Newspaper Page Text
A Few oi the Lies Against the
State oi Georgia, Told by
William J. Barns.
so-called defective, William J. Burns,
is a fourth degree Knight of Columbus;
therefore, a sworn subject of a foreign po
tentate, and a most dangerous man.
The Jews employed him in the Frank case,
after the guilt of Frank had been ascer
tained judicially, and the litigation legally
ended.
For what purpose did the Haas Finance
Committee employed this Knight of Colum
bus, after the case had been finally termi
nated ?
No further legal efforts could be made.
No court could legally re-try the case.
No Pardon Board could legally do it.
The Governor could not legally do it.
The Governor could pardon or commute,
but, under our jury system, the Governor
lias no jurisdiction over the question of guilt,
or innocence.
Our law does not give to any other tri
bunal, save oar Supreme Court., the legal
right to review the evidence., ami reverse the
jury.
Slaton told the outsiders that he, alone,
had this power, and that the .Supreme Court
did not have it.
Just the reverse is true. The Supreme
Court alone has it, aW the Court exercised
it, in this case.
Neither the Pardon Board, nor the Gov
ernor can try a case, on the evidence which
was considered by the jury; but in this case,
tboth the Board and the Governor usurped
the judicial power.
IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE AGAIN!
Unlimited opportunities for bribery and
corruption are offered, when Pardon Boards
and Governors usurp the judicial functions,
.which the Law vests in juries and judges.
At the time the Jews hired Burns, and
brought him to Atlanta, no legitimate work
remained to be done.
Nothing but dirty, corrupt, criminal work
could be done.
The Ha as Finance Committee knew it:
the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce knew it:
the Atlanta dailies knew it: and the Min
isterial Association knew it!
Burns came to Atlanta, to begin his dirty,
corrupt, criminal work; and there wasn't an
intelligent man in Georgia who did not know
what the game was.
That rascally crew—Burns and his backers
.knew he meant to tamper with the State's
witnes-es, and get them to “change 1 ' their evi
dence.
How was the evidence of white men and
women to be “changed?”
They were all poor people, dependent on
/their daily work for their daily bread; and
Jew' money expected to buy them up.
Everybody knows it!
In addition to this, Burns expected to be
able to find some man, white or black, who
Would swear he heard Jim Conley confess.
While the nearness to each other of Con
ley and Frank, at the time Mary Phagan
was assaulted and killed, precludes the idea
that one of them could have been guilty
without the knowledge of the other, Burns
was desperately eager to put Conley in the
place of principal, leaving Frank as the
accessory.
It was the best he could hope to do.
Those who have been told the relative
position of Frank and Conley, at the time
of the commission of the crime, have never
had any doubt that both were bound to
lenow.
Conley, at the foot of the stairs, saw the
little girl go up to the next floor; if she did
not return, and was found dead in the
house, Conley w as bound to know that Frank
TOE JEFFERSONIAN
killed her, because no one else had the op
portunity.
On the contrary, if Frank, at the head of
the stairs, gave the girl her money, and saw
her leave to go below, on her way out, and
her dead body was found in the house, he
was bound to know that Conley killed her,
because no one else had the opportunity.
But Frank's partisans claim that Frank
did not know 7 Conley w'as in the house!
Yet he told his detective, on the Monday
folmving, that he knew' on Saturday of Con
ley’s being there.
Mrs. Hattie Waites saw Frank talking to
Conley, between 10 and 11 o’clock, that Sat
urday (April 26th), and Mrs. Arthur White
saw Conley in the factory, at the foot of the
stairs, at 12:30.
Two w’hite men, Graham and TiHander,
liad seen him, asked him for directions to
Frank’s office, and got them, that Saturday
morning.
J et Frank shielded Conley from suspicion,
tried to fasten the crime on the night watch
man, and never said a w’ord against Conley,
until the latter owned up, and told all
about it.
Conley had been Frank’s employee for tw’o
years, and it w’as not until he had confessed
on himself and Frank, that he was discov
ered to have been such a bad man.
Lecturing to a Southern audience, at a
Chatauqua, recently, the Attorney-General of
Missouri stated, that Frank w’as convicted on
the evidence of a negro who had been con
victed of almost every crime.
What a pity that this high official of a
Southern State did not write to the Attor
ney-General of Georgia, or to the Governor
or to a member of our Supreme Court, before
accusing our courts of such flagrant injus
tice !
Burns, in a signed article, in the Cleve
land, Ohio, Leader, states that Conley had
been several times sent to the chain-gang.
It’s none of my business to defend this
negro, but it is a part of my business, as a
Georgian—proud of my State, and my peo
ple—to defend them against accusations
W'hich besmirch our record.
