Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Till-' <t.-‘OHdlAN AN!) N1\WS. DORSEY RIDDLES FRANK'S OWN STATEMENT IN FINAL PLEA +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ +•+ *!••*!• *•+ +• + +•4. +•4- Crowds Outside and Inside• of Court Vociferously Applaud the Solicitor MRS. FRANK ARRIVING AT THE COURTHOUSE Here la Judge Roan's complete charge to the jury verbatim: “Gentlemen of the Jury—This bill of indictment charges Leo M. Frank with the offense of murder. The charge is that Leo M. Frank, in this county, on the 26th day of April of this year, with foroe and-arms, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought kill and murder one Mary Phagan by then and there choking her. the said Mary Phagan, with a cord placed around her neck. “To this charge made by the bill of indictment found by the Grand Jury of this county re cently impaneled Leo M. Frank, the defendant, files a plea of not guilty. The charge as made by the bill of indictment on the on’ hand and his plea of not guilty tiled thereto form the issue, and you, gen tlemen of the Jury, have been selected, chosen and sworn to try the truth this Issue. "Lett M. Frank, the defendant, com mences the trial of this issue with the presumption of innocence in his and this presumption of irjno- f i\ ccnce remains with him, to shield him and protect him. until the State shall oven - me it and remove It by eviden ce oft red to you, in your hearing and pr sene*-, sufficient in Its strength and character to satisfy your minds he yond a reasonable doubt of his guilt of (,tch and every material allegation made by the hill of indictment. "I charge you. gentlemen, that all of the allegations of this indictment ar*» material, and it is necessary for the State to satisfy you of their truth hy evidence that convinces your minds beyond a reasonable doubt of his gui't before you would be authorized to find a verdict of guilty. Must Be More Than Beyond Mere Doubt. "You are not compelled to fin 1, from the evidence, his guilt beyond any doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt, such a doubt as grows out of the evidence In the case, or for the want of evidence, such a doubt as a reasonable and impartial man would entertain about matters of the high est importance to himself after a’l reasonable efforts to ascertain the truth. This does not mean a fanciful doubt, one conjured up by the Jury, but a reasonable doubt. “Gentlemen, this defendant is charged with murder. Murder is de fined to be the unlawful killing of a human being, in the peace of the State, hy a person of sound memory and discretion, with malice afore thought, either express or implied. “Express malice Is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow-creature which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. “Malice shall be Implied where no considerable provocation appears, and where all of the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and ma lignant heart. , “There is no difference between ex press and implied malice except In the mode of arriving at the fact of its existence. The legal sense of the term ‘malice’ Is not confined to par ticular animosity to the deceased, but extends to an evil design in general The popular idea of malice in its sense of revenge, hatred, 111 will, has nothing to do with the subject. It is an intent to kill a human being in a case where the law would neither Justify nor in any degree excuse the intention if the killing should take place n- intended. It is a deliberate intent unlawfully to take human life, whether it springs from hatred, ill will or revenge., ambition, avarice or other like passion. A man may form the intent to kill, do the killing in stantly, and regret the deed as soon ns done. Malice must exist at the rime of the killing. It need not have existed any length of time previously. Lr.w Presumes Malice If Homicide si Proven. “When a homicide is proven, if it Is proven to be the act of the de fendant. the law presumes malice, and unless the evidence should relieve the slayer he may be found guilty or murder. The presumption of in nocence is removed by proof of the killing by the defendant. When the killing is shown to be the act of the defendant, it is then on the defendant to justify or mitigate the homicide. The proof to do that may come from either side, either from the evidence offered by the State to make out its case or from the evidence offered by the defendant or the defendant’s statement. "Gentlemen of the jury, you arc made by law the sole Judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the veight of the testimony of each and The wife of the defendant in the Phagan case has not missed a session of the trial of her husband. every witness. It Is for you to take this testimony as you have heard it, in connection with the defendant’s statement, and arrive at what you believe to be the truth. "Gentlemen, the object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth. That is the reason of you being se lected, impanneled