The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-03-12
HLLEY BELIEVES
|BOlT co. TRIED
TEMPT LOUD
soNnEcTIcuT CONGRESSMAN. IN
srArIno CHARGES IN SUB
MARINE INQUIRY, SAYS HE
poEsN,r ACCUSE MIcHIeANDsR

WASHINGTON March 12.--In open
~ his statement In the submarine In
&olry. Rep. Lilley, OF Connecticut
1ormally repeated the charges he had
AIDE In the course OF his examination
kefore the committee on rules, ana
1ontinued:
.Just prior TO my appointment as
member OF the naval committee, had
fxmfIiarized myself with the investi-
nnffon conducted by the naval com
lttee on the charges made by Rep.
oesler that $4,000 had been offered
Mn BY an attorney representing the
Rlectric Boat Co. to influence his ac-
<1on as a member OF said naval com
olttee. This investigation resulted IN
4hat might be termed a Scotch YER
Act OF not proven.
III alsoj became convinced that leg
6Iafion had been SO shaped from the
1e&inning down to the present time
g to eliminate all competition In the
natter OF awarding contracts for sub
nnrine boats.
'vTt was also brought to my atten-
{0n repeatedly and persistently by
newspaper comment and general re-
1ort that the Electric Boat Co. and It's
,redecessors, the Holland Torpedo
1oat CO., had maintained In the city
N Washington an extraordinary lobby.
says Newspaper Men Got Slice.
II also ascertained that TO certain
newspaper representatives for insig-
Meant services. considerable sums or
u \ for fhn m
securing aid and assistance
II also call the attention OF your
ommittee to the character OF the
mendment proposed by Rep. Loud
nslager to the naval appropriation
~. which requires in specific terms
&at the secretary of the navy shall
ward the entire proposed appropria-
on for the construction of boats OF
Ae Octopus type constructed by the
lectric Boat Co.
~ also learned that the Electric
at CO. had employed rs its attorney
I. D, Gordon, at or IN the congress
onal dietrict Of Rep. : >ud, Of Mich
mn.
- am not charging 1 Rep. Loud
- Influenced by these +. rts, but ]
: charging that these improper ef-
~ BY the Electric Boat Co. to in
fonce the action of member of con-
eos were made.
OVER S1,O00.0O0 PROFITS.
*sI3also submit as one OF the facts
fluencinc me TO introduce my reso-
fion that. I'm my judgment. under
,eclal and exclusive legislation the
ecfric Boat Co. and it's predecessor.
- already received from the United
stes an excessive profit OF more than
,003.0 900 for the construction OF ITS
bmar,ncs and that under the pro-
sed Legislation now pending, IL VIII
ccive a profit OF more than $l,00o.00o.
n also submit that ft can be ae#eH-
rated that the submarines now con-
fuctcd- now under contract and those
divided for In the proposed iegisla-
IN are Inferior In type. speed. power,
maInent and efficiency TO those now
1.-the possession of and under COP
scts foh construction by foreign gov
n5nefltss and that the proposed legis-
Ion sof S43. 100000 TO be expended
thouts possibility OF competition for
Reconstruction OF submarines or the
ectric Boat Co.'s type.
I'M conclusion. hereby restate and
Lfdrin that my only purpose was 10
I upon the house as believed prop
y. TO investigate the conduct OF the
8ctrfc Boat Co, OF New Jersey, and
eir predecessors. the Holland Boat
. respecting the methods employed
said company In connection. with
d and proposed legislation before