Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Few l A ATLANTA, it«.. SV MM!. Al.UI-M 1'). HU.1 \ l'1/ANTA, M MMV, Al lil'SST 17. 1913. DORSEY SURE OF CASE AS CRISIS COMES -{•••{• +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ ■!••+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ ’*/* *** *** *** *** ‘ ° ‘ *** ^ + * + Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and l 1 fiends Trial Will Last Through Week, Declare Men Who Have Followed It. Jurors in tin Frank case sketched in the courtroom. They are: 1. M. Johenning. 2. A. L. \\ isbev, 3. F. V. L. Smith. 4. Deder Townsend, 5. M. S, \\ °odw <ud, 6. A. H. Ilenslee, 7. W. M. Jeffries, 8. J. T. Ozburn, 9. Charles J. Basshardt, 10. W. S. Medcalf, ll.Fred E. Winburn, 12. J. F. Higdon. Continued from Pago 1. the defense to train Its every gun .-(luurely ujton It, for upon Conley’s story will the State be forced to stand or fall eventually. One of the curious thing* about the Frank case is the way the question of his general character got into the pleadings. Theoretically, the defense alone may put the defendant’s character in issue—it being contemplated by the law that no man shall be required, without hia own consent, to answer will be to fall in a crisis heavily im portant to the State now. Liability Becomes Asset. Strange to say—there are so many strange things to say in this aur- passingly strange Phagan story—one of the State's apparent weaknesses is proving, in one direction, to be one ««f its greatest elements of strength. The deefnse’s strenuous insistence that Conley's remarkable story is ini- fore 12:12, and that the clock In the factory, by which both Miss Stover and Conley testified as to the time, was running SLOW on the day of the crime. In other words, to meet its own more thin one charge at one and the same time. And so far as legal strategy and astuteness is concerned, the State ouegenera ltke defense in the matter of getting Frank’s character before the jury. Had Conley, the State’s star witness, ben a man, even a negro, of respectability and ap proximately good previous rec ord, the necessity of attaching to Frank the charge of utter de pravity might not have seemed so pressing. But Frank’s pre vious good record seemed so well established, and his standing generally was thought to be so high, that it contrasted rather painfully with the record of the main witness of all others (Con ley) set up for the defndant’s undoing. The State doubtleas knew that the unspeakable portion of Conley’s evi dence was primarily Inadmissible, but It also knew that the defense would be taking; rather a long chance to move Its rejection when tendered. In that event, a sinister and cer tainly dangerous Impression would have been left upon the mind of the Jury- So the State deliberately drew out of Conley the unmentionable charge, which In addition to the murder Charge, undoubtedly made absolutely necessary the Injection of FYank s character In leau«. The defense. In not objecting to the admission of the evidence last cited when It was first ofTered, may have been moved by the idea that it would, In the cross-examination of Conley. bo break him down that it still might save itself the necessity of pleading Frank’s good character—that it would even be able to make the frightful charge of perversion act as a boomer ang on Conley! Defense Object* too Late. Seemingly, that idea, if it ever ex isted was dissipated as the Conley cross-examination proceeded, how ever, for eventually the defense I>ID move to strike out the evidence, but at that time it was too late Having walked into the trap set by the State, if it indeed was a trap, the defense.could not very well extri cate itself save by pleading Frank’s complete good character, and thus in a sweeping way dispose of the spe cific charge lodged against Frank by Conley, in addition to the murder charge. Once commuted to the necessity of establishing Frank’s good character, however, the defense went at it in no half-hearted way. It summoned indiscriminately every employee of the National Pencil Fac tory, male and female, old and new, '- end with unanimous voice they testi fied willingly and thoroughly that the defendant’s general character 1b good. In addition to these witnesses, busi ness men, former college professors Lnd classmates, and dozens of others fell into line with the same line of evidence. The State now stands, therefore, where it must close up the gap be tween its primary allegation, depend ent alone upon Conley’s word so far, and the absolute proof of his sinis ter story. If the State in rebuttal is able to prove conclusively that Frank is the thing Conley has labeled him. the State’s case will go to the Jury dan gerously formidable If it fails to substantiate and corrob orate Conley, it will go to the jury greatly weakened. ^To overcome the fine showing as to Br^nk'K good character made by the ^■efense the State must bring forth -itnesses in rebuttal that can not be Impeached. The irAiression throughout Atlanta ift that To fail in the establishment j anc corroboration of Conley’s story fey .witnesses of integrity and standing J possible is one reason why a lot of people are saying tU^.t it is impossi ble. Conley may have manufactured it out of the whole cloth. If it 1b a He. it is a lie too devilish ly cunning for a negro of Conley’s limited mentality to conjure or carry in bis own mind in such remarkable detail, these people bold. If the ne gro were only less sure of everything, if he had wabbled dangerously under the terrific grilling administered by Luther Z. Rosser, if he had broken down or contradicted himself In any essential detail once he got to the witness stand, it now would bo an easier thing for many neople. fair- minded enough, too, to belieev the ne gro’s tale a mass of lies from start to flnlrfh! And the danger to the defense her^ is that if Conley’s story sticks in the minds of the Jury, even In fractional part, it probabl- lust as well stick in its entirety, so far as the hope of ac quittal upon this tTl .1 1s concerned. In other words, many people are ar guing to themselves that the negro, no matter how hard he tried and no mat ter how generously he was coached, still neevr could have framed up a story like the one h** told, unless there was somewhere in it some foundation in fact. And if there remains the impres sion of even a little foundation in fact, the defense is damaged beyond repair. And so it gets back to where It started, and to where it will end—it is Conley pitted against Frank! The State, with the burden of pro-'f to carry, appears to have considerably more of an uphill fight on Its hands than the deefnse has. and yet the very nature of both fights—uncom promising. and neither asking nor giving quarter—makes it something of a toss-up. really, as to which actu ally. and ns a matter of fact, has the harder task to perform. Undoubtedly, the defense expects *o profit much through its insistence that the time element, as ; set up in Con- lev’s story, constitutes a most vital and compiling factor in determining the tru*h or falsity of th« entire story. Relv on State Witnesses. It is rather odd. too. that the de fense should be relv’ng upon the State’s witnesses in this matter quit 0 a" much as u^on its own. Tt will seek to use generously the State’s witnesses to the State's embarrass ment—through the discrediting of Conlev’s story—in several different directions. The deefnse is seeking to show how utterly absurd Conley's story Is from Frank’s point of view, bv setting up | these incompatible things: That Marv Phagan (Conlev’s tes»*t- mon*) reached the pencil factory suf ficiently well in advance of Monteen Stover (Conlev’s testimony) to go up to Frank’s office, get her nav. be lured to a room in the rear and killed, not withstanding ’he fact that M*«s Sto ver (Conley’s and Miss Stover's testi mony) reached the factory at 12:0.”. And this despite the fact that Mary J Phagan could not have been in th a | factory before 12:12. in any event. ? shown by Mrs. Coleman (Marv’s mother). George Epps, a motorma i, and a conductor. To get around this state of things, set up for the most part bv the 1 State's own witnesses, the State al- I ready has suggested, by a line of ex- I animation probably to be amplified, j that the car upon which Mary Phagan ' mme into (own on Saturday, April 26. j was running AHEAD 'f scheduled time, and that the litle girl did, as a j matter of fact* reach the factory, he- i witnesses' statements, the State will move backward the time of the street car and move forward the time of the office clock! If the State can do that, which looks like a big Job, it will eliminate the dangerous time element in one direction, at least; but if it can not do that, it will find itself in a most trying position. And whether it now can get away from its own established time element is one of the very prettiest problems involved in the entire case thus far! Again, the defense will insist that the time element cuts In another di rection most favorably in Frank’s behalf, when it will show by Conley’s evidence that the disposing of Mary Phagan's body began at 12:56. but that Frank was seen at the corner of Alabama and Whitehall streets at 1:10. w r aiting for a car.. The latter fact is testified to by Miss Helen Cur ran positively, and she is unimpeach able. The defense contends that the body of Mary Phagan could not have been disposed of, and the things done that Conley alleges were done, within the fourteen minutes of time thus allow ed, between the beginning of the work, according to Conley, and the time of Frank's presence two blocks and a half away. Conley would have been obliged to dispose of the body in the remarkable way he says he did. have written the notes, remained in the wardrobe eight minutes or more, all within the four teen minutes. According to the State's own wit nesses. Conley was in the wardrobe eight minutes and used six minutes framing the notes. This would have consumed the entire fourteen min utes, without the dead girl’s body ever having been touched. It is admitted among lawyers gen erally that there Is no defense so com pletely effective as a sustained