Newspaper Page Text
*
1
ATLANTA, |*/V, aiJNUA! AIUUM 10, I»13. A 111 ANT A, HA , SUNDAY, AIJHUST 17, 1913,
DORSEY SURE
CASE
CRISIS COMES
•{•••{• «{*e4* +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ •!*••!• +•+ +•+ +•*!• +•+ +•+
Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and Friends
Trial Will Last Through Week, Declare
Men Who Have Followed It.
Jurors in the Frank ease sketched in the courtroom. They are: 1. M. Johenning. 2. A. L. Wisbey, 3. F. V. L. Smith. 4. Deder Townsend, o. M. S. Woodward,
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 Page 1.
the defense to train Its every gun
squarely upon It, for upon Conley's
story will the State be forced to stand
or fall eventually.
One of the curious things a* iut 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
Taw that no man shall be required,
without his own consent, to answer
will be to fall 1n 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 sur
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 im-
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
,1
M
more th in one charge at one and the
same time.
And so far as legal strategy
and astuteness is concerned, the
State ouegenera lthe 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 St at* dwubttees knew that the
tmtipe&k&ble portion of ConlCy's evi
dence was primarily Inadmissible, but
It also knew that th* defense would
be taking rather a long chance to
move Its rejection when tendered.
In that event, a sinister and c*--
tafnlyl 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 Frank s
character In Issue.
The defense, in not objecting to the
admission of the evidence last cited
when It wag first offered, may have
been moved by the idea that it would,
In the croas-examinartlon of Qonley,
so 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 Objects too Late.
Seemingly, that Idea, If it ever ex
isted, was dissipated as the Conley
cross-examination proceeded, how
ever, for eventually the defense DID
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
t omplete good character, and thus in
a sweeping wav dispose of the spe
cific charge lodged against Frank by
Conley, in addition to the murder
charge.
Once committed to the necessity of
establishing Frank s good character,
however, the defense went at it in no
half-hearted wav
It summoned indiscriminately every
employee of the National Pencil Fac
tory, male and female, old and new.
and with unanimous voice they test!
fled willingly and thoroughly that the
defendant’s general character Is good.
In addition to these witnesses, busi
ness m**n, former college professors
and 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, 1t will go to the Jury
greatly weakened.
To overcome the fine showing as to
Frank’s good character made by the
jb-ftrnse the State must bring forth
llnesses In rebuttal that can not be
gwaohed.
The impression throughout Atlanta
thaO.lo fail in the establishment
and corroboration of Conley’s story
ky wUn«ise*-oX integrity an<i standing
posatbl* Is one reason why a Jot of
people are saying th£.t It is impossi
ble. Conley may have manufactured
It out of the whole cloth.
If It la a lie. It 1* a lie too devilish
ly cunning for a negro of Conley’s
limited mentality to conjure or carry
In his own mind In such remarkable
detail, these people bold If the ne
gro were only les* sutp of everything.
1f be had wabbled dangerously under
the terrific grilling administered by
Lufherr Z. Rosser, If be had broken
down or contradicted himself in any
essential detail once he got to the
witness stand, it now -would be an
easier thing for many people, fair-
minded enough, too. to holleev the ne
gro’s tale a mass of lies from start
to finish!
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 probabh- lust as well stick In
its entirety, so far ns the hope of ac
quittal upon this tTi.il Is concerned.
In other words, many people are ar
guing to themselves that the negro, oo
matter how hard he tried and no mat
ter how generously he was coached,
still ncevr could have framed up a
story like the one he told, unless there
was somewhere In it some foundation
in fact.
And If there remains the impres
sion of even a lit lie 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 proof
to carry, appears to have considerably
more of an uphill fight on its hands
than the deefnse has. and yet tho
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 as a matter of fact, has tho
harder task to perform.
Undoubtedly, the defense expects *o
profit much through Its insistence that
the time element as set up In Con
ley’s story, constitutes a most vital
and compiling factor in determining
the truth or falsity of entire story.
Rely on State Witnesses.
Tt Is rather odd. too. that the de
fense should be relv 5 ng upon the
State’s witnesses In this* matter quit’
a* much as uoon its own. It will
seek to use generouslv the State’s
witnesses to the State’s embarrass
ment—through the discrediting cf
Conley’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
thesp lncomnatlblo things:
That Marv Phagan (Co
ev’s tesM-
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, tt 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 comer of
Alabama and Whitehall streets at
1:10, waiting 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 remarkably
way he says he did. have w’ritten 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 w’ardrobe
eight minutes and used six minutes
framing the notes. This w’ould 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 thy 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 4inpossibility for him to
have effected it. in the circumstances
of it.
