The Atlanta Georgian,
Sunday, 24th August 1913.
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 2
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character
of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and wi
th a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 4
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemm
ie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and in
terpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his d
uty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive
) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was to
o wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 3
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the h
usband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by a
ny other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 5
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records u
nder his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 6
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Cha
rges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my po
int. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 8
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I
don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police
.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposit
ion.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the wri
ting of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good peo
ple don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 7
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to en
d!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he c
ould measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 9
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind eac
h sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 10
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need
any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of th
at which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 12
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her em
ployer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes a
bout the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a cr
ime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the
cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 11
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more gener
ally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great me
asure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Ev
en the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 13
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 14
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at
police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a
man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 16
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement
he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman F
leming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this ma
n, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven
't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey rea
d from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 15
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives
, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found tha
t Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 17
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of
the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 18
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began
to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. H
ere's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 20
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to th
e pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because
he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it th
ere very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity
to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstac
le to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 19
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were
not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be im
possible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 21
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with s
ome of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 22
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. Bu
t suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the st
and and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 24
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses
upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; w
as lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said h
e was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Fr
ank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 23
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken int
o three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.< /p>
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case
made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 25
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
Crowd Greets Him With Cheers.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
Hurls Charge Directly at Frank.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
Likens Frank to Oscar Wilde.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
Prisoner Encourages His Wife.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
PAGE 26
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
A TENSE moment in the courtroom yesterday when Solicitor Dorsey was denouncing
Frank in his dramatic plea to the jury. Numbered in the picture are (1) Solicitor Hugh
M. Dorsey, (2) Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford, (3) Attorney Reuben Arnold of counsel for the defense, (4) Luther Z. Rosser, who has had charge of the battle for Frank's life; (5) Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the defendant; (6) Leo M. Frank, whose rate will soon rest with the jury; (7) Mrs. Rea Frank, his mother, and (8) Judge L. S. Roan.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and affrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longe
r on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Dorsey's Closing Address a
Scorching Attack on Frank
Hurls Charges of Perversion and Murder in Face of Defendant While
Wife Bows Head and Weeps.
Probably a more stirring, denunciatory, and at the same time incisive and analytical argument, has never been heard in a Georgia court. Here it is as the Solicitor delivered it:
Dorsey moved over to the railing of the jury box as he opened his speech.
Your honor and gentlemen of the jury, he said, I was speaking o you yesterday of the character of this defendant. This defendant has not a good character. The conduct of the counsel in this case in failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies, refutes effectively and absolutely the claim of the defendant that he has a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
As I said, if this man had a good character, no power on earth could have kept him and his counsel from asking those young girls where they got their information and why they said what they did. Now that's a common sense proposition.
You know as twelve men seeking to get at the truth that they did not ask those hair-brained fanatics, as Mr. Arnold calls them, questions about Frank's character because they were afraid, and those witnesses, as good as any the defense put up, were unimpeached and are unimpeachable. And you tell me that because the good people come here from Washington street and testify to his good character is that he has one!
It very often happens that a man's wife is the last person to know his wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up and hide his evil self. Very often his guilty conscience turns him that way. Many a man is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Many a man is a white sepulcher on the outside and absolutely rotten within. But suppose he has a good character. David had a good character until he put Uriah in the forefront of battle that he might be killed that he could get his wife. Judas Iscariot had a good character among those Twelve Men until he accepted those 30 pieces of silver.
I have shown you that under the law they had a right to bring out all those things. You saw they dared not do it. Let's see what the law says. I'll read here from the Eighty-third Georgia Report:
Whenever any persons have evidence in their possession and they fail to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would be hurtful if they did, and their failure to produce evidence is a circumstance against them.
You don't need any lawbook to tell you that. It's plain common sense.
Recalls Case of
Oscar Wilde.
Benedict Arnold was brave. He enjoyed the confidence of all the people and those in charge of the Revolutionary War until he betrayed his country. Since that day his name has been a synonym for infamy. Oscar Wilde, an Irish knight, a brilliant author, whose works will go down through time, gave us De Profundis,' which he wrote while in jail"a remarkable work"yet when the Marquis of Queensberry discovered that there was something wrong between Wilde and his son, Wilde had the effrontery and the boldness to sue him for damages. A suit in retaliation resulted in the conviction of Wilde for criminal practices. Yet, where the English language is spoken the effrontery of the testimony on cross-examination of this man"on cross-examination of this man"an effrontery typical of this sort (turning to Frank) will always be a matter for deep study for lawyers and for people interested in that sort of degeneracy.
He had a wife and two children. His shame probably never would have been brought to light but for the fact that he had the effrontery and the boldness to start a suit. It ended in his being sent to prison.
And the prosecution of Oscar!
He was a man who led his esthetic movement man. His cross-examination was a thing to be read with pride by every lawyer. The whole world took notice of his prosecution, and yet when Oscar Wilde was an old man, gray-haired and tottering to the grave, he confessed to his guilt. Prominent? Why, he was one of the most prominent men in the world! Why, he came to America and founded the esthetic movement here. He raised the sunflower from a weed to the dignity of a flower. He was handsome"one of the handsomest
men to be found. He had moral courage, yet he was a pervert, proved and confessed.
There was a handsome man in San Francisco, a member of this defendant's sect"Abe Ruef, a man who possessed all of the faculties of highest intelligence, yet he corrupted even Smith, and his corruption of the poor girls with whom he came in contact brought him to the penitentiary. I have already referred to Durrant. His character did not prevent the jury from convicting him. This defendant's character, like Durant's, is not worth a cent when the case is proved.
And crime is alike with the rich and poor, ignorant and learned. Take an ignorant man like Jim Conley. He is the man who commits the petty crimes, but take a man with high intellect, like this defendant"this intellect, when put to the right use, leads to glorious accomplishments; but if these faculties he put to the wrong use. It brings ruin to the man in the commission of the most diabolical crimes. Look at, McCue, the Mayor of Charlottesville, Va. He was a man of broad intellect and high education, but, despite his intellect, despite his splendid character, he tired of his wife and shot her, and the jury, composed of Virginia gentlemen, broadminded and fair, despite McCue's good character, found him guilty and sent him to a felon's grave.
Take the case of Richeson, the preacher of Boston. Here was a man of highest intellect and with a brilliant future. He was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most beautiful girls of Boston, but entanglements with a poor little girl caused him to fear for his good name and he so far forgot his good character as to put this poor little girl to death. Even after his conviction in the last days of his hope he committed an act upon himself which he thought would draw the pity of the Governor and save his life. But a Massachusetts jury and a Massachusetts Governor were courageous enough to let that man's life go. They had the courage which will make every right-thinking man right by the laws of God and mand and of his country.
Take Beattie"Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond. He was of splendid family, of wealth and proved a good character, though he did not possess it. He took the mother of his 13-month-old baby out in an automobile and shot her. He was cool, calm and deliberate. He laughed and he joked, but he joked too much, and although the detectives were maligned and abused and a large slush fund was used, a courageous, honest Virginia jury upheld justice and sent that man to death. And he never confessed, but he left a note saying he was guilty.
Likens Frank
To Dr. Crippen.
Crippen, of England, a man of high standing and recognized ability, killed his wife because of infatuation for another woman. He hid her where he thought she would not be found, as this man (pointing to Frank) thought the body of that little girl would not be found. But murder will out, and be it said to the glory of old England this mand paid the penalty of death.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
Frank's Own Statement
Refutes Time Table.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am unable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Ar-
Continued on Page 4, Column 1.
PAGE 28
SOLICITOR'S CLOSING ARGUMENT A MASTERPIECE
DENOUNCES DEFENDANT
AS MORAL PERVERT AND
LAUGHS ALIBI TO SCORN
Prisoner Likened to Oscar Wilde, Pas-
tor Richeson and Beattie---Charged
With Committing Murder to Hide
Evidence of His Crime Against Girl.
Continued on Page 2.
nold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, a
nd twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Arnold"Your honor, I must interrupt. No such evidence was ever brought out. Those young women testified that they left the factory at 11:45 and they saw Lemmie Quinn at the Busy Bee Caf considerably after. Mr. Dorsey says they saw him at the factory before 12 o'clock.
Dorsey"No, your honor. I didn't say any such thing. They didn't see him there, and I don't think anyone else did.
The crowd laughed.
Arnold"Your honor, have we got to take this whole crowd into this case?
Judge Roan-Gentlemen, there must be order or I will clear the courtroom.
Dorsey"Find the records. They will show I am right. I have got Lemmie Quinn's affidavit. I am just arguing this case on the evidence.
Jim Conley is a liar, is he? He said Quinn was there and that he was there before Mary Phagan came. Frank had a might hard time remembering whether Quinn was there. When Quinn saw him at the police station and said he had been there, Frank said he would have to see his lawyers before deciding whether or not to make it public.
Is Jim Conley telling the truth or telling a lie? You can't go hot and cold on him. Why was it Frank wanted to consult his lawyers?
Arnold"I will find the record.
Dorsey"Yes, you can find it. You can find where Quinn swore half a dozen ways. He was the most anxious witness I ever saw on a stand, except for old man Holloway. He would tell that he was there if Frank said tell it. He would keep quiet if Frank said no.
Oh, gentlemen, let me read you what a great lawyer said on this sort of evidence. I read the words of Judge Lochrane:
I do not take the mere words of witnesses. I take their acts.'
And while I am on this subject, I want to read you another opinion:
Evidence given by a witness has inherent strength which a jury can not disregard. But a statement has none.'
Arnold read from the testimony of Miss Corinthia Hall that she and Mrs. Freeman went to the pencil factory at 11:35 and left there at 11:45.
Arnold: Mr. Dorsey asked her the question, You saw Lemmie Quinn at 5 minutes to 12 o'clock?'. Answer: I don't remember what time it was. He told us he had been up to the factory and saw Frank. He said he was going to the matinee.'
Lemmie Quinn swore several times he was at the factory at 12:20, Arnold continued, and here it is that he said that he was in a pool parlor at 12:30, just after leaving the factory.
Judge Roan: Mr. Dorsey, have you anything in contradiction to that?
Dorsey: Yes, I have plenty; that, doesn't scare anybody.
Arnold: I just want to call attention to the glaring errors. The little ones I don't care anything about. I won't interrupt him except on glaring misstatements. Life is too short.
Dorsey: Yes, you will. You will interrupt me every time I am incorrect. You are too shrewd, too anxious to let anything go by. Don't tell this jury you are going to let me say things that are incorrect.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything a
nd there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Gentlemen, he got the wrong girl and he was called. And this stenographer said she only knew what he did to her. She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug. Mr. Arnold was so nervous he would not let me finish the cross-examination, and interpolated that remark to guide her.
It was unfair and not according to law and practice. But he got away with it. And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
Oh, gentlemen, can you let a poor little girl go to hear death and set her murderer free on such evidence as this? If you do, it is time to stop going through the process of summoning a jury.
Perjury! When did old man Starnes and Pat Campbell stop to that. And suspicions! Why didn't we get old man Lee and Gantt instead of Frank? Why didn't we get Conley? We tried it, but there was absolutely no case against either. But there is a perfect case against this man. But, oh, you cried Perjury.' But it is not worth fifteen cents until you put your fingers on something specific.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
Do you tell me when that factory closes on Saturday afternoons that this man with the handsome wife that, he possesses, this college graduate, who likes to read and play cards, who likes to see baseball games, would spend his time there, using the date that Schiff prepared on Saturday afternoons when he could do it Saturday morning? No, air, Miss Fleming was right. She didn't stay there to work often on Saturday afternoons.
The jury was allowed to retire for a few minutes. When they returned, Dorsey resumed his argument.
Now, gentlemen, I submit that this man made that finance sheet Saturday morning. I am not going to fatigue you with my reasons. It is unnecessary. If he did make that sheet on Saturday afternoon, he did it thinking of an alibi. But don't tell me that because he might have done this on Saturday afternoon with a penmanship that showed no nervousness proves an alibi.
If he could go home into the bosom of his family after such an atrocious crime, he could have made that sheet. But he wouldn't have done it if Schiff had not gotten up the data. He had done it fifty-two times a year for five or six years. If he would do additional work on that Saturday afternoon, it could only have been with a sinister purpose.
Witness Afraid Even to
Identify Handwriting.
In speaking of perjury, his mother said anybody ought to identify his handwriting.
Dorsey held up the photograph of the sample of handwriting Frank wrote for the police.
Yet the man they put up to identify his handwriting was so afraid he might do Frank an injury that he wouldn't venture a guess. Grant that he did go home to his wife and those old people"his parents-in-law"and maintain a stoical countenance. Grant that he did make that sheet, which he could make up with his eyes shut. Grant that he did unlock the safe, a thing that he had done every day for years.
But when he went to run the elevator; when he went to nail up that hack door; he paled when he talked to the police, and trembled on Darley's knee as he rode to the police station.
He could sit in the hall and read a joke about a baseball umpire, but the frivolity annoyed the visitors at his home. It was the same kind of frivolity Henry Clay Beattie displayed when he stored beside the automobile that was stained with the blood of his wife. His joke was uttered only in annoyance; it jarred.
But whether or not he made up that financial sheet, while waiting for old Jim to come and burn the body, one thing I grant he did. Don't forget the envelope; don't forget the way the letter was quoted, that letter he wrote to his uncle in Brooklyn, that letter that begins: I trust that this finds you and dear Tante well.' He had no wealthy relations in Brooklyn! That old millionaire uncle was mighty near there when Frank told old Jim Conley: Why should I hand? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn!'
Dorsey finished reading the letter and then said:
Here is a sentence pregnant with significance. It bears the earmarks of a guilty conscience. He wasn't trembling when he wrote. He is capable and smart, but here is a sentence that is a revelation. Here is a document I concede was written after little Mary Phagan, who died for virtue's sake; was lying mutilated in that dark cold basement.
At this juncture Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, began to cry.
Dorsey read from the letter:
It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here.'
Startling' and too short a time'. Those are the words that incriminate. That little sentence itself shows that the crime was committed in an incredibly short time.
Tell me, honest men, courageous men of Georgia, that this phrase penned to his uncle that afternoon did not come from a stricken conscience. Too short a time since you left for anything to develop down here.'
What do you think of that, honest men? Then notice what he writes about the thin, gray line of veterans facing the thin, gray line of veterans facing the chilly weather, as if that old millionaire uncle of his travelling around Germany for his health, as if he cared for these old heroes in gray! Ample and reliable authority says that over-expression is an indication who was just preparing to sail for Europe, cared for these old heroes in gray"this wealthy old man who wanted to see the financial sheet. Too short a time'"yes, he said it was too short a time for anything to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the Jury, there was something startling to develop down here. But, gentlemen of the jury, there was something to develop, and it happened within the space of 30 minutes. There is nothing new in the factory to report,' but there was something new in the cellar. There was something to report, and the time wasn't too short for it to happen.
You telling me that letter was written in the morning? Do you believe it? Why, they haven't even tried to say that, I tell you that letter shows on its face that something startling had happened, and I tell you that that rich uncle did not care the snap of his finger about the thin, gray line of veterans.
Ah, yes, he had wealthy relatives in Brooklyn. That's what old Jim Conley said he told him. And his people lived in Brooklyn, and old Jim never would have known that if Frank had not told him. And they had at least $20,000 in cool cash in the bank; and he had a brother-in-law employing two or three people, law employing two or three people, at least, and we don't know how many more. And if his rich uncle was not in Brooklyn, he was near there.
All right, let's go a step farther. On April 28 he wired Adolph Montag at the Imperial Hotel in New York: You may have
read in Atlanta papers of factory girl found dead Sunday morning in cellar of pencil factory.'
Yes, gentlemen of the jury, in the cellar of the pencil factory. There's where he placed her, and that is where he expected her to be found. And the thought of it welled up in his mind that Monday morning, April 28, before he had been arrested, and he wired Montag forestalling what he knew would certainly and surely happen unless the Atlanta detectives were corrupt and would suppress it.
Compliments Detectives.
But, be it said to your credit, Starnes; to your credit, Campbell, and you, too. Rosser and Black, that you had the manhood and the courage to do your duty and roll the charge up to this man, protected as he was by wealth and influence.
And notice what else he said in this telegram. Notice the credit he gives to the police; The police will eventually solve it.' And be it said to the credit of the Atlanta police department, they did solve it. Assure my uncle I am all right in case he asks. Our company has case well in hand. Maybe he did think when he got that fellow Scott that his company had it well in hand.'
I tell you there is an honest man"this fellow Scott. If there was a slush fund in this case"and witnesses have said there was no such fund"this man Scott could have gotten it. Not at first maybe, but he could have gotten it later on. But Scott knew his duty, and he has done it. No wonder Frank could telegraph that his company had the case well in hand, for Scott's first words could not have suited him better had he wished for them. They were. The Pinkerton's always work arm and arm with the police.' This suited Frank well. It was just what he wanted. He wanted to know what the police thought he wanted to know what they were going to do, and this worked well until the chain began to tighten.
