Tuesday, 7th October 1913: Dorsey At Work To Combat Charge, The Atlanta Georgian

Search for:

Reading Time: 23 minutes [3966 words]

Defense Claims It has New

and

Positive Proof of Bias

Accusa-

tions Against Henslee

A. H. Henslee, of the jury that convicted Leo M. Frank, made

his bitterly denunciator remarks against the defendant in the

hearing of a far greater number of persons than already have

made depositions, according to information in the possession of

Frank's attorneys.

While the prisoner's lawyers are busy building up their plea,

Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey is working ceaselessly preparing to

demolish their arguments for a new trial.

We have the names of a great many other persons to whom

Henslee expressed his opinion of Frank's guilt and his hope that

he would have the opportunity to assist in convicting him, said

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, Monday.

These persons would be called on to tell the truth in respect

to Henslee's attitude before the trial were it not for their evident

reluctance to incur the enmity of Henslee and the fact that we

already have the sworn statements of a sufficient number of

reliable persons to prove conclusively that Henslee was guilty of

making the biased and prejudiced remarks.

Fear They'll Harm Henslee.

We are in possession of the facts, however, and if we find it

necessary we will use them. Even the men from whom we have

taken statements have been reluctant to give them. They

acquiesced in making a statement of the facts only after they had

been summoned by a process of law. They did not wish to harm

Henslee, but they had overheard his unmistakable condemnation

of Frank and there was nothing left for them to do when they

were called to narrate the facts of the case.

Henslee's prejudice and that of Johenning alone constitute a

situation that is sufficient to form a basis for a new trial. It is

unthinkable that a man should be sentenced to death when the

two men at least were violently biased against him before a word

of evidence was heard.

Solicitor Dorsey and his assistant, A. E. Stephens, are

engaged in prep answer to the motion for a new trial. The lawyers

for the defense are prepared to argue the motion before Judge

Roan next Saturday. The Solicitor is expected to be ready for the

argument, although he has an immense task in reviewing all of

the reasons presented by the defense.

Grand Jury Session Delayed.

The meeting of the Fulton Grand Jury has been postponed

indefinitely, pending the final disposition of the Frank case,

according to information at the Solicitor's office Monday.

Coupled with this information was the announcement that

the decks had been cleared for the case. Absolutely nothing, not

even the Grand Jury, it is said, will be allowed to interfere with the

work of Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Stephens in summing up the final

evidence which will be used to combat the arguments of the

defense for a new trial.

In the meantime, the courts are becoming clogged and the

Grand Jury faces a heavy docket, including a number of important

cases.

The extreme thoroughness with which the attorneys for

Frank

Continued on Page 2, Column 5.

PAGE 7, COLUMN 5

-

FRANK DEFENSE

CLAIMS NEW

BIAS PROOF

Solicitor Dorsey

Meanwhile Col-

lects Data Combat the

Charges Against

Henslee

Continued From Page 1.

have set about substantiating their charge of prejudice and bias

against A. H. Henslee, on the twelve jurors who declared Frank

guilty of murder, made it evident Monday that the lawyers will

wage their fight around this one instance of alleged unfairness as

to constitute in itself and alone a sufficient ground for a new a

new trial.

Many persons with whom Henslee talked before the trial

were interviewed by agents of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold. One

deposition was bulkwarked by another until the lawyers

considered they had made out a clear case of prejudice and bias

against Henslee. Without the additional force lent by the more

than 100 other reasons presented in their amended motion for a

new trial, they were confident that they had obtained an

unassailable ground for a retrial of the convicted man.

Solicitor Dorsey is preparing for a determined fight against

their contention. He believes that Henslee has been

misrepresented. He is prepared to take the word of Henslee

himself that he uttered no statements to the effect that he

considered Frank guilty and would like to have a part in bringing

about his hanging.

Sparta Men Make Reply.

