Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTA liEUKUIAJN AND NEWS.
WOMEN OF FACTORY SWEAR FRANK’S CHARACTER ‘IS BAD
State Makes Headway With Testimony Hitting Standing of Prisoner
Continued from page 2.
ing ahead of time?—A. Not at first.
Q. Now, did you ever catch him
ahdad of time at 12 o’oclok?A. Yes.
Q. Plow much?—A. Three minutes.
M. When was it?—A. During the
ajW-inf of the year.
Q. How many time® have ^ou
known him to be ahead of time?—A.
Only twice. I think, in the short time
he has been under me.
The witness was excused and N.
Kelly, a motorman was called. Dor
sey questioned him.
Q. Whera were you April 26 be
tween 12 and 12:06 o’clock?—A. At
Broad and Marietta streets.
Q. Do you know’ what tifne the
English avenue car came in?—A. It
was 12:03.
Q. Do you know Matthews and Hol
lis?—A. Yes.
Mary Phagan
Not On the Cars.
Q. Did you see them on the car?—
A. Yes.
Q. At what time?—A. 12:03.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?—A.
Bv sight.
Q. Was she on that car when you
raw it?—A. She was not.
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. How do you remember that?—A.
I looked at mv watch to catch a car
Q. Did you look at it yesterday at
that time?—A. I don’t remember.
Q. Why did not you report about
little Marv Phagr.n not being on that
car?—A. I did not want to get mixed
up in this.
Q. When did you first tell the de
tectives?—A. I didn’t see the detec
tives. 1 told Mr. Starnes this morn
ing.
Q. Who else was on that car?—A
I don't remember.
Q. What did you do after that'?—A.
I stood at Jackson & Wessels for a
time and then went and caught the
12:10 car for College Park.
Q. You were not paying any par
ticular attention to anything, were
you?—A. I was watching the crews
being relieved.
Q What is the schedule of the Col
lege Park and Hapeville cars?—A.
The College Park schedule is 8:30
to 8:60 and the Hapeville cars run
on the hour and every twenty min-
utes.
Rosser—Don't tell it so fast. What’s
the schedule?—A. A car every ten
minute?.
Says Car Often Is
Ahead of Time.
The witness was excused and W. D.
Owens, a conductor on the White City
line, was called. Dorsey questioned
him.
Q What time do you get to town at
noon?—A. 12:05.
Q. Do you remember seeing me
English avenue and Cooper street car
on April 26?—A. No.
Q. Did you ever know that ear to
come in there ahead of you?—A. Yes.
Q. How much?—A. Two mniutes.
Q. Ever more than that?—A. I have
known it to be three minutes.
The witness was excused and L. F.
Ingram, a street car conductor, was
called. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you remember coming to
town on an English avenue car Sat
urday. April 26?—A. I do.
Q. What time was it?—A. I don’t
remember.
Q. An English avenue car is due at
Marietta and Broad streets at 12:07
o'clock. Do you remember that ear
ever coming in ahead of time?—A.
Yes; frequently. Sometimes they
come in ahead of time and sometimes
late. I saw one of those trippers
come in this morning at 8:24 when it
was due at 8:30 o’clock.
q How much have you known the
English avenue car to be off sched
ule?—A. Three or four minutes.
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. It’s against the rules of the com
pany to come in ahead of time, lsn\
it?—A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Miss
Mamie Kitchens, an employee of the
pencil factory on the fourth floor, was
called. Dorsey questioned her.
Q. How long have you been at
the factory?—A. Two years.
Q. What floor?—A. Fourth.
Q. Were you at the factory to
day?—A. Yes.
Only Hearsay
About Superintendent.
Q. Do you know any woman on
that floor who has not been called as
a witness here?—A. Miss Eva Jones
and Mrs. Howell.
Q. Are you acquainted with
Frank's general character?—A. Only
by hearsay, and I don’t want to testi
fy.
