particular about drawing the line between lawmakers and lawbreaker They are ready to shadow the former a well as the latter. Then after saying that congress will Insist that the men shall only be used to stjp counterfeiting, the article goes on: Congress does not Intend to have a Fouehe or any other kind of minister of police to be used by the executive depart ments against the legislative branch of tne government. It lias been S3 used md it i. suspected that It has been so used recently The leg slative branch of tne govern ment w.ll not t iterate the meddling ut detectives, w hether they repiesent the presi dent, cabinet ufzlcers, or only Hi. mseives Congretmmen resented the secret Interference of the secret service men, who for weeks shadowed some of the roost re spected members of the house and senate. When it wua discovered that the secret service men weie shadowing con greeman there was a storm ot indignation at the capital and the bureau came near being abolished and the appropriation for the suppression of counterfeiting cut off. At another time the chief of the aecret service had his men shadow con gressmen with a view to Involving; them In scandals that would enable the bureau to aictaie io mem as me price of silence. The secret service men have shown an Inclination again to shadow member! of congress, knowing them to the law makers, and this Is no Joke. Several of the departments have asked congress for aecret lunos lor investigation, anl the Treaaury department wants the 1 mitttnn removal from the spiiropr.atl'jn for suppiessing co.intei (tiling. This h-s a IcuJ.oej toward Fouchelsm and secret watch on other officials than themselves, At the time of this pub.lcatlon the work of the secret service, which was thus as sailed. Included especially the Investiga tion of great land frauds In the west, snd the securing of evidence to help the De partment of Justice 'In the Beef trust In vestigations at Chicago, which resulted In successful prosecutions. Effect of the Article. In view of Mr. Busbey'a position, I have accepted the above quoted statements as fairly expressing the real meaning and animus ot the attacks made In general terms on the use of the secret service for the punishment of criminals. Further more, In the performance of my duty, to endeavor to find the feelings of congress men on public questions ot note, 1 have frequently discussed this particular matter with members of congress; and on such occasions the reasons alleged to mo for the hostility of congress to the Secret ser vice, both by those Who did and by those who did not share this hostility, were al most Invariably the same as those set forth In Mr. Busbey's article. I may add, by the way, that these allegations as to tho aecret service are wholly without foundation In fact. 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 Ita disposal the most efficient Instrument for the detection of criminals and the pre vention and punishment of crime, or does It not? The action of the house laat May waa emphatically an action against the in terest of justice and against the Interest of law-abiding people, and In Its effect 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. la the house now willing to remedy the wrong? Work with Members. For a long time I contented myself with endeavoring to persuade the house not to permit the wrong, speaking informally on the subject with those members who, I believe, know anything of the matter, and communicating officially only In the ordi nary channels, as through the secretary of the treasury. In a letter to the speaker on April 30, protesting against the cutting down of the appropriation vitally neces sary If the Interstate Commerce commis sion was to carry Into effect the twentieth section of the Hepburn law, I added: "Thu provision about the employment of the sec ret service men will work very great dam age to the government In Its endeavor to prevent and punish crime. There Is no more foolish outcry than this against 'spies'; only criminals need fear our detectives." (I enclose copy of tha whole letter, market "Appendix C." The post script is blurred In my copybook, and two or three of the words can not bo deciph ered.) These methods proved unavailing to prevent the wrong. Messrs. Tawney and Smith, and their fellow members on the appropriations committee paid no heed to the protests; and as the obnoxious pro vision was Incorporated in the sundry civil bill. It was Impossible for me to con sider 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 discussing It in my message to congress; and as all efforts to secure what I regard as proper treat ment of the subject without recourse to plain speaking had failed'. I have spoken plainly and directly, andfhave set forth the facts In explicit terms. Secret Service Activities. Since 1901 tho Investigations covered by the secret service division under the practice which had been for many years recognised as proper and legitimate, and which had received the sanction of the highest law officers of the government have covered a wide range of offenses against the federal law. By far tho most Important of these related to the publL! domain, as to which there was uncovered a far-reaching and widespread system of