Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-06-24

of all cars in the garage and personally
in charge of Mrs. Conley's car. Half
his salary was paid by Conley, he
said. He testified that Conley paid
for all tires for his wife's car.
He said he was in charge of the I'M
loading of 200 or $50 government
trucks which were received at Deer
Lodge for the highway commission ans
that he used the convict. Frank Whit
lock, in assisting in the work. as he
could drive a truck.
Good said gasoline from the prison
garage was used to unload the trucks
! and later to haul them to the state
ranch. about five gallons being re-
quired for each truck. Later, when
the trucks were taken away to various
parts of the state, the tanks were
filled from the garage gasoline sup
ply, he said. He said no stock of tires
was kept by the state and there seldom
were more than four or five new tires
on hand. He told of buying tools for
the garage but that all the tools he
bought were charged to Mr.. C3niey.
Under cross-examination, he said
about S5 per cent of his driving time
was spent in driving Mrs. Conley's car
but that the bulk of his work was in
looking after six or seven convicts
working in and about the garage. He
said he did a lot of driving for Mr.. Con-
lev and had brought him to Helena
probably 90 times.
Ford Tells of Agreements
S. C. Ford, attorney general from
Jan. /, 1917. to Jan. 3, 1921. testified
that he was familiar with the Ayles-
worth ranch and the states lease upon
the ranch, that he knew of the milk
contract whereby Conley was paid 8
and s cents a gallons cents during
most of his term of office-and that
Conley was to have the use of convict
labor in the care of the dairy herd;
and that as to horses. the state was to
have the use of such of ConleyIs
horses as it required, the state to fur
nish all feed and to replace horses.
harness. wagons and implements when
worn out. and that Conley retained the
! right TO make use of the horses when
they were not required by the state.
Mr.. Rankin asked him why the board
had kept no minutes covering these
matters and he replied:
Il suppose for the same reason. Mr..
Rankin. that YOUR board kept no min
, utes I'D to the time of the commence
ment of this litigation; partly a matter
of carelessness and partly because it
was not feasible TO keep a strict ac-
count of our affairs in relation to the
handling of the convicts.'
Asked if the state was in partner
ship with Conley on the Aylesworth
ranch. Ford replied he did not under
stand there was any partnership, that
the state paid part of the rent and
Conley d McTasue paid part,
He added that this system was
nlo,~ol -, 101 wkan rnpIav claimed
he could see no reason why he should
pay for hay which the state was un-
der agreement to furnish him for the
maintenance of his horses.
Asked if this hay was being used
TO feed COnley's cows, the witness re-
piled he did not know but he remem-
bered some discussion in relation to a
trade of hay from the Aylesworth
ranch to be used for the COWS in ex-
change for other hay. which would lead
TO the belief that it was not contem-
plated the Aylesworth hay was avail
able for feeding at the dairy.
State Short of Funds
Questioned concerning the Walton
ranch deal. Mr.. Ford said that Conley
wanted the state to buy the ranch
but it had no money available and
Conley said he would advance the
necessary funds and expect the state
to reimburse him, together with in
i%terest upon the money he should put
in. ConIey was authorized 20 erect
buildings upon the ranch and to use
prison brick in construction. said the
witness. He added that he considered
it state land and understood il had not
been taxed.
He was asked by Mr.. Rankin if there
were not some conditions to tho pur-
chase under which it was understood
Conlcy was taking chances on getting
his money back.
Mr.. Ford replied that there were
no such chances. that it was a state
purchase and the board had in mind
three sources from which ii might OBJ
tain the money to pay for the ranch:
First. the belief that the prison would
earn $4,000 or $4,000 on the Nimrod
road job; second, that the legislature
would make an appropriation for the
purpose; and third. that il might he
paid for out of the mex current appro-
priation.
If the old board had continued in
power it would have been paid. said
Mr.. Ford. He added that Conley knew
he was taking no chances and the
board also knew it.
Profit on Nimrod job
Asked by Mr.. Rankin if in reality
the state had not lost money on the
Nimrod job, the witness replied that he
had the figures of the chief engineer,
John n. Edy, showing that a saving
of either S6S.0O0 or $4,000 had been
made to the state on this work.
Questioned as TO the price of the
Walton ranch. he replied that it was to
have been bought for $50 per acre but
that Conley succeeded in getting it at
500 per acre. He told the attorney
general he never knew of any arrange
.ment whereby Conley was 10 receive
$50 per acre for the land. that Conley
was not selling the ranch. He said
he was not sure he ever knew the op-
ton or agreement had been entered
into in the name of Conley. that he
never knew of n mortgage for $4,000
on the land. but that he did know of
an easement held by the Anaconda
Copper Mining company permitting il
to flood a small tract along the river.
However. he said. he considered the
land was well worth $40 per acre.
Mr.. Ford also testified as to the
details of the pork agreement and said
The board we'll knew that the pork for
The prison was being furnished by Con
ley & McTague and that there was no
reason he knew of why the bills should
nave been rendered in the name of
" L. III nII bn HnnD