And Haas"and he is nobody's fool"when he saw the trend of the case, he opened the negotiations; he gave Scott the opportunity by saying, Now let us have what you get first.'
But let us pass on from that. You tell me that letter and that telegram are not significant? That the work on this financial sheet is no significant? That Schiff's testimony as to the work on that financial sheet is not significant?
Frank himself was not satisfied. He is as smart as his lawyers, too.
He realized that he would have to go out and beyond the evidence, because he knew it was all bunk; and he tried to show you that he did write the financial sheet. Frank did write that letter Saturday afternoon, and he did write that telegram Monday; but he did not do any work on the financial sheet after Saturday at noon. I ask you twelve men if those documents and letters don't bear the impress of murder?
And they still cry perjury. I just thought of another case, when that man could not identify Frank's handwriting that his own mother said was his. That was perjury, and there was perjury in the testimony of Hower and Lee. Mrs. Carson and she had worked there three years, and Arnold asked her a question that he would not ask a younger woman. He asked her about seeing blood around the toilet and in the dressing rooms. He said she saw it there very often. Then she talked about Conley being on the fourth floor that Monday. I pinned her down to say that Frank was there at the same time. It was then that Frank leaned over and said: Be a good boy, Jim,' and Jim, remembering his wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and his promises of money, said, Yes, sir, boss; I will.'
Surely the officers could not suborn Conley at that time. And she
Dorsey Attacks Frank's Statement
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I looked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point, and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
says she never saw the blood of the water cooler; she said she didn't look at it because she didn't like to look at things like that. But another lad on the stand says she did go back and look at it; that she was with her.
But back again to Conley. If he had committed that crime and had not had Leo M. Frank and his promises back of him, would he have gone back to that factory every day and remained there until Thursday? They said they were going to put up all the girls on the fourth floor. But they didn't do it until we called their four-flush and put up witnesses who corroborated their witness, Miss Jackson, about the misconduct of this man.
Miss Small, also on the fourth floor, corroborated Conley. She said she saw him on the fourth floor Monday. Now, why did Frank go to the fourth floor so often Monday and Tuesday? Because he knew Conley was up there, and he wanted to be sure the negro was not talking, Conley told Miss Carson that Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven. We said he was merely doing what he had promised to do"protect his employer. Mr. Rosser characterized the statement as a dirty suggestion. It was, and I accept it, but it is true; and you men would not sit here and see that negro hang for a crime Leo M. Frank committed.
When Conley went up to the second floor in response to Frank's signal, Frank said, Did you see anything?' and he said, I saw two girls come up, but there ain't but one of them come down.' And then Frank knew that he would have to take this negro into his confidence.
Shaking his finger at Frank, Dorsey continued:
And you told old Jim Conley to protect you! And he tried to do it. It is infamous to try to have Jim Conley hanged for a crime that Leo Frank did. Gentlemen, I haven't got to the State's case yet; I am just cutting away some of the underbrush this defense has planted in this forest of oaks. They have played the detectives. The only thing to the discredit of the police department is that it allowed itself to be intimated by the influence of this man and his friends and his big lawyers.
Didn't Have Courage
To Put Frank in Cell.
When they took him down there guilty of this red-handed murder they didn't put him in a cell like they did Newt Lee and Jim Conley. It took time for them to get their courage up to the point of locking him up as he should have been. Old John Black"Mr. Rosser likes to brag about what he did to him"but he didn't make so much off of him after all. Black's methods are somewhat like Mr. Rosser's. If Black had had Frank in the position that Mr. Rosser had Jim Conley, this whole trial might have been obviated with a confession.
Dorsey turned and pointed at Frank.
You didn't get counsel a moment too soon. You called for Darley and you called for Harris; you called for Rosser and Arnold, and it took them all to bolster up your nerve. Gentlemen of the jury, you know I am telling you the truth. The only thing against the police is that this man, who had just snuffed out the life of this little girl, was given too much consideration. His able counsel and the glamour of wealth that surrounded him, overawed the police. I had nothing to do with it, but I honor them for the way they went after Minola McKnight, I don't know whether they want me to apologize for them or not; but do you think that in protecting the people from such crimes as this the detectives are acting like they are at a tea party?
Should they have the manners of
a dancing master? If you do, you don't know anything about it. Once get an old possum dog on the trail, and you can't call him off. So it is with Starnes and Black, they knew Albert McKnight wouldn't have told those young men at the Beck & Gregg Hardware company that story about his wife, unless it were true. They went after Minola. They stuck to the trail. They smoked her out. Minola's friends got a write of habeas corpus to release Frank I would have done it? I would have said it was none of my business.
The next time the police have to use strong methods in an effort to protect the people by going after a red-handed murderer. I won't usurp their authority or the authority of the judges. I haven't anything to do with the police department or the functions of the judges. I am responsible only for the office of Solicitor General for the term to which I was elected. I honor Mr. Charley Hill; I am as proud that I have succeeded him as I am that I was given this place by a vote of the people. He was honorable and strong; but I tell you gentlemen, no man is my pattern; I follow the dictates of my own conscience.
Tears Come to
Dorsey's Eyes.
Mr. Dorsey raised his voice and tears came into his eyes.
If there is one thing I am proud of during my term of office, it is that I joined hand and glove with the police; and when your influence (turning to the defensive) tried to get Jim Conley indicted by the grand jury. I stood out against it. If that is treason, make the most of it. If you don't want me to do it, get somebody else.
Mr. Hill was a noble man. He had the courage of a Caesar and the eloquence of a Demosthenes. I have wished a hundred times that he was here making the speech to you that I am making.
He would have stripped the hides off of you (pointing to the defense). Such talk as that doesn't terrify me. It doesn't disturb the serenity of the conscience in everything I have done in the prosecution of this man. Let's get back to the talk on perjury.
Don't get up here and call everybody a liar without giving the specific instances. Take the evidence of Mrs. Small. She said she saw Frank and Miss Rebecca Carson walking along and that she stopped Frank and had him O. K. a ticket. She said it was Miss Rebecca Carson she was with. She says that Mrs. Carson was not there at all. Mrs. Carson said she was there. Mrs. Small said she saw Conley standing up there by the elevator and that Frank must have seen him"that Frank passed within 4 feet of him. She says that Jim was doing nothing; that he was standing by the elevator with his hand on a truck.
Mrs. Small also tells us that the elevator also tells us that the elevator shook the entire building. She said, he couldn't helped but hear it if the machinery was not running. She said: You might not hear it if the machinery was in full operation, if you were not paying attention to it, but if you listened you could hear it.'
Now here is another thing, Mrs. Carson had already sworn positively that she never went back into the metal room to see that blood. Mrs. Small said that on Wednesday a crowd of them from the fourth floor went down out of pure curiosity to see those spots, and when I asked her who went with her, lo and behold the first person she mentioned was Mrs. Carson. She said she was sure she was there she knew she was there. And when I asked why they went there, and why Mrs. Carson went there particularly, she said Curiosity sent us.'
Somebody Has
Lied, Dorsey Asserts.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come to bolster it up.
Now, let's pass on a little bit. I want to discuss briefly the writing of these letters found beside the body of the girl. If these letters were not the order of an overruling Providence, I would agree that they were the silliest things I ever heard of. But, gentlemen of the jury, these notes bear an intrinsic knowledge of this crime.
This man Frank, by the language of these notes, in attempting to fix the guilt upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.
The Solicitor repeated this statement.
The pad, the paper the notes were written upon; the fact that there was a note fixed the guilt upon him. Tell me that a negro who after having killed a white girl, ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time to have written these notes? And even if he did write them, would he have written them upon a scratch pad which is found only in an office?
You tell me that a man like Jim Conley would have ravished this girl with the knowledge that Frank was in the house? You tell me that this Jim Conley, even though he has been as drunk as a sot could be, would have taken the time to write these notes?
I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, it can not be true.
You say that the fact those notes were written was foolish. It was foolish, but it was a mistake. Murder is a mistake. What man ever committed murder who did not make a mistake? And what man making the greatest mistake in the world would not make a lesser mistake in trying to cover up? Those notes were the lesser mistake.
Scott said that when Leo M. Frank talked to him about the girl coming to the factory and asking him about the metal that he said, I don't know.' And now he says that he told her, No.' Arnold recognized the damage in the statement I don't know' getting in.
Language of Notes
Clears Conley.
Leo Frank said in his statement again and again chatting' and chat.' Conley said that when Frank told him he wanted to watch for him that Frank said he wanted to have a chat.' Jim Conley said here time and again, I have done it,' but in the notes found near the body he said, did it.' DO you tell me that negro would have written the word did' unless it was dictated to him?
Do you tell me that negro would have taken the time to carry that girl away back there and hide her body if he had knocked her down the hole, and then stopped to write those notes?
No, shouted Dorsey, turning to Frank, that child was murdered on the second floor and you wanted to get her into the cellar, just like you found her in the cellar, as you said in that telegram to Montag.
Conley said once in his statement that when we met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him he though he though I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it' when eh closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just now. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crack, but by the facts.
Arnold and Rosser would say frequently, Are you going to convict this man on that, on this?'"selecting some little isolated point.
Chain Strong Enough
To Hang Anybody.
Well, I don't want you
to, but on all the facts"the chain that is unbroken and not by isolated instances, and I say that when you take them all together you have a cable that ought to hang anybody.
I don't ask that he be convicted on this isolated instance or that, but all bound together make a cable that is as strong as is possible for the ingenuity of man to make.
I don't know whether the statement of Frank's will rank along with that statement of the celebrated pervert Oscar Wilde or not. He is brilliant. If you take his statement and just follow it you never would convict him. You never would convict anyone that way. But listen to this: I sat in my office counting over the money that had been left over, Dorsey read from Frank's statement.
He wasn't talking about the petty cash, Dorsey continued. He was talking about the money that had been left over from the payroll of $1,100. We don't know to this day how much that was. We don't know how big a roll it could have made, though Jim Conley said he saw a roll of $200.
And he was trying to get old Jim to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him that roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
He knew the day before she was probably coming. He went and told old Jim Conley, who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoon's while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money. I wouldn't be surprised if he did not refuse to give it to her because he had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
PAGE 27
HUGH DORSEY WINS HIS SPURS IN PHAGAN CASE
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
A
ll sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his
story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasioned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 29
LEO M. FRANK as he appeared in court yesterday. The defendant was calm under the
Terrific denunciation of the prosecutor and watched Mr. Dorsey intently through the many hours that the Solicitor consumed in declaring the defendant one of the greatest of criminals. He seemed scarcely more moved than the spectators.
DORSEY DEMANDS DEATH
PENALTY FOR FRANK IN
THRILLING CLOSING PLEA
Solicitor's Scathing Address Halted
by Adjournment---Had Spoken for
More Than Six Hours---Cheered by
Big Crowd Outside the Courthouse.
PRISONER CALM, WIFE SOBS
AS STATE CHARGES MURDER
Slain Girl's Mother Breaks Down, but
Defendant Faces Spectators With
Hint of Smile---Case May Go to
the Jury by Monday Noon.
Insisting upon the application of the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey demanded the life of Leo M. Frank yesterday in expiation of the murder of Mary Phagan on April 26.
Nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy justice, declared the Solicitor
in one of the most bitter and impassioned addresses a Georgia courtroom audience ever has heard.
It was the closing argument of the State before the fate of Frank is placed in the hands of the twelve jurors. It was interrupted by adjournment at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. The Solicitor had been speaking since 9 o'clock in the forenoon and was exhausted by his efforts. His address had begun at 3:30 the afternoon before and had consumed a total of six and a half hours.
CROWD GREETS HIM WITH CHEERS.
When, weak with fatigue, he asked for a recess and court adjourned until Monday morning at 9 o'clock, a great crowd awaited him outside to cheer him and rend the air with their yells because of the magnificent fight he has put up to send Frank to the gallows for the murder of the little factory girl.
The demonstration was spontaneous and was of greater magnitude than that of the night before. He had aroused to the highest pitch the admiration of the populace for the earnest and determined battle he was conducting for the conviction of the man he deemed guilty of the murder.
Men in front of the courthouse cheered with all their might as Dorsey came in sight from out the courtroom doors. Men from across the street took up the cheer and the little Solicitor was given the demonstration of a governor or some other popular hero as he quickly tucked his books and records under his arms and escaped through the crowd into his law offices in the Kiser building.
HURLS CHARGE DIRECTLY AT FRANK.
If his tongue was tipped with venom and bitterness, it can hardly be said that the Solicitor was not sincere and in earnest. Every word and every phrase that he uttered during his long speech"the longest of the trial"carried with it the conviction that the speaker was in deadly earnest.
Much of the time he was talking directly at the prisoner and was accusing him of murder and other crimes unmentionable. He looked Frank right in the eye. He leveled his finger at the defendant sitting calmly between his mother and his beautiful wife. He called him red-handed murderer and a pervert. Frank did not flinch.
During a brief intermission, Frank even walked in front of the spectators with the suggestion of a smile on his face. If there was any fear of the verdict in his heart, it was kept buried there, far out of sight of human eyes.
LIKENS FRANK TO OSCAR WILDE.
Dorsey compared the defendant with that prince of perverts, Oscar Wilde, and there was never a flicker of Frank's eye nor a change in his quiet, speculative expression. Dorsey told of other men who had possessed good reputations and yet had been guilty of the most heinous offenses"Theodore Durant, of San Francisco; Pastor Richeson, of Boston; Mayor McCue, of Charlottesville, Va.; Henry C. Beattie, of Richmond; Dr. Crippen, and others. In the same connection he mentioned the name of Judge Iscariot and Benedict Arnold, both of whom, he said, were supposed to be of good character until they had become traitors and betrayers.
Character isn't worth a cent when you've got the evidence before you, shouted the Solicitor after he had compared Frank with some of the most infamous persons he could call to mind.
PRISONER ENCOURAGES HIS WIFE.
His denunciation at times was so unsparing and his words so like a physical blow that it seemed that the prisoner must quail before him. But Frank maintained his composure. IN fact, during a lull in the storm of invective he occasionally would lean toward his wife or his mother and whisper a few words, accompanying them with a smile. For all that his manner betokened, he might be talking of some amusing incident that had just occurred to him.
If the Solicitor's words failed to affect Frank, he was prob-
PAGE 30
DEATH PENALTY DEMANDED FOR LEO M. FRANK
Both Sides Make Strong Charges of Perjured Evidence During the Trial
SOLICITOR DORSEY CHARGED:
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her.
She testified that Frank's business Saturday morning was to make out the financial sheet. Mr. Arnold said immediately he didn't have time and she jumped at it like a duck at a June bug.
And then she turned right around and in the next breath said that she had never said Frank was working on the financial sheet Saturday morning.
And here, gentlemen, right before your very eyes, in black and white, the testimony of this woman, Fleming, shows that they perjured her.
They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to any thing and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth.
Perjury? We came to the evidence where Charley Lee swore that Duffey stood there on that second floor and let the blood drip from his injured fingers. Duffey says it wasn't so. We called on you for Lee's written statement of the accident. (Dorsey turned to the lawyers for the defense as he said this.) You couldn't produce it.
Now, gentlemen of the jury, somebody, and I put it up to you, has lied. If this case is founded on perjury, it has been boiled until the pot is black.
The truth is, there has not been a single instance where evidence was needed that someone has not come in to bolster it up."From the closing speech of Solicitor Dorsey.
ATTORNEY ARNOLD CHARGED:
They got their miserable perjurer, Conley, to come up here and swear a man's life away. The lying creature was brought in to tell his false story, to recite parrot like the tale in which he had been so well drilled.
They brought up the dregs of humanity to testify against this man. They brought up jailbirds and convicts to hang him. I am going to show that there was never such a Frame up since the world began.
Gentlemen of the jury, I suppose there never was before in criminal annals another such an instance as this, an instance where the lies of an ignorant but smooth negro are taken by the officers of the law and used as evidence to place in jeopardy the life of an innocent man.
Gentleman, the tracks of perjury in the case as clear and as big as elephant tracks. They stand out like buildings."From Reuben Arnold's address to the jury.
DORSEY CHEERED AFTER
GREAT CLOSING SPEECH
Continued from Page 1.
ably the only person in the courtroom who did not feel the intensity and the grim determination behind each sentence and each accusation that came from the lips of the State's representative.
So overcome at Dorsey's blunt and grewsome description of the torturous manner in which the pretty little factory girl had
been attacked and strangled to death was Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, that she collapsed utterly and wept. Frank's young wife was affected by the scene and she laid her head upon the shoulder of her accused husband and cried for several minutes.
The very manner in which Frank had borne himself during the long trial was used by the Solicitor against him. Such remarkable nerve and effrontery he declared he never had witnessed before in a court of Justice Dorsey thought it merely was one of the outcropping characteristics of the defendant, perverted moral and intellectual nature. He compared him to the brilliant Wilde whose effrontery and insurance in the midst of charges of unspeakable conduct was a matter of world-wide knowledge.
When he was interrupted by adjournment, the Solicitor was far from the end of his argument. He had taken longer than he expected. He had paused longer on explain aspects of the case than he had intended. It seemed probable that he would require most of Monday forenoon to conclude his address.
