5 Rich Jews Indict State Watsons Magazine October 1915

8/2/2019 5 Rich Jews Indict State Watsons Magazine October 1915

1/66

WATSON'SMAGAZINEVol. XXI : No. 6. OCTOBER, 1915. Price, Ten Cents.

THOS. E. WATSON, EDITOR

I

ARTICLES BY THE EDITOR INTHIS NUMBER

THE RICH JEWS INDICT A STATE!THE WHOLE SOUTH TRADUCEDIN THE MATTER OF LEO FRANK

THE JEFFERSONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANYTHOMSON, GEORGIAi


2/66

The Story of FranceBy THOS. E. WJITSONTWO VOLUMESSS.SOREVISED EDITIONCONTAINS:

THE ROMAN CONQUEST: The Gauls, the Druids, themiinsirels, etc.THE PRANKISH CONQUEST: Clovis, the Triumph ofChristianity, Defeat of Saracens, etc.CHARLEMAGNE AND HIS TIMES.THE DARK AGES: Feudalism, Superstition, Papal Powerand Tyranny, Religious Persecutions.THE INSTITUTION OF CHIVALRY.THE CRUSADES.THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR.JOAN OF ARC : Her pure girlhood; heroic ntission; savesFrance; burnt to death by priests of Rome; then cano-nized as a saint.THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE: The Massacre of St.Bartholomew/.THE OLD REGIME: What it was in Church and State.The Rule of the Harlots, both in Church and State.Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Dragonnades.THE REFORMATION.

COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION:Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and reorganization ofboth Church and State.In the preparation of this work, the author exhausted all

the known sources of information, and no work on the subjecthas superseded his. It is standard, and will remain so.Mr. Watson bought out his publishers, the MacMillans,and he now owns plates, copyright and all.

THE SOLE PUBLISHERS ARE:The Jeffetsonian Publishing Co.

I July, 1914 Thomson, - Georgia


3/66

Watson^s MagazineLniered as second-ciass matter January 4, 1911, at the Post Office at Thomson, Geor/lia,

Under the eHct of March 3, 1879.

ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEN CENTS PER GOPYVol. XXL OCTOBER, 1915 No. 6

CONTENTS

FRONTISPIECESolJcilor Dorsey and His Assistant, Mr. A. E. Stephens.

SPECIAL c^RTWLES AND EDITORIALS -Thos. E. Watson :THE RICH JEWS INDICT A STATE. THE WHOLE SOUTH TRADUCED.,.- 301BOOK REVIEWS 358

CONFIDENCESA Poem Ralph M. Thomson .

.

348WHAT IS MONEY? INTRINSIC AND FIAT VALUES Col. Archie Fisk 343ELHANAN-A Jewish Legend 349A GEORGIAN IN HONDURAS 353

Published Monthly by THE JEFFERSONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY, Thomson, Ga.


4/66

SOLICITOR DORSEY AND HIS ASSISTANT. MR. A. E. STEPHENS.SNAPPED DURING THE TRIAL,


5/66

Watson's MagazineTHOS. E. WATSON, EditorThe Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole

South Traduced.In the Matter of Leo Frank.

ABNORMAL conditions prevailin this country, and the situa-tion grows more complicated,

year by year. We have carried the"asylum" idea to such extravagant lib-erality, that the sewage of the wholeworld is pouring upon us. The humanrace was never known to do, before,what it is doing now, to America. His-tory presents no parallel case. Fromthe Great Lakes to the Gulf, and fromCape Hatteras to the Golden Gate, wesee the same ominous, portentious phe-nomena, of peoples ditsinct from ourpeopledistinct in language, in man-ners, in standards, in customs, in Na-tional observances.Huge sections of our over-growncities are as foreign to us, as any ter-ritory that lies beyond seas. Our lawsare powerless in these unassimilatedsettlements. "Little Italy," in NewYork, is, to all practical intents andpurposes, a section of Naples trans-ported to our shores.Chinatowns in America are minia-ture Cantons. The industrial coloniesof West Virginia, Colorado, Michigan,Pennsylvania and New Jersey, are justthat many small Hungarys, ir*olands,Germanys and Italys. As for the Jews,they have found our "asylum" a para-dise; and from the uttermost ends ofthe earth, they are rushing throughour ports. The Zionist Societies,financed by the Hirsch endowment of

