Newspaper Page Text
*
TWELVE JURORS WITH WHOM LEO M, FRANK’S FATE RESTS
M. S. WOODWARD.
W. M. JEFFRIES.
M. JOHENNING.
F. E. WINBURN.
C. J. BOSSHARDT.
W. F. MEDCALF.
ALWAYS FIRST <B> ®
The SUNDA Y
AMERICAN
Order it NOW£========—
Both Phones Main 100
The Atlanta Georgian
Read for Profit---GEORGIAN WANT ADS—Use for Results
South Georgia
VOL. XII. NO. 18.
ATLANTA, GA., SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1913.
2 CENTS.
PAT NO
MORE
J. F. HIGDON.
A. L. WISBEY.
D. TOWNSEND.
F. V. L. SMITH.
A. II. HENDEE.
OSBURN.
With every prospect of Leo M. Frank’s fate being in the hands
of the jury before Saturday afternoon, Solicitor Hugh Dorsey Sat
urday morning resumed his masterful arraignment of the man ac
cused of the slaying of Mary Phagan and the methods that have;
been used in his defense.
Hundreds clamored for admission when the courtroom doors
were opened Saturday morning and there were more than a thou
sand in line when court opened.
The brilliance and dash of the
Solicitor’s opening had attract
ed the greatest crowd of the
■trial a crowd unquestionably
in sympathy with Mr. Dorsey.
Frank entered the courtroom as
calm as usual, and took a seat be
tween his wife and mother. He chat
ted with his wife a few moments be
fore the trial opened, his hand af
fectionately on her shoulder. If he
was in any way awed or dismayed by
the ordeal confronting; him, he did
not show it.
“Many a man is a white sepulcher
on the outside and absolutely rotten
within. But suppose he has a good
character. David had a good char
acter until he put Uriah in the fore
front of battle that he might be killed
that he could get his wife. Judas Is
cariot had a good character among
those Twelve Men until he accepted
those 30 pieces of silver.
“You know r as twelve men seeking
to get at the truth that they did not
ask those hair-brained fanatics, as
Mr. Arnold calls them, questions
about Frank’s character because they
were afraid, and those witnesses, as
good as any the defense put up, were
unimpeached and are unimpeachable.
And you tell me that because the good
people come here from Washington
street and testify to his good charac
ter is that he has one!
“It very often happens that a man’s
wife is the last person to know his
wrongdoing. Sometimes the man uses
charitable and religious organizations
to cover up and hide his evil self.
Very often his guilty conscience turns
him that way. Many a man is a wolf
in sheep's clothing.
Dorsey moved over to the railing
of the Jury box as he opened his
speech.
“Your honor and gentlemen of the
jury,” he said, “I was speaking to you
yesterday of the character of this de
fendant. This defendant has not a
good character. The conduct of the
counsel in this case in failing to
cross-examine, in refusing to cross-
examine these twenty young ladies,
refutes effectively and absolutely the
claim of the defendant that he has
a good character.
Says Defense Had
Right to Refute Charge.
“As I said, if this man had a good
character, no power on ..earth could
have kept him and his counsel from
asking those young girls where they
got their information and why they
dsai what they did. Now that’s a
common sense proposition.
“I have shown you that under the
law they had a right to bring out all
those things. You saw they dared
not do it. Let’s see what the law
says. I’ll read here from the Eighty-
third Georgia Report:
“ ’Whenever any persons have evi
dence in their possession and they
fail to produce it, the strongest pre
sumption arises that it would be
hurtful if they did, and their failure
to produce evidence is a circumstance
against them.’
‘You don’t need any lawbook to tell
you that. It’s plain common sense.
“Benedict Arnold was brave. He
enjoyed the confidence of all the peo
ple and those In charge of the Revo
lutionary' War until he betrayed his
country. Since that day his name
has been a synonym for Infamy. Os
car Wilde, an Irish knight, a bril
liant author, whose works will go
down through time, gave us ‘De Pro-
fundis,’ which e wrote while in jail—a
remarkable work—yet when the Mar
quis of Queensberry discovered that
there was .something wrong between
Wilde and his son, Wilde had the ef
frontery and the boldness to sue him
for damages. A suit in retaliation re
sulted in the conviction of Wilde for
criminal practices. Yet, w'herever the
English language Is spoken the ef
frontery of the testimony on crow-
examination of this man—an effront
ery typical of this sort (turning to
Frank) will always be a matter for
THE WEATHER.
