Newspaper Page Text
The Leo Frank Case Again De
cided by the Supreme Court.
(continued from page one.)
evidence against him satisfied an impartial
jury, and that he, like any other criminal,
must suffer the penalty for his crime.
Surely the case was ended then? By no
means.
The Atlanta Journal came rushing before
the public with a bullying, brow-beating edi
torial, demanding that Frank be given an
other trial, and saying that his execution un
der the sentence approved by the highest
Court of Georgia, would be “judicial mur
der.”
Then began such a crusade against the
good name of our State as nobody ever be
fore heard of. The New York Times vili
fied us before the whole world. The Puck
Magazine held us up to scorn and loathing
in libellous cartoons.
The negro paper in Atlanta jumped on us
with its indignant and righteous feet.
The rotten scoundrel, W. J. Burns, ran up
and down the land, pouring foul abuse upon
us, in every paper that would print the rant
ings of this cowardly, corrupt and despicable
wretch.
During all that organized crusade of Big
Money and the rotten Burns against the good
name of Georgia and against the integrity of
your courts, the only paper that stepped for
ward to fight your battle was The Jefferso
nian.
The only paper that held up the hands of
the incorruptible and indomitable Hugh Dor
sey, was The Jeffersonian.
Had it not been that you had one paper
that wasn’t to be silenced or hoodwinked, it
is highly probable that the infamous Burns
might have succeeded, when he started his
campaign to bulldoze witnesses, buy testi-
suppress evidence, gag the press, de
feat justice, and leave unpunished the most
damnable crime ever perpetrated in Georgia.
An Extraordinary Motion for new trial
was made, and the lawyers throughout the
State must have been bewildered when they
saw that not a scintilla of new evidence was
brought forward —not a word that ordinary
diligence would not have unearthed at the
first trial.
Again the Superior Court Judge heard
argument, and again the new trial was re
fused, because there was absolutely no ground
for it.
If Frank was to Mve a new trial be
cause he wanted it, then none of our law ap
plied to Frank, and we must make a new law,
specially for his case.
Again the Supreme Court was resorted to,
and again the Supreme Court said in sub
stance, “Unless we make a new Code for Leo
Frank, he must abide the decision reached in
the trial court.”
Surely, this second decision of the highest
court would be an end of the case!
Oh, no: not at all.
His lawyers incubate a third time, and they
hatch a third appeal based upon the fact that
they ought to have had Frank in the court
room when the verdict was read; and that
they had no light to waive his presence and
poll the jury, when he wasn’t there to do it
himself!
In other words, the third attempt to set
aside the verdict amounted to this plea:
“We lawyers did our client a grievous
wrong, and we now seek to take advantage of
it.
We—Rosser and Arnold—are commonly
supposed to know how to protect a client who
is on trial for his life; but that supposition
is erroneous. We do not know how to pro
tect a client; and we did not properly protect
Leo Frank.
We have already filed two motions for new
trial, and we knew at that time everything
THE JEFFERSONIAN
we now know; but inasmuch as we did not
make this point earlier, we make it later.
It never did have any merit in it, for the
simple reason that a lawyer can do every
thing his client can do in a criminal case, ex
cept serve his sentence', but inasmuch as we
have some lingering hope that we may feaze
the Court and befuddle the public, we now
plead, that we ought not to have waived what
we had a right to waive, and what we did
waive, and what Frank was mighty glad at
the time to have us waived
Verily, a pitiful plea is this, for two cracker
jack lawyers.
Commenting on the .right of counsel to waive
the presence of Frank in the court room, the
court’s opinion said:
“Who was better prepared to protect the in
terest of the defendant, trained and expert counsel
or the defendant himself? True, he had the right
to conduct the trial in person, if he so desired,
but the defendant had committed his case to the
able and experienced counsel who in the exercise
of their return as attorneys for the client waive
his right to be present, and having made the
waiver, and defendant by his conduct having ac
quiesced in it, he should be bound by it.”
Trifling With Court.
“It would be trifling with the court to allow
one who has been convicted of a crime, and who
has made a motion for a new trial on over 100
grounds, including the statement that his counsel
had waived his presence at the reception of the
verdict, and have the motion heard by both the
Superior and Supreme Courts and after a denial
by both courts of the motion to set aside the
verdict, include matters which were, or ought to
have been included in the motion *-for a new
trial «” . •... jjjaDAijjd
The impatience of the Supreme Court at
being trifled with by this convicted Spdom
ist, and his lawyers, and his detectives, is not
a surprise to the people of Georgia.