$45,000,000, are planning to bring 3,-000,000 European Jews here, at theclose of the present war.So wide open have been the doors ofour "asylum" that the native stockwhich made tne Republic, is already inthe minority. Its relative strengthgrows less with every shipload of im-migrants.Under these torrents of foreign peo-ples, whole States have lost their orig-inal character.

Massachusetts is not what she wasbefore the Civil War, nor is Colorado.

Puritan New England has been sub-merged. The hordes from abroad arem possession; they fill the shops, thequarries, the factories, the mills, andthe offices.An Ambassador of a foreign nationcoolly proposes to his government totie up the munition plants of this coun-try, and leave us without means of self-defense !How? By bribing the subjects ofAustria-Hungary to quit work.An Ambassador of a foreign Nationcoolly informs Germans in this coun-

try, that they will be punished fortreason under German law, if they ac-cept employment from manufacturerswho are selling arms to Germany'sfoes.

It is an open secret that our Govern-ment hasn't on hand enough ammuni-tion to supply an army four months.


6/66

302 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.and the Anihassndors of (iiM-ni:iiy andAustria have demonstrated their al^ili-ty to lock our wheels, so completely,that we couldivt get^ for ourselves fromour own plants^ the wherewith to de-fend ourselves froiri German attml'!

If such recent events do not startleour Statesmen into new views of theimmi


7/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 303to request you to write to Mr. Mason thatthe Holy See, as it has always in the pastacted according to the dictates of justicein favor of the Jews, intends now also tofellow the same path on every propitiousoccasion that may present itself.

Yours, etc., etc.,P. CARD. GASPARRI.

IMonsignor Giovanni Bonzano,Apostolical Delegate,

Washington.

What view will Confess and thePresident and Secretary Lansing takeof the flagrant breach of propriety?What wonld be thought of a (xermanSocietytlie Central \'erein, for ex-ampleif it should open a correspond-ence through Ambassador Bernsdorff,directly with the German Emperor?What better cloak for a system of es-pionage and secret treason could be de-vised, than private correspondence car-ried on b}' Austrian and German andJewish spies, through the Papal Am-bassador ?As everj^body knows, the Presidenthimself Avould not have written to thePope, except through Secretary Lan-sing. But the Jewish organization,which publishes its purpose to carveout a Jewish State in this Union, andits intention to submit certain "propo-sitions"' to our Government, has al-ready anticipated its independent ex-istence, by ignoring our diplomatic rep-resentatives. It goes over their heads,and deals directly with the Pope,through the Papal Ambassador, justas though the Jewish organization atChicago were an inde]:)endent StateThese Jews might be pardoned, for

their outrageous breach of loyalty anddecorum, on the ground that they donot know any betterbut what aboutBonzano, the Papal secretary, and thePope?They knew better; and they knewthey were insulting the Governmentand i)e()ple of the United States, whenthey set the precedent of dealing di-rectly Avith citizens of this Republic.NO ' SUCFI THING WAS EVERDONE BEFORE!These insolent Jews take it upon

themselves to acknowledge the ItalianPope as the true and only "Head ofthe Church of Christ."

All Protestant churches are nieiitallyobliterated. There are no Christianssave the Romanists. 'Waldensians,Greek Catholics, and Armeniansallmore ancient than Romanistsare leftwith the heathen. Bai)tists, Method-ists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Acivent-ists, etc., are mere trashephemeraland negligiblein the eyes of the lead-ers of the three million Jews. ThfePope is the earthly embodiment ofChrist, the Head of the Church, theone potentate enijiowered '"to arouseChristendom" in behalf of the poor,down-trodden Rothschilds, Belmonts,Guggenheims, Warburgs, Strauses,Ochses, Pulitzers, Abells, Schitfs,Kuhns, Loebs, Montags, Seligs, Dan-nenbergs, Waxelbaums, and Haases.With a fine display of scorn for ourPresident and Secretary of State, theThree Million Jeics slap the face ofDiplomatic Etiquette; and with a no-ble exhibition of contempt for non-Catholic churches, tJicy spit upon thecreed of Christianity.Two years ago. I thought that thereAvere evidences of a league betweenAmerican priests and the rich Jewsof our large cities, and our readersmay remember my comments.There is no longer any doubt thatthe Roman priests and the opulent