and sworn In this case—to discover what is the truth on this issue formed on this bill of In dictment. Is Leo M. Frank guilty? Are you satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case? Or is his plea or not guilty the truth? The rules of evi dence art* framed with a view to this prominent end—seeking always for* pure sources and the highest evidence. “Direct evidence is that which im mediately points to the question at issue Indirect or circumstantial evi dence is that which only tends to es tablish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining, by their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence the proven facts must not only be consistent frith the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable doubt hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. Character Issue Of Importance. “The defendant has introduced tes timony as to his good character. On this subject I charge you that evi dence of good character when offered by the defendant in a criminal case Is always relevant and material, and should be considered by the Jury, along with all the other evidence In troduced, as one of the facts of the case. It should be considered by the Jury, not merely where the balance of the testimony In the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or not, but also where such evi dence of good character may of itself generate a doubt as to the defend ant’s guilt. Good character is a sub stantial fact, like any other fact tend ing to establish the defendant’s inno cence, and ought to be so regarded by | the Jury. “Like all other facts proved in the case, It should be weighed and esti mated by the Jury, for It may render that doubtful which otherwise would be clear. However, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the sat isfaction of the jury beyond a reason able doubt, notwithstanding the proof of good character, It la their duty to convict. But the Jury may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubt ful or not, and If a consideration of the proof of his good character, con sidered along with the evidence, cre ates a reasonable doubt In the minds of the Jury as to the defendant’s guilt, then it would be the duty of the Jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised by his good character, and to acquit him. "The word ‘character’ as used In this connection means that general reputation which he bore among the people who knew him prior to the time of the death of Mary Phagan. Therefore, when the witnesses hy which a defendant seeks to prove hl» good character are put upon the stand, and testify that his character is good, the effect of the testimony is to say that the people who knew him spoke well of him, and that his general reputation was otherwise good. State Allowed to Attack Character. "When a defendant has put his character in issue, the State is al lowed to attack It hy proving that his general reputation is not good, or oy showing that the witnesses w'tio have stated that his character is good have untruly reported 4t. Hence tne jso- licitor General has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the defense who were introduced to tes tify to his good character. In the cross-examination of these witnesses he was allowed to ask them if they had not heard of various acts of mis conduct on the defendant’s part. "The Solicitor General had tho right to ask any questions along this line he pleased, in order thoroughly ic* sift the witnesses, and to see if any thing derogatory to the defendant’s reputation could be proved bv them. "The court now wishes to say ro von that, although the Solicitor Gen eral was allowed to ask the defend ant’s character witnesses these ques tions as to their having heard of va rious acts of aJleged misconduct on the defendant’s part, the Jury is not consider this as evidence that the de fendant has been guilty of ny such misconduct as may have been indi cated in the questions of the Solicitor Refreshed by the week-end recess, Solicitor General Dorsey returned Monday to the State’s closing argument. By the force of logic and denunciation of his final words to the jury the Solicitor hopes to obtain a verdict of guilty against Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan. The day and a half intermix son furnished a breathing spell for the State’s prosecutor. He came bac kto the battle with new spirit and with an absence of the fatigue that compelled him to stop his stirring argument Sat urday and ask Judge Roan for a recess. Solicitor Dorsey was vociferously cheered as he entered the courthouse by a crowd waiting for the trial to open, and in the courtroom there was applause as he went to the State’s table within the railing. Judge Roan entered the room as the applause died down while the deputies were rapping for order. He announced that if there was any sem blance of a repetition he would clear the courtroom. The Judge declared that a similar occurrence might de stroy the work of four long weeks and