Newspaper Page Text
that metal room, on Saturday , unless we
adopt the idea that Jim Conley went back
there with the girl.
But Governor Slaton is on a different line:
he argues that Jim assaulted her in front of
the street entrance, on the first floor, and
then carried her through the 2x2 hole, of
which Sergeant Dobbs testified,
“A man couldn't get down that ladder with
another person. It is a difficult matter for
one person to get through the scuttle hole.’’
Difficult for Dobbs, but not for Slaton.
Accepting the idea that Jim Conley was
not on the second floor, how can any reasoner
locate the man, or the woman, who left paint
or blood, on the floor, and tried to hide the
spots?
Let it be paint, if you will: let it be varn
ish; let it be red lemonade—somebody knew
it was there, on Saturday; and somebody
tried to hide it on Saturday.
That's the evidence!
That's the testimony of Frank's employes!
That’s the evidence of the manager of
Frank's branch factory!
IJAo was that somebody?
Slaton argues that it wasn't Jim Conley,
for he places Jim on the floor below, assault
ing Mary, and toting her through the 2-foot
hole, down a steep ladder!
Therefore, Jim and Mary both being off
the second floor, Frank alone spilled the
paint, or the blood, and smeared haskolene
over it!
To that absurdity comes the reasoning of
whoever wrote Slaton's document.
If this case, like all others, is to be judged
by the sworn testimony, those spots on the
floor —like the hair on the machine —lead
right straight to Mary Phagan.
The only doubt I have ever had in my mind,
has been as to the depth to which the negro
went with the Jew in the commission of this
crime. Readers of The Jeffersonian remem
ber that I have said, from the beginning,
that that was the only question on which un
certainty rested.
The overwhelming preponderance of the
evidence was, that the spots were made by
human blood. The uncontradicted evidence
is, that an effort has been made to con
ceal it.
The witnesses left no reasonable doubt as
to the time the spots were made; and these
witnesses absolutely shut out the possibility
of , the spots having been made by any
persons, excepting Mary Phagan, Leo Frank
and Jim Conley.
Mary, of course, did not voluntarily shed
her blood, and attempt to conceal it: between
Frank and Conley the crime lies, and the
location of the parties, the statement of
Frank, and the evidence of Monteen Stover,
not only places Mary in Frank's possession,
but places Frank in the metal room at the
time Mary was there. For, in looking for
Frank, anxious to get her money, Mon
teen not only went into his inner office, but
looked back to the metal room, and saw that
the door was closed!
Whoever wrote Slaton’s flimsy defense,
had failed to study Monteen's evidence. That
girl placed Frank, at from 12:05 to 12:10,
in the metal room, by necessary implication,
because she could not have failed to see
Frank, had he been in the long room between
where Monteen stood and the metal-depart
ment door, which she swore was shut.
Whoever wrote the Slaton document had
better lick it into better shape, before allow
ing it to go down to posterity—otherwise
Slaton will remain on the pillory, an object
of scorn to coming generations.
THE BUSTED ALIBI.
If anything could add to the amazing
incoherence of this commutation paper,
signed on the midnight of the day we were
commanded to keep Holy, it is the reliance
THE JEFFERSONIAN
placed on the guess-work of Lemmie Quinn,
who estimated that he may have been in
Frank’s office at 12:20.
Why did Slaton impute perjury to two of
Frank's witnesses, whom Quinn did not con
tradict? By what process did Slaton “recon
cile” out of existence the evidence of Miss
Corinthia Flail and Mrs. Emma Clark Free
man ?
Both these ladies were put up by the de
fense, to help Frank; and upon cross-ex
amination, they paralyzed his lawyers by
mashing Lemmie Quinn flat.
They both swore that they were in Frank’s
office that morning, and left at 11:45; and
that in a few minutes they saw Quinn at the
Greek restaurant, and Quinn told them he
had just came from Frank's.
This completely demolished the clumsy
effort to acount for Frank’s whereabouts
during the time that Mary was being raped
and killed; but John M. Slaton ignores these
two white ladies: blows new breath into
Lemmie; and sets him up. for the approving
contemplation of the human race, just as
though two of Frank’s witnesses had not
flattened him out.
The State case fares badly, when the lead
ing lawyers for the defense have the con
clusion —especially when the daily papers
will give twelve columns to one of these law
yers, and refuse twelve inches to any Geor
gian who wants to defend the honor of the
State.
WHAT WAS FRANK’S CHARACTER?
The author of the Slaton document says
that 100 witnesses swore to Frank's good
character, and less than a dozen testified he
was lewd. The world is therefore expected
to believe, that the overwhelming weight of
the evidence was in favor of the chastity of
the accused.
