Newspaper Page Text
1 Pi
Dr. W. J. Harper LADY ATTENDANT
IVY 1817
ATLANTA, i*r\., gil.MMI .11 him id, IMI.1. ATIiANTA, WA NUJNUAY, AUUU8T 17, 1913.
DORSEY SURE
CASE
CRISIS COMES
+•+ *•+ +•+ .+•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ ^•••5" +•+ +•+ *•+ *** * ,+
+•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ *•+ • •*•••!• *•* •*•••*• ▼•-r -r-’r ^ ’ • ’
Solicitor Expects to Prove That Frank Had Life Which He Hid From Relatives and Friends
1 _ „ - ~ . t-v t m 1 n AT G Wrv/N/^ifrovrl
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. Wisbev, 3. F. V. L. Smith. 4. Deder Townsend, 5. M. S. Woodward,
6. A. H. Henslee, 7. W. M. Jeffries, 8. J. T. Ozburn, 9. Charles J. Basshardt, 10. W. S. Medcalf, 11.Fred E. Winburn, 12. J. I. Higdon.
more th in one charge at one and the
same time.
And so far as legal strategy
and astuteness is concerned, the
State ouegenera It he 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 doubtless Knew that the
unspeakable portion of Conley's evi
dence was primarily Inadmissible, bat
ft also knew th»t tha defense would
be taking rather a long chance to
move its rejection when tendered.
In that event, a minister and cer
tainly dangwrons Impression would
have been left upon the mind of the
Jury.
So the State deliberately drew out
of ConlAg the unmentionable charge,
which, In addition to the murder
eharge. undoubtedly made absolutely
necessary the Injection of Frank s
character In iasue.
The defense, In not objecting to the
admission of the evidence last cited
when It was first offered, may have
been moved by the Idea that It would,
In the cross-examination of Conley,
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 o.ut 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 thu« in
a sweeping way dispose of the spe
cific charge lodged against Frank hy
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 way.
It summoned indiscriminately even.’
employee of the National Pencil Fac
tory, male and female, old and new,
and with unanimous voice they testi
fied willingly and thoroughly that the
defendant’s general character la good.
In addition to these witnesses, busi
ness men, 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, it will go to the Jury
greatly weakened.
overcome the fine showing as to
s good character made by the
the State must bring forth
in rebuttal that can not be
— throughout Atlanta
is That to fail in the establishment
and corroboration of Conley’s story
by wf tneasea-of integrity and standing
possible is one reason why a lot of
people are saying Uj&t It is impossi
ble. Conley may have manufactured
It out of the whole cloth.
If It Is a lie, It is a lie too devilish
ly cunning for a negTo of Conley’s
limited mentality to conjure or carry
In his own mind in such remarkable
detail, these people hold. Lf 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 be an
easier thing for many people, fair-
minded enough, too, to bolioev the ne
gro’s talo a mass of lies from start
to finish!
And the danger to the defense her*
is that lf Conley’s story sticks in th«
minds of the Jury, even in fractions!
part, 1t probabP' lust as well stick in
its entirety, so far as the hope of ac
quittal upon this tTl .1 Is 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 he 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
repal”.
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 considerable
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 un in Con-
lev's story, constitutes a most vital
and compiling factor in determining
the truth or falsity of the entire story.
Relv on State Witnesses.
It is rather odd. too. that the de
fense should be relvng upon the
State’s witnesses in this matte'- quit'*
a* much as u^on its own. It will
seek to use generouslv the State’s
witnesses to the State's embarrass
ment-through the discrediting of
Conley’s story—In several different
directions.
The deefnse is seeking to show how
ntterlv absurd Conley’s story is from
Frank’s point of view, bv setting up
these incompatible thines:
That Marv Phagan (Conlev’s testi
mony) reached the pencil factory suf-
flcifentlv well In advance of Monteen
Stover (Conley’s testimony) to go up
to Frank’s office, get her nay. he lured
to a room in the feah and killed, not
withstanding the fact that M'*s Sto
ver (Conley’s and Miss Stover's tesM-
mony) reached the factory at 12:05.
And this despite the fact that Mary
Phagan could not have been in th*
factory before 12:12. in any event, ?
shown by Mrs. Coleman (Man’s
mother), George Epps, a motormat.
and a conductor.
To get around this state of thine**,
set up for the most part by the
State’s own witnesses, the State trt-
1 ready has suggested, by a line of ex
amination probably to he amplified,
that the ear upon which Mary Phagan
came int^ town on Saturday, April 26.
was running AHEAD of scheduled
time, and that the litle girl did, as a
matter of fact,. reach, the factory be-
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, 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 tw’o blocks
and a half away.
Conley would have been obliged to
dispose of the body in the remarkable
way he says in* 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 hy 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
I defense undoubtedly has had a
| steadying effect upon the public, too,
; for it seems at least to have suspend-
I 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
| serious concern in the way it has
brought forward the time element,
and that in two separate and dis-
I tinct directions.
i If 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
bo 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 he remembered,
has not yet entered or disclosed its
rebuttal, either of the character evi
dence or the undermining of its own
witnessed 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 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 pTove
Frank a dissolute character, may b“
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 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 48 of them get knocked
out. 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 char.se 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 0
A witness who is 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-
’arly reprehensible, is apt to get »n
pretty thin ice himself, if he isn’t
I very careful!
The State says it cab and will rebut
[Frank’s gohd character. If it doer?,
Frank is in unutteraolv bad shat>e:
but if it doesn’t. Frank’s cause must
be helped tremendously.
ter. Her sister had threatentod
quit on this last occasion, she testi
fied, but had been persuaded against
it.
She said that Frank merely pushed
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 Dorsev inquired of her in
regard to a reported remark of N. V.
Darley. general manager, that “if tho
girls stay with us through this, they
will not lose by it.” She said she hai
overheard Darley sav this.
Many Employees Called.
The following pencil company £m-i /
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
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
Employee of Pencil Factory Furnishes Dramatic
Incident of Day—Dressing Room Evidence
Is Brought Out.
Music. Office hours, 8 :.'I0 to 11:30 a. m.; 1:30 to 4 p. m.
Send For Booklet
More than one hundred witnesses
had been called to testify in defense
of Leo M. Frank’s character wh°n
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 Jaeuson, 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. Ilae 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,
one of the pencil factory employees.
“I’d die for Mr. F*rank if they’d let
me!” she exclaimed almost the in
stant «*he had coin posed 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 anl
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. **1 nave 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 things that have been told about
him. He has always been a gentle-
BIJOU Reopens Monday Matinee August 25
THE JEWELL KELLEY CO,
IN A GREAT SCENIC
r *9 PRODUCTION OF
HER FATAL SHADOW
2:30 |! EVENINGS 8:30 ||
BOX OFFICE OPENS
THURSDAY AUG. 21
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 jus/ 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 if never
had been 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 FYanak which the State has
construed as highly improper.
Looked in Dressing Room.
Miss Jackson said that so far as
she v»*o 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 o^en
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-
Continued from Page 1.
will be to fail 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 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 lm-
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
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 about the
Frank case is the way the question
of hip 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 his own consent, to answer
Bring Us Your
Films for Development
GLENN PHOTO STOCK CO.
EASTMAN KODXK COMPANY.
Exclusive Kodak Store. 117 Peachtree
New York Dental Offices
28 Vz and 32 Vz PEACHTREE STREET
Over the Bonita Theater and Zakas’ Bakery
Gold Crowns - $3.00
Bridge Work - $4.00
Good Set Teeth - $5.00
All Other Work at Reasonable Prices
We Give You BETTER 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