Scoffs at Frank's Alibi.
Attacking the main points of Frank's defense, he came out boldly with the declaration that Frank's alibi was no alibi at all. He said that the whole of Frank's alibi practically hinged on the testimony of
Miss Helen Curran of No. 160 Ashley Street, who had testified that she saw the young factory superintendent waiting for the car at Whitehall and Alabama street Saturday afternoon at 1:10 o'clock.
At this point, Dorsey dramatically brought forth a statement of Frank which he had made on the first day that he was detained at police headquarters.
Listen to this, he said shaking the paper before the eyes of the jurymen. Then he quoted from Frank's statement which read:
I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I left for lunch at 1:10.
Makes Charge of Perjury.
There goes your alibi, said the Solicitor. It was punctured by your own statement made before your realized the importance of the time element.
Dorsey characterized as perjuries the statement of the Curran girl, that of Miss Fleming, a former stenographer; that of E. E. Holloway, day watchman, and that of Charley Lee.
He threw the suspicion of wrong-doing upon the character of the young woman, Miss Sarah Barnes, who dramatically had expressed her conviction of Frank's innocence on the stand and had declared her willingness to die in his place. The Solicitor overlooked nothing tending to point the hand of guilt toward Leo Frank.
Dorsey mentioned time and again the fact that the defense had failed in cross-examine the State's character witnesses. He said that he had asked them to do it, and that they had been afraid of the disclosures that would cause.
Asserts Shirt Was Plant.
He charged that the bloody shirt at Newt lee's house, the pay envelope, the rope and the club on the first floor of the factory were plants.
He said that Frank's statement in a letter to his unable, written the afternoon of the crime, that nothing startling had happened, while intended to be self-serving, was in reality self-accusing.
Referring to the notes found by the girl's body, he called attention to the use of the word did. He said that Conley always said done, and that if did was used in the notes they must have been dictated by someone else.
He added that the reference in the notes to the toilet on the second floor was a strong indention that the murder had been committed there.
The Solicitor charged that Frank had been endeavoring to force his attentions upon the Phagan girl for weeks and that his advances culminated in the brutal attack of Memorial Day.
Gives His Theory of Crime.
Resisted again, Frank, in brutish fury, struck down the girl accomplished his purpose, and then, realizing his position, sought to escape being identified with the attack by winding a rope about the girl's neck and strangling her to death, according to the graphic words of the prosecutor.
As the hour passed noon, the Solicitor began to show signs of fatigue. His spirit was as indominable and fiery as ever, but his features grew a bit haggard, and the weeks of tireless work on the case began to display themselves more plainly on his face.
At 1:30 he asked if there might not be a recess, as he was about exhausted. There was a side bar conference between the attorneys for both sides, and Judge Roan announced that adjournment would be taken until Monday.
It was thought likely that Dorsey would finish about noon. The judge's charge probably will occupy an hour or more, and then the case will go into the hands of the twelve jurors.
Facing Frank, Solicitor Dorsey Recites Theory of Crime
Horrible Plot Was Laid in March, the Prosecutor Asserts
Masterpiece of Invective Reaches
Height Just Before Exhaustion
Compels Recess.
No more stirringly denunciatory speech ever has been delivered in a Georgia Criminal Court, than that left uncompleted by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey Saturday.
While there was hardly a sentence that was not filled with accusations of murder and other crimes, the philippic reached its height in the few minutes just preceding adjournment.
Facing Frank, then Frank's attorneys and then the impassive jurymen, Dorsey poured a torrent of invective and hideous charges. In most graphic words he outlined a grewsome tragedy, a tragedy which he charged took place in the National Pencil Factory exactly as he portrayed it. He said:
Attacks Alibi Put
In Evidence by Defense.
Gentlemen, you have an opportunity that comes to few men. Measure up to it. Will you do it? If not, let your conscience say why not.
But you say you've got an alibi. Let's examine that proposition. Here's an authority: An alibi as a defense involves the impossibility of the prisoner's presence at the scene of the offense at the time of its commitment, and the range of evidence must be such as reasonably to exclude the possibility.
The burden of carrying this alibi rests on the shoulders of this defendant. They must show to you that it was impossible for this man to have been at the scene of the crime"an alibi, while the best kind of evidence if properly sustained, otherwise is absolutely worthless. I am going to show you that this man's alibi is worse than useless. It is no defense at all.
I want to give you the definition of an old darky of an alibi. It illustrates my point. Rastus asked old Sam, What is this hyar alibi I hear so much about?' Old Sam says, An alibi is provin' that you was at the prayer meeting where you wasn't, to prove you wasn't at the crap game where you was.'
Let's see the time table of the defense. I want to turn it around for half a minute. Then I want to turn it to the wall and let it stay forever.
One p. m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on the chart. Turn that chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff. Let it stay turned to the wall. That statement is refuted by the defendant himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Says Frank Never
Made an Omission.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says, I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.'
Up goes your alibi punctured by your own statement when you didn't realize its importance. Yet these honorable gentlemen for the purpose of impressing your minds print in big letters on this chart he left the factory at 1 o'clock. If he swore when he was on the stand the other day that he left the factory at 1 o'clock it was because he saw the importance of this time point and had to leave there ten minutes earlier than he said he had at the police station before he had had time to confer with his lawyer, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser.
I quote: I left at 1:10.' Right here let me interpolate. This man never made an omission from the beginning to the end of this case. Where he knew a person was aware that he was in the factory at a certain time he admitted it. He proved, or at least attempted to prove an alibi by the little Curran girl. They had her get up on the stand and say that she saw Frank at 1:10. Yet here is his statement made to the police April 28 in the presence of his attorney Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, in which he said that he did not leave the factory until 1:10.
Regrets Curran Girl's
Entrance Into Case.
The saddest thing in this case"I don't know who caused it, I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever learning who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl who is connected with Montag's and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
Jurors are sworn, and his honor has the right under the law to charge you to consider the truthfulness or the reasonableness of that which any witness swears to. And, gentlemen of the jury, anyone who looked upon that little girl noticed her bearing upon the stand, the slightly unusual manner and her connection with Montags"consider the fact that this little girl, like the little Bauer boy had been riding in Montag's automobile"and if you can not tell just why and how she was brought here, then I am u
nable to understand your mental operations.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
Quotes Daniel Webster
In Famous Knott Case.
On this time proposition, I want to read you this. It made a wonderful impression on me when I read it. It's from the speech of a wonderful man. It's from a man in whose presence even lawyers of the type of Arnold and Rosser would take off their hats.
I refer to Daniel Webster and his argument in the Knott case. Time is identical, days, hours, are not visible to any of sense except to the schooled. He who speaks of days, hours, and minutes talks at random.' It is better than I could express it. What about this time? In this table here, minutes are moved up and down, contorted, and twisted to protect this man. They say he arrived at the factory at 3:25. Frank himself in this first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:30, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:30. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
Oh my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it. Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
Contrasts Evidence
With Printed Chart.
But to crown it all! In the table which is now turned to the wall you have Lemmie Quinn arriving not on the minute, but, to suit your purpose, at from 12:20 to 12:22. That evidence conflicts with the statements of Miss Freeman and the other young woman, who put him there before 12 o'clock.
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:20. I have an affidavit here of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statements could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn to fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh what a race that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there some time between 12:20 and 12:30.
Mentions Girl Who
Would Die for Frank.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, whenever a man gets to swearing too definite and too specifically about time, then the words of our friend Webster, which I quoted to you, are right"He is not to be relied upon.'
And can you truly consider the words of a man whom your reason tells you is straining to set the exact time?
But let's pass on from this. I will not take the time to read you everything that Lemmie says he did. Let's pass on to the perjury charge which Arnold has so flippantly made. You saw these witnesses upon the stand. You heard their words. You noticed their manner, their attitude and their interest.
Why, one of these ladies from the factory wanted to die for this man Frank.
A litter of laughter ran around the room, and deputies forced to rap for order.
When did you ever know of an employee being so enamoured of her employer that she was willing to de for him, if their friendship was purely platonic? I know enough about human nature"I know enough of the passions which surge in the breast of mortal man"to know that this poor woman's anxieties to put her neck into the noose to save him were born of something besides platonic love.
Something More Than
Platonic Love Here.
When you see a woman so passionately devoted to her employer"so anxious to do for him"you may know and you can gamble on it that there is something stronger there than platonic love. It must be a passion born of something beyond the relation which should exist between a married man"an employer"and his woman employee.
Ah, gentlemen of the jury, we could have got witness after witness who would have gone upon the stand and sworn things about this man. There were people who would have perjured themselves. There were witnesses who came upon this stand for the defendant who on the face of their testimony perjured themselves.
Take this little Bauer boy. Remember this testimony before he took that automobile ride with Montag to the office of Arnold & Arnold. Before dinner he could remember each detail, but after dinner, after he had taken that ride with old Big Montag, he had a lapse of memory. Old man Sig must have told this little boy about the Hard Shell preacher down in South Georgia who had his congregation pray for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while like old Sam Jones would have said, the Lord sent a trash mover, a gully washer.'
Boy Must Have
Overdone It.
It rained and it rained until they had more water than they knew what o do with. Then the old hardshell preacher said: Brethren, it looks like we have a leetle overdone it.' So Montag must have whispered into Bauer's ear, You have a leetle overdone it.'
And, after dinner, this little boy didn't know anything. But was that all? Way, gentlemen of the jury, before supper that boy even remember where his watch lay.
Do you believe that? Talk about perjury! Willful foolishness, because an honest jury knows that it was not true. They brought in that machinist Lee. He was willing to swear to anything and there was not a man in the sound of his voice that didn't know he was telling an untruth. He wrote and signed a statement about Duffy's injuries. I brought it here and it was written in typewriting and didn't even have his name on it.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to wrap something around it to stop the loss of blood.
They thought we could not find Duffy and thought you didn't have sense enough to know the first thing you do in a case like that is to warp something around it to stop the loss of blood.
I have never seen a case yet where women were so suborned as in this. Take this woman Fleming, his stenographer. They put her up and she swore Frank had a general good character. She only swore to what he had done in her presence when they cross-examined her. We don't contend Frank tried to seduce every girl in the factory. But he did pick them out. He picked out Mary Phagan and was called.
Conley Too Wise
To Walk Into Trap.
Frank tried to get old Jim Conley to go down into the basement and burn the body of that little girl. Just as sure as the smoke curled from that stack toward the heavens, old Jim would have been there without a shadow of a defense. Frank would have been there with the detectives. Jim would have hanged for a crime that this man committed in his lust.
But old Jim was too wise. He wrote the notes, but, drunk or sober, he wouldn't be entrapped like that. I do not doubt that when Frank handed him tha
t roll of money it was like the kiss of Judas Iscariot when he kissed the Saviour, and then betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.
I am going to show you that this man had long planned not murder, but to get this little girl to yield to his lust. Let me do it now.
Back yonder in March this little Turney boy saw him making advances to Mary Phagan. Did that innocent little boy from the country lie? This little girl that came her from the Home of the Good Shepherd, she heard Frank speak to Mary Phagan and put his hands on her. She may have lost her virtue, but she is nothing but a child. Did she lie, this little girl?
Quotes From Same
Poem as Rosser.
Then there is Gantt. He quit the factory rather than make good a dollar that was charged he was short. Did he lie about Frank's inquiring of the little girl? Yesterday Mr. Rosser quoted from a poem of Bubble Burns, the line was, Tis human to step aside.' I want to quote a line from that same poem. There is no telling what a man will do when he has the lassie.'
When convenience is snug, I tell you gentlemen, there is no telling what a pervert will do when goaded by his passion. You tell me this brilliant young man, who looked over that payroll 52 times a year, saw the name of Mary Phagan every time, then when she was dead had to get his books to find out her name? He coveted that little girl way back in March. I have no doubt those little girls swore the truth when they said they saw him making advances. I would not be surprised if he did not hang around and try to get her to yield. I would not be surprised if he didn't get Gantt out of the way because he was an obstacle to his scheme.
Turns to Frank and
Says, You Laid Plot.
Dorsey turned toward Frank now and hurled the charges at him. You knew the day before she was probably coming, he said. You went and told old Jim Conley who had watched for you so many Saturday afternoons while you and Schiff were making up that finance sheet. When Helen Ferguson came and asked for Mary Phagan's money, I wouldn't be surprised. If you did not refuse to give it to her because you had already told old Jim to come and watch.
Frank's plans were fixed. Ah, gentlemen, then Saturday comes, and it is a reasonable tale that old Jim tells. He says, I done it just like this.' He doesn't say, I did.' He says he done it' just as the brilliant factory superintendent told him to. This thing passion works in a terrible way. Good people don't know how the mind of a libertine works. They don't know of the planning, plotting and waiting. Way back in March Frank had his eyes upon her. He was infatuated with her and did not have the will power to resist.
You can twist and wabble all you want (Dorsey turned to Frank and shook his finger at him), but you told Detective Scott that you did not know her. Notwithstanding what you have said here, notwithstanding what your witnesses have said, you knew her.
Says Prisoner Himself
Corroborates Jim Conley.
And tell me, gentlemen of the jury, has this little Ferguson girl lied? Has she been suborned by Starnes? Has she come here and deliberately perjured herself? I tell you that is a charge that can not stand. His refusal to give Helen Ferguson Mary Phagan's envelope is an indication that he was plotting. And old Jim Conley's tale will stand, for Frank himself corroborates Conley in many things.
Frank shows that he did the things that Conley said he did. Frank says that he stopped at Cruikshank's soda fountain and bought some drinks. This is just as Conley said he did. Another thing, Frank said he did a folder that he took some papers out of. Old Jim said he did that.
I tell your that if Frank was not on closer terms with his employees than he said he was. Conley could never save picked his words as he as.
And in four instances in his own statement Frank used the exact words that Jim said he spoke.
And then in reference to the girl. Frank said that after gazing upon the body that after gazing upon the body of the dead girl and looking upon the pay roll that she was the one whom I afterward found out to be the girl I had paid off Saturday.'
But, gentlemen of the jury, Mary Phagan never drew her pay. When Mrs. White came up to Frank's office, she tells us that he was standing by the safe, that he jumped when he saw her. Gentlemen of the jury, he was at the safe then arranging that pay roll and getting little Mary's pay. And when Mrs. White went downstairs she saw Jim Conley, showing that negro had nothing to do with it.
Believes Scheme Hatched
To Hurry Mrs. White Away.
The first time Mrs. White came. Frank sent upstairs for her husband. When she came back this time, he sent her upstairs. But then came the thought that he must get her out of there.
Knowing these men had their lunches with them, he knew they would remain upon that upper floor for a long while. But he didn't know what time Mrs. White was coming down. Then it was he determined to get her out. He went upstairs and made out like he was in a great hurry. And said that she had better leave then or he would have to lock them in. She went down and out. But instead of Frank going out, she tells us that he did not have on his coat and hat; that he went back to his office and sat down to his desk.
They talk about there not being much blood there. There are two reasons for this. One is that the blow upon her head did not cause much blood to spatter at that time and then old Jim Conley wrapped her body up.
Yes, and after striking that lick upon the head he gagged her. Then, (shaking his finger at Frank), then in order to move your reputation, not to save your character for you never had any, you gagged and killed her"in order to save your reputation with the Montags, the Haas, Rabbi Marx, the B'nai B'rith, your relatives in Brooklyn and Athens, you killed her to get her out of the way.
Killed Her Because
Dead Tell No Tales.
You killed her because dead people tell his tales. Dead people do not talk. And you talk about George Kenley saying ton the car that he would be one to lead a riot. And you (addressing Arnold) talk about annihilating that fellow Renly with the pawnbroker.
Why, if that little girl had lived to tell of that brutal assault, 1,000 people would have stormed the jail and run over men like you.
You made a proposal to that girl (addressing Frank) and she would not yield. Your passion was such that it aroused your anger. You struck her a vicious cruel blow, knocked her down, and she was unconscious. Then you gagged her and went to get the cord that strangled her.
You never gave the little girl her pay envelope. She never got it. That was what you were doing at that safe when Mrs. White came in, and you jumped. You got it out of there yourself, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Conley hadn't told the whole truth and that your knowledge and possession of that pay envelope kept it from being produced here.
You got Mrs. White out of that building because you couldn't do what you wanted to with her in there. You were in an awful hurry for her to leave, you were. And then you locked those people up on the fourth floor and had Conley to take her downstairs.
Holds UP Victim's
Garments to Jury.
I ask you, gentlemen of the jury (holding up the bloody garments of Mary Phagan), to look at the blood of this ravished girl. The blood that was spitted because she would not give up what was clearer to her than her life"her virtue.
You ravished her and then able counsel said you never had any mark on your body. Durant never had any on his, and they tried to make it appear that the blood found back there was not the life blood of that innocent little girl.
Was there ever any farce so foolish? Jim Conley tells you that was the spot where he dropped her head so hard. And where Frank came and took her by the feet and helped carry her out. Every person who saw it bore out the statement that it dripped. There was one big spot and lots of little ones around it.