Q. That’s all right. I won’t press
the question. Now were you ever in
that dressing room on the fourth floor
with Miss Irene Jackson when this
defendant, Deo M. Frank, came in?—
A. Y es.
Q. .Well, just tell the jury about it.
A. I was back there one day when
lie came back and stuck his head in
the door. He laughed, and said some
thing about us having no work to do,
and then went out.
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. Did he ask you if you girls had
any work to do?—A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t he open the door qnd
say: “Haven't you girls any work to
do?”—A. He didn't say it that way
Q. Who else was there?—A. Miss
Ethel Stewart was in there for a
time.
Q. Aren't you mistaken about Miss
Jones and Mrs. Howell not being call
ed as witnesses?—A. 1 only have
their word for it.
Q. I am going to ask you a ques
tion we have asked every woman who
works on the fourth floor. Did you
ever meet Mr. Frank for any im
proper purpose?—A. I never did.
Dorsey: “Your honor, if that ques
tion is admissible, why can’t we ask
Miss Wood the question we have in
dicated?”
Judge Roan: “They claim their
questions are only in rebuttal of
Conley.”
At this time, 1 o’clock, court re
cessed until 2,- making the longest
morning session yet held In the trial
Motorman, Recalled,
Denies Talk of Case.
The first witness called at the after
noon session was W. M. Matthews,
motorman. who declared that the
Phagan girl came into the city on his
car oh the morning of the / murder.
Solicitor Dorsey endeavored to show
that he had feeling this case which
caused him to lean toward the de
fense. „
Dorsey—Do you know this man, W.
C. Dbbbs?—A\ I do.
Dobbs was sent from the courtroom.
Q. Didn’t you have a talk with Mr.
Dobbs about three days after the
murder and say that Mary Phagan
and George Epps got off your car at
Broad and Marietta Greets?—A. I
never told anyone that.
Q. Didn’t you tell someone you
owed a debt of gratitude to someone
connected with this case?
Rosser interposed an objection.
“Let him give names,” he* said.
Dorsey—How long sinee you were
a defendant in court?A.—About two
years.
Q. Who defended you?—A. Mr.
Moore and Mr. Branch, Mr. Colquitt
and Mr. Conyers.
Rosser — You were acquitted,
weren’t you?—A. Yes.
W. C. Dobbs Sys He 1
Talked With Conductor.
Q. Does Mr. Branch live anywhere
near you?—A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to me about
this case?—A. One time.
Q. Did you ever talk to this man
(indicating Attorney Arnold)?—A. No.
Q This man (indicating Frank)?—
A No.
Q. You have no interest in this
case?—A. No.
Q. What were you tried for?—A,
Manslaughter.
Q. Did the jury acquit you?—A.
Yes.
The witness was excused and W.
C. Dobbs was called to the utand.
Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever have any conver
sation with Conductor Matthews
about Mary Phagan and George Epps
coming in on his car?—A. Yes; he
told me she came in on the car and
that Epps was with her.
Q. Did he say Anything about where
they got off?—A. Yes; at Marietta
and Forsyth streets
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. are the son of Police Sergeant
Dobbs who is testifying in this case,
are you not?—A. Yes.
The witness was excused.
J. W. Coleman, step-father of Mary
Phagan, was called again. He did
not answer and Solicitor Dorsey said
that Cpleman’s wife was sick and it
would be necessary to send fo?* him.
W. W. (Boots) Rogers was recalled
to the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you notice anything about
the stairs and door that Sunday
morning in the National Pencil Fac
tory from the basement to the first
fl^or?—A. Yes; the stairs were dirty
and dusty and the door could not be
lifted.
Man Says He Saw
Negro In Alleyway.
The witness was excused without
being cross-examined.
Sergeant L. S. Dobbs wan called to
the stand. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Did you see Boots Rogers try
to open that door to the stairway
leading from theb asement in the
pencil factory the Sunday morning
the body was found?—A. Yes.
Th^ witness was excused,and Rog
ers recalled. Dorsey queMtiffhed him.
Q. Did you see anything by that
chute?—A. Yes; a large pile of shav
ings.
