Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-10-28
OLD STORY REuASHED
Ex.lIdsrmsn Sbsrwoed Trles 10
 Give Llllsy . Boost.
Waterbury, Conn. Oct s4, 1908.


 Editor Evening Democrat:
 Dear Sir: I am a private citizen of Waterbury. not an office. holder and not professional politician, but as one who takes quiet interest in public matters have followed the developments of the state campaign closely. There is so much difference between the estimate of MT sLilley that some prolific writers are at- tempting to impose upon the people of the state, and the estimate which l have formed after some years of residence In the same city, that I propose to ask your indulgence while l present his character and record in the light in which 1t appears to me. I will say that while l am friendly to MT. Lilley. am also friendly to mankind in general. am not on in- timate terms with him, and not even in frequent communication with him, so that he does not even know that I am writing this letter.
 We are passing through a state campaign which for abuse and mud slinging has seldom, if ever, been equalled. The candidate for gov ernor nominated by more than a two- thirds vote of the state convention, the delegates to which had been se- lected by an unusually large primary vote, has been villifed outrageously, and that by members of his own party.
 Very few men have ever been placed in nomination better fitted by business and legislative experience to act as the chief executive of the state than George L. Lilley. He had a phenomenally prosperous business career and, while still under 40, had by energy and application amassed competence, Up to that time he had taken little interest in politics except to vote and work indirectly for the republican party.
 At the annual town meeting of Waterbury in 1900 he vigorously protested against the appropriation of $20,000 for roads outside the city limits, and offered to bond himself to furnish, for the current year, bet ter roads than had been given previ- ously, for about one-fifth of the an- nual appropriation for that purpose. His proposition was booted down, and the usual appropriation voted.
 This, his first appearance in pub lie matters, led to his nomination and election as state representative one month later. His record in the following session was such that when Connecticut was allotted fifth rep resentative to congress in 1902, he was overwhelmingly the choice of the delegates for the position. He was nominated and elected, and twice thereafter reelected by pluralities of 13.077. 33,706 and 20,36S. Ills record in his first and second terms was such as to deserve and receive commendation from both parties. In his third term, however, he received a setback. The matter of the inves- tigation at his instigation of the Electric Boat Go, and the methods it had used to secure legislation, is fa- miliar to everybody. MT Lilley, as a member rof the committee on naval affairs, discovered that this company had received, on contracts already secured, an excess of profits amount ing to $1,500,000, and was after, and likely to get, another contract which should show a still further excess of profits amounting to s1,- 100000. Familiarizing himself with the record of hearing held in 1902 on the subject of submarine boats before the house naval committee, he introduced resolution for an in- vestigation of the matter of the enormous prices paid by the govern ment for these contracts.
 The resolution was passed and committee appointed to conduct the investigation. According to ali precedent and fairness he should have been made a member of that committee, but he was left out, and 1t was made up of some of the best trained lawyers in the house.
 The committee refused to allow him to be represented by counsel, would not allow the cross-examina- tion of witnesses, refused to examine the books of the Electric Boat Co, and MT Lilley found himself being investigated and bound hand and foot. As we all know the report of this committee was adverse and was adopted by the house.
 Now we cannot but ask whence this manifestly unfair and malicious opposition. We say there must have been a reason, and we can give none except it be this, that we must at east infer that it was known by the speaker of the house and the com nittee that there was too much truth n the allegations of MT Lilley to be uncovered in presidential year, and hat at all hazards even if it result sd in politically killing him, the truth must be suppressed. At any rate it vas so suppressed, and every newspa- per in Connecticut. even the New Haven Journal-Courier took sub- 'tantially that position, and praised MT Lilley for his action while ex- pressing regret at the outcome.
 Mr Lilley had, four years ago, pub icly expressed his desire and ambi- ion to be governor. A laudable am- ,ition surely. Two years ago he vol lntarily stepped aside for Mir wood- I