The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-04-15

that the investigations conducted WAS
not bona f1de
Mr.. Longs appearance before the COM
mittee was as barren of results as had
been expected. The exaggerating ego
from which he suffers had lead him To
believe that his appearance would be the
eliminating and dramatic climax of tie
examination. His advance on Monday
was heralded by an interview IN The Bir-
ningham Age Herald in which he pro-
| ceeded TO lay down the procedure which
would obtain on his examination.
He evidently expected. knowing that
he had nothing to tell that the procedure
outlined by him would not be adopted by
the committee; that he could then dra-
matically decline to testify, pose as
martyr for truth and, though crushed to
earth rise again with another fraudulent
claim OF whitewash Mr.. Longs appear
ance before the committee was expected
all day by IT. and when finally late in the
afternoon he appeared 1t was with a writ
en- production upon which presumably he
had been laboring. Before taking his seat
In the witness chair. being still in the
thrall of the ohsession that he was of
some importance. he filed with the ex-
aminer a written request that l be re-
quired to produce the testimony taken IN
the examination held by me on mis-
charges last summer. Every reasonably
well informed man in Alabama knows
that neither the examiner nor any court
could compel me by subpoena or any
other order to appear or to produce am
paper in my office. Whether Mr.. lsons
knew this or not I am unable to say 1t
may have been but another manifestation
of the silly and clownsh theatricals that
made him an object of ridicule and OF
pity on the stand
Handed Him Copies
strrhaf taofhfpo ,,,fplf he lacking to him
in the portentious effort he was about to
make, very gladly handed him the copies
of the testimony, Though he desired, as
expressed in his interview in The Age
Herald and In his statement to the ex-
aminer, to brush aside all technicalities
and leave the examination unhampered
by any rules of evidence Mr.. Long very
dramatically declined to read the evil
dence of two OF the witnesses on the
ground that the papers shown him did not
appear to be verified.
1.-THE proof offered at the time showed
that the witnesses in the investigation
held by me were sworn and examined
orally, and their testimony therafter re-
duced to writing by the stenographer. l
have never heard that in any court of law
attended by a stenographer the witnesses,
after the transcription of the testimony,
were required to sign it. The testimony Is
always given under the oath which Is
taken at the time the witness is intro
duced.
MIR. CANDLES testimony was as mat
ter of fact signed by him at the time,
and it is probable that all the rest was.
Mr.. Long, speaking with reference to
his examination in an interview published
In The Age Herald of Sunday, the 18th
inst stated that the examination was a
farce, and that It's sole purpose was to
acquit the governor and not to discover
the truth. and ne complained that he was
mpeached; that he was the committees
witness and that it was an 'unheard of
rule of law for party to impeach his own
witness Mr.. Long seeks in this to take
refuge behind one of those technicalities
which ne so forcibly decried. He knows,
moreover. and knew at the time he issued
his statement, that when his examination
was conducted he was asked if there was
anything else he desired to say, or II he
could suggest the names of any witnesses
who would support his statements, or
show any Irregularities or criminalities In
connection with the administration of the
convict department.
Perfectly Satisfied
HE expressed himself as being perfect
ly satisfied with the manner in which his
examination had been conducted and sug-
gested that Mr.. Gamble, Mr.. Henderson
and Mr.. Waits be examined by the COM
mittee. 1t was stated to him that the conf
mittee would take pleasure in examining
these witnesses, and he was requested TO
remain and be present during the course
of their examination. He stated that he
must leave at once. Mr.. Gamble, being
then in the presence of the committee, was
called to the stand before Mr.. Long could
take his departure and under protest Mr..
Long remained.
when Mr.. CANDLES examination had
been completed Mr.. Long was invited to
suggest questions to be asked Mr.. Gamble.
He was not permitted to usurp the prerog-
ative of the committee and cross examine
him himselg. This principle of procedure
had been adopted by the committee with
the first witness and has been consistently
followed since. Mr.. Long thereupon sug-
gested a number of questions which were
put In the language in which he asked
them to Mr.. Gamble, and he answered
them Although Mr.. Long did not await
the examination of Mr.. Waits and Mr.
Henderson the next day. he sent TO one OF
the attorneys a list of written questions
which he desired put TO them. These ques-
tions were asked each of the witnesses In
the exact words In which they were writ
ten in his letter. and were answered py
them Mr.. Long was asked to suggest
anything else that he knew that ought 10
be investigated with reference to the con-
viet department He said that ne hau hau
certain conversations with Mr. Coleman,
a warden at Speigner, and with Mr. Greer.
an associate Inspector, who had criticised
the administration of the convict depart
ment to him.
Contradicted Long
Mr.. Coleman was afterward placed
upon the stand and contradicted the
statement of Mr. Long. This is prob
ably the Impeachment to which MI
Long refers. The testimony by Mr
Coleman that Mr. Longs statements
were untrue came about in an investiga-
ton of the specific rumors whlch Mr..
Long mentioned in his testimony His
contention after he had failed to accept
my invitation to be present at the inves-
tigation which was started on his ami
davit and held by me last July, was that
It was a star chamber procedure ana
that he had no confidence that the in
vestigation would be bona hde.
The testimony at the investigation at
which Mr.. Long was witness produced
precisely the same facts as that held by