Rogers was excused and Oxel Til -
lanter was called to the stand. . Dor
sey questioned him.
Q. Were you at the pencil factory
April 26?—A. Yes.
Q. At what time?—A. Just before
12 o’clock.
Q. Did you see anybody?—A. Yes;
when I went in I Maw a negro com
ing through a dark alleyway. I ask ed
him the way to the office and he
showed me.
Q. Have you seen this boy. Jim
Conley?—A. Yes.
Q. Is he the negro?—A. I won’t be
positive, but he looks like him.
Q. Did you see Frank?—A. Yes.
Cf. Where?—A. In his office.
Q. What was he doing?—A. Work
ing.
Q. What, did you say to him?—A. I
asked him for my daughter-in-law’s
pay and got it.
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination
Q. You are not positive about its
being Conley?—A. No.
Q. You say you saw a darkey come
up from a dark alley. Where was
that?—A. At the side of the factory.
Step-Father of
IJead Girl on Stand.
The witness was excused. E. K.
..Graham was called to the stand.
Dorsev questioned hirn.
Q. On Saturday, April 26. were you
at the pencil■ factory?—A. Yes, about
20 minutes to 12 o’clock.
Q. Did you see a negro at the en
tranced—A. Yes.
Q. Have you seen Jim Conley?—A.
Yes, I SHW him this morning.
Q. Was he the man you saw there?
—A. I couldn’t say. 1 notieed a re
semblance. though it seems to me
that the. man I saw was a little
brighter.
Q. Did you say anything to him? -
‘A. No. The man with he asked him
how to get to the office.
Q. Did he show you?—A. Yes.
Q. Was he drunk or sober?—A. I
didn't see any signs of drunkenness
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You say the negro you saw was
brighter than Conley?—A. Is seems
to me he was.
The witness was excused. J. W.
Coleman, step-father of Mary Pha
gan arrived at the courthouse at this
time and wns placed on the stand.
Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you remember a conversation
you had with Inspector McWhort, of
tile Pinkertons?—A. Yes.
Q. Did he or not exhibit an envelope
found in the factory?—A. He did.
Q. What figures if any did the en
velope havf on 11?—A. If "had a
figure 1 up in the corner. Then a
figure was torn out; than a 5.
The witness was shown the en
velope the detectives brought Into
court and he said It did not look like
the one shown him.
J. M. Gantt Is
Recalled to Sand.
Rosser cross-questioned the wit
ness.
Q. You don’t know whether this it
the same envelope or not, do you?—A
It might be, but the figures are not
the same.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. Did you say anything about this
envelope not fitting the case?—A. Yes,
my wife spoke up and said—
Rosser interrupted: “Never mind
what your wife said.”
The witness was excused. J. M.
Gantt was called to the sthand. Dor
sey questioned him.
Q. Did you ever see Leo M. Frank
make up the financial sheet?—A. Yes.
Q. How long would it take him?-'
A. If he had the data, it would not
take him more than one and one-
half hours.
Q. Was that time clock accurate?
—A. No.
Q. How did it vary?—A. Two \o
three minutes.
Rosier took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. Did you pay off those girls by
it?—A. Yes.
Dorsey took the witness again.
Q. How often was that clock regu
lated?—A. Two or three times a
week.
Arnold registered an objection but
was overruled.
'The witness was excused and Her
bert Schiff was recalled. Dorsey
questioned him.
Q. How much pay did Mary Phagan
draw that last week?—A. $1.20.
Q. Now I want you to show me on
that book there \vher£ the $2 Frank
loaned Arthur White appears.—A. It
appears as $4 because I advanced him
$2 the next‘week and made the en
try myself.
Q. Where is that ticket Frank made
of it?—A. I tore it up.
Says He Gave Haas
All the Papers.
Q. You tore it up?—A. We always
do.
Q. You were served with a duces
tecum to bring to the court a paper
signed by Charley Lee in regard to
the injury of this man Dudley?—A. 1
was.