Henslee's repeated denials of the alleged conversations

brought a reply Monday from three of the Sparta men who

recently made depositions that they had overheard remarks of

the nature mentioned. They prepared a signed statement, in

which they reiterated their allegations of prejudice and bias

against Henslee and declared that Henslee must have been

misquoted in his repudiation of the remarks.

The statement was signed by Joan M. Holmes, of Holmes &

Walker, an insurance and buggy firm; S. M. Johnson, cashier of the

firm, and Shi Gray. All assert they were present when Henslee's

reported conversation in regard to the guilt of Frank took place.

Practically Tried Frank.

The letter read:

You must recall in Mr. Holmes' office, on the day stated,

and in the presence of the undersigned, we all discussed the

Frank case and practically tried him, as it were, and that, in the

discussion, you not only said that Frank was as guilty as", but

you had so much to say about Frank's being a moral degenerate

"your exact language we can not use"and further stated that

you were drawn as a juror.

We have no disposition to injure you or to make public your

statement, as two of the writers, Gray and Holmes, have known

you and your family for many years, and we do not know how the

attorneys were acquainted with the fact of this conversation, but

your remark was common talk in the town, where there are a

number of people who could have given the information to the

attorneys.

We declined to make a voluntary affidavit in the matter and

said nothing until forced to by the court, but let us assure you

that the reluctance to testify in no way changes the fact, and you

shall not be permitted to make statements in the public press

denouncing us as liars in order to protect yourself from the

criticism you have justly deserved.

We await your answer.

J. M. HOLMES.

S. M. JOHNSON.

SHI GRAY.

County

Refuses

To Pay Newt

Lee.

Claims filed by attorneys for Newt Lee, the negro witness in

the Frank case, for recovery for time lost while confined in the

county jail, were turned down by the Board of County

Commissioners in monthly session Monday morning.

The vote of the board was unanimous, following motion of

General Clifford Anderson, who declared the county owed nothing

to Newt lee, inasmuch as he was held at the instance of the State.

The negro was held in the county as a witness for about three

months.

Previous to the decision of the board a communication was

read from Attorney Luther Rosser, who refused to give an opinion

as to the claims of Lee on the grounds that he was unqualified

because of his connection with the case.

The County Commissioners disposed of several important

matters Monday morning, including the Roxbury crossing matter

providing for the construction of an underpass by the Southern

Railway and the widening of the roadway 40 feet.

The board also heard the petition of 25 citizens, offering to

donate a 70-foot roadway about six miles in length, extending

along the Chattahoochee River from Pace's Ferry to Johnson Ferry

road. The petition was referred to the three local road

commissioners, who will report on the feasibility of the proposed

roadway.

An offer of the Piedmont Chapter of the Daughters of the

Revolution to place a Georgia State flag on the new courthouse

was also accepted with thanks and plans made for a flag-raising

day when the new building is completed.

The meeting Monday morning was postponed from last

week, pending the return of Commissioners Smith, Anderson and

Winn from Detroit.

PAGE 2, COLUMN 1

HIT DENIAL

BY FRANK

JUROR

Henslee, in Letter to The

Geor- gian. Declares

His Comment

Was Made After Trial

The idea that there could have been any mistake in the

dates when they say they overheard Juror A. H. Henslee make

denunciatory remarks against Leo M. Frank was ridiculed Tuesday

by persons who have made depositions in respect to the nature of

Henslee's remarks.

All insist that the invectives of Henslee against the

defendant were uttered before the trial began and Henslee was

chosen a juror.

They scoff at Henslee's reply to the charges in which he

seeks to establish that every one of his remarks indicating

prejudice and bias were made after the evidence was all in and

the verdict returned.

Say They're Not Mistaken.

The affiants declare that if it comes to an issue of veracity or

accuracy of dates, they have incidents by which they are able to

fix the dates as before the trial of Frank. They are positive there is

no opportunity of mistake.

Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted

that he had made some of the remarks credit to him, but asserted

that they had been uttered after the trial and that he had stated

explicitly that he believed the testimony of Jim Conley made on

the stand.

He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at

the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons

who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to

represent Henslee as a perjurer.

Juror Henslee's Reply.

Replying to your article in today's issue, October 6, in

reference to Messrs. Holmes, Johnson and Gray. I will say I am

sorry to think that you would go ahead and make such

statements above your signatures that I had remarked and tried

Leo M. Frank in your office per your date of July 27. Having read

your deposition in Hugh Dorsey's office, I will say that I spoke of

the case freely and met your many friends in your office on

September 2, which was Tuesday morning.

Sorry to think that you would express yourself, and dating

your deposition as you did, either July 27 or June 27, I will say I

was in your office on June 27 between trains, but the Frank case

was never mentioned. As to branding you all liars, I have never

done so, but say that you have miscalculated your date. I did

willingly express myself freely regarding the Frank case on

September 2, Tuesday morning; met many of your friends, to

whom you introduced me, and did say and express to your friends

and yourselves that Leo M. Frank, from the evidence of Jim

Conley, was really a pervert.

I made a statement to one of the Atlanta papers that I

almost positively knew that from the deposition received from

Sparta, Ga., there would not be anything that I had expressed

prior to this case similar to that of Blakely, Ga. Regarding the fact

that you and my family for years, I wish to state that you

gentlemen regard and hold in in the highest esteem as men

whom I believe would defend and honor me and my family,

regardless of public sentiment.

Denies Calling Them Liars.

I wish to state further from your deposition, after reading

same in Hugh Dorsey's office, I am surprised that men with your

intelligence should come out and

Continued on Page 2, Column 8.

PAGE 8, COLUMN 8

FRANK

JUROR IN

DENIAL OF

BIAS

ACCUSATIO

N

Henslee Declares His

Only Com-

Ment on Case Was

Made Af-

ter the Trial.

Continued From Page 1.

in a way request a reply, as you have. As to branding you liars, I

have never. The fact is, you got your dates wrong.

Julius A. Lehman, of the firm of Floyd & Lehman, of the city

of Atlanta, as I understand, makes an affidavit of alleged

statements to him on either June 2 or June 6, on the train between

Atlanta and Experiment, Ga., which I brand as a false statement,

as on June 2, 1913, I was on the train between Edison, Ga., and

Arlington, Ga. On June 6, I was between Tifton and Ashburn, Ga.

Regarding his statement and affidavit, I brand it as absolutely

false, and furthermore wish to say I called on Mr. Lehman

Saturday evening, October 4, in his place of business, and stated

to him personally that the only reason I came by was to inform

him that I would get a bill of indictment when the next Grand Jury

convened in Fulton County for trying to make me a perjurer. That

was all I had to say to him, and left his place of business.

Regarding all the foregoing statements, will say that it is on

record that the Franklin Buggy Company's place of business is

Barnesville, Ga.

PAGE 3, COLUMN 1

HIT DENIAL

BY FRANK

JUROR

Henslee, in Letter to The

Geor- gian. Declares

His Comment

Was Made After Trial

Standing emphatically by their sworn affidavits that A. H.

Henslee, one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the

murder of little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice

against the prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson

and Shi Gray, of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's

defense.

The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain

that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to

secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in

the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark

that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected

as a juror.

Henslee in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted

that he had made some of the remarks credited to him, but

asserted that they had been uttered after the trial and that he

had stated explicitly that he believed the testimony of Jim Conley

made on the stand.

He also said that he proposed to seek a bull of indictment at

the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons

who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to

represent Henslee as a perjurer.

Juror Henslee's Reply.

Here is Henslee's letter from Barnesville:

Replying to your article in today's issue, October, 6, in

reference to Messrs., Holmes, Johnson and Gray, I will say I am

sorry to think that you would go ahead and make such

statements above your signatures and I had remarked and tried

Leo M. Frank in your office per your date of July 27. Having read

your deposition in Hugh Dorsey's office, I will say that I spoke of

the case freely and met your many friends in your office on

September 2, which was Tuesday morning.

Sorry to think that you would express yourself, and dating

your deposition as you did, either July 27 or June 27, I will say I

was in your office on June 27 between trains, but the Frank case

was never mentioned. As to branding you all liars, I have never

done so, but I do say that you have miscalculated your date, I did

willingly express myself freely regarding the Frank case on

September 2, Tuesday morning; met many of your friends, to

whom you introduced me, and did say and express to your friends

and yourselves that Leo M. Frank, from the evidence of Jim

Conley, was really a pervert.

I made a statement to one of the Atlanta papers that I

almost positively knew that from the deposition received from

Sparta, Ga., there would not be anything that I had expressed

prior to this case similar to that of Blakely, Ga. Regarding the fact

that you knew me and my family for years, I wish to state that

you gentlemen I regard and hold in the highest esteem as men

whom I believe would defend and honor me and my family,

regardless of public sentiment.

Denies Calling Them Liars.

I wish to state further from your deposition, after reading

same in Hugh Dorsey's office, I am surprised that men with your

intelligence should come out and in a way request a reply, as you

have. As to branding you liars, I have never. The fact is, you got

your dates wrong.

Julius A. Lehman, of the firm of Floyd & Lehman, of the city

PAGE 8, COLUMN 9

FRANK

JUROR IN

DENIAL OF

BIAS

ACCUSATIO

N

Henslee Declares His

Only Com-

ment on Case Was

Made Af-

ter the Trial.

Continued From Page 1.

of Atlanta, as I understand, makes an affidavit of alleged

statements to him on either June 2 or June 6, on the train between

Atlanta and Experiment, Ga., which I brand as a false statement,

as on June 2, 1913, I was on the train between Edison, Ga., and

Arlington, Ga. On June 6, I was between Tifton and Ashburn, Ga.

Regarding his statement and affidavit, I brand it as absolutely

false, and furthermore wish to say I called on Mr. Lehman

Saturday evening, October 4, in his place of business, and stated

to him personally that the only reason I came by was to inform

him that I would get a bill of indictment when the next Grand Jury

convened in Fulton County for trying to make me a perjurer. That

was all I had to say to him, and left his place of business.

Regarding all the foregoing statements, will say that it is on

record that the Franklin Buggy Company's place of business is

Barnesville, Ga.

PAGE 4, COLUMN 8

DENIAL

MADE BY

FRANK

JUROR

IS

ATTACKED

Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,

one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of

little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the

prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,

of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.

The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain

that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to

secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in

the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark

that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected

as a juror.

Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted

that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks

credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the

trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the

testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.

He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at

the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons

who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to

represent Henslee as a perjurer.

PAGE 5, COLUMN 4

DENIAL

MADE BY

FRANK

JUROR

IS

ATTACKED

Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,

one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of

little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the

prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,

of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.

The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain

that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to

secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in

the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark

that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected

as a juror.

Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted

that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks

credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the

trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the

testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.

He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at

the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons

who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to

represent Henslee as a perjurer.

PAGE 12, COLUMN 6

DENIAL

MADE BY

FRANK

JUROR

IS

ATTACKED

Henslee, in Letter to

The Geor-

gian. Declares His

Comment

Was Made After Trial.

Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,

one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of

little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the

prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,

of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.

The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain

that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to

secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in

the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark

that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected

as a juror.

Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted

that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks

credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the

trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the

testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.

He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at

the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons

who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to

represent Henslee as a perjurer.

PAGE 13, COLUMN 2

Governor Slaton Personally

Investigates and

Verifies the Circulation of The

Georgian

and Hearst's Sunday

American. :: ::

Daily Sunday

Georgian American

October 4th 1913.

At the request of the management of The Atlanta Georgian

and The Sunday American, I personally examined on Friday after

noon their various circulation statements, in detail. This work

required sometime, but it was willingly given, because I regard

these newspapers as enterprises of which all Georgia should be

proud. The figures the papers furnish, under oath, to the postal

authorities show a marvelous growth for the time The Georgian

and Sunday American have been in Mr. Hearst's hands"

particularly The Sunday American, which is only six months old.

These circulation figures I have checked up and verified in

person. I have examined the sworn statements of the circulation

and the cashier of The Georgian corporation, and cross

questioned them in detail about the circulation figures. I believe

the figures to be absolutely correct.

Purely from a business man's viewpoint, both The Georgian

and The Sunday American, in points of quality and quantity of

circulation, should be, and I have no doubt are, highly satisfactory

and effective advertising mediums. Certainly, they are most

excellent newspapers, and should commend themselves to

merchants for business purposes.

The fine circulation showings furnish me ample foundation

for warm congratulations. I sincerely wish for Mr. Hearst and his

Georgia newspapers the fullest measure of prosperity and

success"both of which seem assured. I am persuaded this great

publisher means to be consistently a firm and powerful friend of

Atlanta, Georgia, and the whole South, and I well know his ability

to do big things in a big way.

PAGE 46, COLUMNS 1

& 4

PAGE 46, COLUMN 1

FRANK GIVES 115 REASONS FOR

ASKING NEW TRIAL

PAGE 46, COLUMN 4

MANY ERRORS

ARE

LAID TO THE

COURT

Charge Is Also Made by

the Law-

yers That the Jury

Was

Intimidated.

In an exhaustive research, requiring nearly 200 typewritten

pages, citing 115 counts and attacking two of the jurors, an

amended motion for a new trial for Leo M. Frank, sentenced to

hang October 10 for the murder of Mary Phagan, was filed

Wednesday.

Each count wherein the court is declared to have erred in the

trial of the pencil factory superintendent, is dissected, its effect

asserted and the whole combined in a masterly manner to form

the chain of the defense's claims.

The two jurors named are Marcus Johenning and J. A.

Henslee, both of whom, it is claimed in the motion, were

prejudiced against Frank before they were selected. Affidvaits will

be introduced to support this contention.

The motion was placed in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey for

his inspection and reply.

Principal among the objections offered in the motion is

conduct of the crowds which attended the trial. Frank's attorney

openly declare that the jury was intimidated, and despite their

objections no effort was made to stop the applause which time

and again rang out in the courtroom.

Threats to clear the room were made by the trial judge,

the motion states, but they were absolutely disregarded and the

threats were not enforced, despite the objections of counsel for

the defense.

Hits at Conley Testimony.

The motion struck also at the admission of the lascivious

testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper. The testimony

referred to included that wherein the negro declared on the

witness stand that Frank had entertained women in the factory on

holidays while he stood watch at the front door.

Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in

a plea of murder and can not be held in a murder and can not be

held in a murder trial, even when the defendant has put his

character in issue, the motion stated.

The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, County Physician, also was

objected to. The motion declared that the physician's testimony

was argumentative and not a statement of fact, scientifically or

otherwise. Dr. Harris had gone extensively into an analysis of the

cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan, which she had

eaten on the morning of her tragic death.

PAGE 50, COLUMN 4

MORE ATTACKS

ON FRANK

JUROR

Defense Claims It Has

New and

Positive Proof Bias

Accusa-

tions Against Henslee.

A. H. Henslee of the jury that convicted Leo M. Frank, made

his bitterly denunciatory remarks against the defendant in the

hearing of a far greater number of persons than already have

made depositions, according to information in the possession of

Frank's attorneys.

While the prisoner's lawyers are busy building up their plea,

Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey is working ceaselessly preparing to

demolish their arguments for a new trial.

We have the names of a great many other persons to whom

Henslee expressed his opinion of Frank's guilt and his hope that

he would have the opportunity to assist in convicting him, said

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, Monday.

These persons would be called on to tell the truth in respect

to Henslee's attitude before the trial were it not for their evident

reluctance to incur the enmity of Henslee and the fact that

already have the sworn statements of a sufficient number of

reliable persons to prove conclusively that Henslee was guilty of

making the biased and prejudiced remarks.