Gentlemen, if huma
n testimony is worth anything, that spot was blood, not paint.
Newt Lee's Shirt
Branded as Paint.
The Solicitor did not mince words in branding as plants, pure and simple, the bloody shirt, found at Newt Lee's, the envelope, the rope, and the club found on the first floor of the factory. He made Frank or Frank's friends and relatives responsible for them. On every movement of Frank or his friends after the crime, the Solicitor threw a sinister interpretation.
He scouted the idea that the club, the pay envelope, and the rope could have remained on the first floor without discovery from the time of the crime until May 15, when they were turned up by McWorth, Pinkerton operative, particularly in view of the fact that search was made immediately after the murder by city detectives and by employees of the factory.
He held up the bloody shirt to the jurors and told them that it was stained on the outside in one place and on the inside in another, something that never could have occurred if Lee had carried the bleeding form of the little girl from the first or second floor into the basement. He charged that the bird never had been worn; that it did not have the distinctive negro odor, and that the button holes had not even been opened since it had been laundered. From this he argued that Lee never could have worn the shirt and planted the body.
Discussion of Time
Slip Called Significant.
Dorsey pointed out as a very suspicious circumstance that Frank first had said that the time slip from the register clock had been punched correctly by Lee, and that the night watchman would not have had time to go home in the interval between punches. Later, said the Solicitor, it was suddenly discovered that misses had been made in the time slip, and Frank remarked that Lee would had time to have gone home and returned to the factory, if, for example, he had wished to remove some blood-stained clothing.
This, together with the invitation to search Frank's home for clews formed the detectives' cue to go out to the home of Newt Lee, the Solicitor related. John Black went out to the negro's. There he found the blood-stabbed shirt"planted there, according to Dorsey, by Frank or his friends.
Dorsey occupied much time and consumed much energy in his assault upon the alibi"erected by Frank's lawyers. He realized that this was one of the strongest barriers between the Stats and a congestion and he proposed to batter it down.
He was sarcastic and impressively direct in turn. He asked the Sheriff to turn around the alibi chart prepared by the defense.
Derides Frank's Alibi
As Self-Contradicted.
Let's see that time table of Frank's for a minute, he said with scorn in his voice. I want to see it for just half a minute, and then I want it
Continued on Page 5, Column 5.
PAGE 33
FRANK EXHIBITS EVERY EMOTION----EXCEPT FEAR AND DREAD
Dorsey Shows Victim's Clothes to Jury;
Her Mother and Mrs. Frank Break Down
Continued from Page 2.
turned back to the wall. I want it turned back to the wall, and I don't want to see it again while I am speaking.
1 p.m."Frank leaves the factory.' It looks mighty nice on that chart, don't it? That fixes it up all right, don't it? Turn the chart to the wall, Mr. Sheriff, and let it stay turned.
Why, gentlemen of the jury, that most important point, that most vital point, that crucial point, in Leo Frank's whole alibi was refuted and broken down by the statement of Frank himself when he didn't realize the importance of this time proposition.
Frank's statement at police headquarters, taken by G. C. Febuary on Monday, April 28, says: I didn't lock the door that morning. The mail was coming up. I locked it when I started home to lunch at 1:10 o'clock.
There goes your alibi, punctured by your own statement when you didn't know how this time was going to figure in the case. Yet these gentlemen who are representing the defense, for the purpose of impressing your minds, print in big letters on this chart that he left the factory at 1 o'clock, it was because he realized the importance of the time point and had to leave ten minutes earlier than he said he had when he was at the police station.
The Solicitor paused here to pay his respects to the man who had introduced Miss Helen Curran, No. 160 Ashby Street, as a witness. It was Miss Curran who swore she saw Frank at Whitehall and Alabama streets waiting for his car at 1:10 Saturday afternoon, just at the time he said in his first statement that he was leaving the factory.
Saddest Incident of Case,
Calling of Miss Curran.
The saddest thing, he said, In this case"I don't know who caused it; I don't know who introduced it, and I hope I will go to my grave without ever knowing who brought this little Curran girl into this case"the saddest thing in this case is bringing in this little girl, whose father works at Montag's, and placing her upon the stand here to protect this red-handed murderer.
If Frank locked that door at 1:10, how could she have seen him at Alabama and Whitehall Street at 1:10? How could she be so positive that it was him, if she really saw anyone there? For, mark you, she had never seen him but once. She comes into your presence and tells you the unreasonable and absurd story of seeing him, which is in direct contradiction to Frank's story.
They say Frank arrived at the factory at 8:25. Frank himself in his first statement said he arrived at 8:30, and poor Jim Conley, lousy, filthy and dirty, said he arrived at 8:#0, carrying a raincoat, and they tried to make it appear he didn't have one. If the truth is ever known, he tried to borrow that raincoat of Ursenbach's to create the same impression.
Mattie Smith at 9:20 (quoting from the table), and Frank and Mattie Smith both say 9:50. He called Schiff at 10 o'clock (reading again), and yet this man with all his mathematical precision and accuracy at figures, said he was at Montag's at 10 o'clock. They say he arrived back at 11 o'clock, but in his first statement he said it was 11:05. At 12:12 they say Mary Phagan arrived at the factory.
'Bleeged To Do It, Just
Like Br'er Rabbit.
Oh, my, they have to do it. Like the rabbit in Uncle Remus, they're just bleeged to do it.' Move the minutes up or back, for God's sake, or we are lost!
Here is your table turned to the wall, having the time of Lemmie Quinn's arrival at 12:30. I have an affidavit her of this pet foreman of the metal department. He said he got there at from 12 to 12:20. Those girls went out of the factory at 11:45 o'clock. They walked up a block and down a block to the Busy Bee Caf. There they saw Quinn.
In the name of goodness, if Frank, according to his own statement, could leave the factory at 1:10 o'clock and get home at 1:20, couldn't these girls walk up a block and down a block and see Quinn in fifteen minutes?
I know it hurts, but this table here which puts Lemmie Quinn at the factory from 12:20 to 12:22 is a fraud on its face. There is no greater farce in this case their straining at this case than their straining at this particular point, with the exception of Billy Owens' pantomime. And, oh, what a farce that was!
Gentlemen of the jury, you need not try to consider their attempts to be accurate about the time Quinn says he was there, for Lemmie says himself he could not be positive. He says he thinks he got there sometime between 12:20 and 12:30.
Other Perjurers in Case,
Solicitor Declares.
There were other perjurers in the case, the Solicitor said. For instance, Roy Bauer, Miss Fleming, the stenographer; Charlie Lee and old man Holloway, the day watchman.
In the opinion of the Solicitor, he had obtained one of his most important admissions from Miss Fleming, one of the defense's own witnesses.
I asked her, he said, what Frank generally did Saturday mornings when she was working there. She answered me that he did office work. I asked her what kind of office of work, and she said that he worked on the financial she
et.
I asked her if she was sure that he did this, and she said, Yes, sir.' I asked her if she knew positively it was the financial sheet he was working on, and she said, Yes, sir.' I approached her in several different ways, and each time her answer was the same.
And she was telling the truth!
Dorsey used this piece of evidence to try to relive the jurors' minds of the impression that Frank always worked up the financial sheet in the afternoon and that it was what he did on Memorial Day a few hours after Mary Phagan was murdered and taken to the basement.
Language of Notes
Is Damning Evidence.
Coming to the notes found by the body of the slain girl, Dorsey declared that if they were not the order of an overruling Providence he would describe them as the silliest things he ever had read. He said, however, that they bore an intrinsic knowledge of the crime and were in themselves one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the defendant.
This man Frank, in attempting to fix the murder upon another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself by the language he used in those notes.
The pad, the paper the notes were written on, the fact that there was a note at all, fix the crime upon the white man. Tell me that a negro who, after he had killed a white girl, had ravished and outraged her, would have taken the time write those notes! And even if he had written them, would he have written them on paper found only in the office?
Conley said once in his statement that when he met a man on the street that he knew, the man looked at him as though he thought I done it.' Conley used that expression at least twenty times. He said I done it,' when he closed the door, and in several other places I can't find just how. He didn't use the word did' one time.
In the first note, the expression I went to make water and that long tall black negro pushed me down the hole.' You knew that toilet was back there on the second floor (addressing Frank), and you knew that was where that little girl met her death. And you knew that metal room was right back there, too.
Value of Circumstances
As Evidence Is Shown.
You tell me that negro would have written those words. Where was it she was going to make water on the first floor? Yet you tell me there is nothing in circumstantial evidence when these things creep in.
When you wrote this note (turning to Frank), you said yourself that you had the original of the note before you, and you said yourself that you knew Conley could write because he had written you time and time again, trying to borrow money, and yet you sat there with the original of that note before you and Conley's own handwriting, the handwriting you had seen often enough to be familiar with it, and you didn't tell those officers that Conley wrote the notes.
I don't want you to convict this man unless you believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't want you to let your verdict be governed by the opinion of a crank, but by the facts.
PAGE 31
PHAGAN VERDICT AWAITED WITH TENSE EAGERNESS
FOURTH WEEK OF FRANK
TRIAL FINDS INTEREST OF
PUBLIC STILL WHITE HOT
Popular Opinion Swayed, First When
State Springs Climax With Conley's
Story, Again When Defense Put
the Accused Man on the Stand.
BY AN OLD POLICE REPORTER
The fourth week of the Frank trial came to an end shortly after noon Saturday, with Solicitor Dorsey still far from the finish of his concluding argument in behalf of the State.
Judge Roan announced at 1:45 that he would adjourn the case over until Monday, as he has been doing heretofore, and the Solicitor will conclude his argument then.
The Solicitor had been speaking more than six hours when adjournment came, but apparently was physically able to go on if necessary.
His address, when it is finished Monday, will have been broken into three sections"one Friday afternoon, another Saturday morning, and a third Monday morning.
The Solicitor's address has been so far a wonderful piece of work.
On all sides he has been praised ungrudgingly for the fine effort he has made in behalf of the prosecution.
Atlanta will breathe a long, deep and soulful sigh of relief, however, when the last word is spoken by way of argument and the case is given into the hands of the jury for a verdict.
Leading Topic for Months.
Never before in the history of Fulton County has a criminal proceeding so challenged the unabated and undivided attention of the people.
For four months the Frank case"or the Phagan case, as it more generally is called"has been the leading topic of discussion among all classes of Georgians, rural and urban, rich and poor, high and low, informed an uninformed.
Every figure to the tragedy has been picturesque in the extreme.
Mary Phagan, a sweet young working girl, cruelly murdered; Leo Frank, a young business man of theretofore unblemished character and standing, indicted for the murder; Jim Conley, a negro, a confessed accessory after the fact of the murder, with a long criminal career attaching to him, the principal witness against Frank; Lucille Frank, the loving and devoted wife of the defendant, always at his side, with his mother, cheering and sustaining him; Reuben Arnold and Luther Rosser, two of the leading and most noted lawyers in the South, defending the accused; Frank Hooper and Hugh Dorsey, the former an attorney of established reputation, the latter a brilliant young lawyer lately named prosecuting attorney of the Atlanta Circuit; a presiding judge who has tried many of the most famous cases in the State"these make up the dramatis personae of the Frank case.
Case Fought Stubbornly.
Never before in Fulton County, if, indeed, within the State, has a case been so stubbornly and so bitterly fought as the Frank case.
It required more than three weeks to get the evidence all in. Every inch of ground was contested vigorously and to a finish.
It is estimated that the defense interposed more than 100 objections of one sort and another, as the case progressed, thus fortifying itself as abundantly as possible for an appeal, in the event of conviction.
The only party to the crime, as witness or otherwise, who has not been attacked vehemently one way or the other is the little dead girl, Mary Phagan!
All sides have agreed that, whatever else might or might not be true, the murdered child was blameless"a pathetic and unoffending victim of a brutal homicide.
Frank, the defendant, has been painted by the defense as a bright young business man, perfect in department at all times, a loving husband and dutiful son, irreproachable in character, incapable of criminal deeds and thoughts, persecuted and assailed maliciously by hostile officials seeking reward both by the way of fame and material gain!
By the State Frank has been painted as black as the darkest depths of Hades itself, an unfaithful husband, a vicious son, a lustful monster, particularly after young girls; a pervert, a leader of two lives, a designing and crafty monster"an inhumane murderer!
Conley Blamed and Praised.
Conley has been held up both as a witness worth of all belief and as a witness worthy of no belief whatever"as a negro reluctant to tell the truth originally because of his disinclination to involve Frank, his erstwhile kind and profitable master, but rushing candidly and sincerely to recite the truth eventually, nevertheless, and on the other hand, as a negro lying from start to finish for no other purpose than to save his own neck from the noose by slipping it over the head of the oppressed Frank.
Lucile Frank, the wife, has been cited both as the faithful and loving wife there at the husband's side in the courtroom and as the shrinking, suspicious wife, early indisposed even to visit Frank in his cell at the jail.
Rosser and Arnold have painted Hooper and Dorsey as direct agents of a wicked and malicious frameup against the life, liberty and most sacred honor of Leo Frank, deliberately
and designedly seeking to hang the defendant to gratify a misguided enthusiasm and official zeal, if nothing worse; and Dorsey and Hooper have been unsparing in their criticism of Rosser and Arnold, the paid attorneys of the defense.
An imposing array of witnesses have declared Frank's character both good and bad, while two other arrays of witnesses have sought both to uphold and to break down his alibis.
Medical experts, of repute and fame, have even set up one by one, only to be designated fakes and quacks by the other side, and vice versa.
Second Charge in Case.
Besides the original charge of mur-
MRS. LEO M. FRANK plainly showing the strain as Solicitor Dorsey arraigned her
husband. Below is Mrs. Rea Frank, the defendant's mother, who also betrayed her agitation.
der there was injected into the case, in its early stages an unspeakable charge of degeneracy.
First this charge went in with the defense's knowledge and consent, and then the defense moved to rule it out. It wasn't ruled out, and the defense then seized upon it and undertook to make a boomerang upon the State.
The State thereupon sought to enlarge upon it, and the State was stopped from doing that.
Three or four days was used up in attempting to show whether boiled cabbage could reach such and such a state of digestion in such and such a time and after a long wrangle as to that, the defense and the State found that they were not particularly disagreed about the matter, anyway, as it fit both theories like a glove to show that Mary Phagan died within an hour after eating the cabbage.
The defense has contended that Jim Conely and not Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan, and the State has contended quite as earnestly that Frank did it, and Conley was connected with it only after the exact fashion he swore to.
Looking backward over the trial from the present day point of view, one may see much that appears grimly humorous in the proceedings"said yet there has been nothing bordering ever so slightly upon the humorous, really. On the contrary, the trial has been tragedy piled uncompromisingly upon tragedy, from beginning to end!
Public Swayed Both Ways.
Into all the other complex, puzzling, elusive and sinister details of the mysterious Frank case, a large measure of prejudice was injected as it swept along.
The public has been swung first this way and then that, rushed to one conclusion, only to be rushed as madly, after a bit, to another, until, up one side and down the other, the public breathed, as aforesaid, a large and deep sigh of relief when at last the jury got the matter into its keeping, to unravel it as best it might and to speak the truth of it as nearly and as exactly as human ingenuity and the forms of law can approximate the same.
The State has fought doggedly to one theory: That Leo Frank, shortly after noon on Saturday, April 26, lured little Mary Phagan, for unspeakably immoral purpose, to the rear of the second floor of the National Pencil Factory in Forsyth street, after having paid her, her weekly pittance, and there, when she refused to yield to his lustful purpose, he killed her, first by knocking her down and subsequently strangling her.
That after this horribly tragic culmination of perhaps non-murderous original intent, Frank sought the help of a negro, Conley, with whom he had previous very questionable relations, to hide the body, and that Conley, already deep in the mire with Frank, consented, and as a matter of fact, did hide the body of the dead girl in the basement of the factory, where subsequently he expected to burn it.
Charges Notes Were Framed.
That after this, Frank and his accomplice returned to the second floor, whereupon Frank's office is located, and prepared some illiterate notes, which were placed beside the dead body for the purpose of diverting suspicion both from Frank and the negro.
That the defendant then gave the negro some money for his work, and promised him more eventually.
That Frank's actions following the murder were suspicious enough to prompt his retention at police headquarters.
That his general character is bad enough to warrant and the presumption that he had lustful intentions toward Mary Phagan, as evidenced by his relations with other women and girls.
That his professed alibis are inconsequential and misleading, and not sustained by facts.
Finally, that Conley's seemingly contradictory attitude is accounted for in two directions first by his desire to save both himself and Frank, and second by his desire to protect himself against a great measure of responsibility for the tragedy then rightfully belonged to him, when it became evident to him that Frank was preparing to let him suffer just so much measure of responsibility, even to the murder itself, as might be fixed if he did speak.
What Defense Has Claimed.
The defense has fought doggedly to this one theory: That Leo Frank scarcely knew Mary Phagan at all, and that the only time he saw her on Saturday, April 26, was when came to his office to get her pay; that he never lured her to the rear of the second floor, or anywhere else, for any purpose whatever, and that he never saw her alive after the brief moment she stood in his office on Saturday.