Out of the hundreds of people who are
acquainted with young men about town, how
many really know their secret sins? How
many could swear to anything disgraceful ?
When 100 Hebrews go upon the stand, and
give Frank a good character, they no doubt
are perfectly honest about it; but when ten
white Gentile girls go upon the stand, and
swear they had worked at the pencil factory
for years, and that Leo Frank's character for
lasciviousness was bad, the jury must not
“reconcile” this positive testimony with that
of the 100 negative witnesses, by abolishing
positive evidence which the law says is high
est and best.
And when the cowering defendant dares
not put a single question to those positive
'witnesses, their evidence against his eharac
. ter, based- on personal knowledge, must be
accepted.
When Miss Myrtiee Cato and Miss Maggie
Griffin testified to Frank's habit of taking
Rebecca Carson, into the ladies' dressing
room, on the fourth floor, during work hoars,
the attorneys of Leo Frank did not dare to
ask those white girls a single question.
Let me be fair to Rebecca; she denied it.
In addition to this,.she gave Frank a good
character. Furthermore. Rebecca signed the
petition for clemency. You can't bear malice
against Rebecca.
Isn't it strange that Slaton did not men
tion the evidence of the two girls who tes
tified to Frank's immoral conduct, in the
factory itself?
Isn't it strange, that he made no mention
of 0. B. Dalton, who admitted, under oath,
that he and Frank had had. a. woman of the
town m the factory, and that he had even
gone to the basement with her?
The woman from the outside, with whom
Frank was alleged to have indulged in un
natural vice, was Daisy Hopkins, and the
defense had to put her up.
Daisy denied it, of course; and on cross
examination she gave the following remark
able testimony:
“I have never been in jail. Mr. W. M.
Smith got me out of jail.
“I don’t know what they charged me with.
They accused me of fornication.”
As Daisy was the client of W. M. Smith,
she deserves a great deal of commiseration.
However, when Jim Conley peeped through
the key hole, and saw the sight which Slaton
says does not prove Frank to be a pervert,
even if Jim saw what he swore he saw, you
might read page 55 of the record, not for
evidence of the guilt of Frank, but to obtain
an idea of Slaton’s conception of a pervert.
If you will read the Old Testament account
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,
you will have a clear vision of the darker
slime of this case. I do not care to quote
the evidence, but merely cite you to the page*
(You can find it also on page 285, 141st Ga.
Reports.)
So much has been said about Frank’s
chaste character—a pet of the Rabbi, a fav
orite of Cornell, a model husband, &c.—that
I will give you a little glimpse into Nellie
Wood’s evidence:
“Question: Do you know Mr. Frank?
Answer: I worked for him two days.
Q. Did you observe his conduct toward
the girls?
A. His conduct didn’t suit me very much.
Q. Foil say he put his hands on you; is
that all he ever did?
A. Well, he asked me, one evening—I
went into his office, and he got too familiar
and too close.
Q. Did he put his hands on you?
A. M ell, I did not let him complete what
he started. I resisted him.
Q. Did he put his hands on your breast?
A. No. but he tried to.
Q. Well, did he make any attempts on
your lower limbs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on your dress?
A. Yes. sir."
Miss Nellie Wood quit, and never went
back, except to get her pay for the two days.
Miss Nellie Pettis gave testimony equally
damaging. She told how Frank had looked
at her. winked at her. showed money, and
finally asked. “What about it?’’
Miss Nellie's language was unusually vig
orous: she told Frank to go to hell! .
In a Good Shepherd house, in Cincinnati,
there is a poor girl who worked for Frank,
and he ruined her.
In a Florence Crittenden Home, in
Georgia, are two poor girls who worked for
Frank, and he ruined them.
How many other girls he ruined, he
knows: but all that ?cc know, is that the
State produced eleven more that he wanted
to ruin.
Mary Phagan was another.
HAD HE LUSTED AFTER MARY?
Had this sensual beast lusted after Mary
Phagan? Did he make indecent overtures?
Slaton says that Frank claimed to know her
but slightly!
The record shows that he claimed not to
know her at all.
The point is immensely important. If he
had known her. and shown an inclination
for her, it is a damning circumstance, that he
positively said—after she was found dead
in his place—that he did not know such a
girl, and would have to consult his books.
The record shows he said it. repeatedly,
after Mary was found in the basement.
DID HE KNOW HER?
Miss Ruth Robinson testified:
.“I have seen Leo Frank talking to Mary
Phagan.
“I heard him speak to her. He called her
Mary.” . ’
Miss Dewey Howell testified:
“I have seen Mr. Frank talk to Mary
PAGE FIVE