warned the audience to keep strict order. Mr. Dorsey began his speech in a low, hoarse voice. “Your honor and gentlemen of the Jury," he said, “I regret the necessity wa* discovered that Conley coaid write Frank had said nothing. It was only through the work done by the detectives and the fact thn f Conley knew they had learned he could write that the negro finally was made to submit specimens of his handwrit ing. "Why did Frank keep silent when he knew those notes were the key which would unlock the mystery?” Dorsey turned to Fra^k at this point and said: "You did know that he could write. You knew that if it was found out that the whole mystery would ue solved. You had notes asking for loans. You had seen his writing by which he checked up the boxes of pencils. Why did ’ou keep silent? “You saw him at the police station and even then never mentioned that he could write.” “Frank says that after this visit of Conley’s to the Jail, after Conley had gone to the factory and gone through his pantomime at the time almost ex actly to the minute that he said it took, that on this visit to the jail he said, ‘I told them if they would get the permission of Rosser that I would face Conley.’ Now, gentlemen of the i v . . . i . * unity. inow, genuemen or tne for having to carry this ease over Into U ury _ Mr . Rosser was at TaUulah onnthnr nronlr onn t hrnn on on At hoi' .... . _ - . General, or any of them, unless the alleged witnesses testify to It. “Furthermore, where a man's char- acter is put in evidence, and In tb course of the investigation any spe cific act of misconduct is shown, this does not go before the jury for the purpose of showing affirmatively that his character is bad or that he is guilty of the offense with which he stands charged, but is to be consider ed by the Jury only In determining the credibility and the degree of in formation possessed by those wit nesses who have testified to his good character. "When the defendant has put his character in issue, the State is allow ed to bring witnesses to prove that his general character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of those who have stated that it is good. The Jury is allowed to take this tes timony, and have the right to con sider it along with all the other evi dence introduced on the subject ol the general character of the defend ant, and it is for the jury finally to determine from all the evidence whether his character was good or bad. Good Character May Create Reasonable Doubt. “You will, therefore, observe that this Is the rule you will be guided by in determining the effect to be given to the evidence on the subject of the defendant’s character: If. after con sidering all the evidence pro and con. on the subject of the defendant's character, you believe that prior to the time of Mary Phagan’s death he bore a good reputation among those who knew him. that his general char acter was good, you will consider that as one of the facts in the case, and it may be sufficient to create a reason able doubt of the defendant's guilt, if It so inipr ss your minds and con sciences. after considering it along with all the other evidence in the case, and if it does, you should give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and acquit him “However, though you should be lieve his general character was good, still if. after giving due weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you be lieve from the evidence as a whole that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be authorized to convict him. "If you believe beyond a reason able doubt from the evidence in this case that this defendant is guilty of murder, then you would he authorized in that event to say ‘We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty.’ “Should you go no further, gentle men, and say nothing else in your verdict, the court would have to sen tence the defendant to the extreme penalty for murder, to wit: to be hanged by the neck until he is dead. But should you see fit to do so, in the event you arrive at the conclusion and belief beyond a reasonable, doubt from the evidence that this defendant is guilty, then, gentlemen, you would be authorized in that event, if you saw fit to do so, to say: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and we recommend that he be imprisoned in the penitentiary for life.’ "In. the event you should make such a verdict as that, then the Court, under the law, would have to sen tence the defendant to the peniten tiary for life. “You have heard the defendant make his statement. He had the right to make it under the law. It is not made under oath and he Is not subject to examination or cross-ex amination. It Is with you as to how much of it you will believe, or how little of It. You may go to the ex tent. if you see fit. of believing it in preference to the sworn testimony in the case. “In the event, gentlemen, you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence, or the evidence and the statement together, or either, as to the de fendant’s guilt as charged, then give the prisoner the benefit of that doubt and acquit him; and in the event you do acquit him the form of your ver dict would be: ‘We. the jury, find the defendant not guilty.’ As honest jurors do your utmost to reach the I truth from the evidence and state ment as you have heard it here, then | let your verdict speak it,” another week and through another Sunday. If a recess had been de clared Saturday. I might have been able to have finished my speech and his honor have delivered his charge and turned the case over to you. The circumstances made the present course wiser. Begins to Riddle Frank’s Statement. "When we closed proceedings Sat urday, I was giving you a brief analy sis of the statement of the defendant. I am not going into an exhaustive study of that statement. It is un- necssary to further burden you with it. But there are certain language and statements which merit some consideration. “The defendant stated, after his honor had excluded our evidence, and excluded it properly, that his wife visited him at the police station. He stated that she was there with his father-in-law and his two brotherv- in-law. He said Rabbi David Marx was with him and that he consulted Dr. Marx on the, advisability of hav ing her to come up to the top floor and see him surrounded by policemen, reporters and snapshotters. He doesn’t prove by a living soul that this statement is true. You must rely on his own lips for itr value. “If they cor’d have -proved it by Dr. Marx, why didn’t they do it? You tell me a loving wife lives who, con scious of a husband's innocence amid such circumstances, wouldn’t have braved policemen, snapshotters CD have seen him? Arnold jumped up. "I object," he said, “to those out rageous references to his wife. I have sat here >n silence during many of his unfair remarks, but to bring in the' wife of this man who is on trial for his life is an outrage on law and decency and fairness.” “Let me see," said Judge Roan, “the evidence on which you are speaking. Mr. Dorsey.” Dorsey Fires Hot Retort at Arnold. “Let the galled jade wince,” said Dorsey, sarcastically. "He has no right to make any such statement,’’ said Arnold. “It Is whol ly uncalled for." “I submit the remark," retorted Dorsey, “of Mr. Rosser that this is an unfair speech (referring to an aside) is uncalled for. Frank said that his wife would not come to see him be cause she was afraid of the snap- shotters and the reporters and that she did not want to go through this line of newspaper men every time she came to see him. I tell you, gentle men, there never lived a true wife who would not have gone through a line of snapshotters and reporters in spite of the contrary advice of a rabbi or any one else.” “Let us see who first found out Conley could write. Frank said, ‘I was the man who made this discov ery. 1 was the means of getting this information to the police. I have re ceived too many notes asking for loans not to know that he can write. I know that if you will look in the safe you will find some receipts for watches signed by him, and that if you will go to the jeweler’s you prob ably will find other specimens of his handwriting.’ "But Scott says that no such thing Falls that day. Therefor^, there was no chance to get his permission that day. But Mr. Rosser was t Tallulah Falls that day, and w'hen he got back did he allow Frank to face Conley? No, he did not. "Gentlemen, you know It is true that never in the history of the An glo-Saxon race and in the history of the African race has an ignorant, filthy negro ever accused a white map of crime where the white man was in nocent and the white nan decline to face the negro. There never Mved in Georgia a lawyer who possessed half the ability of Rosser who sincerely believed in the innocence of his cl - ent who would not have said to this negro, ‘Face my client.’ You may say here that you did not know what Con ley’s statement was going to be. but you could have found out. You could have known.” Rosser Objects To Being Criticised. Mr. Rosser was on his feet with an objection to commenting on counsel. After a moment’s wrangling, Mr. Dor sey insisting that he had a right tG comment on the action of the de fendant’s counsel charging the facts in the record justified him, Judge Roan sustained the objection. "Bur they see the force of it,’’ con tinued Dorsey. "Now, I don’t think that’s fair, your honor,” said Rosser, Interrupting again. There was another minute < t wrangling, both Dorsey and Rosser speaking at the same time. Judge Roan again sustained Rosser. Dorsey turned to the jury, and slapping his hand viciously on the railing, shouted: “If they don’t see the force of it you do.” Rosser objected again. “1 insist, your honor that that is entirely proper comment. 