Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1910-02-24
Is LESS DEFENSE THAN
AN ATTACK ON C0N6ER
Attorney Littleton Bursts Forth In De-
nunciatlcns and Accusations
Against Corrupt Methods Of Bridge
companies-Also Aims Blow at
Lawmaker Interested IN Combine.
INV AssocIated Pres..)

day Of Senator lothian y. Aids reply
to the Conger bribery charges was
less a defense then an attack. The
outline OF Aids case, laid before the
senate tcday. by his attorney, Martin
w Littleton. was burst OF dennncla-
ticn. invective and accusation that II
proved, would lay the bridge com
panies. one OF the most important In
-dustries in the state, open TO prcsecu-
ton fer both conspiracy to defraud
and legislative corruption. In striking
The bridge companies. Littleton hit
also Senator Ben Ginger. who. with
his brothers, once stood high in the
councils of the bridge buiIding COM
bine. and still, it is said. retain an In
terest in that business.
What He Will Prove
II Littleton carries out. his promise
he will prove:
r First-That Coneer's charges and
their support by Hiram G. Moe, are
untrue.
Second-That Aids activity in sup
IRE sslng legislation hostile to the
tridae companies in 1903 was due TO
the orders of United States Senator
Plat. the Republican State leader.
Third-That Corger's statements
are unworthy of belief and that testi-
mcnv of many of his Witnesses, quite
as Enthusiastically because they rep
scented corrupt corporations. WHICH.
in Littleton,s own picturesque IAN
guage. have laid a trail OF slime
over five states"
The Afternoon session was devoted
TO the examination of clerk Of the
assembly internal affairs committee OF
1901 in an effort TO prove that Conger
in that year. deliberately juggled GER
tain highway legislation until it came
cut Of the Committee in form that
suited the bridge interests.
The Plan to Rob.
l. The charges made In Littleton's
opening speech are important because
of the alleged unlawful acts coming
within the statute OF limitations and
suggests criminal prosecution.
The basis CT Littleton's argument
wss the Cleveland agreement un-
der which. he alleged. sixteen bridge
concerns conspired n 1901 to rob the
States of New York. Pennsylvania.
Maryland. West Virginia. Kentucky.
Ohio, Indiara and Michigan by means
of colIusive bidding.
Iittleton also mentioned icb at
Harrisburg. Pa. fer bridge over
Penn's creek. in February. 1905. and
declared that the contract price was
S64.975 and the estimated cost S44.-
500.
In this contract Littltton's memo
rsudum showed an item Of $500 for
engineering He charged that IN
der this head the bridge companies
set down what it cost them to tribe
the local authorities
Litle;on declared that the bribery
Of town officials was a regular custom
OF the bridge companies: bet by
charging fifty per cent profit they
had enough 20 divide among all the
bidders for a contract
Aids Resigns
Aids attorney vent even farther
and charged the bridge interests with
deliberate conspiracy against the de-
PENDANT He declared that Aids had
lived beyond reIroach beyond i'm
parchment and above attack until the
bridge companies. engaged driven.
bounded. and exciuied from the state.
az last. in q secret end confidential
combination. endeavcred 10 strike him
in the hack and pail him down from
his place in the senate.
jest before the close o. today's Sos
sion OF the bribery investigation The
res -rnation Of Sesat-r Jstham p.
Aids. 80 temporary president Of the
- nate. was read By the clerk and or