Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1908-04-25
PRODDING LILLEY
Congressman is Given Another
Cross Examination By The
BouteIl Committee
AFTER THOSE LETTERS

SeHIdLlVe fOSS OI IllluOlS, CudlTIudH v
the house committee on naval af
| fairs and Representative Ellis o
Oregon, member of the committee
were the only witnesses this morn
ing before the submarine investigat
ing committee Both said that ther,
was no connection between the actor
of the committee on the naval bill
and the vote on the battleship propo
sition on the submarine question.
On the stand Thursday he was
asked by Mr. Olmsted if ne had not
led the president to believe that GER
tain submarine interests in the com
mittee were inimical to the four bat
tleship proposals. He said he had
no recollection of having done SO.
| Washington, April 25.-Repre'
sentative Lilley yesterday admitted
that the only basis for his resolution
for submarine investigation were
vague rumors he had heard. He ad'
mitted that he had never seen sub
marine in course of construction, had
no knowledge whatever of the cost ol
such craft and had never made any
calculations personally before stating
that he expected to prove the Elec-
trio Boat Co would make more than
$1,O00,O00 improper profit from its
latest contract with the government
Mr. Broussard asked the following
| question of Congressman Lilley yes
| terday:
"You charge this company with
using reprehensible methods to in
| fluence congress, the navy depart
ment and the press of the country
| You want them Investigated and yet
you say you will not make the charge
! that congress, the navy department
or the press has yielded to these
methods. Will you please point out
where the harm has been done--who
has been corrupted"
Il made the charge" responded
Mr. Lilley, that the company used
these corrupting methods. but have
not mentioned any specific person
who has been corrupted. My resolu-
tion was for the purpose Of finding
this out. Based on what | ,,new and
what | had heard, / thought these
methods ought to- be investigated.
particularly because of the large
sums of money which, in my opinion,
the government has paid more than
1t needs to have paid for these goods
and in view of the fact that there
was likelihood that they would be
paid in the future"
Mr. Howard took up the question
of the cost of submarines snd the eff
forts of the Lake company TO obtain
a contract under the last naval ap-
preparation bill.
In reply Mr. Lilley said he based
his charge that the Electric company
has received excessive profits on the
figures used by Admiral Bowles be-
fore the house naval committee when
he was chief of the bureau of con-
struction. He said he would rather
take the evidence of Admiral Bowles
given then than evidence he might
give now owing to the Fact that he
is a builder of submarine boats-not
a.sbuyer, as he was when in the navy
department. Mr. Howard then said
to Mr. Lilley that "the bulk of your
case is one of doubt"
Mr. Lilley was asked the following
questions by Chairman Boutell:
''If the naval bill of this year had
contained proposition For full force
and open competition In submarines
which met with your approval would
you have introduced your resolu-
tion?"
II do not think | would have In
troduced it," answered Mr. Lilley.
did you express orally or in writ
ing the opinion on more than one oc-
sasion before you introduced your
resolution that II the naval bill could
be amended so it would provide for
full force and open competition on
submarines, you would not think it
necessary or wise to introduce your
resolution for an investigation of the
Electric Boat Coz"
II may have made substantially
that statement to one person."
Ibid you not make the statement
that If the naval bill could be still
so as TO provide for this
free competition IL would be wiser, II
possible. not to proceed under your
resolut tom"
II do not recall making any state
ment of that kind-not after the
wac in
In reply TO questions, Mr. Lilley |
said that originally he was opposed |
TO submarines because. for one thing. |
he believed that there was a clique |
in the naval committee striving TO
obtain as large an appropriation as
possible for submarines or for as
many submarine boats as they could
get"
Reverting TO the charge OF Mr. Lii
ey that the Electric Boat Co en-
Dloyed attorneys in the districts of
Of congress. Mr. LiIley said
N reply to questions by Mr Stevens
hat the information that The Elec-
.ric Boat Co. put up a credit against
Loud OF Michigan
vas given him by Representative
Foss. chairman Of the naval affairs
What did he say7~ inquired Mr.
stevens.
He said he had heard that they
lad a credit in Loud's district" re-
lied Mr. Lilley.
Mr. LiIley said also that he made
he statement to Representative Loud
hat the Electric Boat Co vas en-
,loying attorneys in members dis
ricts-
Mr. Loud replied. he said "Yes.
nd they are paid b. the giecs"
An Interesting discussson took