Q. Did you bring it?—A. I turned
over to Mr. Haas all the papers I
had.
Q. Did you ever show to Lee a writ
ten statement he had made about this
accident?—A. I don’t think he ever
wrote a statement, tl w r as written
on a typewriter.
Q. Was it in the papers you gave
Mr. Haas?—A. It had no right to be
| there.
Q. Did you hate the game time clock
at the time of the murder that you
had when Gantt was there?—A. We
have tv*o time clocks.
Q. How much behind was the clock
when you sent for Mr Price to fix it?
—A. I don’t think that wa6 the trouble
at all. tl think it was clogged with
the ribbon.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You had $1,174.80 for the payroll
except for the loans you were to pay
out, and every cent of that was in
I wages, was it not?
Dorsey: “This is his witness. He
; can not lead him as though it were
| a cross-examination.”
Rosser: “What? I thought I could
cross-exarpine him. Mr. Dorsey has
brought in an entirely new matter
of that time.”
Judge Roan: “The uniform rul has
been that when one side Introduces a
witness, he remains their witness.”
Rosser: “Then, your honor, we have
suffered grievously by this. (Turning
to the witness) Mr. Schiff, I will now’
shift my method of examining you.
<Come clown.”
Negro Says He
Drank With Conley.
Ivy Jones, a negro, was the next
witness. Dorsey questioned him.
Q. What do you do?—A. Drive
for Walker Brothers.
Q. On Saturday, April 26, did you
see Jim Conley?—A. Yes.
Q. Where?—A. At Forsyth and
Hunter streets.
Q. What time was it?—A. Be
tween 1 and 2 o’clock.
Q. Can you be more accurate than
that?—A. No.
Q. Was he drunk?—A. No.
Q. Where did you go with him?—
A. To a saloon.
Q. Then where?—A. Toward his
home. I left hirp at the corner of
Davis and Hunter streets about three
blocks from his home.
Rosser took the witness on cross-
examination.
Q. You and he drank beer at that
saloon, didn’t you?—A. Yes; both of
us got some.
Rem.sbr: “Come down.”
llarty Scott, Pinkerton detective,
was recalled to the stand. Dorsey
questioned him.
building, did you see any blood around
the scuttle hole on the first floor,
which leads to the basement?—A. No.
Rosser—This ban all been gone over
before and is incompetent.
Dorsey—We want to rebut Mc-
Whort’s evidence about the bludgeon
and the blood.
The- objection was overruled.
Q. When did the State learn of this
bloody bludgeon?—A. I told you per
sonally about it on July 15.
Further objection's caused Solicitor
Dorsey to change his line of question
ing.
Memory Not Clear on
Finding Piece of Cord.
Q. Mr. Scott, when you were going
through the basement with Mr.
Frank, did you pick up a piece of
cord similar to that fourid around
Mary Phagan’s neck?—A. I think I
did.
Q. Did you pick it up, or Frank
pick it up?—A. My memory is not
clear. •
Q. Did Newt Lej ever recognize that
bloodv shirt?—A. He did not.
Q. From whom did you learn Con
ley could write?—A. I got the infor
mation from my office. I was out of
town when they found it out.
When did you learn of ik?—A.
McWhort told me on Sunday—“
Rosk r objected and was sustained.
Q. What did you do when you dis
covered Conley could write?
Rosser: “Then went into that on the
direct.”
me objection was sustained.
Q. What conversation did you have
I with Frank about Darley?—A. We
told him we believed Darley had been
i going with girls in the factory. He
said, “No; Darley is the soul of honor.
! He could not know anything about
it.” .
Q. * Did Black say to you: “Come
on, there is nothing doing?”-r~A. No.
The witness was excused, and L y.
Kendrick, former night watchman at
the factory, was called to the stand.
Dorsey questioned him.
Dorsey’s questions
Met With Objections.
Q. Did you have any conversation
with Holloway about swearing that
Frank called you up?