Forecast for Atlanta and
Georgia—Local showers Sat
urday; fair Sunday.
deep study for lawyers and for peo
ple interested in that sort of degen
eracy.
“He had a wife and two children.
His shame probably never would have
been brought to lignt but for the fact
that he had the effrontery and the
boldness to start a suit. It ended in
his being sent to prifc«on.’’
Dorsey’s Opening
Argument Stirs Court.
Solicitor Dorsey’s fiery speech to
the jury began at 3:30 Friday after
noon and was halted by adjournment
about 5:15. The Solicitor was not
slow in entering into ids attack
against the prisoner and his
criticism of the manner in which the
lawyers of the defense had conducted
the case.
He seemed carried away by his
earnestness. His impassioned words
as he shouted to the Jury that the
people would have to get another So
licitor General if they wanted to put
the rope around Jim Conley's neck
for the crime deeply stirred all within
j range of his voice,
j The Solicitor declared that Conley
j was not guilty of the murder, and
had no more part in the crime than
! he had told right on th e stand.
“Conley is the self-confessed ac
cessory after the fact,” he said; “only
that and nothing more. If you try
to put a noose around his neck it
will have to be under another Solicitor
General, for right there sits the man
guilty of this crime!”
Dorsey took the Durant case, of
which Attorney Arnold had made
much the day before, and converted
it Into a boomerang against the de
fense. Arnold had related it as show
ing the terrible mistake that may,
come from circumstantial evidence,
lie hud said that Theodore Durant
was convicted of the brutal slaying
of Blanche Lamont and Minnie Wil
liams and was executed for the crime.
Several years later tfie minister in
whose churchyard the body of Durant
found sepulchre himself confessed to
the murder, according to Arnold.
Shows Defense Wrong
On Durant Case.
Dorsey tried to read a letter and a
telegram he had received from San
Francisco to controvert Prank’s law
yer, but was prevented by objections.
He was permitted to state from his
own information, however, that no
such confession ever took plac«, and
that no man ever was guiltier than
Durant, no Jury more courageous and
no community more satisfied with a
verdict. —
“I don’t know where my friend Ar
nold found the authority for hit
strange statements about this Durant
case,” said Dorsey. “If he it no
more accurate than this In his abate
ment that you have heard the testi
mony of every girl on the fourth flojr
of the factory as to Frank’s good
character, I fear there are a lot yet a
hear from."
The Solicitor laid particular stress
on the failure of Rosser and Arnold
to cross-question the character wit
nesses against Frank that the State
had placed on the etand. In his opin
ion this raised a strong presumption
that Frank was the immoral man that
the prosecution had represented him
to be.
“If charges are made that can be
explained or controverted,” he said,
“and there Is no effort made by the
defendant to do so, it is reasonable to
suppose that he !«• guilty of the ac
cusations.” KK
The Solicitor maintained that *he
State had been practically helpless t, k
this respect. He said he had been
able only to bring o-Jrlg into thft
courtroom to swear to Frank's gen
eral character and to his general at
titude toward women. He had been
estopped by court ruling from show
ing particular acts of alleged im
morality and improper conduct, he
said.
But, he maintained, if Frank were
Innocent of the acts of immorality
charged aaginst him, it was most un
likely that he would have let his law
yers be silent when those girls were
on the stand testifying against him.
Why Did Frank
Not Refute Charges.
He would have insisted on his law
yers finding out exactly how' much
these witnesses knew and where th?
got their Information, the Solicit r
declared.
“Now, gentlemen," he argued, “it
you were of good character and twen
ty witnesses were brought here to tes
tify that your character was bad,
would you sit supinely and not make
your attorneys insist upon specific
Instances? No; I know you wouldn't
Yet three able counsel let twenty
girls tell the court that Frank's char
acter was bad and that hU character
A Great
Story of
BASEBALL
“The Plot for
the Pennant”
By HUGH S. FULLERTON
This Absorbing Short Serial Begins in To-morrow’s SUNDAY AMERICAN