fraudulent transactions involving both tho Illegal acquisition and the Illegal fencing of government land; and, In connection with both these offenses, the crimes of perjury and subornation of perjury. Some of the persons Involved In these violations were of great wealth and of wide political and social influence. Both their corporate associations and their political affiliations, and the lawless character of some of their employes, made the investigations not only difficult but dangerous. In Colorado one of the secret servtcn . men was as sassinated. In Nebraska it was necessarv to remove a United States attorney nnd a United States marshal before satisfactory progress could he made In the prosecu tion of the offenders. .Nebraska Land Cases. The evidence in all theso cases was chiefly secured by men trained In the secret service and detailed to the Depart ment of Justice at the request of that de partment and of the Department of the Interior. In the state'of Nebraska alone sixty defendants were Indicted; and of the thirty-two cases thus far brought to trlul twenty-eight have resulted In conviction; two of the principals, Messrs. Comstock and Richards, men of wealth and wide in- nuence, being sentenced to twelve months In Jail and fined tl,50 each. The following secret service memorandum made In the tourse or a pending case illustrates the ramifications of Interest with which tho government has to deal: Charles T. Stewart of Council Bluff s was Indicted ai Omaha for conspiracy to defraud the government of thi title to public landa In McPherson county Nebraska also Indicted for maintain ing an unlawful lncloaure of the pub ii?. Un"' na under lndictmsnt for perjury in connection with firi proof submitted by him oa land, fn id on by htm aa a homestead. In his flnsl proof h swore that he and his family had resided oa the lands In McFharson county (whioh are within his unlawful lnclosure), when as a mattsr of fact his family has at all tlmea resided in Council Bluff. Iowa. H. 1. angaVid in th whole. ale grocery bnsincss, him store being- located in Omaha, lu the wholesale district there. Re is reputed to be quite wealthy. Stewart's attor- iJr.'?-"1 ? Tlul,y of Council Bluffs, Iowa, who are also the attor ney, at that plao for the Omaha Council Bluffs Street Railway com pany, in whioh oompany Harl holds considerable stock, Stewart being also a stockholder and possibly a director of the oompany. Re la also repre sented in Omaha by W. J. ConnsU, one of th attorneys there for th same company. Stewart la also represented in his perjury ease by "Bill" Ourley of Omaha, Meb., who at one time was quit closely connected in a political way with th Union Paolfio Hallway oompany; Stewart is also olo.ely as sociated with O. B. Raaleton, postmas ter at CounoU Bluffs. Rarl & Tinier and Raaleton are all member, of the earn lodge. Another close personal friend of Stewart's is Ed Hart, alia 'Waterworks" Rart, president of the Council Bluffs Water company, and interested la th street railway. Stew art's father waa interested in, and , practically owned and controlled, dur 1 ' ing hla lifetime, a large ranch along the Union Faoifte railway la Nebraska, and aid a great deal of bualnesa with that road. Concerning thla rase the United States attorney at Omaha states: "There are three cases against Stewart, one fur fencing, one consplrcy, one perjury, tall good cases and chances of conviction good." lu connection whh the Nebraska prosecu- Formerly OK SCOFIEID Tuesday Third Day of Our Great Annua! Clearance The one great sale that has no competition and that the Omaha women have learned to wait for and look to as the great bargain event of the year will be in its height Tuesday. Over $50,000 worth of hiIi class stylish coats, tailored suits a?id furs at Just Half Price. Coats $39.50 Coats January Half Price Sale 7 J) 78 $50.00 Goats January Half Price Sale 25 $45.00 Coats January Half Price Sale 22 $39.50 Coats January Half Price Sale jj)75 $35.00 Coats January Half Price Sale J750 $29.75 Coats January Half Price Sale $25.00 Coats January Half Price Sale 50 at $22.50 Coats January Half Price Sale 1125 at " $19.50 Coats January Half Price Sale Q75 at J H tion the government has by decree se cured the return to the government of over a million acres of grazing land; in Colo rado of more than i.000 acres of mlnoml land, nnd suits are now pending involving 100,000 acres more. What Hitchcock. Dlscorered. AU these investigations in the land cases were undertaken in consequence of Mr. Hitchcock, the then secretary of the in terior, becoming convinced that there were extensive frauds committed In his depart ment; and the ramifications of the frauds were so far-reaching that he was afraid to trust his own officials to deal in thor oughgoing fnsliion with them. One of the secret service men accordingly resigned and was appointed In the Interior depart ment to carry on thla wcrk. The first thing h discovered was that the special njrents' division or corps of detectives of the land office of the Interior department was largely under the control of the land thieves; and In consequence the Investiga tions above referred to had to be made by secret service men. If the present law, for which Messrs Tawney, Smith