Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-05-05
LILLEY AND LATHROP
Bouiell Committee Wsnis o Know If they Are of Que Mind.

been used well by the Connecticut ed- l itors during his trying time It the submarine hearng even if the Bou- i tell committee has not handled him gngerly. The evidence in the case, however, shows that there was q "colored individual in the wood pile" and the committee succeeded pretty well in smoking him out. The trouble seems to have been that the rival boat company, the one our own con- gressman was friendly to did not get | it's share of the business. Even Sen ators Bulkeley and Brandegee said q | good word for thel Lake company, as ! was brought out by the evidence. l The great mistake made by Lilley's friends was that they commenced 70 criticize the committee before tie hearing was well under way. And then again the evidence shows that | Congressman Lilley was willing to let up on the whole business if ''compe- tition was allowed" that is, the com mittee thinks, if the Lake company was allowed to get slice of the ap- propriation. These things hurt the case at the very beginning, and say what we will, the committee can hardly be blamed for putting the men on the rack who tried to throw cold water or .white-wash" on their efforts. l From the very start, yes, even before | the hearing commenced Lilley's al- legged friends were telling what would and what would not be done. Some of Congressman Lilleys editorial friends got to stopping over with criticism of the committee and ob- jectionable cartoons, so much so that | the congressman or someone else must have given the word to 'cut it out" Lilley's testimony goes to show that he repudiated some of these editorial friends. Here is another lot of 1t.
 The question was asked me yester- day if the Waterbury Republican and 1 agreed on matters. We are very much in disagreement on mat ters at the present time on presiden- 1 tial candidates, and our convention will meet very soon and they are strong supporters of Hughes and | am not.
 0. Do they disagree with you as to submarines?
 l A. We'll, I may say this, that have never written line-I won't say that I have never written line, but if l have 1t is over my own sig nature-or dictated a line to that paper. I have deplored some of the things that it says great many times.
 Q. That is not answering the ques- tion. The question is whether they agree with you about submarines or whether you are dictating the pol icy? A. do not know whether they are in favor of submarines or not; I mean in regard to them officially. l Q. Do you receive the paper?
 A. Yes, sir.
 l O.. Do you read 1t?
 A. Sometimes.
 l c. You do not know whether they agree with you or not on submar- l ines?
 A. As an effective weapon of war fare?
 Q. Generally, with your position, the whole subject matter.
 A. I do not approve all the things that the Waterbury Republican has said by any means in regard to this investigation, if that is what you mean. | Q. I ask you whether they agree i with you, not whether they approved of it. Do they agree with you?
 A. That is not for me to say.
 Q. You do not know? A. l suppose they. agree with me in some things.
 Q. In what things did they agree?
 A. I do not know.
 Q. What things do they disagree with you in about submarine boats? A. l do not know. have not any argument with them. That is their business.
 Q. Do you know their views as published in the paper?
 A. I have read a number of arti- cles published in the Republican.
 Q. Do you agree with them?
 A. I have told you that I do not.
 c. They are not in accord with you and your policy with regard to submarines?
 A. I say I am not the cause of all the things, they have written.
 Q. anN not asking that. I say their policy'is not in accord with you, with what you eoncede to be the proper policy to be pursued with re- gard to submarines Are they advo- eating the same thing that you are?
 A. do not know what they are advocating in the line of submar- ines. Do you mean open competi- ton?
 | Q. Yes.