Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

* 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