alibi— which means that the crime alleged was committed in the absence and without the knowledge of the alleged principal to it, or, more properly stated, perhaps, that the crime could not have been committed by the de fendant because it would have been a physical impossibility for him to have effected it. in the circumstances of it. The past week, of course, was the defense's day in court, and it is but fair to say that it made good use of it. Challenge to State. It has frankly and aggressively urged Frank's character as a vital fact in his favor, and it thereby chal lenged the State to do its very worst by way of breaking that character down, if it can. This attitude upon the part of the defense undoubtedly has had a steadying- effect upon the public, too, for it seems at least to have suspend ed judgment pending the State’s re buttal. In addition to its insistence upon Frank’s good character, the defense ! unquestionably has given the State j serious concern in the way it has brought forward the time element. I and that in two separate and dis- tintft directions. XL it successfully maintains either' one of its time theories, it will have greatly discredited Conley’s story. If it successfully maintains both theories, it will have about discredit ed the Conley story to the point of complete collapse. As it was out of order to conclude at the end of the second week of the Frank trial, however, that the State had made out a case that could not be broken down, so It now is out of order to conclude that the defense has broken down the State. The State for one thing does not appear to be particularly alarmed, either by the injection of Frank’s character or by the turning of the time element against the Conley story. The State, it must be remembered has not yet entered or disclosed -ts rebuttal, either of the character evi dence or the undermining of its own witnesses as to the time elements stated. State Seems Confident. It is perfectly confident of its abill ty to show that Frank’s character is not good, despite the opinions of his friends, business associates and ac quaintances: and it will insist, indeed that as in other depraved characters of the sort it claims Frank to be. his business acquaintances, his relatives and his social intimates would be the very last people of all to discover the truth concerning him. The State, in seeking to ptdvp Frank a dissolute character, may t>° forced to the summoning of dis solute characters, with whom he is alleged to have been associated in degrading practices, in order to prove its contention. Thus witnesses brought out by the State to establish Frank’s depravity are apt to be easier marks for Im peachment proceedings than wit nesses of the ordinary sort, and to that extent the breaking down Frank's character is pregnant with difficulty. Nevertheless, the State proposes to establish the fact of Frank’s degen eracy by witnesses of sufficient credi bility. particularly in the nature of the charge sought to be proved, to get by at least in sufficient numbers to over whelm the defendant. If the State can put up even one two witnesses that can weather the gale of the defense’s rights of im peachment, it will have put Frank In a most unenviable position before the jury. If. therefore, it puts up 50 wit nesses, and 4* of them get knocked out, there still will remain the two chat stood the test! Here, then, is another prettv prob lem to be thrashed out: Gan the State, in sustaining a charge of de generaey against Frank, bring forth witnesses to prove it absolutely, and at the same time not bring forth wit nesses so much a r rty to Frank’s of fense that they \i: run serious risks in testifying themselves? A witness who i« willing to swear that he saw' Frank do thus and so. or was a party to Frank’s doing thus and so. if the thus and so is particu larly reprehensible, is apt to get >n pretty thin ice himself. If he isn’t very careful! The State says it can and will rebut Frank's good character. If it does. Frank is in unutterably bad sharer but if it doesn’t. Frank's cause must be helped tremendously' ter. Her sister had threatentod fa quit on this last occasion, she testi fied, but had been persuaded against it. She said that Frank merely pushed 1 the door open, looked in. one one oc casion smiled toward Miss Kitchen, and then turned around and walked away. She testified that the girls never were any further in a condi tion of undress than lacking their* overskirt. Solicitor Dorsey inquired of her in regard to a reported remark of N» V. Darley. general manager, that “if the girls stay w’ith us through this, they will not lose by it.’’ She said she hai overheard Darley say this. Many Employees Called. The following pencil company em ployees were called as character wit nesses during the day: Misses Mollie Blair. Ethel Stewart, Sarah Barnes, Corinthia Hall, Ina Hayes, Eula May Flowers, Elma Hayes, Minnie Foster, Obie Dicker- son, Gussie Wallace. Annie Osman, Bessie Thrailkill. Allie Denham, Re becca Carson. Maude Wright, Iren© Jackson, .and Mosdames Emma Free man and Ella Thomas. Girl on Stand Shouts She Would Die for Leo Frank Employee of Pencil Factory Furnishes Dramatic Incident of Day—Dressing Room Evidence Is Brought Out. More than one hundred witnesses had been called to testify in defense of Leo M. Frank’s character when the third week of the factory supar- intendent’s trial concluded shortly af ter 1 o’clock Saturday. Character witnesses occupied most of the time during the four hours of Saturday’s session. They displayed a remarkable loyalty to their em ployer, who is being tried on the charge of being the murderer of little Mary Phagan. Only one of the num ber, Miss Irene JacKsuci, gave testi- money in any way prejudicial to the case of Frank. The character testimony, the tale of the finding of Mary Phagan’s en velope and other so-called clews on the first floor of the factory by W. D. McWorth, Pinkerton operative, and the return of Mrs. Rae Frank, moth er of the defendant, formed the im portant features of the day. Girl Furnishes Incident. A spectacular incident, w’hich would have been even more amusing than it proved had it not been for the evident sincerity and profound earnestness of the witness, came in the testimony of Miss Sarah Barnes, one of the pencil factory employees. “I’d die for Mr. Frank if they’d let me!” she exclaimed almost the in stant aho had composed herself in the witness chair. Attorney Arnold had only time to ask her the formal question: “Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?” oefore she launched into a eulogistic description of the young factory su perintendent that left her breathless at the end of five minutes. The attorney sought to interject an other of the formal questions pre scribed by law. but by the time she had caught her breath and was en gaged In telling her willingness to lay down her life, if need be. to prove the guiltlessness of frank. Attorney Arnold could not stop her. The court could not dam the flood of words. She had a mind to speak ani she was determined to speak without check and without interruption. “I know Frank couldn’t have com mitted such a terrible'deed.” she cried. | accompanying her declaration with an emphatic brandishing of her folded fan. “I nave known him ever since I have been in the pencil factory. He has always been kind to al! of the employees and to the girls in par ticular. He never has done any of these things that have been told about him. He has always been a gentle man. Willing to Die for Him. “I’ve had to fight for him. almost, a number of times since these awful charges have been made against him. I’m willing to fight for him again. I am willing to die in his place.” At this point she turned toward the jury and said: “You can give me any sort of a death you want I know he is an in nocent man. I just wish that 1 could make everyone believe in his inno cence.” Attorney Arnold succeeded in the brief space of one of the moments when she paused for a fresh start to ask the remainder of the questions he desired. an*then gave her to Solicitor Dorsey. Dorsey met with the same trouble. He tried to get her to say with whom she had talked about the testimony :o .which she was to swear. Disregard ing his question as though it never had beeh asked, she continued in her encomiums of Frank until the court room spectators were convulsed witn laughter and the Solicitor filed witn disgust at his inability to get the sort of answer he wanted from the girl. Miss Irene Jackson, daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, was called by the defense as a character witness, but gave testimony on her cross-examination in regard to con duct by Franak which the State has •construed as highly improper. Looked in Dressing Room. Miss Jackson said that so far as she kne'" the character of Frank whs good and that she never had know’n him to attempt any liberties with the factory girls. To the Solicitor she admitted, however, that she three times had been in the girls’ dressing room when Frank had pushed open the door and looked in. Once Emmeline Mayfield had be in in the room with her, she said: once Mamie Kitchen and once her own sis-* MISS HANNA’S SCHOOL 368 Peachtree Phone Ivy 2163-L Opens Monday, September R. for Its twenty-sixth session. A graded school with Primary, Grammar and Collegiate Departments, Art and Music. Office hours, 8 :30 to 11:30 a. m.; 1:30 to 4 p. m. Send For Booklet BIJOU Reopens Monday Matinee August 25 THE JEWELL KELLEY CO, 111 A GREAT SCENIC '•» PRODUCTION OF “HER FATAL SHADOW” Dally 2-30 Met —■ - ° EVENINGS 8:30 BOX OFFICE OPENS THURSDAY AUG.21 Dr. W. J. Harper Mew York Denis! Offices 28 Vz and 32 Vz PEACHTREE STREET Over the Bonita Theater and Zakas’ Bakery Gold Crowds - Bridge Work - Good Set Teeth - $5*0® All Other Work at Reasonable Prices LADY ATTENDANT IVY 1817 Bring Us Your Films for Development We Give You BETTER RESULTS Why? Because Were Specialists al KODAK FINISHING AND WE NEVER DI3APPQ1NT ASK FOR NEW PRICE LIST. We Also Carry a Complete Line of EASTMAN KODAKS, BROWNIE CAMERAS AND SUPPLIES GLENN PHOTO STOCK CO. t'i7 Peachtree EASTMAN KOD \K COMPANY. Exclusive Kodak Store.