Newspaper Page Text
this item is published demurring to the list.
Here are the names as published:
Clarksville, Ga:—Chas. A. Eaton, James
M. Farrar, Frank Oliver Hall, J; Lewis
Hartsock, J. B. Remensynber, Newell D.
Hillis, John H. Holmes, Wm. P. Merrell, C.
11. Pankhurst, Walter Laidlaw.”
Who forged the names?
Where was it done?
How many more names are fictitious in
the alleged 10,000?
Take another instance:
Lincoln County was mentioned, and the
names of two citizens given, Dr. Crawford
and Mr. S. L. Wilkes.
But the Representative of the County was
on the other side, in favor of the Law taking
its course, and my information is that about
165 citizens signed petitions to Slaton, to
that effect.
Is it fair to take two men as outweighing
165?
And would Dr. Crawford and Mr. Wilkes
have signed at all, had they known then
what they know now?*
It is a terrible example to set in Georgia,
when a governor is defended for upsetting
a verdict and reversing all the Courts, to
save the neck of his own client.
Samuel Adams says that Slaton would
have been a great coward had he respited
Frank, and left him to the incoming gov
ernor.
Slaton did not take that view of the mat
ter, and the fact that he did not, is proven
by his respiting .two other men condemned
to death, and putting them over on Gov.
Harris.
Carl Frazier was under sentence to hang
June 4, 1915.
Saton reprieved him for 60 days, thus un
loading the case on Gov. Harris.
. Ed Elder was under sentence to be hanged
June 11, 1915, and Salt on reprieved him 30
days, thus unloading him on Harris.
Now, will Samuel Adaftns tell us whether
it was cowardly in Slaton to do this?
Will Samuel tell us 'why Slaton made so
much difference between these cases, and
that of his own client ?
He was willing to risk the other fellow’s
client with Harris, but not his own.
Explain that, Samuel!
While you are about it, you might explain
why the Prison Commission advanced the
Frank case, giving it precedence of so many
older cases on the docket.
Rosser not only told Senator James, of
Kentucky, in effect, that Slaton was not go
ing to let Frank hang, but he told another
gentlemen the same thing, in those very
words.
“Jack isn’t going to let Frank hang,” said
Rosser, and at the time he said it, the case
had not reached the Prison Commission......
All of that petitioning business was done
for effect. It was a sham. So were the argu
ments before the Commission, and the Gov
ernor.
Slaton was taken into the Rosser firm for
pie purpose of doing what he finally did;
and Brandon left the firm, after he saw
that Rosser and Slaton were determined on
the course they pursued.
Brandon believed that Frank was guilty,
and he.realized that Slaton would wreck the
firm, by acting as Supreme Judge in the case
of the firm’s client.
How any honest man and good lawyer can
defend an official, who makes his office an as
set in the firm’s business, is something that I
cannot understand.
- -•
“Socialists and. Socialism” by Thos. E.
Watson, has a vast amount of information of
interest and value to those who think they
know what Socialism stands for. Price 50c.
The Jeffersonian Pub. Co., Thomson, Ga.
THE JEFFERSONIAN
An Atlanta Doctor of Divinity
Writes an Ama zing Letter
on the Frank Case.
AS the name of Rev. Dr- Jacob L. White
has so often been paraded by the com
muters in the Frank case, and as it is now
being used again, in John Grant's campaign,
1 think the public should see what Brother
White says for himself.
His answer to Mr. Joseph Church's letter,
sufficiently show’s what the letter was:
Atlanta, Ga., May 28, 1915.
My dear sir: I will answer you in the spirit
of Christ, otherwise I would pay no attention to
your letter. Your intimation that I was hired to
preach the sermon is beneath a Christian or a
gentlemen. I am 52 years old, have preached
30 years, and no man can intimate honestly the
thing you intimate.
As to capital punishment: I have only reached
my conclusion against it within the last year
after careful study of Christ's teachings.
Moreover, nearly every preacher in this city
believes that Frank did not have a fair trial, and
that there is no evidence against him except the
criminal negro Connally, and that only circum
stantial.
Yes, I put myself in the place of Mary Pha
gan’s father and mother. If T had no stronger
evidence against the accused than that given him,
I would not want him hung; not even if guilty;
but life sentence. Ido not thirst for blood. God
will take vengeance. All the courts have passed
only on the legality of the trial and not on the
evidence.
No man in Atlanta knows that Frank is guilty.
Thousands believe it, but that moral belief is
not legal proof. Our courts stand for legal proof.
Frank may be guilty, I rather believe he is, but
it has not been proven.
Very truly yours,
J. L. WHITE.
At what time “in the last year,’’ did Dr.
Jacob White reach his conclusion against
capital punishment ?
Was it before, or after, the four Gentiles
were hanged ?
Was it before, or after, the 12-year-old
negro boy was sentenced in Butts county ?
Was it before, or after, Leo Frank was
sentenced I
Tell us about, it Doctor Jacob!
A man who preaches 30 years, before lie
learns what Christ meant, was certainly or
dained when he wasn't ripe.
Dr. Jacob says that there was no evidence
against Frank, except that of the negro, and
that only circumstantial.
Dr. White ought to spend another 30 years
studying law’; the negro’s evidence was di
rect, not circumstantial.
And if there was no other evidence in the
record save that of the negro, Judge Roan
and the Justices of the Supreme Court were
badly fooled.
Dr. White says that all the Courts “passed
only on the legality of the trial, and not jon
the evidence.’’
The record shows that Judge Roan and
the Supreme Court passed on the sufficiency
of the evidence., and Judge Roan and the Su
preme Court said the evidence was sufficient.
Why is Doctor White so determined to
misrepresent the case?
Dr. White makes the amazing statement,
that “Frank may be guilty, I rather think
he is.”
Why did Dr. White rather think that
Frank that Frank was guilty ?
Tell us, Dr. White!
Why did you rather think the man was
guilty, when, as you say, there was no evi
dence against him?
Tell us, Dr. White, your reasons for be-
This is What We Get for Being
Prohibitionists.
COME of the papers say that we Geor
giairs are descendants of London felons,
jail-birds, ragamuffins, toughs, highwaymen
and sneak thieves.
Others say that we are savages, whose
blood-lust is due to lack of education.
Colliers said that all our turmoil in the
Frank case grew out of one small bottle of
whiskey—which, if true, is hard on the whis
key. *
But it was left to the Mine and Spirit
Bulletin to hit the truth; the matter with
us is that we. are too unfriendly to liquor.
I want. Dear Doctor Lovett to read this as
sault upon us Prohibitionists, but must inl
plore him to control his temper.
He must not fly off. the handle as he so
reprehensibly often does, and say something
rash.
He might have to run off from it, as he
ran off from my request that lie prove what:
he said about Adoniram Judson.
The Wine and Spirit Bulletin is mighty
hard on us; it says:
LOOK AT GEORGIA
As a spectacle fit to make the gods weep we
commend to the people of the other States in
the Union, and especially those inclined to try
the experiment of prohibition, the prohibition
State of Georgia. Georgia stands today pre-em
inent in disgrace before her sister States in the
Union.
The professional prohibitionists have away of
tracing to the licensed liquor traffic the blame
for nearly all crime in general and for every
startling crime or terrible disaster in particular,
it remaining for them to even connect the slaugh
ter of the innocents, women and children, as well
as men, in the Eastland disaster, with drinking.
What, then, can they say for Georgia, one of
their banner prohibition States? And in view of
their habit are we not justified in reversing the
situation?
Yet, the shameful acts of citizens of the pro
hibition State of Georgia, in intimidating the
court of justice and the jury in the Frank case,
in threatening the Governor who had the cour
age to defy the mob, and their subsequent acts
in murdering their helpless victim and making a
morbid show of his corpse, are but logical and
natural results following the teachings of the
prohibitionists and of prohibition.
Yes, Georgia is disgraced today as the natural
consequence of adopting prohibition and prohi
bition doctrine, which in its very nature is an
archistic and puts the rule of the mob above the
rights of individuals, above courts and law, above
constitutions, above human dife, even, when they
stand in the way of accomplishing its mad pur
poses.
Look at Georgia, oh ye citizens of the United
States, and then decide whether you want pro
hibition and its consequences!
Jieving Frank was guilty when, as you say,
there was no legal proof.
It's a good thing for Dr- White that he is
not. a poor Methodist preacher, under our
amiable friend. Bishop Handler; the Bishop
would fire White for his execrable punctu
ation.
Dr. Jake, why don't you learn to punctu
ate ?
■ ■ - • •
The Handbook of Politics by Thos. E.
Watson, is a book every American citizen
should read. Contains every party platform;
fourth edition almost exhausted. Price. 50c.
The Jeffersonian Publishing Company,
Thomson, Ga.
Life and Speeches of Thos. E. Watson will
encourage every ambitious young man who
has to struggle for success. Price 50c. The
Jeffersonian Publishing Companv Thomson,
Ga.
PAGE SEVEN
