Newspaper Page Text
If Bitter Brittain had not gone upon the
floors of the Legislature, to lobby against
free text-books, we might have had them
several years ago.
Bully Britain and the Trust beat vs by
one vote., and to my lasting regret, that vote
came from Lincoln County, where free
school books would be a blessing to the
schools.
The man who misrepresented his county
and his District, and who voted with Brit-1
tain and the Book Trust, was
Chenault.
If the people forgive Lobbyist Brittain,
they should send Chenault back to the Senate.
One of Brittain’s lieutenants in his fight
against free school books, was Edward Mac-
Michael, a member of the House. I
•Edward admitted on the floor that he was 1
in the employ of two masters at the same!
time; one being the people of his county,j
and the other being the Book Trust.
Edward proved false to his people, but
true to the Trust; and his people discharged
him, but his other master took care of him.
If Book-trust Brittain can be pardoned,
and re-elected, Edward Mac Michael should
go back to the Legislature, to try again the
old task of serving two masters with equal
fidelity.
The Bible tells us that the task is impos
sible, but Book-trust Brittain apparently
entertains a different opinion. j
COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
In his violent attack upon ‘‘Thomas E.
Watson,'’ our Book-trust Superintendent was
emphatic, in favor of compulsory attendance
upon the public schools; and he alleges that
Mississippi is the only other State than Geor
gia without such a law.
Poor old Miss'issip!
No wonder she has to put up with such
Senators as Vardaman and John. Sharp
Williams.
The Law already says to Father, “You
mustn't smoke but one pipe a day, and
mnsn’t drink more than one bottle of Coca-
Cola a day, and must not fail to wash your
self at the public vat before washing your
cow, and must not eat more than one hog a
month, and must not have more than one
pound of powder and one quart of liquor a
month, but you must let me enter your
family circle and exercise your parental au
thority over your children.
You do not love your children, and you
will not do the right thing by them; and,
therefore, my Paternalism of man-made
Law, shall supercede that of God-made
nature.”
This sort of thing puts Father in a close
place.
In fact, it Prussianizes Father, without the
Prussian redeeming practice of feeding the
hungry child, freeing him from tuition fees,
and furnishing him school house, teacher,
furniture, and books.
If Father must be Prussianized, give him
the Prussian facilities.
In that event, it will be a pleasant sight,
to see 10,000 negro children opening the
State's dinner-pail.
To adopt a law forcing the parent to va
cate his natural parental position, is a serious
proposition; and no State should do it unless
it appears that, after FREE SCHOOLS
have been opened, in reach of the parents,
the children are kept away.
Our people have never had a chance to send
their boys and girls to free schools.
The Constitution of 1877 provided for
such schools, but the law has lx»en violated.
By this continued disrespect for the highest
law, incalculable injury has been inflicted
upon our State.
Did Blatant Britain call attention to this
in his harangue to the Teachers?
No, he did not.
THE JEFFERSONIAN
Therefore, his position is, that he and those
supporting him may persist in their violation
of the highest law, and mav disregard the
Father's legal right to a FREE SCHOOL,
while they, Brittain and his backers, will
enact a law which makes a criminal out of
the Father who cannot comply with the
terms of a school which is NOT free.
In other words, Brittain may violate the
law, but Father mustn't.
A good many “Reformers” are built like
that.
In the meantime, I will say this much for
the unfortunates who were not given 'the
advantages of education: they are not by
any means the most hurtful violators of
Law, nor are they our worst citizens.
The most injurious law-breakers are those
in office: and our worst citizens are the idle
educated rich, who prey upon the daughters
of the poor, and who maintain the class
laws which beggar the sons.
There is no personal issue between Bois
terous Brittain and his “Mr. Thomas E. Wat
son," nor has there ever been, nor is there
likelv to be.
But the official Brittain has been a persist
ent law-breaker, and his contempt for the
Law has done immense harm to a helpless
class who were put under his care, and whose
best interests should have been his first dutv.
Instead of acting as a benevolent Trustee
and Guardian for the school children, he
has been one of their worst enemies, in that
he has sustained, with all his might, the
iniquitous system of high-priced text-books,
frequently changed.
The enly time I ever saw the man was at
a public speaking in Wilkes County, where
he heard me argue against this cruelly un
just system, and against the confiscation of
the value of books which the State had com
pelled the patrons to buy.
Tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of
property in books, bought xit the.mandate of
Brittain and his backers, has been confiscated,
by the changes ordered; and this confiscated
property can be found in the lofts and
garrets and book-cases of Georgia, all the
way between the Rivers, and all the way from
Yonah to the Sea.
It is an infernal shame, and Brittain was
a. party to it.
Let him not too bitterly revile “Mr. Thomas
E. Watson.’’ if that “black beast” of false
public servants has at last, at last, got a coal
of fire on the terrapin's back.
Move on, “Brer Tar'pin!”
It will afford us all great pleasure to see
you begin to make tracks.
You were an awfully long time getting
started.
P. S.—l feel flattered by Belated Brittain's
adoption of my Dog-tax proposition, rashly
rejected by the Legislatures of 1882-3.
Since then, times have changed, and so
have the dogs.
They don't bark as loud as they used to,
because they don't get as much to eat.
Still, I am with my Belated Brother on
this subject, provided he will have the law
so framed as to require the public servant
who dips the cow, for ticks, to dip the dog,
for fleas, free of charge, immediately after
he washes the cow.
To impose upon the dogs the burden of
paying poll-tax and scratching for fleas, at
the same time, is contrary to. the State's
motto of “Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation.”
Besides, I don't believe it would be right
to compel a poodle to pay as much as a bull
dog.
As to cats, however, I am willing to tax
them all alike, provided Belligerent Brittain
will agree to it. Kittens half-price, of
course.
The Final Confession of Leo
Frank’s Guilt.
(continued from page one.)
to commit the crime of “Subornation of Per
jury,” of which that corrupt and criminal
Agency' was accused by- perfectly -responsible
persons.
Did not the civil case likewise provide a
legal, convenient method by which ex-Judge
Arthur Powell, Commissioner Patterson, ex-
Judge Sam Adams, and those Atlanta Doctors
of Divinity could be polished up, and made
to look better?
Think of what an injustice was done to the
Hearst lawyer, Clarence Shearn, who came
down here, studied the record carefully, and
gave Hearst a certificate to the effect that
there was no evidence against Frank!
If the civil case had been left unsettled,
and had been tried in court, all the witnesses
could have been sifted, and re-sifted, just as
though the criminal case had never been
tried.
And the defendants stood a better chance to
win in the civil suit than in the criminal
prosecution, because whatever “mob’’ had
convicted Frank had dispersed: whatever
intimidation of Judge, jury, lawyers and wit
nesses had existed, no longer exerted itself
anywhere.
Frank was dead: the girl was dead: the
old account was closed and balanced.
Before another Judge, before another jury,
within altered circumstances, and under ex
hausted excitements, the civil case, involving
the same issue, could be tried: why wasn't it ?
If I had been Leo Frank's father, or
brother, or brother-in-law, or uncle, and had
believed him innocent, the Coleman case
should never have been settled out of court.
Had I been Luther Rosser, John W. Moore,
Reuben Arnold, or John Slaton, and had be
lieved my client, Leo Frank, innocent of the
murder of Mary Phagan, I would have vol
unteered my services to Frank's family and
uncles, and the civil suit for damages would
have been fought to a finish in the courts.
What a splendid opportunity was at hand,
to vindicate Truth and Justice!
“Settled out of court,” defendant paying
the costs!
Why was this, Uncle Sig Montag? Why
was this, Messrs. Haas? Why was this,
Messrs. Rosser, Arnold, and Slaton?
You know why it was—you who attended
the trial, or who read the official evidence
published in the September number of our
magazine.
1 ou know that the defenders of Frank
dared not open the case again, else they would
be worse off than the criminal trial left them.
Rather than make a bad situation still
more ruinous to them, the case was “settled
out of court.”
The Strauses will be painfully shocked, no
doubt. Adolph Ochs and’the Pulitzers will
regret the lost opportunity, perhaps.
The Rabbis will groan in spirit, and
realize that their confidence was misplaced.
Mr. Hearst must console his Shearn and his
Brisbane; for they, too. will marvel at the
settlement, which implies confession of
Frank's guilt.
The Connollys, the Macdonalds, and the
regiment of editors who reviled the courts
and people of Georgia because of the regular
legal conviction of Leo Frank, may now see
the folly -of being led astray by rascally
“detectives,” unscrupulous lawyers, hired
press-agents, and hysterical nincompoops—
some male and some female.
I'he settlement of Frank's people with Mary
Phagans mother, “outside of court,” is the
final, conclusive, incontestible evidence that
Frank's own people and his own lawyers
KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN JUSTLY.
CONVICTED
PAGE NINE