Conley, being a confessed accomplice,
could not have convicted a negro chicken
thief, much less an educated white man, with
plenty of money, and the best lawyers that
Atlanta could furnish.
An accomplice is not allowed to convict
an accomplice: his evidence is w'orthless, un
less so fully corroborated by other witnesses
as to make the case practically complete
without him.
This fact must be repeated, again and
again, in order that we may at last convince
our fellow citizens, outside of Georgia, that
we did not condemn Frank on the testimony
of a negro accomplice.
The Attorney-General of Missouri does
himself, and us, a grave wrong, when he
accepts the word of such companion cul
prits. as Burns, Lehon, and Slaton.
Conley is just a common, natural negro,
a constant w'orker at ordinary w’ork. He
w’as never even arrested for any crime,
much less sent to the chain-gang after con
viction.
His record was carefully looked up. and
nothing more could be found against him,
than that he had been drunk and disorderly,
and had been in fights with other negroes.
The recorder sent him to the stockade
thirty days for fighting, and that was the
only time he had been “to the chain-gang.”
This happened in 1912, while he was
working for Leo Frank; and, after he
served his time, he returned to his work at
Frank's factory.
That is the official record.
But let us leave Jim, and pass on to
Burns, wdio writes the following statement
to the Cleveland, Ohio, Leader*.
The crux of the Frank conviction is simply
this —the police, panic-stricken by th jir own
sense of official incompetency and goaded by pub
lic clamor and newspaper ridicule of their earlier
failures, sought to appease puirtic wrath. by tlio
arrest of the man who they said last saw Mary
Phagan alive.
According to their frame-up, this man was Leo
Frank, and I use the term frame-up advisedly.
Nothing stands out more glari gly in the Frank
case than certain perjured testimony bearing on
the killing of Mary Phagan.
A newspaper reporter, whose rame i will with
hold, testified, not under oath, that in his exami
nation of the premises whereon Mary met her
death, ho had found several strands of hair torn
from the victim’s head. This hair was adroitly
distributed on the rung of a ladder that arose
from and ash heap and on a turning lathe ad
jacent. Contrary to all the laws of evidence, this
unsworn testimony crept into the case. Yet to me
and to others this reporter admitted that he had
“planted’* the hair on the ladder’s rungs and on
the lathe.
Was this reporter called to explain his per
jured testimony? He was not. And today he is
a news gatherer in good standing in Atlanta’s
school of journalism.
Outside the mazes of professional diplo
macy. I have never read after such liars, as
Slaton, Lehon. and Burns.
The Atlanta police “goaded by ridicule of
their earlier failures!”
What were these earlier failures?
They were the arrests of J. AL Gantt and
New't Lee, principally.
ll 'ho caused the police to arrest J. Al.
Gantt ?
Leo Frank! He did it. by saying that
Gantt had been in the pencil factory, on the
Saturday evening of the crime, and by
insinuating that Gantt had been too inti
mate with Mary Phagan.
He gave his detective, Harry Scott, this
“tip,” on Monday, after the crime, wdien he
had already told Officers Kogers and Black,
on Sunday, the day before, that he did not
know' any girl named Alary Phagan.
• Frank told Chief Lanford, and the Coro
ner. the same thing: yet he caused the arrest
of Gantt, and his imprisonment for several
days, by telling Scott that Gantt had been
intimate with the girl.
Thus the police were precipitated into one
of their “earlier failures.”
The second, was the arrest of the night
watch, Newt Lee.
Who caused Newt’s arrest?
Leo Frank! How ? By saying that New t
was the only person in the factory, on the
night the girl’s body was found, and that he
ought to know' more about it, than he
claimed to know. *
The tw'o notes, lying near the dead body,
described New't Lee's physical make, and
accused him of the crime.
The great Kosser stumbled into the awful
mistake of proving that, at the time the
notes were found, Jim Conley had never seen
Newt Lee. and did not know' that he W’as
“a tall, slim, black negro.’’
The great Kosser will probably never be
employed in another great murder case in
Georgia, but if he ever should be, he will
never make a bigger score of huge mistakes,
than he made in the Fran\ case.
And, by far the most disastrous of these
numerous mistakes, was his proving that, at
the time the notes were written, Jim Con
ley could not have described Newt Lee,
without the assistance of Leo Frank.
Then, with the police in possession of the
written accusation against Newt, they were
the more inclined to give weight to what
Frank said, as to New’t.’s having been the
only person at the factory, the night the
body was found.
Following up his purpose to fix the crime
on Newt, the Jew suggested that Newt’s
premises be searched.
This was done, and a bloody shirt was
found in his clothes barrel!
It was not Newt’s. Who put it there I
PAGE THREE