Jews are allies."The Holy See, as it has always inthe past acted according to the dictatesof justice, IN FAVOR OF THEJEWS, intends now to follow thesame pathPWhat marvelous liars these priests

are I How boldly they i>resume uponshort memories, selfish opportunism,and ignorance of historv ! They canrely upon the Catholic to believe ev-erything they say. for they know thatthe Catholic will not read after a"heretic." They are not much afraidof the "heretic," for they know that hisreaders are inditferent, his churchesdecadent, his daily papers choked withgold, and his political leaders afraidof the Catholic vote.


8/66

304 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.Therefore James Church, the Pope,

never bats an eye, when he tells theJews that he means to follow in thatpath of justice to the Jews^ which hispredecessors have always trod.

We'll be learning next, that Nerowas a great friend to the Christians,that the Duke of Alva protected theDutch, that Claverhouse cherished anardent affection for Scotch Presbyte-rians, that Catherine de Medici flungher queenly mantle over the Hugue-nots, and that the Hapsburgs of Aus-tria were iiidoinitable defenders ofthe Keformation."The Holy See has always acted ac-cording to the dictates of justice, infavor of the Jews !"

^\e\\,well, WELL!So it is not a Papal Spain that for-bids a Jew to enter the realm

It is not a Papal Poland that grindsthe Israelites to the ground.

It was not a Papal England that out-lawed the. Jeic nor a Protestant Eng-land that enfranchised him

It was not a Papal France, that de-graded the Jew, nor a Revolutionaryand Xapoleonic France which rehabil-itated himHow long has it been since PopePius IX. kidnapped the son of theMrrtaias to make a priest out of him?All I^urope rang with the scandal, andthe Emperor of the French imploredthe Holy Father to restore the boy tohis distracted parents. But the Popewas unrelenting, and those Jews neversaw their son, again.How long has it been since modernliberalism -ompelled (iir, l*opes to dis-continue their annual custom, atEome, of publicly cursing the Jews?How long has it been since the 29thcanon of the Aurelian Council wasrigidly enforcedthe Papal law whichmade it death for a Jew to even speakto a Catholic during Holy Week?

fv'^ee Roha di Roma, by W. W. Sto-ry, page 423.)Who was it that destroyed Jewishlibraries, forced Jews to wear badges,forbade them to eat and drink withCatholics, closed all the professions tothem, and taxed faithful Jews, to sup-

port Jews who consented to changetheir religion?Pope Eugenius IV. did it.Who expelled the Jews from allItaly, except Rome and Ancona?Pope Pius V. did it.AVho sent the murderous, devilish

Inquisition into Portugal, to first tor-ture and then burn, the Jews?Pope Clement VII. did it.AVho ordered the general destructionof the Talmud, and sanctioned thewholesale massacras of Jews inFrance?Pope John XXII. did it.Who ordered the punishment of Jew-ish physicians for entering Catholichouses, and denied Christian burial toCatholics who employed Jewish phy-sicians?Pope Gregory XIII. did it.Who controlled Europe during thedismal ages when Jews were houndedlike wild beasts, denied human rights,and grudgingly permitted to dwell inpestilential ghettos?The Popes did.Wio ruled the nations and directedthe consciences of monarchs and minis-ters, during the fearful centuries whena Jew could not own a home, could nothold an office, could not hold up hishead among men, and was forced toeke out a squalid existence, on such ig-nominous terms, and amid such dwarf-ing conditions, that the Jewish race,even now, shows the physical ana mor-al effects of that long night of slavery?The popes did.Who liberated the Jews from thesehorrible conditions?Modern democracy did it.When Great Britain, less than 100years ago, removed the Civil Disabil-ities of the Jews, it was Protestanistatesmanship repealing Catholic lav)s.