That after she left his presence, happy and unharmed, she passed on downstairs, and encountered Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, whom Frank did not even know was in the building, and who was not supposed to be in the building at that time.
That Conley, then only partially recovered from a drunken debauch of the morning, saw her little mesh bag in her hand, and, being broke and wanting more whisky, he seized the girl, snatched her mesh bag, after knocking her down, threw her into the cellar below through the nearby open elevator shaft, whence later he dragged her to the trash pile in the rear of the building, tied the strangling rope about her neck either to complete his dastardly work or to create a false suspicion as to the direct cause of her death.
That he then pulled the staple from the back door of the basement and thus made his escape finally from the building.
That all of Conley's story as to how he helped dispose of the body is a fabrication and a monstrous lie, framed for the purpose of shielding himself and placing the blame upon Frank.
That his story was dragged from him, bit by bit, beginning with the falsehood that he could not write, and, that it was revised four times, always under oath, before it's amazing and incompatible contradictions could be fixed up to stick with spy degree of plausibility, and thereby was helped in every one of these revisions by all too willing police officers, detectives and court officials bent upon finding in
WHAT THE LAWYERS OF BOTH SIDES
THINK AND SAY OF EACH OTHER
The rider of the winds; the stirrer of the storm."Hugh Dorsey's estimate of Luther Rosser.
As mild a mannered man as ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat."Hugh Dorsey's opinion of Reuben Arnold.
The charges and insinuations that he has made are the most contemptible that have ever occurred in a Georgia court. The things he (Dorsey) has done in this trial will never be done again in Georgia. I will stake my life on that."Luther Rosser's opinion of Hugh Dorsey's methods.
Frank a victim for Mary Phagan's murder.
Claim Negro Wrote Notes.
That the negro himself, of his own motion, wrote the notes he later confessed to having written, hoping thereby to divert suspicion from himself.
That Conley only began his series of contradictory confessions after he found that Frank was under suspicion, and thereby realized his (Conley's) opportunity to fasten more firmly upon Frank that suspicion, to Conley's own great benefit.
That Frank's general character is good, in contradistinction to Conley's admitted bad character.
That Frank has set up two unassailable alibis, and could not, therefore, have committed the crime charged.
That his nervousness the day following the murder was occasi
oned by the manner in which the fact of the murder was communicated to him, and not because of guilt.
That the long and delicate clerical work he did on the afternoon following the murder is proof he could not then have been agitated by guilt or by any other sinister knowledge.
That Frank, as a matter of fact, knows nothing whatever of the cause of Mary Phagan's death, and is utterly and entirely guiltless of any participation therein.
Two intensely dramatic events marked the progress of the trial"and about them the entire case has revolved constantly.
Conley's remarkable story, containing the unspeakable charge of perversion, wealthy in detail and full of thrill, was the State's big point.
Frank's wonderfully clear, dispassionate and well-sustained statement from the witness stand was the defendant's big point.
These two contrary things have been pitted the one against the other, and upon which the jury finally would accept as the truth the case always has seemed to turn for final adjustment.
Attack Centers on Negro.
Every effort of the defense has been to break down Conley"including two days' unmerciful grilling by Mr. Rosser"and every effort of the State has been toward upholding him.
Every effort of the defense, therefore, has been also directed toward holding up Frank's statement, just as every effort of the State has been directed toward breaking it down.
It ever was Frank vs. Conley"the life of the one or the other as the law's satisfaction for the murder of Mary Phagan!
Regardless of all things else, the public is unstinting in its praise and approval of the brilliant young Solicitor General of the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, for the superb manner in which he has handled the State's side of the case.
It all along has been freely admitted that those two veterans of criminal practice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold, would take ample care of the defendant.
Two more experienced, able and aggressive attorneys it would be impossible to secure in any case.
When it was first learned that Rosser and Arnold were to defend Frank, the public realized that the defendant had determined to take no chances. He selected from among the cream of the Georgia bar.
That the State's interests, quite as sacred as the defendant's, would be looked after so jealously, so adroitly, and so shrewdly in the hands of the youthful Dorsey, however"that was a matter not so immediately settled!
Dorsey an Unknown Quantity.
Dorsey was known as a bright young chap, not widely experienced, willing and aggressive enough, but"
He had been but lately named Solicitor General, and he hadn't been tried out exhaustively.
Maybe he could measure up to the standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it was a long way to measure up, nevertheless!
It soon became evident that Dorsey was not to be safely underrated. He could not be sneered down, laughed down, ridiculed down, or smashed down.
He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was called bud and son right along"but every time they pushed him down, he arose again, and generally stronger than ever!
Time and again he outgeneraled his more experienced opponents.
He forced them to make Frank's character an issue, despite themselves.
He got in vital and far-reaching evidence, over protest long and loud.
Whenever the Solicitor was called upon for an authority, he was right there with the goods. They never once caught him napping. He had prepared himself the Frank case, in every phase of it.
The case had not progressed very far before the defense discovered unmistakably that it had in Dorsey a foreman worth of its most trustworthy and best-tempered steel!
In places he literally tore to pieces the efforts of the defense. He overlooked no detail"at times he was crushing in his reply to the arguments of Rosser and Arnold, and never was he commonplace!
Fixed His Fame by Work.
Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Dorsey sat down, the Solicitor General had fixed his fame and reputation as an able and altogether capable prosecuting attorney"and never again will that reputation be challenged lightly, perhaps!
Much credit for hard work and intelligent effort will be accorded Frank Hooper, too, for the part he played in the Frank trial. He was at all times the repressed and painstaking first lieutenant of the Solicitor, and his work, while not so spectacular, formed a very vital part of the whole case made out and argued by the state. He was for fourteen years the Solicitor General of one of the most important South Georgia circuits, and his advice and suggestions to Dorsey were invaluable.
A noteworthy fact in connection with the Frank trial is that it generally is accepted as having been as fair and square as human forethought and effort could make it.
It may be true that a good deal of the irrelevant and not particularly pertinent crept into it, but one side has been to blame for that quite as much as the other side.
Ruling Cut Both Ways.
The judge's rulings have cut impartially both ways"sometimes favorable to the State, but quite as frequently in favor of the defense.
Even the one big charge of degeneracy, which many people hold had no proper place in the present trial, went in without protest form the defense, and cross-examination upon it even was indulged in.
Unlimited time was given both the state and the defense to make out their cases: expense was not considered. The trial has lasted longer than any other in the criminal history of Georgia. Nothing was done or left undone that could give either side the right to complain of unfairness after the conclusion of the hearing.
It is difficult to conceive how human minds and human efforts could provide more for fair play than was provided in the Frank case.
PAGE 32
FRANK JURORS AN ENTHRALLING STUDY IN HUMAN EVOLUTION
Every Variety of Man Represented"Some
Appear Overcome With Responsibili-
ty"Others Positive and Confident.
By TARLETON COLLIER.
Much has been said about the Frank jury. Much has been said about juries ever since a Coroner investigated the death of Abel. But always the talk is of the jury and never of the men that make it up. You must confess that your idea of a jury is of something altogether generic and unindividual, much as you would think of an adding machine or a blonde Eskimo. Possessing neither person, number nor gender.
But the men who have been picked to well and truly try the issue joined between the State of Georgia and Leo M. Frank present an enthralling study, taken singly and as men.
Every variety of man is there"men of convictions and men without convictions and men without convictions, men who will sit in the jury room until Luther Rosser grows a six-foot beard before they will acquiesce in a verdict that they don't favor, and men will hasten respectfully to the others argue it out and be persuaded by their fellows.
One Mind Made Up.
In the jury box are two men, at least, who are frightened and nervous at their responsibility. There is one man, a positive, confident fellow he is, to judge from his face, who seems already to have made up his mind. You can almost see his lips move as the witnesses make their answers.
There are many men like that in the world, you know, and one has been corralled for the Frank jury as certainly as there is a jury, if countenances run true to form.
If countenances run true to form, you can prophesy the agony and the travail that will occur in the jury room before the verdict is brought. Because, besides the positive men and weak men, some of the twelve are conscientious students, who will surely want to weigh every bit of the evidence before he announces ready. And of evidence there is a stupendous amount.
There is one young man"a clean shaven, clean-looking person he is, too"who was evidently brought up in the narrow path which leads toward the fear of God and the understanding of good and evil. He is all conscience, and it is as plain as the n
ose on his face that he is going to the bottom of the sordid matter before he speaks his mind.
The Frank jury is an unusual body of men in some respects. Three weeks"three weary, perspiring, exacting weeks"they have sat in their craped seats, listening to talk of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank, with now and then, for something new, talk of Leo Frank and Mary Phagan. They have become satiated with all the unpleasant, pitiful details. They have been guarded and trailed like prisoners, and kept away from their homes and families. They must have thought of business unattended and of affairs unsettled. Their torments have been mental and physical, too.
Jurors Still Unperturbed.
But through it all they got unperturbed"that is, most of them. Two men there are whose restlessness is apparent. Whether it is a restlessness of the body or the mind, of course, they know best. But they shift in their seats, and cross and re-cross their legs like an English Channel swimmer, and when their brows, and say things to themselves.
But all the twelve show remarkable fortitude for men cooped up for week after week, forced to listen to eternal talk of Mary Phagan and bloodstains and Leo Frank, formed to listen to eternal talk of Mary Phagan and bloodstains and Leo Frank.
This is because, most likely, they are interested in the case themselves. Even the juror who scoffs at the evidence likes to hear the details. It is a great story, this mystery of Mary Phagan, and the jurors, as well as the Atlanta public, are learning that it is greater and reaches out with many more arms than they had thought at first. The jury members are like the rest of Atlanta's population, who by spending good money, force newspapers to turn out extra after extra, all about de big molder trial.
On the faces of the Frank jury there is the notable lack of that martyr look that jurors like to wear. Even the juror who is worried about his business worries only by spells when the witnesses are dull or when there is delay in bringing them from the room upstairs. Other whiles he is listening intently.
The first juror, near the corner where Sheriff Mangum sits as immovable and majestic as Henry Grady's statue, is glad he is a juror. A. H. Henslee, a salesman, of No. 74 Oak Street, he is, and he enjoys being a member of the Frank jury. He is the quickest to laugh when there is something to laugh at. Times there are when he laughs at nothing that others can see. His must be a humorous soul.
Seems Like Vacation.
Juror Henslee isn't impatient, to judge from appearances. This might be a vacation for him, or a pretty good show.
But the man at his left feels just the other way about it. The most restless of the twelve is M. I. Woodward of No. 182 Park Avenue, who is cashier of a hardware concern. If his neighbor enjoys it, Woodward in the same degree does not. Being a juror is by no means a bed of roses, to his way of thinking. He grows impatient with the heat and the painful slowness with which some witness answers, and the foolish questions that certain lawyers ask just to be asking, as he must think. Such is the story on his face.
Next to him, and brushed occasionally by his impatient elbow, is D. Townsend, No. 84 Whitehall Terrace, a bank cashier. Townsend is essentially serous. The matter of trying a man for his life is the gravest issue in the world to him.
It has impressed him deeply, and he sits there with the indication on his face that his existence is stirred. Consequently, he studied the case and the evidence as a devout young lawyer studies his Blackstone, his soul in his eyes, his eagerness to know everything plainly written on all his features. He is not so eager as he is serious, though, and studious.
Number Four. He is F. V. L. Smith and a good juror. Temperament is as essential to a juror as to an artist. That is, the proper kind of temperament. F. V. L. Smith has it. He is sure of himself, confident of his opinions, ready to announce them and to defend them in the face of the world, and ready to argue. A typical debater he is, and it is safe to prophesy that in the jury room F. V. L. Smith will be heard in the thickest of the verbal fight.
It is announced that F. V. L. Smith, of No. 481 Cherokee Avenue, is a manufacturer's agent. He must be a good agent, a booster whose belief in his own wares is impregnable. He is so confident.
Face Tells His Worries.
A. L. Wisbey is next to him, juror number five. Wisbey as a countenance that speaks plainly to you of business worries of perturbation concerning the static of his work and his family, and his friends and the whole world. In the moments when he has opportunity to think when no witness is on the stand and when the lawyers are not wrangling, he assumes unconsciously a thin line between his eyes, that bespeaks nothing else but anxiety and worry.
It must be said that worry is Wisbey's bte noire, his obsessing evil.
Almost of the same temperament is his neighbor, Marcellus Johenning, who is recorded as a machine shop foreman. But where Wisbey appears to be worried about his troubles out of the courtroom, Johenning is worried over the problem before him. He is plainly indecisive and nervous. He hears the witnesses of the State and believes in Frank's guilt. Then the defense brings forth its evidence and Johenning believes it sound. Then he pauses to weigh both sides, and he worries undecided. At least, that is the story his countenance bears.
The first man on the second row of the jury is J. F. Higdon; No. 108 Ormewood avenue. Higdon is a fighter, aggressive, virile, stubborn. He has opinions of his own, and the forces to back them. It will be a sad day if he stands alone in his conviction about this case, because they will never swerve him. So it appears from a study of his face.
Higdon is opinionated. A witness is called and is led to the stand. Higdon looks and listens. Then his opinion is formed and you can tell from the compression of his lips and the decisiveness of the word that he speaks to F. E. Winburn, who sits next to him, that the opinion is lasting.
Sorry of Selection.
Winburn, now, is not one to jump at conclusions. He is undecided. Mainly, he appears to be sorry that they selected him. He seems to be in on his face the evidence that he is sorry for Frank, sorry for Mary Phagan, sympathetic toward every person whom this wide-stretching case affects. It is his nature to be sympathetic and to feel that he must weigh
FRANK JURORS SKETCHED IN COURTROOM BY HEARST'S SUNDAY AMERICAN STAFF ARTIST
Views of twelve men who hold fate of Leo M. Frank in their hands as they appeared while listening to the evidence upon which verdict in the trial of the man charged with slaying Mary Phagan, their expressions, according to character readers, furnishing a clew to the conclusions they draw as the evidence is presented. They are: 1-M. Johenning. 2-A. L. Wisbey. 3-F. V. L. Smith, 4-Deder Townsend, 3-M. S. Woodward, 6-A. H. Henslee, 7-W. M. Jeffries, 8-J. T. Ozburn, 9-Charles J. Bosshardt, 10-W. S. Medcalf, 11-Fred E. Winburn, 12-J. F. Higdon.
carefully every word that comes. He listens to his positive friend Higdon with a profound air of respect and of consideration.
Next to him is W. S. Medcalf, of No. 136 Kirkwood Avenue, who, the records say, is a newspaper circulation man. Medcalf, it appears, is a man to form opinions and to back them. His opinions may be easily formed, but stoutly. The compression of his face, the concentration of eyes, nose and mouth all hear witness to the fact that he is a positive, pugnacious person, who is certain his ideas are worth fighting for.
Next is C. J. Bosshardt, a pressman, so the records show, Bosshardt is a young man, who is finding u great experience in this Frank trial. Those who have watched the case daily can tell you that Bosshardt has grown in comprehension. He is learning much of wisdom and calmness and calculation with this trial, and will come out much the better man. His countenance shows that and shows too, growing wisdom, a willingness to
hear and to learn, and an increasing judgement.
Locking at Bosshardt you consider that it must be the opportunity of a lifetime for a young man to get sit a jury in a case like this. It must be the opportunity to listen and learn much of wisdom and serious thought and plain common sense.
If Bosshardt is ready to learn, nonetheless to his neighbor, juror number eleven. He is J. T. Osburn, an optician, who is plainly the student of the jury. He leans forward in his seat always, studying the words and the witness, very evidently impressed with the grave responsibility that confronts him, very desirous of learning everything about the case.
And he is patient, too. Patience seems to be his chiefest virtue.
If the case lasts all summer, you likely will see Osburn there, straining forward to hear, forgetfulness in his eyes of everything but the business of being a juror and of trying to reach a true verdict according to the evidence.
Studies Case Deeply.
Last in the row is W. M. Jeffries, a real estate man, a calm, sardonic sort of person. His calculating eyes, wrinkled at the corners with shrewd concern, show plainly that he is studying the case with a mind as intricate as the evidence"and the evidence, you will admit, is as intricate and as much twisted as the Cretan labyrinth. Jeffries would have made a good detective if he hadn't been a real estate operator. He looks with the judicial eye of a referee, he listens with the calmness of his own stenographer, and he forms his own opinion quickly. And he has the positiveness to back his opinion.
This is the jury that is trying Leo Frank, and whose word will send him to the gallows or back to his free home. It is an unusually interesting body of men, and with it all is a set of as sane looking, clean looking, opening minded American citizens as can be found.
Jurors Gland End Nears;
Their Windows Happier.
Though there rests upon their shoulders the responsibility of finding a verdict that will bring to a close one of the South's greatest murder cases, the twelve men who hold Leo Frank's life in their hands are looking forward to their Sunday afternoon stroll in better spirits than they have displayed at any time since they were imprisoned more than three weeks ago.