Rosser interrupted: “Holloway was
their witness. They can not impeach
him.”
Rosser’s objection was sustained.
Dorsey: “Well, can’t I show intest
and feeling, then?” •
Judge Roan: “You can only im
peach Holloway on points on which
he has mislead you.”
Dorsey: “That is not the law.”
Judge Roan: “Then what is the
law?”
Dorsey: “I will get you the authori
ties.”
Judge Roan: “Then I will rule
later.”
^ Now. during the two years you
were working there, did you ever see
women there on Saturday afternoons?
Rosser: “You have already ruled
on that.”
Judge Roan. “You can't ask that.”
Q. Did you ever put a slip in the
time clock?—A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you?—A.
About two or thi%e minutes.
Q. Could you hear that elevator
running when trhefe was hammering
and knocking?—A. No.
Q. Have you ever seen Conley
around the elevator on Saturday aft
ernoons?—A. I have seen Conley there
on the way back from lunch.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You have seen all the negroes
around there?—A. I have seen some
of them.
The witness was excused and Dor
sey tendered as evidence the time slip
made by the \^tq,ess.
Little Girl Tells of
Visit of Reporter.
Vera Epps, a little girl 11 years old,
sister of George Epps, was called.
Dorsey questioned her.
Q. Did you know Mary Phagan?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to a Georgian re
porter, Mr. John Minar, the Sunday
after the murder and tell him the last
time you had seen Mary Phagan was
the Thursday before the murder?—A.
Yes.
Q. Was your brother George Epps,
there?—A. He was in the house, but
j he wasn’t there all the time this man
j was there.
Q. Had your brother told you he
' had seen Mary Phagan on Saturday?
—A. No.
The witness was excused, and C.
B. Maynard was called to the stand.
Dorsey questioned him.
Q. Do you know’ C. B. Dalton?—A.
! Yes.
Q. Did you ever see him go into the
j pencil factory with a woman?—
Yes.
Q. When?—A. In June, or July.
Q. What time of day?—A. Between
1 and 2 o’clock.
Q. What day of the week was it?-
A. Saturday.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. You are sure of that?—A. Yes.
The witness was excused and W. T.
Hollis, conductor on the English ave
nue line on which Mary*Phagan came
to town the day she was murdered
was recalled to the stand. Dorsey
questioned him.
Q. Didn’t you have a^conversation
with J. D. Reid on Monday after the
murder?—A. I don’t know him.
Q. Didn’t you tell him that you saw
a little boy with her who looked like
her sweetheart?—A. I did not.
Recognizes Patron
But Doesn’t Know Name.
Q. You say now, like you did the
other day, that if George Epps was on
the car you did not know it?—A. Yes.
Solicitor Dorsey had Reid brought
into the courtroom. Dorsey tlfen ad
dressed the witness:
Q. Do you know’ this man?—A. He
rides on my car. I don’t know his
name.
Q. Did you tell him anything like I
have suggested?—A. I did not.
The witness was excused, and J. D.
Reid was brought to the stand.
Q. On Monday, April 28, did you
have and conversation with Conduc
tor J. T. Hollis on the street car
about Mary Phagan?—A. No. I
wasn’t on the ca-r with her.
A ripple of laughter ran around the
room.
The witness continued: “I am a
little deaf; will you com e a little bit
closer.”
Dorsey moved closer to the witness
and repeated his question.
A. Yes. He told me it made him
feel bad because the little girl rode on
his car the last time. He said that
a little boy named Epps, ‘her sweet
heart, rode i nwith her. He said they
sat in the same seat and got off to-,
gether.
Rosser did not cross-examine the
witness.
City Detective Tells
Of McKnight Story.
J. M. Starnes, city detective, who
has been in the courtroom with So
licitor Dorsey since the trial began,
was recalled to the stand. Dorsey
questioned him.
Q. Did you see any stains of blood
spots near the scuttle hole on the
first floor of the pencil factory when
you made ^’our examination of the
ATTACK PUTS DEFENSE
11
By JAMES B. NEVIN.
