Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWO
Why Do They Keep Up the Big
Money Campaign Against the
People and the Courts
of Georgia?
(continued from page one.)
about a bale of cotton; lie had not followed
up a little girl who ought to have been at
school, and he had not lured this girl into
the field and left her lying there on her back,
with a rope around her neck, her drawers
ripped up the seam, and her privates bruised
and bloody.
lie had not screened a negro accomplice,
and gone to manufacturing evidence against
an innocent person.
He had not been foiled in his efforts to
hang the innocent negro, by the confession
of the guilty one.
And his lawyer had neglected to form a
co-partnership with the Governor-elect: con
sequently, there was no member of the firm
in the Executive Office, when application for
commutation was made.
Lawyers who know that their clients are
guilty should, in all possible cases, associate
the Governor-elect with the defense, so that,
if all the courts condemn their client, the
gubernatorial member of the firm can save
“innocent blood from the mob,” thereby
avoiding the error of Pontius Pilate.
When one's lawyer is on the bench, one
may expect favorabe rulings; and when one’s
lawyer is Governor, no innocent blood need
fear such mobs as constitute a jury and two
Supreme Courts.
Innocent blood, however, should not be
sent to languish at the State Farm, even
though Warden Smith is most kind, and the
prisoner is allowed his'own sumptuous bed,
his luxurious carpet, his electric fan, his
f electric cigarette lighter, and his roller-top
* desk.
Such innocent blood as that, ought to be
accompanying his lawyer on his delayed and
protracted, honeymoon trip.
( haracteristic of all the wild statements
which have been, and are still in circula
tion against us. are the following editorial
lines in 77m Fra, the magazine founded by
Elbert Hubbard:
“Guilty'" said the Courts.
“Reasonable Doubt!’’ said the American peo
ple.
The evidence that convicted Frank was fur
nished by a flat-headed nigger. He is the typical,
shiftless, no-account, lazy, Southern nigger. It
was proven that, on the day of the crime, he was
sodden drunk on whiskey. He admitted himself
to be an accomplice—but he maintained that
Frank was the principal.
The Courts said: “We believe you!”
The Public at large said: “Mistah Coon, the
crime was a savage crime. It recalls to our mind
other savage crimes in which a drunken coon, a
girl, and a lynching played a part. Too often
you change your story. You know too many of
the details, too intimately.”
Leo Frank said: “I did not commit the crime.
I am innocent!”
Does it not occur to The Fra that if “the
American People” tear up the verdicts of
sworn jurors, and the decisions of sworn
judges, “/7m American People' 1 11' 1 will lynch
the courts?
ITow can a sane editor hope to have the
lynching of criminals discontinued, if “the
American People’’ lynch the courts?
How can a sane editor expect to have
anybody’s guilt ascertained, ii not by jurors
and judges?
If “the American People” are to reverse
the courts, on the unsworn and ex-parte
statements of detectives, lawyers, hack-writ
ers, and hysterical sentimentalists, what be
comes of our judicial system?
When the case of Leo Frank was singled
out for a national campaign of slander
against the people and the courts of Georgia,
THE JEFFERSONIAN
reasonable people should have suspected the
honesty of the wire-pullers.
Innocent men do not need to demand that
the outside “mob” reverse the courts.
It was not attempted in the Beatty case,
the Thaw- case, or the Becker case.
It was never before done, IN ANY
CASE!
Why was it done in Frank’s case?
HYs he entitled to exemption from the
jurisdiction of our judges and juries?
Mr. Hearst’s string of papers, and the
Jewish papers, and space-rate papers, de
manded that the State of Georgia abandon
her legal jurisdiction over a Georgia crim
inal.
They demanded that Georgia abdicate her
sovereignity, discredit her own courts, and
admit the State's intention to commit judicial
murder.
They demanded that we accuse nearly fifty
wdiite witnesses of perjury, twelve sworn
jurors of a false verdict, two Superior Court
judges of base truckling to an imaginary
mob, and our Supreme Court of being as in
famous as the witnesses and the jury.
When before did Mr. Hearst ever demand
of a State a complete surrender of her con
stitutional powers and responsibilities?
When before did a lot of jackass Doctors
of Divinity in New York, Chicago, Philadel
phia, and Atlanta, ask that the evidence of
scores of white witnesses be treated as a mass
of lies?
How can any State maintain respect for
Law’, for the courts, and for the orderly ad
ministration of Justice, if a mob of outsiders
arrogate to themselves the right to howl
down the patiently considered verdicts and
decisions made in court-houses?
In the Frank case, Mr. Hearst insulted the
State of Georgia as no State in this Union
wts ever insulted before.
