The Washington herald., 1908-04-29
LILLEY CHARGESFALL
Investigators Fail to Find
Any Grounds.
ADMIRAL BOWLEs LAST STRAW
Former Navy Officer shows that In
stigator of Probing Was Wrong in
Statements in Regard 10 Cost of
Submarines Per TOn-WritinE Ex-
pert Again Takes the stand.

Charges Of corrupt practices in sub
marine legislation having fallen down
after two months Of investigation by q
House committee. one charge Of Repre-
sentative LiIley. Of Connecticut, still re-
manned uncontradicted by evidence. This
was in reference to excessive profits IA
submarine contracts.
Mr.. Lilley had stated originally that the
contracts with the Electric Boat Company
times referred TO as graft Of about a
million and half dollars. and had quoted
from a report OF Admiral Bowles. from
which Mr.. Lilley made a deduction TO
prove his statement
In this report Admiral Bowles had given
an estimate Of building a submarine of
one type as $50, 459, and this admitted Of a
fair profit Mr.. Lilley had decided that
the type described was a 120-ton boat. and
so used 120 as a division. and found that
the cost Of construction of submarines
was S745 a ton. On this basis M. Lilley
had calculated the excess profits in sub
marine contracts TO date.
hOWAeS BASSlnuSes AneDEE.
Admiral Bowles as a witness yesterday
dissipated Mr.. Lilley's theory. The deduc-
ton from his figures was not justified.
The l2O-ton boat calculation could not ap-
ply 10 submerged tonnage and he had
never made any such estimate on a ton
mage basis. Admiral Bowles stated that
the Octopus actually cost S255, 600 for con-
struction. not including Office charges and
the contract price Of the boat is S250.O00
He gave the committee detail figures 10
show the proper estimate of cost for
building submarines. based on the figures
Mr.. Lilley had quoted. He fixed the cost
this way at 81. 10 a ton.
Mr. BoWles is now President OF the Fore
River Shipbullding Company, builders Of
the Holland submarines for the Electric
Boat Company. In 1902, when he made
the report referred to, he was chief Of
the Bureau of Construction Of the Navy
Department.
Another thrill OF mystery was supplied
by David n. Carvalho, handwriting ex-
pert and ink expert. He held one of the
letters submitted 10 the committee by
Mr.. Webster, Mr.. Lilley's private secre-
tary. It was dated February 20 and was
was one Of a number OF anonymous COM
munications received by Mr. Liley.
Mr.. Webster had been pressed closely
by Representative Olmsted to fix the date
of receipt of this particular letter, for
IN it was the name of a world-famed
churchman which Mr. Olmsted thought
should have made some impression on
Mr. Websters mind Mr.. Webster would
not fix the date except to say it was not
later than in March that he opened the
letter.
As 20 the lax,
Mr. Carvalho declared that the ink on
this letter when he examined it three
days ago was twelve days Old The letter
could not have been written on February
20 nor on March %, because the process
Of oxidation had not sufficiently ad-
vanced." Mr.. Carvalho's detailed expla-
nation Of the chemical laws by which he
established his conclusion was convincing.
Colleagues of Mr.. Lilley on the Naval
Committee gave testimony that contra
dicted Mr.. Lilley's repeated assertions
that he never spoke about his resolution
of February 20 TO any one before intro
dueing IT, Representative Sherman, of
New York, testified that Mr.. Lilley had