"alleged delinquencies" of members or the supposed "corrupt action" of a member "in his official capacity." The membership of the House is by the Constitution placed within the power of the House alone. In the prosecution of criminals and the enforcement of the laws the President must resort to the courts of the United States.

In the third and fourth clauses of the preamble it is stated that the meaning of my words is that "the majority of the Congressmen are in fear of being investigated by Secret Service men" and that "Congress as a whole was actuated by that motive in enacting the provision in question," and that this is an impeachment of the honor and integrity of the Congress. These statements are not, I think, in accordance with the facts. The portion of my message referred to runs as follows:

"Last year an amendment was incorporated in the measure providing for the Secret Service which provided that there should be no detail from the Secret Service and no transfer therefrom. It is not too much to say that this amendment has been of benefit only, and could be of benefit only, to the criminal classes. If deliberately introduced for the purpose of diminishing the effectiveness of war against crime it could not have been better devised to this end. It forbade the practices that had been followed to a greater or less extent by the executive heads of various departments for twenty years. To these practices we owe the securing of the evidence which enabled us to drive great lotteries out of business and secure a quarter of a million of dollars in fines from their promoters. These practices have enabled us to discover some of the most outrageous frauds in connection with the theft of government land and government timber by great corporations and by individuals. These practices have enabled us to get some of the evidence indispensable in order to secure the conviction of the wealthiest and most formidable criminals with whom the Government has to deal, both those operating in violation of the anti-trust law and others. The amendment in question was of benefit to no one excepting to these criminals, and it seriously hampers the Government in the detection of crime and the securing of justice. Moreover, it not only affects departments outside of the Treasury, but it tends to hamper the Secretary of the Treasury himself in the effort to utilize the employees of his department so as to best meet the requirements of the public service. It forbids him from preventing frauds upon the customs service, from investigating irregularities in branch mints and assay offices, and has seriously crippled him. It prevents the promotion of employees in the Secret Service, and this further discourages good effort. In its present form the restriction operates only to the advantage of the criminal, of the wrongdoer.

"The chief argument in favor of the provision was that the Con

ALASKA.

Few bargains driven by the United States have proved so profitable as that by which Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867 for the sum of $7,200,000. With the discovery of gold in the Klondike in 1896 occurred a great influx of settlers, and the new territory became governed by adequate and comprehensive legislation. In more recent years, the settlers have been substantial people seriously intent upon developing Alaska s commercial opportunities, and the atmosphere of rough-and-ready adventure with which legend endowed Alaska in the Klondike days is now conspicuous mostly by its absence. The administration of Alaska lies in the hands of the Department of the Interior, although there is a Territorial legislature. (For more detailed description of Alaska, see the article Alaska in the Encyclopedic Index.)

gressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by Secret Service men. Very little of such investigation has been done in the past; but it is true that the work of the Secret Service agents was partly responsible for the indictment and conviction of a Senator and a Congressman for land frauds in Oregon. I do not believe that it is in the public interest to protect criminals in any branch of the public service, and exactly as we have again and again during the past seven years prosecuted and convicted such criminals who were in the executive branch of the Government, so in my belief we should be given ample means to prosecute them if found in the legislative branch. But if this is not considered desirable a special exception could be made in the law prohibiting the use of the Secret Service force in investigating Members of the Congress. It would be far better to do this than to do what actually was done, and strive to prevent or at least to hamper effective action against criminals by the executive branch of the Government."

A careful reading of this message will show that I said nothing to warrant the statement that "the majority of the Congressmen were in fear of being investigated by the Secret Service men," or "that Congress as a whole was actuated by that motive." I did not make any such statement in this message. Moreover, I have never made any such statement about Congress as a whole, nor, with a few inevitable exceptions, about the 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 of all Congressmen, wise and unwise, fit and unfit, good and bad alike. No one realizes more than I the importance of cooperation between the Executive and Congress, and no one holds the authority and dignity of the Congress of the United States in higher respect than I do. I have not the slightest sympathy with the practice of judging men, for good or for ill, not on their several merits, but in a mass, as members of one particular body or one caste. To put together all men holding or who have held a particular office, whether it be the office of President, or Judge, or Senator, or Member of the House of Representatives, and to class them all, without regard to their individual differences, as good or bad, seems to me utterly indefensible; and it is equally indefensible whether the good are confounded with the bad in a heated and unwarranted championship of all, or in a heated and unwarranted assault upon all. I would neither attack nor defend all executive officers in a mass, whether Presidents, Governors, Cabinet officers, or officials of lower rank; nor would I attack or defend all legislative officers in a mass. The safety of free government rests very largely in the ability of the plain, everyday citizen to discriminate between those public

servants who serve him well and those public servants who serve him ill. He can not thus discriminate if he is persuaded to pass judgment upon a man, not with reference to whether he is 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 the Government.

This allegation in the resolution, therefore, must certainly be due to an entire failure to understand my message.

The resolution continues: "That the President be requested to transmit to the House any evidence upon which he based his statements that the 'chief argument in favor of the provision was that the Congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by Secret Service men.'" This statement, which was an attack upon no one, still less upon the Congress, is sustained by the facts.

If you will turn to the Congressional Record for May I last, pages 5553 to 5560, inclusive, you will find the debate on this subject. Mr. Tawney of Minnesota, Mr. Smith of Iowa, Mr. Sherley of Kentucky, and Mr. Fitzgerald of New York appear in this debate as the special champions of the provision referred to. Messrs. Parsons, Bennet, and Driscoll 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 was carried in the Committee of the Whole, where no votes of the individual members are recorded, so I am unable to discriminate by mentioning the members who voted for and the members who voted against the provision, but its passage, the Journal records, was greeted with applause. I am well aware, however, that in any case of this kind many members who have no particular knowledge of the point at issue are content simply to follow the lead of the committee which had considered the matter, and I have no doubt that many Members of the House simply followed the lead of Messrs. Tawney and Smith, without having had the opportunity to know very much as to the rights and wrongs of the question.

I would not ordinarily attempt in this way to discriminate between Members of the House, but as objection has been taken to my language, in which I simply spoke of the action of the House as a whole, and as apparently there is a desire that I should thus discrimi nate, I will state that I think the responsibility rested on the Committee on Appropriations, under the lead of the members whom I have mentioned.

Now as to the request of the Congress that I give the evidence for my statement that the chief argument in favor of the provision was that the Congressmen did not themselves wish to be investigated by Secret Service men.