Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWO
though she had been the daughter of Roths
child.
Let the Jews of Georgia, and elsewhere,
look to it.
They are putting themselves on trial; and,
if they continue the malignant crusade which
they have been waging, by libels and car
toons, downright lies, and villainous lam
poons against a State which has never done
injustice to a single Jew, they will reap a
whirlwind that will cause them to rue the
day they insulted the people among whom
they live, and out of whose patronage they
have made the money that is now being used
to defame the Empire State of the South.
AVhat right did they have to tell the North
ern people, that a mob stood up in the court
room. and threatened the jury. “Z/ you don't
hang Frank, we will hang you?''
Where was that infamous lie hatched? In
whose office, was it reduced to writing? Who
drew the checks that paid for its distribution
all over the Union?
Dan Lehon—-kicked off the police force of
Chicago, for black-mailing a helpless woman
of the town, and owing his freedom from the
penitentiary to some strange manipulation of
the jury that gave him the benefit of the doubt
in the bribery case— publishes to the world
that Frank's jury was tampered with!
Dan Lehon ’ Os all men in the world, Dan
Lehon!
Not fit to be a Chicago policeman, he
matriculates in the Burns detective agency,
and qualifies himself to broadcast the land
with vituperation against the people of Geor
gia.
Somebody pays to have eleven columns of
Lehon's stuff published in the New Orleans
Item, illustrated with Lehon's picture, and
mailed out in large envelopes bearing the
legend,
"THE FRANK CASE.”
Who pays this scurvy knave to vilify the
witnesses. the jurors, the courts, and the peo
ple of our State?
AA ho pays this briber of Ragsdale to say,
that' the white witnesses who gave the evi
dence on which Frank was convicted, were a
lot of “perjurers?”
Was it because Carrie Smith was a per
jurer, that she was offered money to change
her testimony ?
What had Carrie Smith sworn to? She
had sworn to Frank's base character; and the
brave lawyers of Frank had not been brave
enough to ask the girl how she knew Frank
to be lascivious.
-And Ix’cause Lehon knew her to be a “per
jurer. his reptile agents offered this work
ing girl a sum of money to swear to a lie—
just as Ragsdals was paid to swear to a lie.
A\ as R. P. Barrett— the machinist at the
pencil factory— one of these “perjurers?”
And was that the reason C. AV. Burke, and
the Burns gang, offered him a “barrel of
money," and a good position in New Orleans,
if he would change him testimony about the
hair on the handle of his machine, and the
spots of blood on the floor? If he had gone
to New Orleans, and taken the “barrel of
money.'' he would have been given a good
position under Dan Lehon, and he might
have developed some talent as a liar, but he
never would have held a candle to Dan.
AAYs it because Monteen Stover was a per
jurer, that Samuel Boornstein, AV. J. Burns,
and Rabbi Marx made unparalleled efforts to
change her evidence?
Lehon not only says that the jury was
tampered with, but that the prosecution
knew 'lt!
The guilty scoundrel actually wants the
American people to believe, that the State of
Georgia is trying to hang this man, when the
Ft ate itself knows that the verdict is tainted!
Never before, was any such detestable libel
published against an honest jury, an honest
Solicitor, and a sovereign State.
THE JEFFERSONIAN
Lehon goes further: he says that there is
no “slush fund.”
The virtuous, veracious Dan tells the world:
A * .
Burns Spent Own Money.
I know that Mr. Burns had spent several thous
ands of dollars of his own personal funds, as a re
sult of our taking up this investigation, having
financed the investigation to a great extent, in
an effort to ascertain the true facts pertaining
to the frame-up, and in the defense of myself and
other operatives, who were the victims of the
same crowd and the same sort of perjured tes
timony as was poor Leo M. Frank.
It is a moving spectacle, my lords! Wil
liam Burns and Dan Lehon, laboring, Sam
son-like, as unselfish defenders of Innocence,
against a vile “frame up;” and squandering
“several thousand dollars of Burns’ personal
funds,” in the untiring pursuit of a lofty
ideal!
According to the United States Department
of Justice, Burns is a man who packs juries,
and bribes witnesses: Lehon must have done
something funny to his jury, else he would
now be in the penitentiary for giving Rags
dale a small, but tempting, share of Burns’
“personal funds.”
And yet it grieves me to see Dan Lehon
make out Herbert Haas to be a man of forked
tongue.
In Dan's own case, Haas said under oath,
in Dan's presence, that the checks which
Burns drew on the Haas Finance Committee
came in large sums, and that they came “thick
and fast.”
It is my duty to reconcile conflicts in testi
money, wherever possible; and, therefore. 1
will reconcile Haas with Lehon, by surmising
that, while Burns dre.w frequent and heavy
checks on the Haas Finance Committee, the
funds were the personal cash-assets of him,
the said AYilliam J. Burns. The committee
was merely acting as purser ,for the casual
convenience and accommodation of the grand
est rascal in America.
