The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-04-02
MANY LILLEY CHARGES DENIED
FURTHER TESTIMONY IN SUB
MARINE BOAT SCANDAL.

Electric Boat Co. Never Contributed 70
Campaign Funds OF Either Party, and
Never In ANY way Tried TO Innuence
Members Of Congress or Navy OmcerS.
WASHINGTON, April i,-0ne Of Repre-
sentative Lilley's close friends, one OF the
Waterbury, Conn, manufacturers, referred
10 by him In his testimony before the House
Committed on Rules, Franklin A. Taylor gave
evidence 10 the select committee In the sub
marine investigation to-day. A conflict APP
peared between his statements and those Of
Mr.. Lilley as to the conversation between
them at several interviews. Before the
Committee on Rules Mr.. Lilley had testified
that an intimate friend, a lifelong friend,
a manufacturer Of his town, had shook his
FIST at him when he passed on the other
side Of the street in Waterbury because
he had not voted for submarines OF the
Electric Boat Company.
Mr.. Taylor laughed when the testimony
was read and acknowledged that he was the
man referred to. He had shaken his fist at
Mr.. Lilley every time he saw him, but II
was not a mailed fist. II was just a mock
menace, which Mr., Lilley understood per-
fectly. Their cordial relations had never
been interrupted. He had repeatedly asked
Mr.. Lilley, the witness said frankly, TO vote
for submarines, and he thought II was per-
fectly proper for him to do 30, Mr.. Lilley
had discussed the matter with him frankly
and on many occasions in a period Of two
or three years.
Mr.. Taylor declared he was interested In
submarines only as a brass manufacturer,
whose business il was TO supply some Of the
parts. He denied having told Lilley that
he could get large contracts from the Flee
trio Boat Company II the submarine APP
preparation was made.
Elihu r. Frost referred TO throughout the
investigation as the moving spirit in Electric
Boat Company contracts and legislation,
told the committee that he had the general
management Of the boat company, and he
had EMPLOYED attorneys subject either TO
the approval Of his law partner or Mr..
Rice, president Of the company,
Mr.. Howard asked a series OF questions
Of Mr.. Frost, which we're in effect as follows;
'Did you directly or indirectly contribute
or cause TO be contributed on account OF
your company any contribution to any
Congressional campaign fund.-
did you or your company make any
contribution TO the national Republican
campaign fund.-
TO the Democratic national campaign
fund.-
'To the campaign fund Of any member
Of Congress?'
did you or did any one at your instance,
directly or indirectly, or did any person Of
your knowledge endeavor 70 influence any
il ember Of Congress by gifts or money or
through entertainment 10 vote for leRlsla-
ton in the interest Of your company?
To all these questions Mr.. Frost replied
emphatically in the negative.
The last question was repeated and made
10 apply to officers Of the Navy Department
or any officer Of the navy instead OF any
member Of Congress, Mr.. Howard explain
ing that he meant by Influence" improper
influence.
", Mr.. Frost answered mo" emphatically.
He and his associates had presented openly
every possible argument 10 convince the
NAVY Department Of the merits Of his boat,
The charge made by Mr., Lilley that he had
spent large sums TO influence legislation
and that he frequented Washington during
sessions Of Congress Mr.. Frost said was
false"
The committee asked whether Mr., Frost
would state under oath that he had never
pAid any money to any naval officer Tor
any purpose whatsoever.
Maurice Barnett, treasurer Of the Electric
Boat Company, testified that no funds OF
the company had been used for other than
legitimate business purposes. No money
was disbursed except on memoranda by
executive officers OF the company stating
for what purpose the amount was drawn.