1 ask yo.i, am I outside the record? I have a right to comment upon their conduct in declining to cross-examine wit nesses.” “You may comment upon the a :t of Frank,” interrupted Judge Roai, “In not facing Conley and upon his counsel not having given the permis sion. but it is not proper for you to comment upon why counsel for the defense did not do certain things. Dorsey turned to the jury: “This man Frank, with Anglo- Saxon blood in his veins, a graduate of Cornell, a man of sense and intelli gence and spirit, refused to see Conley because his counsel was not in town. But when his counsel re turned and he still had the oppor tunity he dared not let Conley meet him. It is not necessary to take up this discussion. Would the weakest of you when Innocent and wrongfully accused by a man with a black skin on the charge of murder let Rosser or any lawyer in the world keep you from confronting him and nailing the lie. No lawyer of any age or clime could prevent me from meeting a man, be he white or black, who had wrongfully accused me.” Pointing his finger at Frank he con tinued: “You went in a room and Inter viewed old New't Lee down at the po lice station at 12 o’clock at night. What did you do? Did you act like an innocent man who was trying to get at the truth? Oh, no! “Instead of going after him and try the B’Nai Brith—according to Lee, you hung your head and quizzed him not, but said: ‘If you don’t tell more about this we’ll both go to hell.’ Then in your statement to. the jury you tried to make it appear that your own detective, Scott, had concocted a scheme against you and lied about what happened. “The reason Frank didn’t put It up to Newt Lee was because he knew New’t Lee was innocent. He knew he was guilty and he was only adding to the dastardly crime of assault on the virtue of this little girl by trying to break the neck of this old negro to save his own reputation and neck. “Listen to his statement. He Is smart. Listen how he qualifies and fixes so that when we come back with rebuttal the technical law will pro tect him. Old Newt Dee had been night watchman at that factory only a few weeks. There had been other night watchmen before, and the charges of going into the place for Immoral purposes were during the time before Newt Lee came. He knew the detectives had charged that peo ple had gone in there for immoral pur poses but In his statement on the stand he confined his denial to the time Newt Lee was there as night watchman. “No, during the time old Newt Lee was there there w'as but one person for whom your passion burned,” the Solicitor continued, turning to Frank, "little Mary Phagan. She never would go there with you. But if you were telling the truth, why didn’t you make a bold and emphatic statement that none had ever been there. It was during the summer previous that Dalton and the others testified of the immorality there. There was the chance for impeachment of his state ment, and yet you tell me that that’s a good, fair, frank statement. “Now, another thing, listen to this. I read from the defendant’s state ment, ’Now', in reference to those spots claimed to be blood spots found by Barrett, I don’t say they are not. blood. They are near the ladles’ dressing room, and we also have many accidents near there. Let me say in connection with those acci dents that not all accidents are re ported. Only those which incapaci tate an employee are reported. But I say it might have been blood. It also might have been aniline dye or paint. I have seen girls drop bottles of this colored matter, but if it had been fresh blood or fresh paint the haskoline which was spread over it would have become pink or red in stead of remaining white.’ “Why Didn’t They Bring in a Chemist?’’ “But I ask you if the haskoline w’ould not have produced the identi cal result which the witnesses say w'as produced? Why didn't you bring before the jury a reputal 'e chemist and a man w’ho would have sustained you in this contention. If you had time to bring in experts to attack the overwhelming evidence of Dr. Roy Harris, why. in the name of truth and justice, didn’t you bring in just one chemist to support your theory of the blood spots? “You know' the reason. You know they were blood spots. You know that you didn’t bring in a chemist be cause the result of spreading the has koline over blood would have been exactly the result that was produced in the dressing room on the second floor.” Dorsey turned toward the jury at this point and asked: “Are you going to take this man’s unsupported word when his lawyers are unable to get any reputable chem ist to come in and stultify himself by declaring that those spots were not blood or that the result produced was not that of spreading haskoline over fresh blood? “This defense can not—they haven't got any defense. They circle and flut ter. but never light. They grab at j varnish, rat blood and Duffy’s blood, ! but they never knuckle down to show j that it was not blood. In view of the statement of Mell Stanford, who swept that floor and w r ho says it was not there Friday: in view of the statements of Christopher Columbus Barrett, who, despite what they say, continues to draw* his livelihood from the coffers of the National Pencil Company; In view