And yet, the manner in which the New
York Telegraph hints that Burns “planted’’
a hobo, to see Mrs. Carman kill Mrs. Bailey,
bears a family likeness to the manner in which
Ragsdale and Barber were “planted,” in the
rear of the 'Terminal Hotel, to hear Jim Con
ley tell another negro, that he had “killed a
girl at the National Pencil Factory.”
The hobo faded away in the Carman case,
just as Ragsdale and Barber evaporated, in
the Frank case.
AA'ho is it that “plants” evidence. Who is
it that buys evidence?
AVho it is that offers money to witnesses to
change evidence?
AVho is it that threatens young working
girls, if thev don't change evidence?
is it that FEARS TO PUBLISH
THE RECORD; and then tries to stigmatize
it, by saying that the thirty-odd white men
and women, boys and girls, who gave that
damning testimony, were perjurers?
AVho is it that exhausted every resource of
money and knavery to bribe these Atlanta
work people?
No innocent man, Jew or Gentile, does that
kind of thing’.
T
THIRTY-THREE “PERJURERS.”
Dan Lehon tells the outside world that, if
Frank could only get a new trial, “the State
would have to abandon the case for lack of
evidence.”
Yes: Dan Lehon says that. Dan also says
that Jim Conley is the only witness that
would not change his evidence.
Dan seems to know that Jim will not change
his: perhaps Dan has his own reasons for
knowing that Jim won’t flinch.
But, as to the thirty-odd men and women,
boys and girls, Dan is not so complimentary.
Os these white people, Dan says—
I am sure that the balance o 2 the perjurers
would not have the audacity or be able to sum
mon the courage to take the stand and testify
falsely as they did inJFrank’s first and only trial.
;■ I
The balance of “the perjurers” are R. P.
Barrett, C. B. Dalton, N. V. Darley, L. S.
Dobbs, George Eppes, W. H. Gheesling, J.
W. Gantt, Dr. H. F. Harris, E. F. Holloway,
Dr. J. W. Hurt, W. W. Rogers, Harry Scott,
Mell Stanford, J. N. Starnes, Helen Fergu
son, Grace Hicks, Mrs. George Jefferson, Mon
teen Stover, Mrs. J. A. White, Myrtie Cato,
Maggie Griffin. Mrs. C. D. Donegan, Mrs. H.
R. Johnson, Marie Carst, Nellie Pettis, Mary
Davis, Mrs. Mary E. AATdlace, Estelle Winkle,
Carrie Smith, Hattie Hall, Corinthia Hall,
and Mrs. Emma C. Freeman.
Here are .thirty-three whose
evidence closed the circle around Frank; and
we must include himself, and his clock, and
the physical marks on his floor, for his own
statement, his own clock, and the physical
condition of his own floor, helped to convict
him.
Therefore. Dan Lehon tells mankind that,
not only did thirty-three white “perjurers”
swear away Frank's innocence, but that the
hair on Barrett’s machine perjured itself, the
blood on Frank’s floor didn’t tell the truth,
the clock on Frank’s wall lied, outrage
ously; and that Frank spoke falsely when he
entrapped himself by saying, at first, that he
was in his office, all the time, from the noon
hour, on to 12:35, when Mrs. AVhite again
saw him.
Dan is right, as to Frank: Frank did tell a
falsehood when he placed himself in his office,
at the very time Monteen Stover was in there,
trying to find him!
Lehon having admitted that Frank told a
falsehod about it, let Lehon explain WHY
Frank told, it, ami WHERE he was, and
WHAT TIE I ILLS' DOING, while Monteen
waited for him to return to his office!
THAT IS _THE FATALITY IN
FRANK'S CASE. Monteen was in that va
cant office, at the very time Frank was chok
ing the neck, ripping the drawers, and bloody
ing the private parts of Mary Phagan.
But Frank did not know that Monteen
Stover was waiting for him in his empty*
office; and so it was. that he caught himself
in a trap, by telling Harry Scott that lie had
been i n his office at the identical time when
Mon teen was there.
AJI the lawyers, detectives, and special
pleaders that money can employ, will never
be able to get Frank out of the trap which
he unconsciously made for himself, when he
repeatedly said he was in his office, at the
time he was not there.
TWO GIRLS WENT IN: ONLY ONE CAME OUT.
Between 12:02 and 12:10 two young girls
went into his office, and he says that one
found him: the other says she could not find
him; and as Frank did,not know that the
other girl, Monteen, was in his vacant office,
he corroborates her; and puts upon himself
the awful necessity of telling what became of
Mary and himself, after Mary came in, ahead
of Monteen.
MONTEEN STOVER WOULD HAVE CAUGHT
JIM CONLEY!
r
r I hose who studied the official record, and
kept watch on Frank's own clock, know that
it would have been impossible for Jim Con
ley to have committed the crime, on the first
floor, for the simple reason that Monteen
Stover would have walked in-on him, while
he was at it.
By taking the little girl back to the metal
room, Frank avoided that very danger! He
led her back there, to make sure that he
would not be walked in on, for he knew that
NOBODY WAS THERE, OR WOULD
HAVE OCCASION TO COME THERE,
Do you see it, Mr. Hooper Alexander?
Almighty God I What are we to think of
