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.
