The morning journal-courier. (New Haven, Conn.) 1907-1913, 1908-03-12
Many Members in Accord
With Connecticut Con-
gressman on Sub
marine Scandal.
y
TO DEMAND FAIR PLAY
Further Evidence of the Com
mittee's Intention to Ignore
the Slightest Semblance
of Judicial Pro-
cedure.


Especial to Journul-Ccuricro
washington, D. c., March IL
When Congressman George L. Lilley
OF Connecticut takes the witness stand
Thursday morning to place before the
special committee of the House his
charges against the Electric Boat
company he will face the most hos
tile body of men that ever greeted a
member of Congress.
Wher Mr.. Lilley introduced his
resolution calling for an investigation
OF the Electric Boat company and
making charges of improper legisla-
tive Influences he did so with full
Understanding that his efforts to
probe the matter to the bottom would
be opposed in every possible man
ner by the corporation involved. He
was not aware, however, that the
powers that be in the House would
show disposition at the very out
set TO hamper his every movement
To- an honest investigation. Neither
was he aware that the investigating
committee upon its appointment
would adopt tactics, the very char
aete" of which must inevitably re-
SUI In. defeating the purpose for
which 1t was ostensibly appointed
The various legislative proceedings
since the introduction of the Lilley
resolution have demonstrated, how
ever. that If Mr. Lilley has any hopes
OF tringing his investigation to a sue
ctssful termination he must bear the
eltire burden without any help from
the committee whose duty It is to as
sist him.
There are many facts to substan-
tiate these statements. In the first
pli:c the Connecticut Congressman
has been denied the right to summon
witnesses for the purpose of secur-
ing evidence. 1t is a well known rule
not Only of parliamentary practice
brt Of all judicial proceedings, that
both sides in case are at liberty to
cali to their aid any and all persons
who might assist in bringing to the
surface the slightest scrap of evidence
which would tend to prove or dis
prove the charges made.
The committee appointed by the
House of representatives to make a
thorough investigation of the charges
contained in the resolution offered by
Mr.. Lilley was, In the subsequent
resolution introduced by Congress
man Dalzell, empowered to summon
witnesses. That portion of the res
olGtion reads as follows:
"tte solved. That a committee OF
fiv. members be appointed to investi-
gaze the charges made by said George
l.. 1iliey of corrupt practices on the
part of said company (The Electric
lsuat Company of New Jersey and
OF members of Congress with respect
to legislation; and that said commit
tee shall have authority to send fol
persons and papers and to take tes-
t.mony in Washington, D. c., or else
where"
Despite the specific language of the
resolution WHICH made the creation
of the committee possible that body
at its very first session refused point
blank to summon before it officers OF
the company whom Mr.. Lilley dcsir.
ell to have questioned.
At the same meeting Mr.. -Lilley re-
oiested that he be permitted to have
the advice of counsel. This Request
was virtually denied in the ruline
made by the committee. The rulins
was. i'm effect, that the Congressman
was at liberty to have the assistance
ot lawyers thus employed to aid hin
would not be permitted to cross-eX
anime witnesses without first sub.
mi.t;ng each and every question they
proposed to ask to the committee
This ruling, absurd on its face, has
a two-fold objection. In the frs
place such proceeding must of ne
cessit1 rob the cross-eXamination o
its effectiveness by the delay caused
by the impromptu executive session
which the committee would hold ev
erv time counsel would submit {
question. In the second place tn
witness. should he prove to be a val
ualle one. would have ample time t
nrepere himself for his prosecutor
He would not. to use the vernacula
of the street. be compelled to answe
fright off the bat" the insistent an'
rapid fire questions of the attorne,
whose only hope would he to catcl
b;r, of his guard. 1t is foregon
conclusion that no reputable law
ve- would undertake to handle cas-
where he would labor undnr sucl
crude methods and manifest handi
caus
Another evidence of the committee
intention to ignore the slightest sem
hlance OF judicial procedure Is mad
evident in its refusal TO permit Nj
I.illev to call the witnesses in the OF
de- in which ne or his counsel believ
thev ought to be called. There is nc
: criminal lawyer practicing success
fully in the country to-day who doe
not plan with tire Utmost care the OF