Birmingham state herald., 1897-06-06
THE RANDoLPH coMpRoaIIsE.

the ftdHuOApH C9ulpIuulhSe case, NnlCll our readers will enjoy. It comprises a review of the story and the latest cor respcndence on the subject.
 The Advertiser in publishing its in- terview withi Governor Jones in regard to the Rar,doaph case says the editorial of the State Herald was inspired and mean ly irlslnuates that Governor Johnston was the sourca of inspiration. The Slate Herald desires to say that neither Gov. Johnston, nor any other public official. gave any information, inspiration or sUg- gestion. and knew nothing of the edit,riai until it was printed The State Herald received a copy of the award as other papers did, and had no other informa- ton or suggestion in any manner, shape or form from any one. It might be per- tinent to inquire if the Advertisers edit crials are always equally free from '.in- spiration."
 Gov. Jones seems hurt at the grounds upon which the State Board of Compro- mise agreed to accept the $S.0O0 from two of the sureties of Randolph In discharge of their liability. and seems to think an attack was intended upon him.
 Let us refer to- o-our news columns aid see if he has just cause for any com pia:nt
 j. It is admitted that on the 9th of No vember 1894, the auditor, in an official letter." informed Gov. Jones that Ram dolph was defaulter for about 6,4OO.
 Section 633 of the Code declares that when this is done the governor "shalr'' cite the judge to show why he has failed to comply with the law, and if he fails to show sufficient cause" the governor "shall" direct the attorney general to in- stltute impeachment proceedings. These are official acts required by law to be performed by the governor. The official letter of the auditor was a public docu- ment, and as such any citizen was en- titled to know its contents. Possibly the governor may, to protect the interests of the State, or to give an official time to settle withhold such document tenn poIaTily, but certainly not for weeks and months. It is fact that this official Let ter was never given to the public during the term of either Gov. Jones or Gov. Oates nor did Gov. Jones ever "cite" Randolph to show cause why he should not be impeached.
 Gov. Jones says he conferred with the chief bondsman and his son, and they concurred in the belief that it was best fer them and the public that time should be given Randolph.
 He further says: "The bondsmen knew he had given the judge until December to make good his account"
 The evidence seems perfectly conclusive that Gov. Jones is badly mistaken in both statements.
 First. Ray Rushton, the son, lived with Is father in Montgomery, saw him every day, they were on the most cordial and affectionate terms. Ray was law yer and the most natural thing In tfe world was for the father to have told his son the first moment he apprehended danger. Ray said he had not heard of Randolph's default until about the time Randolph had paid up the $6,400 in Jan uary, and that when it was suggested to him that his father was on Randolphs bond he went to his father and told him of the whispered default, and his rather was greatly surprised and thereupon he took steps at his fathers instance to get his father off the bond, but it was too late as the grand jury afterwardiindicted Randolph and he fled. a-
 Ray says also that he never had any conversation with Gov. Jones about this matter until January.
 This Is not an issue of veraciry but Of memory. Governor Jones says he talked with MT. Rushton and his son; the son denies this and the father is dead.
 Second. There were but three sureties on Randolph's bond-Rushton, Aber- erombie and Craik The dead Rushton
 fxrf h fc \ Abercrombie answers in person and as- serts most emphatically that he never heard of Randolph's default until after November and never concurred in or re- duested any delay. The only man left is MT. Craik who made no appeal to the board and who has no property subject to execution. It would therefore seem that the only security who has not denied that Gov. Jones conferred with him was a gentleman who unfortunately had no financial interest in the result so far as his own personal liability was concerned. As vet he has made no statement a@Third. On the 1st of April 1895, just af- ter Randolph's flight, Gov. Jones was in- .terviewed The press were criticising him and Gov. Oates about this matter. The governor made defense of his action and explained why time was given, and he never once intimated that he had ever conferred with single security or had their concurrence in the indulgence This was the very best defense that he could then have given. that the men who were to make the loss good had asked indul- genoe.. The facts were then fresh in the governors mind and that potent fact was not stated. Nothing of the kind is hinted at In that interview. There was. then certainly no reason why that fact, If 1t was fact. should not be stated and there was every reason why Gov. Jones should; then have stated.it. .. s .7. ..
 The governoE issalso mistaken in saying there wassnoa substantial default. after Nov. 4, 1885 It Is well known that Ram dolph collected over s28,Oo0 licenses in January. He paid up the s6,40o and he took away with him when he fled $14.000 of the peoples money.
 The governor seems to think that Ran 1olphs default arose from bad bookkeep- ing and indulgence to poor taxpayers 7(a nother of defense) but every intel-