For today is the last Sabbat the jurors, wearied with the strain of listening to continual legal battles and worn with the task of hearing hour after hour of evidence, will have to spend away form their home and families"and every man of them is happy. In charge of Deputy Plennie Miner, the jurors will take their regular afternoon walk through the city this afternoon and then will return to their rooms at the Kimball for a last Sunday meal and a final Sunday night's sleep.
Though separated from their families and guarded as if they, instead of Frank, were on trial, the jurors have uttered no complaint. They have accepted their task as a matter of course, and are undertaking to complete it in a conscientious manner.
But far happier over the prospect of the early closing of the trial than all the lawyers and the jurors and the dozens who have been directly interested in the case are the eleven temporary widows, robbed of their husbands for three long weeks by the law and the Constitution, that says every American must fulfill his duty if called to serve on the jury. The only means of communication between husband and wife during the long trial has been waving handkerchiefs or loving smiles or shouts, and, rejoicing that their widowhood is soon to end, the eleven deserted wives are expected to be even more enthusiastic than ever in their salute when the eleven husbands issue forth from the Kimball House, under the protecting wing of Deputy Miner, for their Sunday afternoon constitutional.
Judge Roan Carefully
Prepares Jury Charge.
While all Atlanta is listening to and reading with tense interest the oratory of the counsel for Leo Frank and for the prosecution there is one man whose mind must occasionally dwell on other things than the forensic flights of the attorneys. That man is Judge L. S. Roan, who for four weeks has presided over this remarkable trial.
Judge Roan is busy preparing his charge to the jury. It will be his duty to define the law, to instruct the jury as to what evidence to consider and what not to consider. He must tell them how far witnesses are to be believed and what weight can be placed on circumstantial evidence.
He must impress on the minds of each juror the importance of the reasonable doubt, the term which no judge has yet been able to define, and which plays an important part in every criminal hearing.
Therefore, Judge Roan is working carefully and surely. He will be ready to present this charge just as soon as Solicitor General Dorsey concludes his argument Monday. It is expected that it will take at least an hour for him to give his instructions and then pronounce the solemn sentence you may retire, gentlemen, and consider your verdict, which puts the life of Leo Frank directly in the jurors' hands.
PAGE 33
FRANK EXHIBITS EVERY EMOTION----EXCEPT FEAR AND DREAD
PUBLIC, KEYED TO HIGHEST
PITCH, IS ASTONISHED BY
HIS APPARENT CALMNESS
Defendant Hasn't Wept nor Shouted
Joyously, but No Point Has Es-
Caped Him---Retains Dignity
While Dorsey Accuses Him.
By L. F. WOODRUFF.
Cold, calm, callous, every other adjective that spells utter indifference, has been applied to a description of Leo Frank's attitude during his four weeks of trial. These adjectives leaped into popular favor for more than one reason. In the first place, persons who had been able to invade the sacred precints were Frank was battling for his life, went there with a sincere desire to be able to tell their less fortunate friends things that had happened there, which the public outside couldn't know.
And cold, calm, callous, sound pretty fine, don't they?
Frank Shows No Fear.
But the fact remains that Frank has shown about all the human emotions that can be exhibited for public view"all the emotions except fear. Innocent or guilty, at no stage of the trial has Frank given one indication that he was in dread of the possibility that his life and honor would be forfeited by the judgement of twelve jurors who have weighed his case for four weeks.
The trouble has been that from the start the spectators have expected Charles K. Blaney to be impresario of the trial instead of the laws of Georgia. They had been keyed to a concert pitch by three months of sensational preparedness for the actual trial.
They had expected overwhelming exposures, forensic oratory, crying confessions. If they had heard a verdict of guilty proclaimed to the accompaniment of cocoanut shell horseshoe beats, and witnessed a breathless messenger enter, waving an order for a new trial on newly discovered evidence, the spectators would not have been surprised.
Surprised at His Calm.
But they were surprised when Jim Conley testified that Frank said Why should I hang? I have wealthy relatives in Brooklyn, and at the same minute they saw Frank sitting as unperturbed as an aged oyster in a Southern sea.
Had he muttered, Curses; I am discovered, or had he proclaimed He lies, the dog! it would have all been entirely Blaneyesque, and the spectators would have been entirely satisfied.
The truth of the business is that Leo Frank has acted in court pretty much as any other man would have under the circumstances.
It is entirely natural for the guilty villain to quall under accusation on the stage. It is equally natural for the persecuted hero to utter resounding and rhetorical pleadings as to his outraged innocence when the spotlight is playing on him.
Puts Faith in Counsel.
But in plain, prosaic life, these things hardly ever happen. Most men, on trial for their lives, do as Frank has done. Guilty or innocent, they put their faith completely with their counsel and preserve an attitude of thoughtful calm.
Hundreds of people who have visited the
courtroom through the four long weeks of the trial have declared Frank is the least interested person in the building. The statement is striking, but it is as untrue as it is unusual.
It would be difficult to imagine a man with thoughts more thoroughly concentrate don any one thing than Frank's are on this trial. It is quite true that he does not lean forward in his chair to watch every intonation in the utterances of witnesses, attorneys, or judge. It is true that he hasn't wept or sang paeans of triumph or shuddered in horror or done any other of the Blaney things.
Hasn't Missed a Point.
But not one single scrap of the mass of testimony presented has escaped him. His own statement showed that. He has been quick to advise his counsel, and his advice has been evidently welcomed by the distinguished barristers who represent his cause.
During the terrific denunciation which Solicitor Dorsey hurled at him, he was just as openly perturbed. The smile had disappeared form his eyes and lips. But he had not lost his calm. He had not lost his dignity.
Scores and scores of men have visited the courthouse to determine Frank's guilt or innocence by his bearing during the trial. Their time has been wasted. For the attitude that Frank has assumed could be the attitude of a man as guilty as the blackest felon in criminology. It could be the attitude of a man as innocent as a new-born babe.
Frank Women-Folk Stoic
As Spartan Gnawed by Fox
What must be the moral bravery, the fortitude, of those two women who faithfully have say by the side of Leo M. Frank every day for the last four weeks?
The two"his wife and his mother"have displayed a courage that seems hardly to have been surpassed by that Spartan, who in silence permitted a foe to tear down his vitals.
Wife and mother as they are, they can not have failed to be sorely wounded by the accusations hurled at the slight young man between them. But they sat there in silence.
Only once or twice have they winced. Only once or twice have they indicated that the missiles of denunciation intended for the prisoner at the bar of justice have hurt them and have caused them as poignant suffering as though they themselves were the targets for the Solicitor's anathemas.
Mother's One Outbreak.
Rae the older one, the mother, burst forth in a blaze of anger and shrieked out her rage at the Solicitor General.
You dog! she called him in her fury. He had just accused the son at her side of the grossest immorality. Her mother's nature could not stand it longer.
If all the lawyers in the universe proclaimed her son a degenerate, she would not believe it, nor would she permit to be said. That was her outraged feeling at the time.
She was led from the courtroom, weeping hysterically, and was calmed by her friends and her relatives. She was told that many stories always were circulated concerning the accused after a crime of this sort, and that she must be prepared to meet them quietly.
She came back to the courtroom the next day. The Solicitor renewed his attack upon the defendant. Mrs. Frank stopped her ears with her fingers and rushed from the courtroom. She feared another outbreak. But since that time she never has flinched. She has steeled herself almost as well as has her most remarkable son, whose very composure and nerve have brought upon him fresh accusation from the Solicitor.
It is not to be supposed, however, that because they have remained apparently undisturbed and undismayed by the terrible charges made by the Solicitor that they have showed no signs of suffering.
The Wife Collapses.
There was, for example, the time that the defendant himself went on the stand and made his statement of four and half hours. During all the time the young wife had eyes for no one else than her husband. That he was talking for his life she appeared to feel more completely than did he. When he came down from the stand and the jury, unmistakably impressed, filed from the courtroom, she collapsed. The tension of the moment was relieved and she wept unrestrainedly.
The hearing of the two women since the argument of the Solicitor began furnishes the most remarkable example of their stoic spirit. Dorsey has left little unsaid. He has branded Frank as a murderer and a degenerate of the worst type, raking up the characters of Oscar Wilde, Theodore Durant, Henry Clay Beattie, and other notables in the Hall of Infamy for the purpose of comparison.
During all this invective Frank has looked steadily at his accuser. His mother, perhaps, has looked a little more downward and a little more toward the judge's bench. His wife has slipped her hand into his arm. That has been the only change in this astonishing trio.
Crowds at Frank Trial As
Remarkable As Case Itself
Four weeks have passed since Leo M. Frank heard the indictment read to the jury that was to try him for his life as the murderer of Mary Phagan. And the crowd that has throned the courtroom and jammed the sidewalks about the courthouse every day during these four weeks was larger yesterday than it was that thrilling first day when his guilt or innocence was put in the balance.
Eac of the 23 days that the case has been fought has been seemingly hot. No man could sit in comfort in the close, crowded courtroom. No man could stand at ease on the sun-blistered pavement about the court building.
But the throngs have been as faithful in their pilgrimage to the scene of this bitterest of all Georgia legal struggles as a devout Moslem on his annual visit to Mecca. They have stood the horrible atmosphere of the courtroom and the scorching sun on the sidewalk with all the fortitude of a Christian martyr.
Some Even Forget Lunch.
Their interest in the Frank case has been so rapt that even Nature's power could not drive them from the scene of combat.
There have been some that have
HUGH M. DORSEY, Solicitor General, who made prodigal use of invective, sarcasm,
logic, ridicule and pathos in six hours of speaking to the jury, which left him too weak to complete his summing up of the State's case against Frank, and forced an adjournment over Sunday.
been as faithful attendants on the trial as Frank himself. Some have spent even more hours in the courtroom than the young defendant. They are on hand as soon as the doors of the building are thrown open, and they do not leave even for lunch, sticking close to their seats, so as not to lose one second or one word of the case.
There are many of them who know as much of the evidence as Dorsey, or Hooper, or Arnold, or Rosser. They know the State's strength and the State's weaknesses. They know the defense's scheme of attack, and they know, or profess to know, the best way to halt it.
It is a crowd as varied in its makeup as the case in issue is in its features. There are men from the Whitehall and Peachtree business houses and from the office building districts and the wholesale section around Broad street. They are mixed indiscriminately with men from the railroad shops and the factories.
All Classes Rub Shoulders.
Crackers as typical of rural Georgia as the red clay soil rub shoulders with fastidiously dressed business men. Dozens of young lawyers crowd the inner railing, eagerly listening to the battle of the masters of their profession engaged in the case.
Learned scientists lean forward in their chairs with the same interest as detectives with their aldermanic mustaches.
There are men who hover about the courtroom for financial gain. It took a vender of peanuts but few minutes to see the possibilities of the trial as a means of increasing his trade. A fruiterer was soon selling goods nearby. A sandwich man plies his trade throughout the day. The place is a gold mine for the newsboys.
As a usual thing this heterogenous gathering has been orderly. Beyond doubt, its sympathy has been more with Solicitor Dorsey than with the lawyers for the defense. This was probably because it had been expected that the two master lawyers
on the other side would make short work of the youthful prosecutor and his gallant and spirited fight has caused more than usual admiration.
Friends Constant in Trial.
Several times the court has threatened to clear the courtroom after an outbreak of applause when the State scored. But Frank has had many faithful friends on hand constantly. They have been at his side every second of his terrible ordeal. They will be with him to cheer him or comfort him, if the decision of the jury declares hi a free and innocent man or a felon.
Remarkable as the Frank case has been in all its phases, it has been no more remarkable than the persons who have watched its every development.
- Monday, 28th April 1913 10,000 Throng Morgue to See Body of Victim [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 18th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 12-Year-Old Girl Sobs Her Love for Slain Child [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 9th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 3 Youths Seen Leading Along a Reeling Girl [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 10th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Arrested as Girl’s Slayer [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 31st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Body Dragged by Deadly Cord After Terrific Fight [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 8th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Chief and Sleuths Trace Steps in Slaying of Girl [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 7th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 City Chemist Tests Stains For Blood [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 6th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Gantt Was Infatuated With Girl; at Factory Saturday [Last Updated On: September 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 5th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl and His Landlady Defend Mullinax [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 4th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl to Be Buried in Marietta To-morrow [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Girl’s Grandfather Vows Vengeance [Last Updated On: September 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 2nd, 2023]
- Monday, the 28th Day of April-1913, Horrible Mistake, Pleads Arthur Mullinax, Denying Crime, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: November 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 1st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 “I Could Trust Mary Anywhere,” Her Weeping Mother Says [Last Updated On: November 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 11th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Incoherent Notes Add to Mystery in Strangling Case [Last Updated On: November 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 8th, 2023]
- Monday, the 28th Day of April-1913, Lifelong Friend Saw Girl and Man After Midnight, Hearst's Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: November 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 30th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Look for Negro to Break Down [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 29th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Mullinax Blundered in Statement, Say Police [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 28th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Negro is Not Guilty, Says Factory Head [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 27th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Neighbors of Slain Girl Cry for Vengeance [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 26th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Pinkertons Take Up Hunt for Slayer [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 25th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Playful Girl With Not a Bad Thought [Last Updated On: September 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Police Question Factory Superintendent [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 24th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Slain Girl Modest and Quiet, He Says [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 23rd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Soda Clerk Sought in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 22nd, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Story of the Killing as the Meager Facts Reveal It [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 21st, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Suspect Gantt Tells His Own Story [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 20th, 2023]
- Monday, 28th April 1913 Where and With Whom Was Mary Phagan Before End? [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 19th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Bartender Confirms Gantts Statement [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 16th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Charge is Basest of Lies, Declares Gantt [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 15th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Factory Employee May Be Taken Any Moment [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 14th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Factory Head Frank and Watchman Newt Lee are Sweated by Police [Last Updated On: September 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 13th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Former Playmates Meet Girl’s Body at Marietta [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 12th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Guilt Will Be Fixed Detectives Declare [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 11th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 I Feel as Though I Could Die, Sobs Mary Phagans Grief-Stricken Sister [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 17th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Is the Guilty Man Among Those Held? [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 10th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Keeper of Rooming House Enters Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 9th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Loyalty Sends Girl to Defend Mullinax [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 15th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Negro Watchman is Accused by Slain Girl’s Stepfather [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 14th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Nude Dancers Pictures Upon Factory Walls [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 13th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Pastor Prays for Justice at Girls Funeral [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 12th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Seek Clew in Queer Words in Odd Notes [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 11th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th April 1913 Slayers Hand Print Left On Arm Of Girl [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 10th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Boy Sweetheart Says Girl Was to Meet Him Saturday [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 20th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 City Offers $1,000 as Phagan Case Reward [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Clock Misses Add Mystery to Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 31st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Confirms Lee’s Story of Shirt [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 1st, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Girl’s Death Laid to Factory Evils [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 4th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Great Crowd at Phagan Inquest [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 3rd, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Handwriting of Notes is Identified as Newt Lees [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Leo Frank’s Friends Denounce Detention [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 30th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Looks Like Frank is Trying to Put Crime on Me, Says Lee [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Machinist Tells of Hair Found in Factory Lathe [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 22nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Mother Prays That Son May Be Released [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 29th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Net Closing About Lee, Says Lanford [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 23rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Newt Lee on Stand at Inquest Tells His Side of Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 7th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Newt Lees Testimony as He Gave It at the Inquest [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 6th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Policeman Says Body Was Dragged From Elevator [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 5th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Reward of $1,000 Urged by Mayor [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Sergeant Brown Tells His Story of Finding of Body [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 28th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Sisters New Story Likely to Clear Gantt as Suspect [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Tells Jury He Saw Girl and Mullinax Together [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 25th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Tells of Watchman Lee Explaining the Notes [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Went Down Scuttle Hole on Ladder to Reach Body [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 2nd, 2023]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Witness Saw Slain Girl and Man at Factory Door [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th April 1913 Writing Test Points to Negro [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 1st May 1913 State Enters Phagan Case; Frank and Lee are Taken to Tower [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 1st May 1913 Terminal Official Certain He Saw Girl [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 2nd May 1913 Dorsey Puts Own Sleuths Onto Phagan Slaying Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 2nd May 1913 Police Still Puzzled by Mystery of Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 3rd May 1913 Analysis of Blood Stains May Solve Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 5th, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Dr. John E. White Writes on the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Gov. Brown on the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 4th, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Grand Jury to Take Up Phagan Case To-morrow [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 3rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Old Police Reporter Analyzes Mystery Phagan Case Solution Far Off, He Says [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 2nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 4th May 1913 Slayer of Mary Phagan May Still be at Large [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Coroners Jury Likely to Hold Both Prisoners [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 24th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Crowds at Phagan Inquest [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Frank on Witness Stand [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 26th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Judge Charges Grand Jury to Go Deeply Into Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Judge W. D. Ellis Charges Grand Jury to Probe into Phagan Slaying Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 5th May 1913 Phagan Girl’s Body Exhumed [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Bowen Still Held by Houston Police in the Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Brother Declares Bowen Left Georgia in August [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 21st, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Frank’s Testimony Fails to Lift Veil of Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 18th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 How Frank Spent Day of Tragedy [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 20th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Newest Clews in Phagan Case Not Yet Public [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 6th May 1913 Phagan Case and the Solicitor Generals Power Under Law—Dorsey Hasnt Encroached on Coroner [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Employe of Lunch Stand Near Pencil Factory is Trailed to Alabama [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Lee is Quizzed by Dorsey for New Evidence [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 15th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Phagan Girls Body Again Exhumed for Finger-Print Clews [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 14th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 7th May 1913 Solicitor Dorsey Orders Body Exhumed in the Hope of Getting New Evidence [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Another Clew in Phagan Case is Worthless [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 5th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Black Testifies Quinn Denied Visiting Factory [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Boots Rogers Tells How Body Was Found [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 10th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Didnt See Girl Late Saturday, He Admits [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 11th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Frank Answers Questions Nervously When Recalled [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 3rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Frank of Nervous Nature; Says Superintendent Aide [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Girl Employe on Fourth Floor of Factory Saturday [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 6th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Grand Jury to Sift the Evidence in the Phagan Case Within the Next Few Days [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Inquest Scene is Dramatic in its Tenseness [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 13th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Lee Repeats His Private Conversation With Frank [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 30th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Leo Frank is Again Quizzed by Coroner [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 4th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Pinkerton Detective Tells of Call From Factory Head [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 2nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Police Still Withhold Evidence; Frank To Be Examined on New Lines [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 12th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Quinn, Foreman Over Slain Girl, Tells of Seeing Frank [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 8th, 2022]