of the statements of a great many others who went there to see the blood spots, can wa get but cne solution of the mutter 7, i say you can not Contends Fallacy in Defense’s Theory. “Then they fly onto another sub ject? It is the w’ay they claim Jim Conley took that body into the base ment. But, gentlemen «f the jury, you know, and they know’, that th's body wasn’t taken dowm that scuttle- hole. It did not show there where the dust was thick. And then did he shoot her down the chute of the Clark Woodenware’s place, where the body would have been concealed bet ter and longer thah where the body' was found? Did this negho, who, they say, robbed this girl—even If he had taken time to write the notes, even If he had hit her with a bludgeon —do you think, gentlemen of the jury, that he would have taken the time to tie a cord around her neck—* cord seldom found In the basement exceoL when It was sw’ept there with tne trash, but the proper place for which. w r as in that metal room on the second floor, where little Mary Phagan met her death? If he had done all that— after he had sent her body down the chute—why would he have gone down into the basement and have removed the body from Its safest hiding place down there at the bottom of the chute, where the dust, trash and boxes would have kept it concealed for weeks at least? Why would he have removed it out there near the boiler, where the firemen and everyone else would have been sure to And It? “I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that body was never sent down that chute; that body was never sent down that scuttlehole. It was taken down into the basement just as Jim Con ley says it w r as. “They fly off onto other things. Why, on May 1, when Holloway caught Jim Conley washing his shirt, he said, ‘This is my negro.' Fifteen days later, when the second squad of Pinkertons came In, can you tell me, will you tell me, why, if he shoved her dowm that hole, that not until the 15th of May was this bloody bludgeon found, and more blood than this girl has ever been shown to have lost was there? “Another thing. Frank said in his statement that this man Quinn came to him and told him he would like to take him back to the metal room, where, the newspapers said, and w’hero everybody else said, and knew’ that morning, that some blood .and soms hair had been found. Stresses Fact Frank Hadn’t Examined Spots. ‘‘.Although he had seen this in the papers, although he had heard from others in the factory that the spots and hair had been found, although he had been all around there, although the knowledge of the finding of these spots and hair had torn him to pieces, although he was so anxious to got detectives to work on the case that he had phoned Sohiff three times, yet Quinn had to come and ask him to come back there to see the spots. “Tell me, w’as that the conduct of an innocent man anxious to help the police? But, strange to say, not even Lemmle Quinn comes to support you in this statement. No one ever saw Leo M. Frank go back there to exam ine those spots. "If there was ever a spot on this earth that Farnk did not want to see it w'as the blood spot back there in the metal room, the spot where this little girl met her death. If Frank went down there to the morgue and the sight of that little girl tore him to pieces as he tells you it did, let any honest man on this jury tell me why It was he wanted to look upon her dead body again. “Rogers says he didn’t look at it.. Black says he didn’t see him look at it.” Attorneys Arnold and Rosser en tered strenuous objection. “Rogers did not say that Frank did Continued on Page 3, Column 1. M. RICH & BROS. CO. Yili«YflV>^ I Tuesday Only I ever happened. Why didn’t Frana, ! ing to get from him new light on this when those notes were found by the i case—this man at whom you had dead girl’s body—why didn't he then pointed an infamous suspicion to save and there say that that was Conley's your own neck and to save your rep- hand writing? Up to the tim, that it I utation on Washington street and in 424 Pairs of $4.00 and $5.00 Low Shoes for $1.00 the Pair. E3 P-R-I-N T-O-R-I-A-L-S No. 227 Good Printing a Business Necessity! You can’t *0 far In business without PRINTING. It is one of the very first essentials, in fact. Beginning with STATIONERY— the staple needs—Including LETTER HEADS, BILL HEADS STATEMENTS, CARDS. ENVELOPES and HIGH CLASS STA TIONERY, is the kind we advise, because it has an ADVERTIS ING VALUE. Phone for our Representative to call with samples BYRD of our handsomely LITHOGR APHED Printing Co. HP* STATIONERY. 46-48-50 W. Alabama, B n Phones M. 1560-2608-2614. Atlanta. I I S* uC 2: «au BEL % £ 5c mV, This is tbe “Dollar” shoe sale you’ve been •waiting for, for by it all other “Dollar” shoe sales are judged. * 3? i 3 The size and width range is not complete, but every J? : ^5 early comer will find a size that pleases. 5E j jjj No. C. 0. D.’s. No refunds. No exchanges after jjp •S3 Tuesday. ; M. Rich & Bros. Co. J Department of Famous Shoes.” I P S: