Newspaper Page Text
“By Their Fruits Ye
Shall Know Them.”
To the Tennessean and American:
in your issue of
| Wednesday morning, August
| 18, a front page likeness of
a large oak with a rope and
hangman’s noose suspended
over a limb, the noose bearing the
legend, “Lynch Law, ' and under the
tree was printed i n large letters,
“GEORGIA.”
On the sixth page is an editorial
headed, “Death at the Hands of a
Mob.” In this editorial you con
demn very severely the work of the
mob, and also the prison officials
and the State of Georgia in general.
If ever you have had one word of
condemnation for' the conduct of
John M. Slaton for lynching the law
and the Courts of Georgia, as well
as the honor’ and virtue of her worn-,
anhood, it has escaped my eye, and
1 have been a regular reader of your
paper since its very first issue in
190 7. On the other hand you say:
“The question of Frank’s guilt or
innocence does not enter into the
matter. His case had gone through
the regular legal channels. He had
been convicted and condemned to
death, it is true, and then his sen
tence commuted to life imprison
ment by the Governor of the State,
but it w r as the constitutional right of
the governor to do this, and in exer
cising it* he was sustained • by both
l?.w and precedent,” etc.
When you say that it was the con
stitutional right of the governor to
commute this wretch’s sentence to
life imprisonment, and that in doing
so he was sustained by both law and
precedent, you go far afield, and go
Jf
needlessly out of your way to uphold
the very lawlessness you affect t&
condemn. That Governor Slaton had
precedent for his action I will not
deny. It is to be found in the re
trial of the Cooper case and the par
don of Duncan B. Cooper before the
Court had fairly gotten through
reading the opinions in the case.
But I never heard that the Tennes
sean and American regarded that
as a precedent worthy to be follow
ed. The actions of the two Govern
ors are exact parallels, except that
the act of Slaton out parallels Pat
terson’s. In the Cooper case a man
was killed, a virile, red-blooded man
who was armed and who had given
some little, (though very little, in
deed) provocation. He was foully as
sassinated, and his assasin was giv
en a fair trial in the Courts, found
guilty of murder in a much milder
form than the facts justified, and
Governor Patterson assumed to retry
the case and to reverse the decision
of the Courts. In the Frank case
a little helpless, unprotected, 14-
year-old working girl of respectable
family was brutally raped and then
killed by her- ravisher. Suspicion
pointed to Leo Frank, and his own
kindred and friends suspicioned him
and employed cuonsel for him be
am! employed counsel for him be
him. He was tried in the courts
before a jury of his own choosing,
in part. He was convicted and sen
tenced to hang. His motion for a
new trial was overruled by the trial
judgSf He appealed to th© Supreme
THE JEFFERSONIAN
Court of the State . The judgment
was affirmed. His able counsel
found ground for an extraordinary
motion for a new trial. This was
heard by a different judge, and was
likewise denied. The case again
went to the Georgia Supreme Court,
and was again affirmed. That
court thoroughly reviewed the evi
dence. See 141 Georgia Reports.
Application was then made for ha
beas corpus to the United States
Court, which was denied, and an ap
peal to the United States Supreme
Court followed. That Court could
find no ground for awarding Frank
a new trial. ReCourse was then had
to the State Board of Pardons, and
after failure there, Rosser, the de
fendant’s counsel, made a midnight
visit to his partner, the Governor of
the State, traveling by a back street,
and the commutation followed. No
such disgraceful thing was ever
known before in an American State;
no. not even in the disgraceful par
don of Cooper by Patterson. Slaton
retried the case, so he said. You say
he was sustained by both law and
precedent in what he did. This I,
as a lawyer, emphatically deny. This
brings an issue between us, and it is
up to you to sustain your proposi
tion. I grant you can find a prece
dent in the Cooper case, though a
feeble precedent it is. But as to the
law; there is where I get you. Now
show where under our system of
government any executive officer
has any law to justify him in re
trying a case that has been passed
upon by the regularly constituted
tribunals. The constitution of Geor
gia gives him no such right, but, as
T am informed, expressly withholds
it from him. The Governor may
pardon in cases where new facts
come to light, or where there is
some overpowering reason why mer
cy should be shown. He ought to
commute where .the verdict of the
jury and the Court is sustained by
the facts, but there is some mitigat
ing circumstance that pleads for a
milder punishment. But how is it
in the Frank case? If Frank was
guilty, which Slaton admitted by
commuting, then there could not
possibly be any mitigation, for who
ever murdered Mary Phagan first
raped her and then deliberately
killed her to hide his crime. Was
this person Leo Frank? John M.
Slaton said it was by his act of com
mutation. Else why did he not par
don him outright.
Concerning all this outrageous
conduct on the part of the Governor
who was the law partner of the man
who defended Frank, I have never
seen a word of condemnation in
your columns. Yet, when a mob ex
ecuted the sentence of the law, you
are ready with red-hot pen to cry
out, “Shame! Shame! Georgia is dis
graced!”
Now, I do not approve of the mob.
I have always stood like flint
against mob executions, even for
the nameless crime for which resort
has always been had to it in the
South and in the North, too, for that
matter. But did you ever before
know an instance where the mob
simply executed the sentence of the
law that had been lynched by one.
who should have stood as the servi
tor of the law?
No, the mob cannot be justified
under any circumstances; but if the
press of the South, and especially
of Tennessee, has become afflicted
with such purblindness that it can
only see the shame in a rich Jew
being lynched by the mob, and can
see no wrong in the law itself and
our Civilization and the virtue of our
womanhood being lynched by a man
who occupies the position of coun
sel to a rich defendant (at least,
qua si counsel) exercising the par
doning power in behalf of his client,
at the behest of “big money;” if
our press has fallen so low that it
permits a campaign of slander
against a sister Southern State, her
Courts, her civilization and her peo
ple, to go on by an outside press, by
shameless and infamous detectives
and hack -writers, backed by unlim
ited money, without a word of pro
test, then indeed have we fallen
upon evil times. As said above, 1
have been a reader, a patron, of the
Tennessean ever since its first issue.
I have sympathized with it through
all of its vicissitudes; but if this is
your attitude, I am done with the
Tennessean and American. If lam
alone in this the paper will not, of
course, suffer; but if I do not miss
my guess there are thousands of oth
ers in this State who are of the same
mind. We do not defend the mob;
we demand that the civilization of
the South be not raped. We demand
that the verdicts of the Courts shall
be respected and carried out in good
faith. We demand that the news
papers which we read and patron
ize shall show a decent regard for
the verdict of the highest courts of
the land, and not be so sentitive
about the rights of a renegade Gov
ernor, a faithless public official. You
are wrong, Mr. Editor, when you
assert that the guilt or innocence of
NAPOLEON
Sy THOS. E. WATSON
THIS BOOK IS REGARDED as a stakoarb,
BV ENIfNEiVT SSHtSEARS
Litniiesi Edition PRICE, -$?.3C*.
THE JEFFERSONIAN PUB. CO., Thomson, Ga.
ll • 111 I HI. IHI Mil ■■ ■■III gj
ni-.mi.Bimi in ——■K—a— -r.imni-n rn» , i.mi.n n-w im * E
The Roman Catholic Hierarchy
—BWW—r i—'l ■ i ■ II 111 !■ . nam—iaßßCTimi—l—■ ■■ JL„
A book which is the result of years of study
By Thos. E. Watson
Contains historical data showing the evolution of the
Papacy, and its adoption of Pagan ceremonies and rites.
It cites Roman Catholic theological authorities, whose
instructions to priests as to questions to be asked women
caused Mr. Watson to be indicted.
Richly illustrated Third Edition
PRICE, SI.OO
The Jeffersonian Publishing Company
Thomson, - Georgia
Leo Frank has nothing to do w» h
tho case. It has it all to do. Had
the sentence of the Courts, the right
ly constituted tribunals to determine
guilt or innocence, been respected,
there would have been no occasion
for the mob. It is when the laws
are not enforced that people feel in
clined to take the law into their own
hands. It is faithless public serv
ants who refuse to execute the laws
that engender mobs. The newspaper
press can aid greatly in remedying
this mob evil by making its power
felt in the condemnation of those
who, being Charged with the execu
tion of the law, themselves violate
and outrage the law. Come out, Mr
Tennessean and American, and de
fend the act of Jack Slaton in com
muting the sentence of Leo Frank.
Show wherein there was a mitigat
ing fact. Slaton said Frank was
guilty; what say you? Was he guil
ty, or not? If guilty, then give your
attention to Slaton somewhat for his
infidelity to the law and to his duty
as governor of Georgia. If he was
not guilty, then go after Slaton some
more for not having the manhood
to pardon him outright. Compare
the conduct of Slaton and the con
duct of Patterson in the Cooper case,
and differentiate them. Don’t tell
intelligent people that the guilt or
innocence of Frank' has nothing to
do with the engendering of the mob
spirit, when an outraged people see
that their public servants will not
enforce their laws for the protection
of life and ivrtue and womanhood.
This is one of the most shocking
cases in the history of this country,
and the most shocking thing is by no
means the act of the mob, shocking
as that always is to law-abiding peo
ple. D. E. M’CORKLE,
Tennessee.
PAGE NINE