- Thursday, 8th May 1913 Stenographer in Factory Office on Witness Stand [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: November 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 9th May 1913 Best Detective in America Now is on Case, Says Dorsey [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 29th, 2022]
- Saturday, 10th May 1913 Guard of Secrecy is Thrown About Phagan Search by Solicitor [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 28th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Caught Frank With Girl in Park, He Says [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 25th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Frank is Awaiting Action of the Grand Jury Calmly [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 24th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Mary Phagans Death Only Assured Fact Developed [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 26th, 2022]
- Sunday, 11th May 1913 Weak Evidence Against Men in Phagan Slaying [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 12th May 1913 Burns Called into Phagan Mystery; On Way From Europe [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 23rd, 2022]
- Monday, 12th May 1913 Phagan Case is Delayed [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 Frank’s Life in Tower [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 20th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 Mother Thinks Police Are Doing Their Best [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 19th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 13th May 1913 New Theory is Offered in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 14th May 1913 Friends Say Franks Actions Point to Innocence [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 17th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 14th May 1913 Secret Hunt by Burns in Mystery is Likely [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 18th, 2022]
- Thursday, 15th May 1913 Burns Investigator Will Probe Slaying [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 16th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 $1,000 Offered Burns to Take Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 13th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 Burns Hunt for Phagan Slayer Begun [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 15th, 2022]
- Friday, 16th May 1913 Secret Probe Began by Burns Agent into the Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 14th, 2022]
- Saturday, 17th May 1913 New Phagan Witnesses Have Been Found [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Burns, Called in as Last Resort, Faces Cold Trail in Baffling Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Burns Sleuth Makes Report in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 10th, 2022]
- Sunday, 18th May 1913 Greeks Add to Fund to Solve Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 9th, 2022]
- Monday, 19th May 1913 Burns Agent Outlines Phagan Theory [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 19th May 1913 Burns Eager to Solve Phagan Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 20th May 1913 Cases Ready Against Lee and Leo Frank [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 6th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 21st May 1913 T. B. Felder Repudiates Report of Activity for Frank [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 5th, 2022]
- Thursday, 22nd May 1913 Grand Jury Wont Hear Leo Frank or Lee [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 4th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Dictograph Record Used Against Felder [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 28th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Felder Denies Phagan Bribe; Calls Colyar Crook and Liar [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 30th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Felder Denies Phagan Bribery; Dictograph Record Used Against Felder [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 2nd, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Frank Feeling Fine But Will Not Discuss His Case [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 1st, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Here is Affidavit Charging Bribery [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 29th, 2022]
- Friday, 23rd May 1913 Indictment of Both Lee and Frank is Asked [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: October 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Beavers Says He Will Seek Indictments [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 16th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Blease Ironic in Comments on Felder Trap [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Colyar Called Convict and Insane [Last Updated On: September 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 20th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Colyar Held for Forgery [Last Updated On: September 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 26th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Dictograph Catches Mayor in Net [Last Updated On: September 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 27th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Dictograph Record Alleged Bribe Offer [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: December 2nd, 2020]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Felder Charges Police Plot to Shield Slayer [Last Updated On: September 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 21st, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Felders Fight is to Get Chief and Lanford Out of Office [Last Updated On: September 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Frame-Up Aimed at Burns Men, Says Tobie [Last Updated On: September 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Jones Attacks Beavers and Charges Police Crookedness [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 25th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Mayor Admits Dictograph is Correct [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Miles Says He Had Mayor Go to Room [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Plot on Life of Beavers Told by Colyar [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 23rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 24th May 1913 Strangulation Charge is in Indictments [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 19th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Attorney, in Long Statement, Claims Dictograph Records Against Him Padded [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Colyar Arrest Proper End to Plot of Crook [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 10th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Colyar, Held as Forger, is Freed on Bond; Long Crime Record Charged [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Dorsey to Present Graft Charges if They Stand Up [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Ill Indict Gang, Says Beavers [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 14th, 2022]
- Sunday, 25th May 1913 Long Criminal Record of Colyar is Cited [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 11th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Accuses Tobie of Kidnaping Attempt [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Evidence Against Frank Conclusive, Say Police [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Lay Bribery Effort to Franks Friends [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mason Blocks Attempt to Oust Chief [Last Updated On: September 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mayor Eager to Bring Back Tenderloin, Declares Chief [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 6th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Mayor Gives Out Sizzling Reply to Chief Beavers [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Pinkerton Man Says Frank is Guilty [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 26th May 1913 Will Take Charge of Graft to Grand Jury for Vindication [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: September 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Burns Man Quits Case; Declares He Is Opposed [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 30th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Felder Aide Offers Vice List to Chief [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 State Faces Big Task in Trial of Frank as Slayer [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 27th May 1913 Suspicion Turned to Conley; Accused by Factory Foreman [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 31st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Chief Beavers to Renew His Vice War [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Conley Says Frank Took Him to Plant on Day of Slaying [Last Updated On: September 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Conley Was in Factory on Day of Slaying [Last Updated On: September 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 28th May 1913 Woman Writes in Defense of Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: September 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Burns Joins in Hunt for Phagan Slayer [Last Updated On: September 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 23rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Conley Re-enacts in Plant Part He Says He Took in Slaying [Last Updated On: September 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Felder Bribery Charge Expected [Last Updated On: September 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 22nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Negro Conleys Affidavit Lays Bare Slaying [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 29th May 1913 Ready to Indict Conley as an Accomplice [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 30th May 1913 Negro Conley Now Says He Helped to Carry Away Body [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Conley Star Actor in Dramatic Third Degree [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Plan to Confront Conley and Frank for New Admission [Last Updated On: September 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 16th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Silence of Conley Put to End by Georgian [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 31st May 1913 Special Session of Grand Jury Called [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 14th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Confession of Conley Makes No Changes in States Case [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Conley is Unwittingly Friend of Frank, Says Old Police Reporter [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Conleys Story Cinches Case Against Frank, Says Lanford [Last Updated On: September 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Dorseys Grill Fails to Make Conley Admit Hand in Killing [Last Updated On: September 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 1st June 1913 Today is Mary Phagans Birthday; Mother Tells of Party She Planned [Last Updated On: September 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 5 to Testify Frank Was at Home at Hour Negro Says He Aided [Last Updated On: September 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 Beavers to Talk Over the Felder Row With Dorsey [Last Updated On: September 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 2nd June 1913 Negro Cook at Home Where Frank Lived Held by the Police [Last Updated On: September 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, the 3rd of June, 1913, Bitter Fight Certain in Trial of Leo Frank [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 4th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 3rd June 1913 Felder Says He Will Lay Bare Startling Police Graft Plans [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 5th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Cooks Sensational Affidavit [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 3rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Fain Named in Vice Quiz as Resort Visitor [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 2nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 4th June 1913 Franks Cook Was Counted Upon as Defense Witness [Last Updated On: October 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Challenges Felder to Prove His Charge [Last Updated On: October 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Cook Repudiates Entire Affidavit Police Possess [Last Updated On: October 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 27th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 I Know My Husband is Innocent, Asserts Wife of Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: October 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 29th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 Mother Here to Aid Frank in Trial [Last Updated On: October 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 30th, 2022]
- Thursday, 5th June 1913 New Conley Confession Reported to Jury [Last Updated On: October 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 28th, 2022]
- Friday, 6th June 1913 Chief Says Law Balks His War on Vice [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 26th, 2022]
- Friday, 6th June 1913 Report Negro Found Who Saw Phagan Attack [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 25th, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Defense Bends Efforts to Prove Conley Slayer [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Defense Digs Deep to Show Conley is Phagan Girl Slayer [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 7th June 1913 Mrs. Frank Attacks Solicitor H. M. Dorsey in a New Statement [Last Updated On: October 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 23rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 8th June 1913 Fair Play Alone Can Find Truth in Phagan Puzzle, Declares Old Reporter [Last Updated On: October 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 21st, 2022]
- Monday, 9th June 1913 Foreman Tells Why He Holds Conley Guilty [Last Updated On: October 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 20th, 2022]
- Monday, 9th June 1913 Rosser Asks Grand Jury Grill for Conley [Last Updated On: October 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 17th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 10th June 1913 Eyewitness to Phagan Slaying Sought [Last Updated On: October 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 19th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 10th June 1913 Indictment of Felder and Fain Asked [Last Updated On: October 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Asks Beavers to Investigate Affidavit [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 14th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Felder Returns Phagan Fund to Givers [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 16th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Plot Exposed, Says Felder, But Lanford Doubts Affidavit [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 13th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 11th June 1913 Police Hold Conley By Courts Order [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 15th, 2022]
- Thursday, 12th June 1913 Face Conley and Frank, Lanford Urges [Last Updated On: October 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 12th, 2022]
- Friday, 13th June 1913 Judge Roan to Decide Conleys Jail Fate [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 9th, 2022]
- Friday, 13th June 1913 Negro Freed But Jailed Again On Suspicion [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 14th June 1913 Sheriff Mangum Near End, Says Lawyer Smith [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 14th June 1913 State Takes Advantage of Points Known [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 16th June 1913 Colyar Returns Promising Sensation [Last Updated On: October 10th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 16th June 1913 Dorsey Aide Says Frank Is Fast In Net [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 17th June 1913 Sensations in Phagan Case at Hand [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 18th June 1913 Rush Plans for Trial of Leo Frank [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 7th, 2022]
- Thursday, 19th June 1913 Blow Aimed at Formby Story [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 3rd, 2022]
- Friday, 20th June 1913 Frank Trial Will Not Be Long One [Last Updated On: October 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 2nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 21st June 1913 Justice Aim in Phagan Case, Says Hooper [Last Updated On: October 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: July 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 22nd June 1913 Arnold to Aid Frank [Last Updated On: October 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 30th, 2022]
- Sunday, 22nd June 1913 Jurors, Not Newspapers, To Return Frank Verdict, Declares Old Reporter [Last Updated On: October 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 23rd June 1913 State Ready for Frank Trial on June 30 [Last Updated On: October 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 23rd June 1913 Venire of 72 for Frank Jury Is Drawn [Last Updated On: October 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 27th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 24th June 1913 Both Sides Called in Conference by Judge; Trial Set for July 28 [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 25th June 1913 Conley, Put on Grill, Sticks Story [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 26th June 1913 Stover Girl Will Star in Frank Trial [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 24th, 2022]
- Friday, 27th June 1913 Lanford and Felder Are Held for Libel [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 23rd, 2022]
- Friday, 27th June 1913 New Frank Evidence Held by Dorsey [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 22nd, 2022]
- Saturday, 28th June 1913 Gov. Slaton Takes Oath Simply [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 20th, 2022]
- Saturday, 28th June 1913 State Secures New Phagan Evidence [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 21st, 2022]
- Sunday, 29th June 1913 Brilliant Legal Battle Is Sure as Hooper And Arnold Clash in Trial of Leo Frank [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 18th, 2022]
- Sunday, 29th June 1913 Many Experts to Take Stand in Frank Trial [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 19th, 2022]
- Monday, 30th June 1913 Conley Tale Is Hope of Defense [Last Updated On: October 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 17th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Colyar Indicted as Libeler of Col. Felder [Last Updated On: October 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 13th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Colyar Not Indicted On Charge of Libel [Last Updated On: October 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 15th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 Frank Is Willing for State to Grill Him [Last Updated On: October 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 12th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 May Indict Conley as Slayer [Last Updated On: October 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 16th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 May Indict Conley in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: October 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 14th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 1st July 1913 “No” Bill Is Returned Against A. S. Colyar [Last Updated On: October 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 11th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 2nd July 1913 Findings in Probe are Guarded [Last Updated On: October 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 10th, 2022]
- Thursday, 3rd July 1913 Attempt by Colyar To Disbar Felder Is Halted; Tries Again [Last Updated On: October 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 9th, 2022]
- Thursday, 3rd July 1913 Writ Sought In Move to Free Negro Lee [Last Updated On: October 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 4th July 1913 New Testimony Lays Crime to Conley [Last Updated On: October 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 7th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Application for Lee’s Release Delayed [Last Updated On: October 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 5th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Drop Ninth in Police Scandal [Last Updated On: October 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Liberty for Newt Lee Sought [Last Updated On: October 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 5th July 1913 Unbiased in the Flanders Case, Says Slaton [Last Updated On: October 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 4th, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 Application to Release Lee is Ready to File [Last Updated On: October 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 1st, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 New Move in Phagan Case by Solicitor [Last Updated On: October 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 31st, 2022]
- Sunday, 6th July 1913 Phagan Case Centers on Conley; Negro Lone Hope of Both Sides [Last Updated On: October 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: June 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 7th July 1913 Lee’s Attorney is Ready for Writ Fight [Last Updated On: October 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 7th July 1913 Operations of Slavers in Hotels Bared [Last Updated On: October 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Attitude of Defense Secret [Last Updated On: October 18th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 24th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Girl Tells of Life in Slavers’ Hands [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Grants Right to Demand Lee’s Freedom [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 27th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Police Hunt Principals in Expose [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 Refused by Brown, Mangham Now Asks Slaton for Pardon [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 8th July 1913 State Sure Lee Will Not Be Released [Last Updated On: October 19th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 Girl Springs Sensation in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: October 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 New Evidence in Phagan Case Found [Last Updated On: October 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 9th July 1913 Sensations in Story of Girl Victim [Last Updated On: October 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Beavers in Speech Warns Policemen to Keep Out of Dives [Last Updated On: October 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 17th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Beavers’ War on Vice is Lauded by Women [Last Updated On: October 20th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Chief Expects Arrests in Vice Probe [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 19th, 2022]
- Thursday, 10th July 1913 Says Conley Confessed Slaying [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Girl Tells Police Startling Story of Vice Ring [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 14th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Mincey’s Story Jolts Police to Activity [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 13th, 2022]
- Friday, 11th July 1913 Slaying Charge for Conley Is Expected [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 15th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Conley Kept on Grill 4 Hours [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 8th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Dragnet for ‘Slavers’ Is Set [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 9th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Five Caught in Beavers’ Vice Net [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Parents Are Blamed for ‘Slavery’ [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 12th July 1913 Says Women Heard Conley Confession [Last Updated On: October 22nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Affidavits to Back Mincey Story Found [Last Updated On: October 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 7th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Indictment of Conley Puzzle for Grand Jury [Last Updated On: October 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 5th, 2022]
- Sunday, 13th July 1913 Seek Negro Who Says He Was Eye-Witness to Phagan Murder [Last Updated On: October 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 6th, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Girl Bares New Vice System [Last Updated On: October 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Mincey’s Own Story [Last Updated On: October 23rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Prosecution Attacks Mincey’s Affidavit [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 14th July 1913 Vice Pickets Posted at Hotels [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 3rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Holloway Corroborates Mincey’s Affidavit [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 28th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Police Close 2 Rooming Houses [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 30th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 White Men Fined in War on Negro Dives [Last Updated On: October 24th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 29th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 15th July 1913 Woodward Aids Chief in Vice Crusade [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 16th July 1913 Dorsey Adds Startling Evidence [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 16th July 1913 State to Fight Move to Indict Jim Conley [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Dorsey Blocked Indictment of Conley [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 24th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Mayor and Broyles in War of Words [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 23rd, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Mayor Asked to Probe Action of Police [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Woodward Enemy to Society, Says Recorder Broyles [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 17th July 1913 Youth Accused in Vice Ring on Trial [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 22nd, 2022]
- Friday, 18th July 1913 Detectives Working to Discredit Mincey [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 18th July 1913 Woodward-Broyles Breach Widens [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 19th July 1913 Dorsey Resists Move to Indict Jim Conley [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 17th, 2022]
