The Jeffersonian. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, August 19, 1915, Image 1
CO tdl cf'fcVSOtllCXTi Vol. 12, No. 33 John M. Slaton Talks in Alaska. Attacks Senators Smith and Hardwick TO the kindness of a friend in Skagway. Jg COUIIHO tO RIIH FOI" Let’s see what else Nathan's Jack told the Alaska, I am indebted for a copy of * Alaskans: The Daily Alaskan, of Monday. July 26, tllC SCHHIC '"TO the kindness of a friend in Skagway, Alaska, I am indebted for a copy of The Daily Alaskan, of Monday. July 26, 1915.. It contains several columns of talk on the Leo Frank case, Slaton being the talker. The farther off Jack gets, the bigger his lies are. For instance, he told the Alaska people that he was so rich in his own right, that no monetary consideration could have in fluenced him in commuting Frank’s sen tence. Well, he may be independently rich now, but he wasn’t when he formed that law partnership with Rosser, in May, 1913. As Rossers’ partner, Slaton was legally entitled to a share of whatever Rosser made out of the McNaughton case, for it was in September, 1913, that Slaton commuted the poisoner. As Rosser's partner, Slaton was legally entitled to a share of whatever Rosser made out of the Frank case, for he was Rosser’s partner when he virtually pardoned the client of the firm. They were able to offer Senator Ollie James a huge fee, just to recite one speech before Slaton, and Rosser assured the Ken tucky lawyer that he could not lose the case. Rosser, you see, was sure of his partner, and as they were to pay Senator James so hugely for reading an argument that would be typed out for him, the fee of the- firm of Rosser, Slaton & Phillips must have been stupendous. In looking over the Alaska paper, I find \ that Jack did not tell those distant people that Leo Frank was his client. He did not tell The Daily Alaskan that he was Rosser's partner. He did not explain how Rosser needed him in the Mary Phagan case, and in the case of McNaughton, and used him. Let us see what Slaton told the Alaskans: “I could not,” said Governor Slaton, “as a con scientious official, permit the hanging of Leo Frank. My decision in this matter was not reached until I had investigated every shred of evidence in the case. I spent days and nights ploughing through the testimony; I visited again and again the scene of the crime; I weighed every word of evidence pro and con. I realized that there was a clamor for the blood of Frank, but I knew full well that it did not emanate from the sober, serious-minded citizens of Georgia. It was the result of the inflammatory articles that ap peared in several Georgia papers, and had its origin in a desire to subserve ulterior purposes, largely political in their character. I would have been indeed recreant to my great trust had I wan tonly permitted the sentence of the court to stand.” Thus does John M. Slaton go up and down the earth, lying about the case, and slandering the people who had taken him for an honest man. He arraigns the jury, arraigns Judge Roan, and arraigns the Supreme Court of Georgia, virtually charging that the high est tribunal in the State yielded to mob clainor, and not to the legal testimony. He asserts that he re-tried the case, and Thomson, Ga., Thursday, August 19, 1915 reversed all the courts, just as though he had a legal right to do so, when in every other murder case brought before him, he had said that he had no such right. Slaton didn't spend any days and nights plowing through the evidence in the case. His mind was made up, from the time he practically became Frank's attorney, by be coming Rosser's partner. No well regulated lawyer will intention ally hang his own client. He may do such a thing by misadventure, but not by de sign. Jack meant to save Leo —the juiciest client that ever came Jack's way —and all the peti tion racket, and United States Supreme Court racket, and Doctor of Divinity racket, and Chicago delegation racket, and Prison A Vigilance Committee redeems Georgia, and carries out the sentence of the Law on the Jew who raped and murdered the little Gentile girl, Mary Phagan. Slaton was Frank’s lawyer, and the com mutation was void. In putting the sodomite murderer to death, the Vigilance Committee has done what the Sheriff would have done, if Slaton had not been of the same mould as Benedict Arnold. Let Jew libertines take notice! Georgia is not for sale to rich criminals. Commission racket, and William M. Howard racket, and John W. Moore fake-letter racket, was done for effect. Partner Rosser meant to do all he could to save Partner Slaton's face, while Partner Slaton was saving their client's neck. The probability is, that Nathan Straus went plowing over the evidence with Jack, when Nathan came down to Georgia, to see dear old Talbotton once more, before he died and went to glory. It was a rainy day, and Nathan did not get a very good look at his dear old Tal botton, but it wasn't raining so hard in At lanta, and he enjoyed a fine view of Jack. You'll remember that Jack went up to New York quite a few times, last year; and he explained that the bonds were the cause of these mysterious trips. Very troublesome bonds, these were: the Governor even had to go to New York to overlook the printing! He may have carried the record in the Frank case along with him; and he and Nathan Straus may have plowed through it together, in Nathan’s restaurant, where Na than makes white girls serve negro men. Nathan says he is going to run me out of the State, and is going to fling me out of the mails, and is going to have a hog-kill ing, and is going to show’ up some dreadful things about my private life. All right, Nathan! Come right ahead. Bring your Jack with you, when you come. Ijd's see what else Nathan's Jack told the ■Alaskans: “Nbw I want to tell you,” continued the Gov ernor, ‘‘of the thousands, nay hundreds ol thous . ands of letters, appeals and petitions that poured in onto me. They came from every walk in life, from every civilized country on earth. They would fill an ordinary size room. They camo from every city and hamlet in the United States, and the tenor of one and all was ‘save Frank.’ I can assure you, however, that these appeals would have fallen on deaf ears had not my own investi gations, quietly and thoroughly pursued, con vinced me beyond a peradventure that Frank’s conviction was in defiance with every rule of law and evidence.” ‘Every civilized country on earth!' 7 So, you see, according to John M. Slaton, the nations of Europe found time in the midst of the war, to send petitions to the heroic Governor of Georgia. “From every city and hamlet in the United States.” Really? Then the Texas town in which Leo Frank was raised, must have changed its mind, for when Burns attempted to get the Council to pass resolutions in favor of Frank, the motion was voted down! “Frank’s conviction was in defiance of every rule of law and evidence."’ So bad as that? What a despicable old State we must have, to be sure! Ws never could find out how mean and low down and prejudiced and ignorant and psychicaly inebriated we were until we tried to punish a Jew, and his lawyer—in the Governor's office—would not let us do it. Frank's conviction was in defiance of every rule of law, and every rule "of evi dence ! My! That was enough to make both of his lawyers angry —Rosser and Slaton both —not to mention Partner Phillips, of Jeru salem. If it is true, that Jack himself is part Jew, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin had a majority on us, from the word go. and we never did stand any chance to punish Leo Frank for killing our little Gentile girl. If Frank's conviction was in defiance of every rule of law, what's he doing at the State Farm? If his conviction was in violation of every rule of evidence, why did a forged letter — purporting to have come in December. 1914, from a judge who died during the last days of March, 1915 —play such a prominent part in the sham fight for commutation? That Alaska interview is the worst slam we have had yet. The Jews will be prosecuting us for the false imprisonment of Frank, if Jack Slaton keeps on talking. It’s a shame to keep that man deprived of his liberty, when his conviction was the crime of a sworn jury, a sworn Judge, and a sworn Supreme Court. Continuing his Alaska talk, Slaton said: “I cannot stress too strongly that among those who begged for exHutive clemency for the noted prisoner was the trial judge in the case. He waa convinced that there was too much doubt as to (continued on page five.) Price, Five Ge,its