The impatience of the people is angry and
profound. Yet it has been restrained in a
manner which is creditable in the highest de
gree.
With less provocation, the people of New
Orleans flamed out against the Italian mur
derers, and dealt to them the swift justice
which the courts had denied.
How much longer is the innocent blood of
little Mary Phagan to cry in vain to Heaven
for vengeance?
How much longer is Big Money, Rosser
and Arnold, William J. Burns and his ras
cally Lehon to mock justice and defy the law
of Georgia?
Let the people of Atlanta lie vigilant!
The-first thing they know, another Will
Meyers case will baffle the law and the au
thorities.
Now is the time to double the guard!
Now is the time to have a Vigilance Com
mittee APPOINT ITS OWN SENTRIES
TO WATCH THAT DESPERATE
CRIMINAL — whose Money and whose re
sources seem so insolently determined that his
crime shall go unpunished!
Do You Want to Understand
Why Our Country Is In Its
Present Condition?
'T'TIE business depression and financial cri
* sis now afflicting the people are the re
sults of evil laws.
This is fully explained in two* books that
we sell.
Read our “Handbook of Politics and Politi
cal Economy,” and Watson's Speeches which
treat of these very matters.
New Edition of “The Story of France,” by
Thos. E. Watson. Just off the press. Two
volumes, $3.50 the set. Handsomely bound,
gilt tops, gilt lettered. This book is regarded
as standard by the French readers and schol
ars. The Jeffersonian Publishing Company,
Thomson, Ga.
Which Is the Best Umbrella ?
(concluded from page one.)
Lewis is the man who wrote that last will
for old Morgan, the great international thief
and robber.
In this paper, Lewis made J. P. say that
he expected Jesus Christ to wash his heart
clean, and present it pure to the throne of
Grace.
That's an awfully big job at the elysian
laundry, but still, as Christ saved one. tliief
on the Cross, he may possibly save J. P.
But what I am coming to if you will stop
your noise and listen, is this —
One of the indicted thieves is Charles Mel
len who acted for the other thieves as Presi
dent of the system of railroads.
Charles went on the stand in Washington
City, in a hearing before the Commerce Com
mission, and he gave some important testi
mony.
(By the way, the Attorney-General, Mc-
Reynolds, endeavored to keep this evidence
from the public.)
Charles Mellen testified as to the political
attitude and activity of his great New Eng
ranl railway system. As quoted in the Balti
more Sun, a Democratic Wilson-Bryan paper,
Charles Mellen said, under oath:
Mellen testified that the New Haven always
tried to “get under the best ujnbrella” in politics.
Large campaign contributions*were made without
accounting and the road was strictly non-partisan,
being Democratic in Democratic States and Re
publican in States in which that party was domi
nant.
The dishonest Directors of the railroad,
who were robbing the people of $90,000,000,
and slaughtering scores of passengers and
trainmen by gross neglect in not keeping the
» road and rolling stock in, good condition. were
careful to “get under the best umbrella.”
When the Republicans were in power, that
umbrella was best, and the thieving directors
acted with that party, giving it money for
campaign purposes, &c.
When the Democrats were in power, that
umbrella was best, and the robbers got under
it, and used it.
They played the game as the corporations
have always played it. They used first one
party, and then the other, just as corporations
have always done.
Mellen’s testimony in 1914 is in almost the
same words that jay Gould used in 1870,
when he cynically said that his railroad in
terests were Democratic in Democratic locali
ties; and Republican, in Republican locali
ties.
The unscrupulous policy of Vanderbilt and
Gould were inherited by Morgan and Rocke
feller.
And the stupidity of the Democratic and
Republican voters of 1870, who could not see
how they were used, has been inherited by
the Democrats and Republicans of 1914.
How did these indictments of the 21 Wall
Street robbers come about?
The thieves fell out among themselves, and
Mellen squealed!
Attorney-General Mcßeynolds tried his
lest to keep the cover on, but some honest
Republican in the Senate, and some honest
Democrats in the House—aided by the Hearst
newspapers and the New York IForZcZ—made
it so hot for Mcßeynolds that he had to sub
side.
President Wilson soon afterwards placed
Mcßeynolds where hc~~can be of enormous
help to Chief Justice White, in screening
illegal Trusts and millionaire rascals— to-wit,
on the U. S. Supreme Bench.
——■ , ,
“Given a flour-mill, a bakery, and a priest, in
numerable Gods could be produced in every wheat
field. “The House of Hapsburg,’’ in Watson’s
Magazine for December.
PAGE FIVE
