The morning journal-courier., 1908-06-03
LILLEY PLEADS
 HIS GOOD FAITH Issues Statement Declaring Committee Sought to Com
 promise on Charges,
MET ENERGETIC REPULsE
Boutcllc Expressed Admiration for Lillcy Just Before Issuing Dcnun-
 ciatory Report.

Waterbury, June 2,-RepresentatVe George L. Lilley, whose resolution and charges in connection with the so- called submarine beat scandal resulted last week In severe censure of the congressman by the Boutcll investi- gating committee to-day gave out a statement on the subject. Incorpor- ated in the statement Is q letter which declares that two weeks before the report of the committee denountng MT. Lilley was made, Mir. Boutell eA- pressed admiration for Llley, and en- deavored to effect an agreement whereby the matter under lnvesti;a- ton by the committee would be com- promised. The letter adds that, whom the proposition of compromise WAS carried to Mir, Lilley by the latter's physician, the congressman replied that he would rather die than with draw the charges which he knew were honest and square,
 The letter in which thls allegation is made Is signed "E. w. Reisinger, M, D." and was addressed to Mrs, Lilley after the doctor had called upon Mir. l Boutell 10 explain that Mir, lilley's 1 physical condition neccssitated his { leaving the city. In concluding his statement, Congressman Lilley says:
 Mir. Lillcys Conclusions,
 "A suggestion that member of inc House had been annoyed by importun- tiles of the Electric Boat company representatives cannot rightfully be construed as a charge against the member A request that the commit tees ascertain by impartial invesd- ] gation whether improper practices on ] the part of the Electric Boat company had influenced congressional action, Is not, In my judgment, a charge ,against members of the House. believed. and still believe, That the Electric Boat company has received excessive proflt in the sale of submarine boats to Ike l United States government. That be- lief has been strengthened by the testimony given before the committee by a responsible person, that he would take contract for the construction of submarines at the price which mentioned as giving liberal profit to the contractor. Whether the con- clusions of the committee In this par ticular were justified or not I leave the public to judge. Conscious of the honesty of my motives, and having information of the facts mentioned in the letter incorporated in this paper, and having learned from my counesl that a member of the committee had said to him in the presence of other members and without any dissent Cn their part that the committee had no doubt of my sincerity, and knowing that the statements 10 my physi slan and my counsel were made near the close of the hearing. and after I lad concluded my testimony, my feeling or rather my condition on learning the committees conclusions was stupefaction.
 "1 present this statement of my DO. sition without any elaboration of de. tails, and wi.h the renewed expression of my gratitude to the public that ha! so generally accorded mo its conf. dence-a confidence which hope have deserved, and shall never for. felt"
 MT Lilley asserts in his statement that he has not now, and never die have, any interest in any compan, constructing or selling submarine tor pedo boats; that he has not, ant never had any afiiliation with an! l,,,n la, ,l or sale of submarine torpedo boats. Charges Made in Good Faith. "I testified before the committee and l reiterate here" the statemen I continues, that my motive in intro 1 ducing my resolution calling for al ! investigation was the public welfare ! and that l did not act in concert witt any other person, lt is true that tn immediate moving cause of my ac was my conviction that the appro priation bill as framed In the maya committee, would so restrict the pow
 CTS of the secretary of the navy tha . he would be compelled to purchas
 submarine boats of the Electric Boa
 company to the destruction of compe
 tition, and to the disadvantage of tn
 government While the present threa,
 ened loss to the government and tn
 people was the immediate promptin
 cause Of my action, my belief that tn
 methods employed by the Electri
 Boat company warranted lnvestiga
 tion was of long standing
 Against the presumption of hon
 esty and my own direct testimony an
 that of the representatives of tn
 Lake Torpedo Boat company ther
 was no direct evidence. In the mind
 of the committee, however, all thes
 were outweighed by certain circum
 stances which the committee incor
 porated in the report strung togethe
 on a chronological thread They arc
 believe, insignificant individual
 and in the aggregate, l believed, an
 still believe, that the thing of con
 sequence to the committee was tn
 answers brought out by the questions
 and not the origin of the question
 themselves. Whether I was well ad
 vised in participating in the conduc
 of the hearing, and in attempting {
 take part Tn the eHamlnatlOn Of VII
 nesses under conditions which com
 pelled my counsel to decline to ac
 may be fairly an open question, but
 cannot understand what 1t had to q
 with the integrity of my motives
 am not attempting at this time to de
 fend myself against a charge of fault
 judgment l would say, howeve
 It- ,..fa |. r counsel that, if he had been permit ? ted to examine witnesses In the ord
 nary way, he would have gone direc' s ly to the representatives of the Lax
 Torpedo Boat company, as an obviol
 source of information, and have aske ]. them to put him upon additional line
 of inquiry; that, if he had failed to sO he would have been negligent