The public, that is to say that sec
tion of the public willing to be fair
and wanting to he convinced accord
ing to the facts, should remember, in
seeking to steady itself in considering
the Frank cas* that as the story of
Jim Conley was the climax of the
State’s case, so the statement cf Leo
Frank was the climax of the defense’s
case.
It should remember that both
statements are to be ^weighed care
fully and analytically—that conclu
sions are to be jumped at from
neither.
The horror cf the Conley story,
coupled with its unspeakable de
tails, temporarily swept the public
mind into a seeming solidity of opin- n
ion hostile to Frank—It carried in
stant conviction to hundreds of minds,
through the sheer force of the sinister
detail It contained.
By and by, how’ever, the public
mind rebounded in a way. apd It bo-
gan taking counsel with itself. And
then came a pause, followed by a
swing back more or less to the nor
mal.
That Is the way It Is with the pub
lic mind—always wanting to be just,
and Rlw’ays sure to be just, if given
time and opportunity, yet prone ever
to be fjished along heedlessly in the
beginning of terrible stories!
It is the^lmmedlate horror of the
crime that not infrequently distorts
the public’s sense cf proportion pri
marily, and makes it unfair to itself
no less than to other persons con
cerned.
But the public in the end is juct.
and It Is true to Itself. All it asks
—or all it needs—is a chance to re
gain its balance, after having been
knocked this way or that by a stun
ning and unanticipated blow it was
not able to ward ofT when delivered.
Leo Frank’s remarkable statement
to the jury Monday, certainly one %t
the most convincing statements, so
far as surface indications go. that
ever fell from the lips of a defendant
In Georgia, still is not sufficient, and
should not be sufficient, within itself
to warrant the nubile now in rushing
to the conclusion that he is innocent.
Pendulum Will Come to Rest.
And so, as in the case of Conley,
while the sentiment of the public
swung heavily in tka direction of the
State following the Conley story, an.t
then swung back in the direction of
the defense following the Frank state
ment, it eventually will right itself
somewhere midway between the two,
perhaps, and then look to the rest of
the evidence as fitting the one or
the other.
A woman correspondent writes
me: - *
”1 have read your articles daily.
Tell me, truly, are you for Frank
or against him? I can not tell
from what you say.”
Now. in a way, I consider that
something of a compliment. I am glad
this correspondent does not know
whether I am for or against Frank,
for 1 am neither the one nor the
other
I merely visit the courtroom daily,
and "gather mdTi nosegay of other
men’s flowers; and naught but the
string that binds them is mine own!”
When the storm signals have seem
ed fair for Frank. 1 have so set
it down. When they have seemed
ominous, I have so set that down.
In all the ideas and conclusions f
have transferred to paper in respect
of the Frank trial, the wish never fcas
been father to the thought—save In
that I always have preferred, and al
ways shall prefer, to see a man prove
himself a gentleman rather than a
scoundrel, if he can.
What I do hope to stand for, and
try to stand for. and what none of
us can afford NOT to stand for, is
justice and right, fair play and no
special favors, decency and civiliza
tion, ann the supremacy of the law
of the land!
I assure my correspondent that 1
am neither for nor against Frank
but that I am for truth and right, and
in my own way and after my own
fashion I undertake to 9tand by my
ideals
Justice the Real End.
Frank Hooper promulgated a plat
form all can afford to mount and
fight upon, when he said, before this
caoe came on for trial:
“It is not so much a matter of
finding and convicting Leo Frank,
as It is a matter of finding and
convicting the murderer of little
Marv Phagan!”
So long as you feel that way about
it. you are on safe and solid ground;
but once you get away from that
standpoint, you begin groping and lis
tening to the persuasive plea of your
prejudices and your preconceived
opinions, no matter what they may
be.
When a man is on trial for his life,
you don't have to be FOR or
AGAINST him—but you DO have to
be in favor of a fair trial for him!