The past week. of course, was .the
I mom 1 reached tho pencil f, -torv su f- ^ofonso s day in court and it is but
floienth mil in advance of Montoon f alr to say that U made Rood use of
I Stover (Conley’s testimony) to go up
to Prank's office. get her pay. be lured Challenge to State,
to a room in the rear and killed, not- It has frankly and aggressively
withstanding f he fact that M’-ss Sto- urged Frank’s character as a vital
ver (Conlev's and Miss Stover’s tes*!- fact in his favor, and it thereby rhal-
monv) reached the factory at 12:ft", lenged the State to do its very worst
\r,d this despite the fact that Ma**y by way of breaking that character
Phagan could not have been in th^ down, if it can.
factory before 12:12. 1n anv event, p This attitude upon the part of the
shown by Mrs. Coleman (Man's defense undoubtedly has had a
mother"*. George Epps, a motnrmn >., steadying effect upon the public, too,
and a conductor j for it seems at least to have suspend-
To get around this stat* of things. I ed judgment pending the State’s re-
j set up for the most part by the buttal.
State's own witnesses, the Stut** al- j In addition to its insistence upon
| ready has suggested, by a lino of pv- Frank's good character, the defense
amination probably to be amnlifled. unquestionably has given the State
that the car upon which Mary Phagan | serious concern in the way it has
came into town on Saturday, April 26. brought forward the time element,
was running AHEAD of scheduled and that in two separate and dis-
time, ana that the litle girl did. as a j tinct directions.
matter of fact,. reach the factory be- i if It successfully maintains either
on© of its time theories, ft 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 th© end of the second week of the
Frank trial, however, that the State
had made out a case that could not
be broken dow’n, 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 its
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 abili
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 son 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 prove
Frank a dissolute character, may he
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 tho
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 of
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 r
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 4S of them get knocked
oat. there still will remain the two
that stood the test!
Here, then, is another pretty prob
lem to be thrashed out: Can the
State, in sustaining a charge of de
generacy against Frank, bring forth
witnesses to prove it absolutely, and
at the same time not bring forth wit
nesses so much a party to Frank's of
fense that they will run serious risks
in testifying themselves?
A witness who D 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 m
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 sham*;
but if it doesn’t. Frank’s cause must
be helped tremendously.
\
V
ter. Her sister had threatentod ifr
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 theifl
overskirt.
Solicitor Dorsev inquired of her in}
regard to a reported remark of N. Y.
Darley. general manager, that 'if the
girls stay with us through this, they
will not lose by it.” She said she had
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, Irene
Jackson, and Mesdames 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.
MISS HANNA’S SCHOOL
368 Peachtree
Phone Ivy 2163-L
Opens Monday, September 8, 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
More than one hundred witnesses
had been "ailed to testify in defense
of Leo M. Frank’s character when
the third week of the factory super
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 JaoKson, 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, which
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,
on" of the pencil factory employees.
‘ I’d die for Mr. .Frank if they’d let
me!” sh£ exclaimed almost the in
stant she had composed herself !n
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.
Th« attorney sought to interject an
other of the formal questions pre
scribed by law. but by the time she
had caught her breath Rnd 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
uords. She had a mind to speak an1
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 have known him ever since
I have been in the pencil factory. He |
has always been kind to all of the
employees and to the girls in par
ticular. He never has done any of
these tilings that have been told about
him. He has always been a gentle
man.
Willing to Die for Him.
*Tve had to fight for him, almost,
a number of times since these awful |
charges have been made against him. i
I’m willing to fight for him again. 11
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 I 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, and 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 to
which she was to swear. Disregard
ing his question as though it never
had been asked, she continued in her
encomiums of Frank until the court
room spectators were convulsed with
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 was
good and that she never had known
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 he in
In the room with her, she said; once
Mamie Kitchen and once her own sis-
BIJOU Reopens Monday Matinee August 25
THE JEWELL KELLEY CO., A8REATSCHIC "“
HER FATAL
°£{ y 2:30 11 EVENINGS 8:30
PRODUCTION OF
SHADOW’’
BOX OFFICE OPENS
THURSDAY AUG. 21
Dr. W. i. Harper
New York Dental Offices
2© Z z and 32 </ 2 PEACHTREE STREET
Over the Bonita Theater and Zakas’ Bakory
Gold Crowns - $3„C0
Bridge Work - $4.00
Good Set Teeth - §5.00
All Other Work at Reasonable Prices
LADY ATTENDANT IVY 2017
■
Bring Us Your ^
Films for Development
1Ve Give You EETTER RESULTS
Why? Because We’re Specialists
at KODAK FINISHING
AND WE NEVER DISAPPOINT
ASK FOR NEW PRICE LIST.
We Also Carry a Complete Line of
EASTMAN KODAKS, BROWNIE CAMERAS AND SUPPLIES
GLENN PHOTO STOCK CO.
117 Peaclitre.
EASTMAN KOD^K COMPANY
Exclusive Kodak Store.