"Wlio was the Papal theologian whotaught, that '''Jews are slaves f''

It was Saint Thomas Aquinas, thechiefest of all Roman Catholic theolo-gians.For hundreds of years the legisla-

tion of Europe was based upon this in-fernal teachingthe teaching of a the-ologian who was such a favorite of the


9/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 305recent Popes^ Leo XIII., and Pius X.,that they ordered all Catholic teachersto again instruct their students in thePapal theology which forfeits the lifeof the "heretic," and imposes serfdomon the Jew.See Barnard Lazare's Anti-Semit-

is7n, page 125.)But how could you expect these his-torical facts to be known to a Chicagoeditor, who informs the Pope and theworld, that the Jews lost their rightsthe natural rights of manwhen Ti-tus stormed Jerusalem?According to the Tageblatt, the Jewshave been the pariahs of the human

race, ever since the year 70, afterChrist ! Mason, of the Tageblatt,ought to at least consult some simpleauthority on Eoman history, Merivale'sbook, for example. It won't take himbut a few minutes to learn what anass he made of himself, when he toldthe Pope that the Jews had never hada square deal in the world, after Jerusa-lem fell. If the Tageblatt Solomonwill study the subject, he will discoverthat the real persecution of the Jewsbegan after Constantine the Great hadmade his famous alliance with theChristian bishops. Solomon may alsolearn that when the Emperor Julian,"the Apostate," undertook to re-estab-lish paganism, he emancipated theJews, and attempted to rebuild theirtemple at Jerusalem. Solomon willlearn that so long as Popery was su-preme, the Jew was the vassal of thebishops and the kings, and that it wasthe Reformation which brightened theskies for the outlawed race.Bernard Lazare, the scholarly Jew,says in his AyitiSemAtisin^ page 131;"But new times were approaching;the storm foreseen by everybody brokeover the church."Luther issued his 95 theses * * *For a moment the theologians forgot

the Jews; they even forgot that thespreading movement took its roots inHebrew sources * * * *''THE JEWISH SPIRIT TRI-UMPHED WITH PROTESTANT-ISM. In certain respects, the Reform-ation was a return to the ancient Ehi-

on/sm, of the evangelic agesyLazare proceeds to prove that al-though Luther was provoked into vio-lent language against the Jews, be-cause they refused to become his con-verts, the Protestants of Germanynever ill-treated the Jews.

(See page 133.)In the United States, the priest andthe Jew have need of each other andthe Pope has blessed the alliance.That the Hearst papers are leaguedwith this queer combination of Jewfinancier and Roman priest, is an in-teresting detail; whether importantas well as interesting, remains to beseen.

In the case of the Russian Jews, thenew combination worked so well thatour Congress, in 1913, abrogated atime-honored treaty, as a protestagainst Russia's alleged mistreatmentof her own subjects.Descending to particulars, the newcombination was able to save the Rus-sian Jew, Beiliss, who was accused oftaking all the blood out of a Gentileboy, through forty-odd incisions in hisveins.In the Leo Frank case, the new com-

bination almost won, but not quite.And, of course, the unexpected defeatit sustained, profoundly enraged thenew combination.The Roman Catholic papers are asbitter against the State of Georgia, as

are the papers of Hearst and the Jews.The same Romanist journals thatcondoned and defended the deliberateassassination of the Protestant lectur-er, William Black, by the Knights ofColumbus, at Marshall, Texas, are un-measured in their denunciation of theState wherein a convicted and thrice-sentenced Jew was hanged by the Vig-ilantes.These Romanist papers indecently

exulted in the military murder ofFrancisco Ferrer, whose crime consist-ed of teaching progressive ideas in amodern school, but they are rabidly at-tacking a People who were determin-ed that one of Leo FranMs lawyersshould not annihilate our "judicial sys-tem.


