Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-08-11
submitted by him to certain witness, es exceeded 200."

"facts" of which he had stated thai he was mot talking upon hearsay'
 we're largely newspaper reports, Il, l logical assumptions, rumors, snspi
 cions and misstatements too often
 stubbornly adhered to-" in general
 such stuff as small minds prone to innuendo and suspicion feed upon al truth. The charges of corrupt acts I or corrupt influences not only were
 not proved but were shown to be l without foundation.
 I For example, let me cite the case
 of Congressman Loud of Michigan
 member of the naval committee l against whom MT Lilley avowed his
 suspicious. His proofs were articles
 in Michigan papers based upon l anonymous letters from Washington 10 Detroit newspaper, and an
 anonymous letter of similar import l to a man named Edinborough oi I Michigan, candidate for congress
 against MT Loud. Edinborough also
 received a forged letter from Washington upon the same subject The committee by clever detective
 work discovered the source of these
 letters and by the sworn confessions
 of their authors it was found that the two anonymous letters were
 written by an employe and agent of | Simon Lake of the Lake Torpedo
 Boat Go, Lilley's friends and back
 CTS, and the forged" letter was
 written by one Webster, MT Lilley's
 own secretary. When Marlborough | brought this forged letter to MT
 Lilley he destroyed it instead of taking it to the committee, and the
 next day Edinborough committed | perjury when asked about it.
 The committee comments upon this action as follows This com
 mittee cannot decide which, was the
 most despicable act, Webster's in
 writing the forged letter, MT Lil- ley's in destroying 1t, or Edinbor- ough's in swearing that he never re-
 ceived it., and again fit is charac-
 teristic of MT Lilley's attitude to- ward the house and his colleagues through all these proceedings that
 when. he. learned his suspicious Of
 Representative Loud were ground. less and were created by the secret attacks of an interruptions schooner he has never, up to the present time, expressed his qualification of the re,
 moval of the cloud which hung
 his colleague, or made 70 him any apology, or given any expression Of
 manifestation of regret that he should have made an unwarranted attack upon the honor and good
 name of his fellow member" Alb uno disce omnes.
 And right here lies the heart Of the case against Mir Lilley. When he
 found his charges utterly broken
 down, when he discovered that he had been the tool and dupe of able
 men, when he saw his colleagues cleared of his miserable charges, even then he had not the honor,
 the. ? fair-mindedness, the moral strength to acknowledge that he was wrong and ask pardon for it. AL though his unfounded suspicious had temporarily robbed honest men in high positions of their dearest treasure-a good name-he had not the manliness to say, am sorry.
 The result of the investigation would have been farcical except for the unhealed wounds of those pub lie men unjustly attacked, and ex- cept especially fol. the pitiful ex- pose of the utter lack of high mind edness. and moral sensitiveness which characterized Mir .Lilley's con- duct through the whole investiga- tion. s.,: -e,..s v -e< y. ' In defense of Mir Lilley and tc excite sympathy for him 1t has bee
 hinted that if the procedure had been different, or if MT Lilley had not been hampered, ec, etc, etc. he would have made better showing. The committee states that the pr.
 cedure was the regular procedure established by preceding investiga- tions in congress and that Mir Lilley was deprived of no right or just privilege. However. the real issue Is not what Mir Lilley might, could, or would have discovered. The real issue Is the unworthy character Of Mir Lilley as made manifest by his own statements and sworn testimony and that of his packers and friends
 No method of procedure or ham, pering could make an honorable man deceitful and untruthful, or make him continually inaccurate under oath" as Mir Lilley was over and oyer again proved to have been. Nor could they force an honorable man to stab the reputation of col leagues by innuendo, by vague hints in the newspapers, and by letters written in his office by his own secre. tary and signed with his own care fully initiated signature-letters of which he had knowledge but only disayowed by him long after their despicable purpose had been accom- plished.
 Read the committees words: "It Is difficult to reconcile the decIara- tions with the acts of MT Lilley. Indeed they can only be reconciled by considering the recklessness with which he makes all charges which are calculated to prove the particular moment, or perhaps they can be reconciled through that con- venienee of his memory which will not permit him to remember any thing nos In keeping with the par ticular thing he desires to prove.'' '' Again. ''It is only necessary in this case to state the facts as Mir Lil- ley himself has testified. to show the insincerity and deliberate false l ness of his position" Again. ''to testify in many instances with the that cannot be explained i in any manner creditable to him. Again, This interview must have l been between 18th and 18th of ] 1908. under circumstances