Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-21
LORD AND LILLEY
Campaign LIe Shown up by . Former News Wrlier In Inc
 New York Sun.
STICKS TO HIS STORY

The following explicit statement will be read with interest here and throughout the state:
 Chicago, III, Sept IS, 1903.
 Editor Journal-Courier.
 In your issue of September 4, un- der the heading Our Contempora- ries," l note the following, the text of which is from the Waterbury Re- publican:
 Dangerous Comment This.
 Waterbury Republican)
 'The New York Sun Is at Congress man Lilley again with another bar relful of sneers.
 Frank B.. Lord wrote an inter- view with the congressman last win ter, quoting Lilley as saying that James s. Sherman was in on the graft, and It was printed in the New York Sun. MT Lilley repudiated the interview, and Lord afterwards ad- mitted on the stand that he had talk en money from the Electric Boat Co.
 This and the fact that Frank B. Lord is brother of Chester s. Lord, managing editor of the Sun, would seem to stamp our peppery contempo- rary's opinion of Lilley as of no val ue whatever"
 I do not know whether or not 1t was the Waterbury Republican, or some other paper of that town, the bonds of which MT Lilley admitted on the witness stand before the Boutell Investigating committee, were owned by members of his family. This much I do know, however, that this publi- cation in the Republican is fair sample of the falsehoods and deliber- ate misstatements which have char acterized MT Lilley's campaign ever since he started out, for personal glo- rification, to expose scandals which never existed. Had the Republican or MT Lilley's energetic press agent desired to know the truth of my re- lationship to Chester s. Lord either could have learned it without the slightest difficulty. Here it is. Mir Lord is not my brother, and in reali- 1 ty no relationship can be said to exist between us The fact that was em- ployed for number of years on the Washington bureau of the paper of which he is managing editor in New York, is a mere coincidence. had been employed for several years on the Sun before Lever saw Chester s, Lord, or he knew of my existence. As he rarely ever went to Washington | nsvef saM him USft sflffe6 tfiffeSFffi my life, and only twice to have any con- versation with him. Upon one of these occasions he informed me that lin 1882, or whereabouts. Thomas Lord. his ancestor ten generations removed, had settled in Connecticut. My an cestors came from the same state some nine or ten generations back That is as close as the relationship between MT Lord and myself lies. and I 1t is as close as the Republican and MT Lilley get to the truth.
 Now, if as the Republican says, lthe Suns opinion of Lilley Is of no value because it's managing editor is a brother of mine, then the converse of that proposition should also be true Therefore, as MT Lord is not I a brother of mine and is no relation of mine, 1t argues that the Sun s opinion of MT Lilley is of some value. However, be that as # may. here is one of the lies, advanced in behalf MT Lilley's cause, narled.
 Now regarding the interview print- ed in the Sun. 1 say now, as I said upon the witness stand that every | word and every syllable which at tributed to MT Lilley he did say, and he said without qualification, or res ervation. Furthermore told the Boutell committee that I knew of two other reputable men, both members of congress, one democrat and the other republican, who had advised me that he made to them substantial- l ly the same statements that I quoted him as saying in my interview. This, however, was not question for the committee to consider, and they did not go into 1t further.
 I want to further say that Mir Lil- ley himself did not at first deny the interview. It was published in the Washington Herald as well as the Sun. and should not have escaped Mir Lilley's attention. Although I was on the floor of the house with him he did not seek me and demand to know why had written such story. if it
 was not true; neither did he rise in his place in the house, as 1t was his right and privilege to do. and de- nounce the publication had 1t falsely attributed anything to him. He has | not doue so yet. It was not until late in the afternoon when MT Sherman and MT Griggs, whom he had also 1 accused. went to him and in vigorous he turned pale and tremblingly de- nied that he had said what was att tributed to him. Furthermore, if my recollection serves me correctly, al- though he made several general de- nials of various interviews. Mir Lilley never specifically denied under oath | the accuracy of my interview.
 I state now. as stated upon the | witness stand. that In making the | and Mir Griggs. Mir Lilley stated
 what he knew to be absolutely. un-
 equivocally and deliberately false. The Republican says that I ad-
 mitted taking money from the Elec- I tric Boat company That Is another I falsehood, as deliberate as any Of ] the others. I did state then, and I state now, that I had done some work for c. 8. McNeir, Washington attorney. one of whose clients hap pens to be the Electric Boat com pany. Not all of 1t was literary and not all of. 1t had to do with any one client. The company did nos