Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1908-03-13

Mr.. Olmsted took up in detail the
question Of plans for the building OF
submarine boats and drew from Mr..
Lilley the statement that In his opin.
ion both the Octopus and Lake boats
are of an obsolete type. The point
raised in Mr.. Lilley's statement regard.
ing excessive profits to the Electric
Boat company was gone into, and Mr..
Lilley said he would produce evidence
from naval officers confirming that
statement
A lengthy discussion arose between
Mr.. Olmsted and Mr.. Lilley over that
portion of Mr.. Lilley's statement re-
lating to newspaper correspondents and
the part they have taken in creating
what Mr.. Lilley termed sentiment for
submarines, particularly on the Pacific
coast.
Mr.. Lilley said he could only name
two newspaper men at this time who
had worked for the Electric Boat COM
pany, and he gave the names of two
who he said had admitted having
worked for the company.
Mr.. Lilley insisted that if the com.
mittee would call the witnesses whose
names he had given it would ascertain
that there were great many such
men employed and that a. great deal
Of money has been spent that way.
"The air lis full of it." he said.
Mr.. Lilley was asked by Mr.. Olmsted
to give the names Of attorneys employ.
ed by tk> Electric Boat company in
districts Of members of the naval af.
fairs committee.
John Kellogg" he replied, "of Wa.
terbury in Mr.. Sperry's district and
W. D. Gordon of Midvale, Mich, in
Mr.. Loud's district. I have also been
told of lawyer in Texas in Mr..
Gregg's district I think his name is
Coward. do not think Of any more
at present, but IL you will call these
witnesses I am satisfied in my own
mind that you will discover more"
During his examination on this sub.
ject Mr.. Lilley mentioned the fact that
he had consulted with former Senator
Thurston Of this city, who is the attor.
ney here for the Lake Submarine Boat
company, but insisted that that gentle.
man had not formulated his Q4illey's)
charges.
Mr.. Olmsted was insistent in his
questioning, which led Mr.. Lilley to
ask as to the pertinence Of the ques.
tions. II understand that am not on
trial here,"' continued Mr.. Lilley, 'and
how does it affect the investigation OF
the Electric Boat company as to where
/ got information or whom l counseled
with?'
Mr.. Olmsted-We may be investigat |
ing two companies before we get
through. We want to get at the bot
tom of this matter.
The question of the scope of the in.
vestigation being brought into ques.
tion, Mr.. Lilley said:- "The resolution
reported from the committee on rules
does not seem to bear much relation.
ship to the resolution / introduced. For
instance, 1t says something about
charges against members Of congress
] have made no charges against mem
bers of congress"
Mr.. Lilley was asked If he had any
additional witnesses to suggest at this
time. He replied that he had not, but
would be very glad to give a list OF
names Of people who, he thought
would throw a good deal of light on
the subject.
1--WE propose to dig as deep as any OF
these submarine boats dig" said Mr.
Olmsted.
That won't be very far" replied
Mr.. Lilley amid laughter.
Shortly before the committee ad
iourned Congressman Gregg Texl
,ame into the room and desired to ask
/ number Of questions of Mr.. Lilley
Chairman Boutell told him he would
better take the stand, and after being
sworn Mr.. Gregg said:
II had no idea of appearing as a
but / was told that Mr.. Lilley
aid there was an attorney from my
district representing this company
lere In Washington. This is made out
u the whole cloth. There is not par
icle of truth In it"
Chairman Boutell stated that the
committee had received letters from
x-Senators Butler and McNeir askins
he privilege of testifying. As neither
me Of these gentlemen was present
he open meeting of the committee adj :
ourned until Monday. The commit ,
ee has not yet decided whether tt !
ubpoena all Of the witnesses asked
or by Mr.. Lilley.
Nota Adainat prxan