Then, when everything has begn
done in order and according to the
best teachings of a thousand years of
Anglo-Saxon civilization, even as im
perfect as that yet is, the verdict
finally recorded under the law’ will
provide you a sheet anchor against
error and wrong, and you then will
be as right as human ingenuity and
philosophy can make you right.
And after that, you should worry.
I guess!
Since the Frank statement was de
livered. and notwithstanding the fine
Impression it made upon the public,
the State has succeeded in recovering
n good deal of ground, nevertheless;
and it probably is true to-day that it
stands about as firm as it ever did, if
not firmer.
It is conceded that the State lost
heavily from a legal standpoint when
the presiding judge decided on Tues
day not to admit any evidence tend
ing to break down Frank's character
in specific instances not directly con
nected with the murder of little Mary
Phagan.
When one comes to consider the
matter of public opinion, however, it
may be that the defense in this won
nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory,
at best, and that it might have been
better to let the State go ahead and
prove what It could, if it could prove
anything. ^
The Solicitor General has said all
along that he was prepared to estab
lish his allegations of gross immoral
ity against Frank; and w r hen Frank
seemed to meet that challenge by in
jecting his general character in is
sue, the public was inclined to ap
plaud and to say that was fair and
square enough.
If the State was "four-flushing”—
which Dorsey solemnly affirmed it
was not—and the defense appeared to
call Its hand, the public was honest
enough to grant Frank’s right to do
that, and to approve his dare to the
State.
Effect Is Disconcerting.
When, however, the defense is per
mitted to enter its call, and Dorsey Is
then shut off on the threshold of his
attempt to make good on his position,
the effect naturally is somewhat dis
concerting, even to tnose who believe
Frank not guilty.
The State stands now in the posi
tion of having said, unqualifiedly, that
it COULD make good its charges, and
then, after having been challenged to
do so, of being estopped from proceed
ing!
In all fairness to the Btate—and to
the defense, too, for that matter—
this seems rather a hardship upon it.
Frank made a brave showing of
good character—he seemed to chal
lenge the State to do its worst, if it
could. And now the State is shut off,
upon tho defense’s own motion, from
undertaking to do THE VERY
THING THE DEFENSE HAS VE
HEMENTLY PROTESTED IT
r<>UUD N<»T do:
There is not much difference, as I
see it. in having the impression spread
that the State COULD make good, if
given an opportunity, and that it
DID make goo4, when given an op
portunity!
The vital thing and the necessary
thing, so far as public opinion is con
cerned, perhaps, is that the. defense
show that the State NEVER COULD
MAKE GOOD, IN ANY EVENT!
The court does not permit the in
troduction of irrelevant evidence—and
maybe that is right: it is the law,
anyway—but the public does, partic
ularly when it can not see the irrele
vancy of the evidence.
The attitude of Frank personally
has seemed to be that of inviting the
closest and most searching Investiga
tion into every phase of the charge
against him—but it seems to me, as I
said In another article, that the worst
the defense can do for Frank is to
let the impression become fixed that
there are some things against ■which
he sadly NEEDS protection!
So far, Leo Frank himself has made
the very best plea that has been en
tered in behalf of Leo Frank!
He has boldly thrown down the
gauntlet—and he says he made up his
statement in his own way, after his
own mind, and without even consult
ing his lawyers.
He delivered his defense from the
stand in a most convincing manner—
if it was the truth, it was given speed
by being simply told, and in appar
ent candor.
If it was an untruth, it was deliv
ered with consummate art. Only
Frank and his God can know, for
sure, whether it is the one or the
other!
Willing To Be Cross-examined.
He was reported willing to be cross-
examined on his statement, if that
might be thought desirable upon the
part of the State, but whether the of
fer actually was made there is no
outspoken evidence.
Nevertheless, It probably will do
Frank no good in the mind of the
public to have It appear that he was
professedly willing enough to let down
the bars at every point, but that, for
some reason, the bars were prevented
from being let down—and by Frank’s
own sldol
The defense can not hope to eat
its cake and have it too—that fk, It
can not hope jo have both those
things unprotested. It can not well
say Frank’s character is above re
proach and then head off the State in
an attempt to prove otherwise.