nnd the other gentlemen I huve above mentioned are responsible, had then been In effect, this action woulJ have been Impossible, and most of tt)f criminals would unquestionably have es caped. No more striking instance can be imagined of the desirability of Having a central corps of skilled investigating agenti who can at any time be assigned, If neces sary In large numbers, to Investigate som violation of the federal statutes, In no mat ter what branch of the public service In this particular case most of the men investigated who were public servants were In the executive branch of the gov ernment. Hut in Oregon, where an enor rrous acreage of fraudulently alienated pullic lands were recovered for the gov ernment, a United States senator, Mr. Mitchell, and a member of the lower house, Mr. Williamson, were convicted "n evidence obtained by men transferred from the secret service, and another member of congress was Indicted. Investigation ot Naturalisation. From inoi t- 1901 a successful Investiga tion of naturalization affairs was made by the spcret service, with the result of obtaining hundreds of convictions of con spirators who were convicted of selling fraudulent papers of naturalization. (Sub sequently, congress passed a very wis lrw providing for a secret service and ap propriation for the -prevention of natural Izhllon frauds; but unfortunately, at the same time that the action against the secret service was taken, congress also rut down the appropriation for this spe cial service, with the result of crippling th effi-rt to stop frauds In naturalization), ".he fugitives, Gne and Qaynor, Im plicated in a peculiarly big government rci tract fraud, were located and arrested 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 assist In the investigation of crimes under th peonage laws, nnd owing partly thereto numerou convictions were secured and th objectionable practice was practically stamped out, at least in many districts. The most extensive smuggling of silk and opium In the history of the Treaaury de partment was Investigated by agents of the secret service In New York and Beat tie and a successful prosecution of tha offenders undertaken. Assistance of th utmost value was rendered to the-Jepart-rrent of Justice in the Beef trust investl cation at Chicago, prosecutions were fol lowed up and fine inflicted. The cotton leak scandal In the Agricultural depart ment was Investigated and the responsible parties located. What was don In con nection with lottery Investigations is dis closed In a letter just sent to m by th United States attorney for Delaware, run ning as follows: The destruction of the Honduras Na tional lxittery company, successor to tha lx.uislana lottery company, was entirely fie work of the secret aervlce. . This excellent work wa. accomplished by 'Ar. ilkic and lus auuMduiates. 1 15 iO DOUGLAS ST. Tailored Suits $65.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 'TSO Sale at $55.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 9750 Sale at $50.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 'f C00 Sale at $45.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price Sale at $39.50 Tailored Suits, Jan- uary Half Price 19" Sale at. $35.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 1750 Sale at $29.75 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 85 Sale at $25.00 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price f 50 Sale at $22.50 Tailored Suits, Jan uary Half Price 1 125 Sale at H thought It might be timely to recall this prosecution. Money Actually Raved to Government. Three hundred thousand dollars In fines were collected by the government In tha lottery cases. Again, tho Ink con tract fraud In the bureau of engraving and printing (a bureau of the Treasury depart ment) was Investigated by the secret ser vice and the guilty parties brought to Jus tice. Mr. Tawney stated In the debate that this was not investigated by the secret service but by a clerk "down there," con veying the Impression that the clerk waa not In the secret service. As a matter ot fact, he was In the secret service; hla name waa Moran, and he was promoted to as sistant chief for the excellence of his work In this case. The total expense for the of fice and field force for the secret service last year was J136.000; and by this one in vestigation they saved to the government over 1100,000 a year. Thanks to the re striction imposed by congress it is now very difficult for the secretary At 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 thla Ink contract. The government la further crippled by the law forbidding it to employ detective agen cies. Of course th government can de lect the most dangerous crimes, and pun ish the worst criminals, only by the use, cither of the secret service or of private detectives; to hamper It In using the one, and forbid It to resort to the other, can inuro to th benefit of none save the criminals. Facta Kxactly Stated. The facts above given show beyond pos sibility of doubt that what the secretary 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 pro vision Is of benefit only to ehe criminal class and can be of benefit only to the criminal class. If It had been embodied In the law at the