The morning journal-courier., 1908-10-01
MR- HILL EXPLAINS.


 In a generally admirable speech at Waterbury Congressman Hill took dig nifled exception to the remarks made by The Journal-C Courier with reference to hls New haven speech, in which he declared that Lilley saw skunk and shot at 1t, though he missed his aim. Mir. Hill added that he. too, had seen the skunk, but did not have his gun with him. He said in his Waterbury speech: ''The editor of The Journal Courier inferred that I charged that congress was rotten when I said that there was skunk there. 1 didn't have congress fin mind and no man has any right to draw such inference.
 The last thing in the world wo would do would be 10 mlsrepresent Congressman Hill. We have alto gether too high a regard for his char acter and his ability. We will of course accept his statement that he did not mean congress when he in- dulged in imagery to tighten Mir. Lil- ley's road, but we cannot imagine for the life of us what he did mean. The only thing we can recall in connection  with Mir. Lllley's conduct at Wash ington. that would have warranted MT. Hill In stating that he had fired his gun at some disreputable creature, was his scathing condemnation of con. gress on account of submarine legis- lation. The seriousness of the charge was only one phase of tho matter. He amplifed upon it in many ways. glv- ing interviews 10 correspondents. writ ing letters. making promises that he would expose the evil doers no mat ter what the committee decided 10 re- port, charging that congress was in- fected with foot-rot and scabies, as- serting that he himself had been im- properly approached by fellow towns men, etc, etc. With this knowledge in mind we inferred that MT. IIill meant what we would have meant un- der like circumstances, and that "the skunk" was congressional rottenness We shall be very glad now to learn from Mir. HIll Just what he meant and for that purpose these columns are open to him. Since we are forced to fight MT. Lllley's preposterohs amhi- ton we want to do the fighting fairly.
 We are of the opinion, too, that Mr.. Hll can add to his analysis of the vote of the house members of Mir. Lilley's political party from New Eng land when the report was put upon it's passage. MT. Hill says that eleven of Mr. Llley's republican colleagues vot- ed against the adoption of the report and five voted for 1t. This in reality only further confuses the issue. It has been well attested to by mem bers of congress and by newspaper men. including Richard Hooker, ono of the best, that the real reason why the vote of censure failed 10 secure more votes was first because of the severity of the language used and sec- ond because the report was at once put upon It's passage. which deprived the house members of the opportunity to carefully examine it. Investga- ton showed that had the report, se- we're as it was. or as some thought un- necessarily vicious in spirit, been held over for a day 1t would have receiv- ed the overwhelming support of the members of both parties, leaving in opposition the members from Con nectlcut, who voted from motives of state pride, and other New England members who had pride in their sec ton of the country. So conclusive was the finding of the committee that it is thought by some well informed members that Q postponement would have brought to Mir. sherman the two- thirds vote, he required to carry his resolution of expulsion,
 We submit in all respect to Mr. Hill that the more this muss Is stirred and looked into the worst 1t is for all concerned in 1t. The true friends of MT. Lllley must ignore it. It's dyna-