The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-01
WAS LACY AGENT 0F. OFFERS? CONVICTED. IS STLL AN ENG|MA.
Many Hold Belief Former Clerks Silence Bespeaks Loyalty to Others
 Than Himself
By l.. s. DEITY

Montgomery. February 2s.-(SpeciaI) Is Theodore Lacy a creature of circum- stances: Has he played the part of cat's-paw, 1he agent of another. whose guilty of n serious crime against his stateS Is Lacy guilty of stealing s0O.- 900 of state fundss
 Lacy, although convicted of embezzle- ment, is still an enigma. In the eyes of the state at large, he is guilty of a disgraceful crime, one that has cast much reproach upon the state But are there any palliating circumstances in connec- ton with his remarkable case? Is he really the thief that the prosecution has depicted him to be?
 His story may be told before many days have passed. It may be months be- fore the state at large is familiar with the details of the remarkable case. It may be that ultimately Lacy, the con- demned thief will be acquitted in the eyes of the public.
 Matter of Speculation
 Lacy's story can only be a matter of speculation at this time.
 However, many theories have been de- duced by those who have followed the celebrated case, the most important of which Is that Lacy, the condemned thief, is creature of circumstance. cat's-paw in obedience to the will of another.
 Analysing the case. shrewd attorneys have 'rought out the following deGuc' tions:
 The stete convict depar tment had nearly Sl50.000 of state funds deposited in illegal Repositories, most of which was in the Montgomery Savings bank Other funds were on deposit in the Montgomery Bank and Trust company, also an illegal de- pository
 Examiner of Public Accounts H. Y. Brooke had been delegated to make an examination of the books of the convict department and he began his examina- tion while, J. G. Oakley, president of tie bureau. was out of the city. At the time of the examination the department had nearly $l50,000 deposited in banks that were not state Repositories.
 Further Theory
 Again tEeorizing, the surposition is ad- vanced that Oakley wished to withdraw the funds on deposit from the illegal Repositories. and hence gave his chief clerk Theodore Lacy, checks to draw Iut Gll tft liOney Otf QtpoSlt licSc banks. with instructions, to redeposit them in state banks
 Following this line of argument Lacy went to the N N)ntgomery Savings bank with blank checks signed by Oakley, ob- .ained 2,c00 from that institution and s50.000 from the Montgomery Bank and Trust company. a depository of the for mer bank, and exchange for $3S,0 600 from the Montgomery SavIngs bank. making in all $110.OOO.
 Evidence before the present trial began brought out the fact ,hat Lacy had de- posted the $3SO00 in exchange in the Exchange National bank of Montgomery. and had drawn out $lS,0O0. giving him s90,000 in cash. which he had drawn out of the three Montgomery banks, leaving s20,00o therein. 1t being legal depository for that amount.
 In the meantime Lacy had given checks to D. G. Trawick, clerk of the department for s117. OPS. IS on two Birmingham banks. The evidence so far has shown that $72,- GOO of this money was reposing in a suit case at the Union station, and that $18- cd0 additional had been drawn out of the Exchange National hank. with 2 balance of $a0O00 ir that instittition, it being a legal depository for $2t.c00.
 TheorizinR further, Lacy had s90OO0 in cash, with @20.000 in exchange ,en deposit m Montgomery bank q stare deposi- tory. with which to meet drafts for Sll7,- eco On two Birmingham hanks. both of which were state depcettories. las 1t ~~-~-~>~--~----<-- ------>---
 <Iu-- L-. .- m-.&.