time when I became pres ident all the prosecutions above mentioned, and may others of the same general type, would either not have been undertaken or would hav been undertaken with the gov ernment at a great disadvantage; and many, and probably most, of the chief of fenders would have gone scot-free Instead of yelng punlahed for all Crimea. Such a body as the secret service, such a body ot trained Investigating agents, oc cupying a permanent position In th gov ernment aervlce, and separate from local Investigating forces in different depart ments, Is an absolute necessity If the best work Is to be done against criminals. It Is by far the most efficient Instrument pos sible to use against crime. Of course the more efficient en Instrument Is, the mors dangerous It Is If misused. To the argu ment that a force like thla can be misused It Is only necessary to anawer that the condition of Its usefulness It handled prop erly la 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 department should be unsparingly punished; and congress should hold Itself ready at any and all tlmea to Investigate the executive department whenever there 1 reason to believe that any such Instance of abuse has occurred. I wish to empha sise my more than cordial acquiescence In the view that thla la not only the right of congreas, but emphatically Ita duty. To use the secret service In th Investigation ot purely private or political matters would be a gross abuse. But there haa been no Ingle Instance of such abuse during my term as president. In conclusion, I most earneatly ask. In tha nam of good government and decent administration. In th nam of honesty and for th purpose of bringing to Justice vio lator of th federal law wherever they may be found, whether In public or private life, that th action taken by th house lost year be reversed. 'When this action wa taken, th senate committee, under the lead of th tat Senator Allison, having before It a alrongly-worded protest (Ap FOPMEPLY OK! r.scoriELD Furs $1 15.00 Fur Coats, January Half Price Q750 Sale at O $75.00 Fur Coat3, January Half Price 750 Sale at O i $65.00 Fur Coats, January Half Price 750 Sale at 3 $45.00 Fur Coats, January Half Price 9J50 Sale at $150.00 Fur Sets, January Half Price 7 C00 Sale at i 3 $100.00 Fur Sets, January Half Price CA Sale at , . VU $65.00 Fur Sets, January Half Price 750 Sale at..' $45.00 Fur Sets, January Half Price 750 Sale at $25.00 Fur Sets, January Half Price I 50 Sale at $17.50 Fur Sets, January Half Price 075 Sale at O pendix D) from Secretary Cortelyou like mat he had sent to Mr. Tawney, accepted the secretary's views: and the aenatu passed the bill In the shape presented by Senator Allison. In the conference, how ever, the house conferees Insisted on the retention -of the prdvlslort "they hfid In serted, and the senate yielded. The chief of the seciet service Is dm Id a salary utterly Inadequate to the Importance of his functions and to the admirable way In which he has performed them. I earn eatly urge that It be Increased to J6.000 per annum. I also urge that the secret ser vice be placed where it nronerlv twrlnnsa and made a bureau in the Department of justice, as the chief of the secret service has repeatedly requested; but whether this is done or not, It should be explicitly pro vided that the secret service 'can b used to detect and punish crime wherever it Is found. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. The White House, January 4, ISO. A REPUTATION WORTH WHILE CHAMBERLAIN'S COUGH REM EDY A FAVORITE EVERY WHERE. Enormous Sale on It Largely Duo to Personal Recommendations cf People Who Have Been Cured By It. Chamberlain's Cough Remedy bag been on th market for oier one-third of century. Starting from a miall beginning it has grown in faTorand popularity until the demand for it often requires shipment in carload lot. It is now on sal at almost every drug stor and most country cross road stores in th United States. There is no question as to it merits: in fact, the enormous sal on it ha been Drought about to a large extent by the personal recommendations of people who Lave been cured by it When you use m remedy for cough or cold and find it far superior to any other that you hav fr tried, it is natural that you should tell your friend of your good fortune. It haa become th mothers' farorit for coughs, colds and croup, as they found that it can always b depended upon, and that it contains no oplua or other harmful drugs. During then years in which w har been making, selling and Using this preparation we hav never knows of a single cas of a cold resulting in pneu monia when Chamberlain's Cough Remedy wa used, which lead us to believe that it is certain preventive of that dis. Th fact that ft can be depended upon in every ca ba crowned it with th success it njos. HAND SAPOLIO It ensures an enjoyable, invigor ating bath ; mtkea every por respond, remove dead skin, ENERQIZE5 THE WHOLE BODY rarts the circulation, and IcaVcg ft tlow equal to ft Turkish bath. Ill finocris and druooii- naaiiiNA ror braod.rmlo or Interna! . a.nipl t.nt to sar drag habitat b wil. Kecnlsr price to o p.r boule ti X TCO oar drasrist or by Bull la iilala Wrapper. Mall Order Filled By II A YUEN UKOS.. OMAHA. XED.