- Saturday, 19th July 1913 Natural Crank, Mayor’s Shot at Broyles [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 16th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Counsel of Frank Says Dorsey Has Sought to Hide Facts [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 15th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Dorsey Fights Movement to Indict Conley [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Mincey Ready to Tell Story to Grand Jury [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 20th July 1913 Mincey Story Declared Vital To Both Sides in Frank Case [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 14th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Doctor And Girl Are Taken On Vice Charge [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 8th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Four Women Caught In Vice Net Escape From Martha Home [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Grand Jury Meets to Consider Conley Case [Last Updated On: October 26th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 21st July 1913 Protest of Solicitor Dorsey Wins [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 9th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Defense Asks Ruling on Delaying Frank Trial [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Grand Jury Defers Action on Conley [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 5th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 22nd July 1913 Story of Phagan Case by Chapters [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Conley is Confronted with Lee Dorsey Grills Negroes in Same Cell at Jail [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 3rd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Lanford Ridicules Bludgeon Evidence [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 1st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 23rd July 1913 Second Chapter in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: April 2nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Frank Trial Delay up to Roan [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 28th, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Let the Frank Trial Go On [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Third Chapter in Phagan Mystery [Last Updated On: October 27th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 29th, 2022]
- Thursday, 24th July 1913 Veneir is Drawn to Try Leo M. Frank Monday [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 30th, 2022]
- Friday, 25th July 1913 Witnesses for Frank Called [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 27th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Chapter 5 in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 24th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Pinkerton Chief Scored by Lanford [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 26th, 2022]
- Saturday, 26th July 1913 Present New Evidence Against Frank [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 25th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Brewster Denies Aiding Dorsey in Phagan Case [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 12th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Defense Claims Conley and Lee Prepared Notes [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 18th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Every Bit of Evidence Against Frank Sifted and Tested, Declares Solicitor [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 19th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Frank Fights for Life Monday [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 22nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Frank Watches Closely as the Men Who are to Decide Fate are Picked [Last Updated On: October 28th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Phagan Case of Peculiar And Enthralling Interest [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 16th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Pinkerton Men Brand Lanford Charges False [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 23rd, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Prominent Atlantans Named On Frank Trial Jury Venire [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 20th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Public Demands Frank Trial To-morrow [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 17th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 State Bolsters Conley [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 21st, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Trial to Surpass in Interest Any in Fulton County History [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 15th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Venire Whipped Into Shape Rapidly; Negro Is Eligible [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 11th, 2022]
- Sunday, 27th July 1913 Work of Choosing Jury for Trial of Frank Difficult [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 14th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Frank, Feeling Tiptop, Smiling and Confident, is Up Long Before Trial [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 9th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Frank Jury [Last Updated On: October 29th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Jury Complete to Try Frank [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 10th, 2022]
- Monday, 28th July 1913 Mary Phagan’s Mother Testifies [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 8th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 After Rosser’s Fierce Grilling All Negro, Newt Lee, Asked for Was Chew or Bacca-AnyKind [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 3rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Defense Wins Point After Fierce Lawyers’ Clash [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Lee’s Quaint Answers Rob Leo Frank’s Trial of All Signs of Rancor [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 5th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 29th July 1913 Tragedy, Ages Old, Lurks in Commonplace Court Setting [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 4th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Defense Plans Sensation, Line of Queries Indicates [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 26th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Flashes of Tragedy Pierce Legal Tilts at Frank Trial [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 28th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Frank’s Mother Pitiful Figure of the Trial [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 27th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Gantt Has Startling Evidence; Dorsey Promises New Testimony Against Frank [Last Updated On: October 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 2nd, 2022]
- Wednesday, 30th July 1913 Rosser’s Examination of Lee Just a Shot in Dark; Hoped to Start Quarry [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: March 1st, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Collapse of Testimony of Black and Hix Girl’s Story Big Aid to Frank [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 24th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Crimson Trail Leads Crowd to Courtroom Sidewalk [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 22nd, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Holloway Accused by Solicitor Dorsey of Entrapping State [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 21st, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Red Bandanna, a Jackknife and Plennie Minor Preserve Order [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 20th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 Scott Trapped Us, Dorsey Charges; Pinkerton Man Is Also Attacked by the Defense [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 25th, 2022]
- Thursday, 31st July 1913 State Balloon Soars When Dorsey, Roiled, Cries ‘Plant’ [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 23rd, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Conley Takes Stand Saturday [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 19th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Defense Not Helped by Witnesses Accused of Entrapping the State [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Dorsey Unafraid as He Faces Champions of the Atlanta Bar [Last Updated On: October 31st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 16th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Girl Slain After Frank Left Factory, Believed to be Defense Theory [Last Updated On: November 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 15th, 2022]
- Friday, 1st August 1913 Sherlocks, Lupins and Lecoqs See Frank Trial [Last Updated On: November 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 18th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Defense Threatens a Mistrial [Last Updated On: November 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 14th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Frank Juror’s Life One Grand, Sweet SongNot [Last Updated On: November 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Roan Holding Scales of Justice With Steady Hand [Last Updated On: November 1st, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 11th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 State Hopes Dr. Harris Fixed Fact That Frank Had Chance to Kill Girl [Last Updated On: November 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 12th, 2022]
- Saturday, 2nd August 1913 Will 5 Ounces of Cabbage Help Convict Leo M. Frank? [Last Updated On: November 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 13th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 Conley to Bring Frank Case Crisis [Last Updated On: November 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 8th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 First Week of Frank Trial Ends With Both Sides Sure of Victory [Last Updated On: November 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 9th, 2022]
- Sunday, 3rd August 1913 Leo Frank’s Eyes Show Intense Interest in Every Phase of Case [Last Updated On: November 2nd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 7th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Boiled Cabbage Brings Hypothetical Question Stage in Frank’s Trial [Last Updated On: November 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Conley’s Story In Detail; Women Barred By Judge [Last Updated On: November 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 5th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Dorsey Tries to Prove Frank Had Chance to Kill Girl [Last Updated On: November 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 28th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Dramatic Moment of Trial Comes as Negro Takes Stand [Last Updated On: November 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 29th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Envy Not the Juror! His Lot, Mostly, Is Monotony [Last Updated On: November 3rd, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 2nd, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Frank Calm and Jurors Tense While Jim Conley Tells His Ghastly Tale [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 30th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Frank Witness Nearly Killed By a Mad Dog [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 1st, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Jim Conley’s Story as Matter of Fact as if it Were of His Day’s Work [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 4th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Jurors Strain Forward to Catch Conley Story; Frank’s Interest Mild [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 31st, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Ordeal is Borne with Reserve by Franks [Last Updated On: November 4th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 27th, 2022]
- Monday, 4th August 1913 Rosser’s Grilling of Negro Leads to Hot Clashes by Lawyers [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: February 6th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Conleys Charge Turns Frank Trial Into Fight To Worse Than Death [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 25th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Many Discrepancies To Be Bridged in Conleys Stories [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 23rd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Mrs. Frank Breaks Down in Court [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 26th, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Rosser Goes Fiercely After Jim Conley [Last Updated On: November 5th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 22nd, 2022]
- Tuesday, 5th August 1913 Traditions of the South Upset; White Mans Life Hangs on Negros Word [Last Updated On: November 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 24th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Accuser of Conley is Ready to Testify [Last Updated On: November 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 19th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Can Jury Obey if Told to Forget Base Charge? [Last Updated On: November 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 21st, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Conley Swears Frank Hid Purse [Last Updated On: November 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 20th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Crowd Set in Its Opinions [Last Updated On: November 6th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 18th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Dorsey Accomplishes Aim Despite Big Odds [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 17th, 2022]
- Wednesday, 6th August 1913 Judge Will Rule on Evidence Attacked by Defense at 2 P.M. [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 16th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Jim Conley, the Ebony Chevalier of Crime, is Darktowns Own Hero [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 14th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Roans Ruling Heavy Blow to Defense [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 12th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 State Ends Case Against Frank [Last Updated On: November 7th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 15th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Trial as Varied as Vaudeville Exhibition [Last Updated On: November 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 13th, 2022]
- Thursday, 7th August 1913 Trial Experts Conflict on Time of Girls Death [Last Updated On: November 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 11th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Bits of Circumstantial Evidence, as Viewed by State, Strands in Rope [Last Updated On: November 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 7th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Scott Put Conleys Story in Strange Light [Last Updated On: November 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 8th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 State, Tied by Conleys Story, Now Must Stand Still Under Hot Fire [Last Updated On: November 8th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 9th, 2022]
- Friday, 8th August 1913 Witnesses Attack Conley Story [Last Updated On: November 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 10th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Absence of Alienists and the Hypothetical Question Distinguishes Frank Trial [Last Updated On: November 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 5th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Confusion of Holloway Spoils Close of Good Day for the Defense [Last Updated On: November 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 3rd, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Daltons Testimony False, Girl Named on Stand Says [Last Updated On: November 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 6th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Exposure of Conley Story Time Flaws is Sought by Defense [Last Updated On: November 9th, 2023] [Originally Added On: January 1st, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 Heres the Time Clock Puzzle in Frank Trial; Can You Figure It Out? [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: January 4th, 2022]
- Saturday, 9th August 1913 State Attacks Frank Report [Last Updated On: January 2nd, 2022] [Originally Added On: January 2nd, 2022]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Case Never is Discussed by Frank Jurors [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2024] [Originally Added On: December 28th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Conley, Unconcerned, Asks Nothing of Trial [Last Updated On: December 27th, 2021] [Originally Added On: December 27th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Dalton Sticks Firmly To Story Told on Stand [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2024] [Originally Added On: December 24th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Frank or Conley? Still Question [Last Updated On: November 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 31st, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Frank Struggles to Prove His Conduct Was Blameless [Last Updated On: November 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 29th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Interest in Trial Now Centers in Story of Mincey [Last Updated On: November 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 26th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Mary Phagans Mother to be Spared at Trial [Last Updated On: November 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 23rd, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 One Glance at Conley Boosts Darwin Theory [Last Updated On: November 11th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 22nd, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Phagan Trial Makes Eleven Widows But Jurors Wives Are Peeresses Also [Last Updated On: November 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 25th, 2021]
- Sunday, 10th August 1913 Study of Frank Convicts, Then It Turns and Acquits [Last Updated On: November 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 30th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Defense Bitterly Attacks Harris [Last Updated On: November 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 21st, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Deputy Hunting Scalp Of Juror-Ventiloquist [Last Updated On: November 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 20th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Grief-Stricken Mother Shows No Vengefulness [Last Updated On: November 12th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 19th, 2021]
- Monday, 11th August 1913 Interest Unabated as Dramatic Frank Trial Enters Third Week [Last Updated On: November 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 18th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Attacks on Dr. Harris Give Defense Good Day [Last Updated On: November 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 15th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Frank Trial Witness is Sure, At Least, of One Thinga Good Ragging [Last Updated On: November 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 16th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 Peoples Cry for Justice Is Proof Sentiment Still Lives [Last Updated On: November 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 14th, 2021]
- Tuesday, 12th August 1913 State Charges Premeditated Crime [Last Updated On: November 13th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 17th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 Both Sides Aim for Justice in the Trial of Frank [Last Updated On: November 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 12th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 Franks Mother Stirs Courtroom [Last Updated On: November 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 13th, 2021]
- Wednesday, 13th August 1913 State Calls More Witnesses; Defense Builds Up an Alibi [Last Updated On: November 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 11th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 Defense Slips Load by Putting up Character of Leo Frank as Issue [Last Updated On: November 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 8th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 State Fights Franks Alibi [Last Updated On: November 14th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 6th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 State Wants Wife and Mother Excluded [Last Updated On: November 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 10th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 States Sole Aim is to Convict, Defenses to Clear in Modern Trial [Last Updated On: November 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 9th, 2021]
- Thursday, 14th August 1913 Steel Workers Enthralled by Leo Frank Trial [Last Updated On: November 15th, 2023] [Originally Added On: December 7th, 2021]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 Frank Prepares to Take Stand [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 22nd, 2023]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 Testimony of Girls Help to Leo M. Frank [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 20th, 2023]
- Friday, 15th August 1913 What They Say Wont Hurt Leo Frank; State Must Prove Depravity [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 21st, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Girls Testify For and Against Frank [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 19th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Many Testify to Franks Good Character [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 17th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Mothers Love Gives Trial Its Great Scene [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 16th, 2023]
- Saturday, 16th August 1913 Statement by Frank Will Be the Climactic Feature of the Trial [Last Updated On: July 17th, 2023] [Originally Added On: May 18th, 2023]
- Sunday, 17th August 1913 Supreme Test Comes As State Trains Guns On Frank's Character [Last Updated On: August 30th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 11th, 2023]
- Monday, 18th August 1913 Leo Frank Testifies [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2023]
- Tuesday, 19th August 1913 Jim Conley To Be Recalled [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 20th August 1913 State Closes Frank Case Near Jury Defense Begins Its Sur-rubettual. Hopes To Conclude Quickly [Last Updated On: November 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 29th, 2023]
- Thursday, 21st August 1913 Mass Of Perjuries Charged By Arnold Centers Hot Attack On Conley. Ridicules Prosecution Theory [Last Updated On: November 16th, 2023] [Originally Added On: August 23rd, 2023]
- Friday, 22nd August 1913 Rosser Begins Final Plea [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 2nd, 2023]
- Monday, 25th August 1913: Frank Case To Jury Today Leo Frank On His Way From Jail To Court, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: August 28th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 3rd, 2023]
- Tuesday, 26th August 1913, Frank, Guilty On First Ballot [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Wednesday, 27th August 1913 Fight Begun To Save Frank Motion For New Trial Follows Death Sentence [Last Updated On: October 25th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 12th, 2023]
- Thursday, 28th August 1913 Reply Made To Frank's Attack [Last Updated On: February 17th, 2024] [Originally Added On: September 17th, 2023]
- Tuesday, 16th September 1913 No Judge To Try Fulton Docket [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2024]
- Wednesday, 17th September 1913 Conley To Fight Felon Charge Bitterly [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 3rd, 2024]
- Wednesday, 17th September 1913 Say Partee Shot In Self-defense [Last Updated On: April 26th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 17th, 2024]
- Monday, 22nd September 1913 Judge Roan Not To Hear Frank Trial Motion [Last Updated On: July 12th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Wednesday, 24th September 1913 Detective Black Not Blamed For Fighting [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Thursday, 25th September 1913 Recall To Apply To All Big Offices [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2024] [Originally Added On: March 31st, 2024]
- Friday, 26th September 1913 Judge Roan To Hear Arguments Asking Retrial For Frank [Last Updated On: September 6th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Sunday, 28th September 1913 Judge Hill May Hear Frank Case [Last Updated On: July 12th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Monday, 29th September 1913 Delay On Frank Hearing Seems Unavoidable [Last Updated On: July 12th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Tuesday, 30th September 1913 Frank Ready For New Fight Rosser Ready. Roan Will Hear Frank Argument [Last Updated On: July 12th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Wednesday, 1st October 1913: Rosser Ready Roan Will Hear Frank Argument, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Thursday, 2nd October 1913: Ask New Frank Trial On 115 Counts Many Errors Laid To Court; Charge Made Of Jury Intimidation, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Friday, 3rd October 1913: Frank Trial Juror Denies Charge Of Bias, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Saturday, 4th October 1913: Sensational Charge In Frank Case, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Sunday, 5th October 1913: Governor Slaton Personally Investigates And Verifies The Circulation Of The Georgian And Hearst’s Sunday American, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Sunday, 5th October 1913 Indefinite Respite Is Given Frank As Juror Charges Flood [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: February 29th, 2024]
- Monday, 6th October 1913: Frank Given Indefinite Respite, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Tuesday, 7th October 1913: Dorsey At Work To Combat Charge, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Wednesday, 8th October 1913: Both Sides Confident In Frank Case, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Thursday, 9th October 1913: Postponement In Frank Case Made Certain, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Friday, 10th October 1913: Hawthorne Ready To Leave Prison, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Saturday, 11th October 1913: Frank Lawyers To File More Depositions, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Sunday, 12th October 1913: Governor Slaton Personally Investigates And Verifies The Circulation Of The Georgian And Hearst’s Sunday American, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Monday, 13th October 1913: Attack Is Renewed On Frank Juror, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Tuesday, 14th October 1913: Dorsey Gathers Proof Against Bias Charges, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Wednesday, 15th October 1913: Dorsey Gathers Proof Against Bias Charges, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Thursday, 16th October 1913: Dorsey Back With New Affidavits More Delay In Appeal Fight Likely, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Friday, 17th October 1913: Sparta Citizens Attack Frank Trial Juror, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 13th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Saturday, 18th October 1913: Way Clear For Frank Battle, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Sunday, 19th October 1913: Frank To Fight On Wednesday For New Trial, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: October 21st, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Monday, 20th October 1913: Way Clear For Frank Battle, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: August 9th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]
- Tuesday, 21st October 1913: Fisher Under Third Degree Shirley's Accuser In Cell, The Atlanta Georgian [Last Updated On: August 9th, 2024] [Originally Added On: August 9th, 2024]