The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-06-03
LHLEY TALKS
 OF CHARGES Replies to the Commit tees Strictures. SAYS HE WAS WR0NGED Declares Compromise Was Offered
 Him. Connecticut Congressman Tries te set Himself Right After the Denunei- ation by Committee of Goa
 gressmen.

waterbury, Conn. June 2.---Congrea9- man George l.. Lilley, whose resoiu- ton and charges In connection with tho so-calIed submarine boat scandal re- suited last week in a severe scoring of the Congressman by the Boutell Inves- tigating Committee. today gave out a statement on the subject Incorporat- ed in the statement is a letter which declares that two weeks before the re- port of the committee denouncing Mfr. Lliley was made, MT. Boutell expressed admiration for Lilley and endeavored to effect an agreement whereby the matter under investigation by the com mlttee might be compromised. The let ter in which this allegation is made ia signed "E. W. Reisinger, NJ. D." and was addressed to Mrs. Lilley after the doctor had called upon Mir. Bouteil 10 explain that Congressman Lilley's phys ical condition necessitated hls leaving the city. The letter adds that when the proposition of a compromise was carried to Mir. Lilley by Dr. E. W. Reisinger the Congressman replied that he would rather die than withdraw the charges which he knew were honest and square. In concluding his state- ment Congressman LAlley says:
 "A suggestion that a member of the House has been annoyed by importuni- ties of the Electric Boat Company rep resentative cannot rfghtfuily be con-
 
 A request that the committee ascertain by impartial investigation whether in- proper 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 re- eeived excessive profit in the sale of submarine boats to the United States government. That belief has been strengthened by the testimony given before, the committee by a responsible person. that he would take contract for the construction of submarine at the price which I mentioned as giving liberal prnfit to the contractors. Wheth- I CT the conclusions of the committees in | this particular were justified or not I l leave the public tc judge. Conscious of the honesty of my motives and hav~ ! Ing information of the facts mentioned in the letter incorporated In this pa per. and having learned from my coun- sel that member of the committee had said to him in the presence of other members and without any dissent on their part, that the committee had no doubt of my sincerity and knewiedge that the statementa to my physician and my counsel were made near the close of the hearing and after I had concluded my testimony. my feeling. or rather my condition on learning the committees conclusion was stupefac- ton.
 T present this statement of my po- sition without any elaboration Of de- tails and with the renewed expression of my gratitude to the public that has so generously accorded me It's conn., dence, a confidence which I hope have deserved and shall never forfeit"
 Mir. Lilley declares in his statement that he has not now and never did have any interest in any company constructs ing or selling submarine torpedo boats, that he has not and never has had any afIlliation with persons interested in the construction or sale of Submarine torpeda boats.
 T tsstifled before the committee, and reiterate here" the statement con- tinues, that my motive in introducing my resolution calling for an investina= ton was the public welfare and that I did not act In concert with any other person. It is true that the immediate moving cause of my act was my con- viction that the appropriation bill, as framed in the Naval committee would so restrict the powers of the Secretary of the Navy that he would be compell. ed to purchase submarine boats Of the Electric Boat Company to the destruct- ion of competition and to the disad- vantage of the government. My belief that the methods employed by the Elec- tric Boat Company warranted investi- gatton was of long standing.
 Against the presumption of honesty and my own direct testimony and that of representatives of the Lake Torpedo Boat Company, there was no direct ev- idence. In the minds of the commit- fee. however. all these were outweighed bv certain circumstances which the committee incorporated in the report strung together on a chronological thread. There are. I believe, insignih- cant individuality and in the aggre- gate. I believed and I still believe. that the thing of consequence to the committee was the answers brought by inc questions and not the origin of the questions themselves am not attempt ing at this time to defend myself against a charge of faulty judgment. T would say, however, that have been informed by my counsel that If he had been permitted to examine witnesses in inc ordinary way. he would have gone dIrectly to representatives of the Lake Torpedo Boat Company as an obvious source of information and have asked them to put him upon additional lines of inquiry; that if he had failed to so he would have been negligent in the discharge of his duties. I do not un derstand how can be justly criticized for doing what my counsel had advised ma he would have been properly cen- gured for not doing if he had omitted to do 1t"
 nuIn aH4n