The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-01-14

bids"
 Motion Called. l Thomas H. Motion was called by Capt. l White He testified: Was present at most of the meetings of the sanitary commission when the matter of award ing the contracts was discussed. l was opposed to accepting any bids that were not in conformity to the estimates of En- gineer Kendrick. MT. Drennen came to l my office, I recall, one day and wanted to know what we intended to do about I awarding the contract. He said that we might as well let it to the three contrac- tors; that the work could be done no l cheaper. I told him the commission thought a combination had been formed by the contractors and that 1 thought the l commission would be able later to get the bids down to the estimates of the engineer. He did not speak of the agree ment he had with the contractors at the time he was at my office
 Met Drennen on Train.
 Later, 1 saw MT. Drennen on the Lou isvIle and Nashville railroad train. 1 was then en route to Nashville. He asked me about the sewer, and then | told me of his agreement with the three l contracting firms, saying they had agreed | to pay him good commission. He did not state the amount of the commission they had agreed to pay him. He stated l the contractors had laid down on him relative to their agreement.
 No money was offered me to influ- ence my vote on the awarding of the contract. The first bids that came in, on May 20, 1 think, caused MT. Smyer and myself to arrive at the conclusion that a combination had been formed among the contractors"
 | combination and I backed him up in this. We had met with a similar com 1 bination with contractors befora. I re- 1 fer to the contract for paving South l Twentieth street when I make this state ment. We knew what it meant to be held up."
 Examination by MT, Weatherly: After | the meeting when the matter was refer 1 red to the construction committee we | undertook to have the contractors say if we re-opened the matter that they would come down to the figures of our engineer. Mir. Smyer, however, was opposed to doing business with the three contractors at all. MT. Kendriclk told us the threekfrms were the most competent in the district to do this class of work There was one other bid, that of Dunn and Lallande, which was higher than the bid ct the others"
 The minutes of the meetings of the san itary commission were introduced to show that all of the bids presented were higher than those of the Donelson Construction company, the Pennington Construction company and c. M. Burkhalter & Co.,
 Continuing Commissioner Motion testi- fled: From the beginning to the end the commission was of the opinion that only one bid was presented practically, and | this was the one of the contractors com binaton Most of our negotiations pass | bod no h. ing to do with the awarding of the con- tracts as far 1 know except what he told me while l was on the train going to l Nashville.
 ''The commission agreed for the con tractors to take the bonds at par, with accrued interest, before we would sign contract with them. The contractors gave bond The name of D. M. Drennen did not appear on the bonds'
 Gross-examination: MT. Drennen told me, I think, that he had investigated the matter and thought that the bids were low. MT. Drennen did not try to influence me or any other member of the commits sion, so far as I know, about the mat ter.
 Tt was my opinion that John E. Donel- son and the other contractors had formed l a conspiracy relative to the bidding on the work I knew of no false bid of the
 
 presented. MT. Drennen told me that the contractors had laid down on him.
 In Laughing Way.
 T would like to state that at the meet ing held after the train conversation with MT Drennen, that l told the members of the commission what MT. Drennen had said I told it. however, In a laughing way. l also told the commission that Mir ! Drennen had said to me the contractors would never carry out their contract"
 Redirect examination: MT. Drennen did not tell me what amount he was to get. He stated to me on the train that he was to give the contractors advice about getting the contract, and give general ad- vice about selling bonds and furnishing supplies. He did not intimate that he was to induce any member of the commission about awarding the contract"
 James J. Smith was called. He testified: Was a member of the sanitary commits sion in 1902 and am still a member. Knew of no connection D. M. Drennen had with the awarding of the contract My recol- lection is that some time after the award- ing of the contract some member of the commission who I presume was MT. Mol ton. referred to MT. Drennen speaking to him of the agreement he CMr. Drennen) had with the contractors"
 Examination by Mir. Weatherly: My recollection is that MT. Drennen was pres ent at the opening of the bids. 1 was not led to believe that he was in any way connected with the matter. inferred. however, when I saw him at the meeting that he was interested in furnishing sup plies to the contractors as he conducts a large department store in Birmingham
 Thought 1t Was Combination.
 'I think Mir Smyer said that it ap- | peared the contractors had formed com- binaton or conspiracy, and that the com mission should not have anything to do with them.
 Cross-examnation. "As a commissioner I sympathized with the other members that John F. Donelson and the other con- tractors had formed conspiracy or com lination I knew of no bid being turned in hy any contractor that was not in good faith"
 Nolan Called.
 | C. A. Nolan was called He testified: 'I am familiar with the lcteug of the con- tracts Mir. Drennen never spoke to me about the matter. Don't think I ever Eeard of MT. Drenren's claim for $10001 l until I read of 1t in the newspapers a commission and was in 1902
 Examination by MT. Weatherly: sI had | a conversation with Mel Drennen about June 20. l met him on Twcnty-first street near the place of business of Goodall, 1 Brown & Co He asked me what we inc | tended to do about letting the contracts.