The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1912-08-02

during the negotiations many offers were
made pro and con by MIR. oakley and
Mr.. Henderson, and that when the ne
gotiations first commenced Mr.. Oakley
insisted that $40 or s45 a month would be
fair and reasonable price, but at no
time was any offer made directly or in.
directly on the part of the Henderson
Lumber company for these convicts at
the sum of $40 month without CLASH
fieation.
Mr.. Gamble stated that it was untrue
that the present price named in the con.
tract Of 500 per month was reduced from
ar offer of $40 month in consideration
of any payment made to Mr.. p. G. Bow
man. On the contrary, he stated positive
~ that the company at no time had Of
fered to pay $40 a month for convicts,
nor did Colonel Bowman ever make any
suggestion to him on the subject TO secure
reduction OF any character. Mr.. Gam
BILE stated that he did pay for the Hen
derson Lumber company the sum of 5000
to Colonel Bowman, but it was in pay
ment of his attorneys fee as general
counsel for the company.
Mr.. James G.. Oakley testified that the
reason he gave motive to the Henderson
Lumber company that he intended 70
cancel their contract during the fall OF
1911 was because he did not think that
the state was receiving sufficient COM
the contract then In existence
New Contract Probable
HE testified that the difference between
the present contract and the one which
was cancelled In the earnings of each
convict was sS.73 per man per month in
favor of the new as against the old con
tract. and that under the present con-
tract the company is to pay 800 per cal
endar month for each and every man de-
livered able to perform sawmill and tur-
pentine work without any scale price or
classification or deduction to be made
for loss of time or sickness. Witness fur
Their stated that IL was absolutely untrue
that the Henderson Lumber company at
any time made him a proposition to pay
$40 for these men; that there never was
but one proposition considered, and that
WAS a proposition which he submitted
and which was embraced in the contract
last executed
Witness further stated that he had
no knowledge of the fee that Mr. p. G.
Bowman received or was to receive nor
was he ever Informed by Mr.. Bowman
as to the amount Of mis- compensation.
Bowman Absent From State
Mr.. P. g. Bowman was absent from
the state. but sent a statement denying
specifically each and every charge made
5000 as compensation for his services as
general attorney for the Henderson Lum-
Der company.
THE testimony of these witnesses en-
braces every person who was connected
with the execution of the contract now
in existence or was shown to<haye had
any knowledge thereof except Mr.. Hen
derson, and clearly shows that the
charges preferred by Mr. Long are with
out any foundation in fact. The evidence
also clearly establishes that the present
contract Is the most profitable which
the state has ever made with any lumber
company during the existence of the con-
wet department. There is absolutely no
evidence showing or tending to show any
wrong doing or improper conduct on the
part OF Mr.. Oakley or any person repre-
senting the convict department or the
Henderson Lumber company.
Purpose of Investigation
1.-THE governor has no direct power TO
remove from office the president or as
sociate members on the convict board.
Section 6511 of the code provides that
for malfeasance or misfeasance in Office
the president of the board or either in
spector may by order Of rhe governor
to the attorney general be impeached
before the supreme court. Hence the
whole purpose of the investigation which
! conduftcu was 10 ascertain "netner
there had been any acts of malfeasance
or misfeasance on the part Of the presi-
dent of the convict board which would
Justify his impeachment The power to
order in parchment is alone vested In the
governor, and 1t was for him to deter
mine from testimony submitted and all
the facts and circumstances of the/ case
whether there had been such conduct
upon the part of the official against whop,
cf1a rpe made would Justify Inn
parchment proceedings.
'.In view of the publicity which has
been ~iven II these char ges ! deem 1t
my duty to state that after careful and
thorougn investigatiJn no evidence was
developed rejecting in any wise upon
the integrity or efficiency of the presi
dent of the convict department or any
officer thereof. but on the contrary, he
Is entitled TO commentator for his sue
-xx.iaioh