The morning journal-courier., 1908-10-28
wcdnesday, October 2s, 1oos,
MIR. BROWNS DEFENSE.

MIR. BROWNS DEFENSE.
 Frank T. Brown of Norwich, who, with Stiles Judson was Mir. Lilleys legal adviser during the investigation of the submarine scandal, is the lat est to enter defense for his client who is a candidate for governor on the republican ticket MT. Browns defense carries moral weight with 1t on account of his high personal and professional character but it cannot be said to go deeply enough into the various phases of the Lilloy experi- ence to carry conviction to well in formed voters. Other gentlemen of equal personal character and legal distinction, who have gone more deep ly into the evidence than he appears to have done in his defense, reach directly opposite conclusion.
 The distinguishing characteristic of the defense made of MT. Lilley by Stiles Judson of Stratford and ny for mer Governor George P. Mclean Is that 1t presents those able gentlemen in the role of a jury advocate a special pleader who seeks to elude the consequences of the prosecution. The distinguishing characteristic of MT. Browns defense is that 1t deals with the technique of the case rather than with the spirit of MT Lilley's conduct, and the uncertainty of it Doubtless Mir. Brown will be listened to respectfully by members of his profession, who are interested in technical treatment of the subject, but among laymen, who reach out for the human aspects of the case and seek in their own way to determine the character of the man back of the ex- perience he will be received court eously as defender but not conyinc- ingly. It is asking too much of them to eliminate the vital incidents of the investigation, which told so clearly of MT. Lilleys discredited enterprise, in order that MT. Brown, able as he is, may give the public an illustration of his legal knowledge. Then too of all men MT Lilley's retained counsel is not the one to be trusted with an i'm partial consideration of the subject,
 There is room for disagreement be- tween men as to the technical charac- ter of the committees findings, Rep resentative Mccall, for example, of Massachusetts voted against the ac- ceptance of the report because he thought so serious an indictment should follow precedent, and lie over until members had been given an op- portunity to carefully examine the evidence which accompanied the re- port, but he has never questioned the lllltlflFlDllIlS Dl Nhl' iiIiNy ? bOilbuNt -.Richard Hooker. the able Washington correspondent of the Springfield Re- publican, has dissented from the findings of the committee, in that the language used was too severe and vic ious, but his familiarity with the pro- gress and outcome of the investigation forced him to the conclusion, that MT. Lilley's temperahnental unfitness for high office had been demonstrated. Doubtless from the technical point of view MT. Hooker would find much in MT. Browns defense to admire, but consideration of the various phases of the investigation, which led MT, Hook CT to the conclusion to which he ad- heres, is altogether lacking from MT. Browns plea for his client. In other words, the very things which stamp MT. Lilley as a discredited politician and a crippled statesman, and which have led The Journal-Courier for ex- ample, to resist his political ambi- ton, are altogether lacking from the defenses entered with such legal clev- erness by former Governor Mclean, Stiles Judson and now by MT, Brown of Norwich.
 Leaving out of consideration the findings of the committee and the spirit of animosity which MT. Brown declares moved the committee, 1t is clear that Mir. Lilley was utterly un- able to prove his charges, and later, when the adverse report had been made that he failed to redeem his promise to his Waterbury friends that he would take the floor of the house and there tell the truth which the committee had denied him the privil- ege of stating during the investigation. 1t was the sorry spectacle he made of