It can not do that in justice to
Frank, I think—and certainly not in
justice to the State!
Sometimes things are done under
the forms of law that are tactical and
strategic mistakes, notwithstanding.
There is no complaint as to their le
gal righteousness, perhaps, but there
may be some complaint as to their
illuminating the subject matter in
hand.
Perhaps the initial mistake was
made when the defense permitted
Conley’s first unspeakable charge to
go unchallenged—when it even cross-
examined Conley upon it—but onee
that mistake was made, it may prove
in the end to have been a far better
policy to fight it out to the ultimate
status along ^that line.
building immediately after the mur
der?
Rosser interrupted: “Hcf answered
that before.”
Btarnes: “I did not."
Dorsey: “Now we will jump to the
arrest of Minola McKnight. Tell us
about that, Mr s Starnes.”
A. We had information about w r hat
her husband said she knew. We took
her to Mr. Dorsey’s office, and from
there to the police station. I did not
see her until the next day. We got
Mr. Pickett and Mr. Craven from the
Beck & Gregg Hardware Company
to come up and see if they could get
a statement from her. I asked Minola
if she had rather make her state
ment to them or to us. Hhe said to
them. 1 said: "Minola, if this is not
the truth, do not make it.”
When she was about half through I
asked her attorney, Mr. George Gor
don. to come in. I had the stenog
rapher read over what she had said.
When he had finished she signed it.
Q. Was f»he held by my authority?
—A. Sshe was not.
Q. Could 1 order you to release her?
—A. You told me over the phone you
could not tell me what to do.
Rosser took the witness on corss-
examination.
Q. Now, Starnes, you locked that
woman up because she would not give
you the kind of statement you want
ed?—A. No.
Locked Her Up Because
He Was on Murder Case.
Q. Well, why did you lock her up?—
A. I was working on a murder case.*
Q. Answer my question. A. I am
going to tell you.
Dorsey—He has a right to answer
It.
Q. Well, by what authority did you
lock her up?—A. By the authority
of an honorable officer working on
a ruurder case.
FPosser—That’s all right. Now, wh.) j
issued a warrant for that woman’s j
arrest?—A. There was none that I
know of.
Q. Who arrested her?—A. A bailiff j
or deputy from Dorsey’s office went
out and got her. He did not arrest i
her.
Q. W v ho locked her up?—A. I turn- I
ed her over to the denk man.
Q. And you kei* her there twenty-
four hours?—A. Yes.
The witness was excused and th^*
jury retired for five minutes to take I
their usual afternoon soft drink.
New and Becoming Dresses
For Girls Are Priced at 69c
In a few days the early fall sehool wardrobe must be looked into,
and the needs of fresh, new wash dresses will be revealed.
Here are new dresses that are intended for jusf this purpose. They
are beautifully made, in eight different styles, of pretty striped lawns,
light and dark shades, and effectively trimthed. Sizes 6 to 14 years—
priced for to-morrow’s sale at 69c each. 4 i*
Pretty New Dresses for
Little Tots at 39c
Every one now—they have just come, and will he gladly wel-
eomed by mothers who are now finding .their children’s wdrdrobes
dilapidated from the hard summer’s wear.
These dresses are made of sturdy percales, dotted and figured
effects; about six styles—low square neck, short sleeves, long waist-
ed, plaited skirt, with belt; 2 to 6-year sizes. Priced at 39c.
flvdk
The Best Food-Orink Lunch at Fountains
Insist Upon
S HORLICK’S
Avoid Imitations—Take No Substitute
Rich milk, malted grain, in powder form.
For infants, invalids and growing children.
Pure nutrition,upbuilding the whole body.
Invigorates nursing mothers and the aged.
More healthful than tea or coffee.
Agrees with the weakest digestion.
Keep it on your sideboard at home.
A quick lunch prepared in a minute.