He sent to Atlanta a member of the Su
preme Court of New York, after our Su
preme Court had twuce decided the case; and
this New 7 York Judge wrote out an opinion
to the effect that, excepting Conley's evi
dence, there w T as nothing in the record
against Leo Frank!
The New 7 York Supreme Judge who did
this unheard of thing, is Clarence Shearn, a
little one-hoss Jew’ attorney that never led
a murder case in all his obscure life.
He was Hearst’s lawyer, and he knows
just enough law 7 to defend the Hearst pa
pers in damage suits.
Hearst laid that written decision of Clar
ence Shearn before Governor Slaton, and
asked him to accept it as a virtual reversal
of tw’o decisions by the Supreme Court of
Georgia!
How would Florida like to have her
courts flouted in that contemptuous way?
How 7 would Alabama like it? How would
Texas?
What would have been thought of me, if
I had sent my personal attorney to New
York, to review the record in the Becker
ease; and had then asked Governor Whit
man to accept the opinion of my lawyer?
That is exactly what Hearst did in the
Frank case —and a more insolent invasion
of a State's rights was never made.
The newspapers have been slow to realize
the danger of THIS PRECEDENT.
The bitter cup that w T e have had put to
our lips, may be passed around.
Other States may have to bow 7 to the dic
tation of Jew Money!
Other States may have politicians and
papers that are for sale.
What Big Money has done to Georgia, it
may do to any other State.
Why did other States assume that, in this
one case alone, we Georgians were blind to
facts, and deaf to reason?
We tried, condemned, and executed Tom
iWoodfolk, one of whose victims was a little
girl; and Mr. Hearst, ’Adolph Ochs, Joseph
Pulitzer, and Dr. Parkhurst did not go into
spasms over it.
New York’s highest court sent to the
death chair, two weeks ago, five men at one
time; and the sentences rest on no stronger
foundation than did the three sentences on
Leo Frank; yet Brisbane and Shearn w 7 ere
not sent to Albany by Mr. Hearst, to review
an adjudicated case!
Why was Frank’s case taken out of the
jurisdiction of Georgia and throw’n into the
emotional world, swayed by newspapers?
“The evidence that convicted Frank was
furnished by a flat-headed negro,” says The
F ra.
Is there some peculiar objection to the
evidence of men whose heads are flat?
If The Fra w 7 ill glance at page 218 of our
August Magazine, it will see that Jim Con
ley’s head is not flat: it is less so than Leo
Frank’s.
But The Fra says that Jim is the typical,
shiftless, no-account, lazy Southern nigger.
Southern! Niggers wdio go North in
variably lose their Southern faults, I sup
pose.
Well, may I ask The Fra to tell its read
ers why Sig Montag and Leo Frank kept
such a vagabond on their pay-roll for two
years ?
Are rich Jew manufacturers so fond of
having their money w r asted on a “no-account
nigger,” that they keep it up for more than
100 weeks?
They had not only been employing this
vagabond for two years, but there had been
no intimation of their wish to get rid of
him. __
If Frank hadn't killed the girl, and
dragged the negro into it, he would proba
bly be working for the pencil factory yet.
At the time of the trial, in July, 1913, Jim
was 27 years old. He had worked for the
Orr Stationery Company, for Dr. Palmer,
for Adams Woodward, for S. S. Gordon, for
S. M. Truitt, and for W. S. Coates.
He worked five .years for Mr. Coates, two
years for the Orr Stationery Company, and
about a year and a half for Dr. Palmer,
from whose employment he went to Leo
Frank’s pencil factory.
So, you see, this lazy, shiftless, no-account
nigger had been continuously at work for
respectable white men, ever since he became
old enough to go out and make his own
living.
In twelve years, he had changed places
only five times, and he was apparently a fix
ture at Frank's factory, at the time Mary
Phagan w’as murdered.
Do' these facts, from the official record,
give The Fra a new view 7 of the case?
But The Fra says that “on the day of the
crime, he (Jim) w’as sodden drunk on
whiskey.”
Well, in the first place, a man who is sod
den drunk, cannot do any sexual thing to a
woman.
A man who is sodden drunk cannot knock
another person down, and carry off the body.
So, you see, The Fra goes wild at the start-
Now’, let me ask The Fra to cite me to the
evidence that Conley W’as drunk that day.
Mrs. Hattie Waites saw Frank and Con
ley on the street, together, in close converse,
at about 11 o'clock a. m.
Would Leo Frank have been seen on the
sidewalk in close talk with a drunken vaga
- bond?
As a matter of fact, Jim Conley’s alleged
drunkenness that day was never heard of,
until after he blocked Frank’s “frame, up”
of Newt Lee by confessing that he. Conley,
and Leo Frank were the guilty parties.
After Conley’s confession stopped the
frame up against the innocent negro, Conley
began to drink, and at first was tipsy, then.