10/66

306 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.The same Komanist papers tnat glo-

ried in the burning of eight Mexican''heretics" in 1895. at Texacapa, by thefanatical Catholic priests, can find nowords too severe to condemn the legalconviction of as vile a sodomite as everawoke the wrath of God.

THE GOVERNOR WHO REVERSED ALL THECOURTS, TO SAVE HIS OWN CLIENT! .This new combination of rich Jew.

Konian ])riest and Hearst newspaper,has arraigned the State of Georgia, atthe bar of public opinion; and so art-fully persistent hjis been the propagan-da of misrepresentation, that hi;n-dreds of editors and preachers, totallydisinterested, have been swept off theirfeet. These honest, but deluded, de-famers of Georgia, have broken thebounds of temperate discussion; andtheir abuse has become so indiscrim-inate, that it spares no State in the

South, and it calumniates both the liv-ing and the dead.

AVe (leorgiaus. particularly, are amean, low-down lot. and always were,because our torbears were the sweep-ings of London jails. Since our an-cestors were criminalsa sort of Bota-ny Bay and Devil's Island settlement it is natural that we should be adisgrace to the Union, and a reproachto the human race.Even a Virginia pa|)er can bring it-self to publish the following:

The guilt or innocence of I^o M. Frankin the matter of the murder of Mary Pha-gan has absolutely no bearing on thecrime committed by these savageL InGeorgia. Frank had been confined in thisI)rison for life because a fearless Governorpreferred to commit political suicide andendure social boycott in the state of hisnativity raflier than permit the hanging ofa man who had been convicted on the q lestionable evidence of a criminal negro andregarding wnose guilt there certainly ex-isted a most reasonable doubt.

Is this in any way surprising? Not inthe least bit when we review the historyof Georgia. It was originally a penal col-ony and was settled by the worst felonsand perverts that England could export toher blistering shores. Succeeding genera-tions grew up with criminal instincts justas marked and with ignorance, supersti-tion and physical unfitness far more mark-ed. These are the Georgia crackers, thet'layeaters among whom hookworm andpellagra and other disgusting diseases runrampant. Not in the entire history of thestate has pure Georgia blood produced areally great man. They were cowards andskulkers and camp followers in our CivilWar, and that Gen. Sherman should havecut himself off from his base of suppliesand marched entirely across the state un-opposed is not in the least bit surprisingwhen we consider the caliber of the malecitizens of that commonwealth. Its firstfamilies have now established what theyare pleased to call "society" in their cap-ital city of Atlanta, where they spend theirill-gotten gains acquired through manu-facturing nostrums 'and other quack de-vices guaranteed to do everything from


11/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 307taking the kink out of a negro's hair toturning the darkest Ethiopians into apure-blooded Anglo Saxon.The Virgin-ian.The Milwaukee Free Press or August

18, 1915, said:THE SOUTH AT THE BAR.

"The spirit and method of the Ku KluxKlan has once more triumphed in Georgia.

"Once more Southern "gentility" and"chivalry" have revealed their true c*har-

is a paradise of civilization compared withthe state of Georgia."And this is not the worst. The worst

is that the spirit of Georgia is typical ofthe spirit that prevails throughout a largeportion of the old South. Every Southernstate that tolerates lynch law, whose peo-ple revel in the writhings of torturedblacks, is capable of Georgia's monstrousoutrage. Every community that burns ne-groes at the stake or hangs them for un-proven or petty c?rimes, would act as Geor-gia did in the case of Frank.

JEWISH ATTACK UPON A STATE WHERE NO JEW WAS EVER MISTREATED.acter in murder, secession and anarchy.

"For the same bestial spirit that soughtto disrupt this Union, the same spirit thatlashed and ravished the helpless slave, thesame Southern spirit that even today iscelebrating the blood-lust oi the Ku KluxKlan as a virtue, is living in the persecu-tion and murder of Leo Frank.

"The trial and conviction of this unfor-tunate Jew, as accomplished by the courtsof Georgia, was enough to damn the peo-ple of that state as unfit for citizenship.The horrible sequel of his assassinationproves them to be something worse thanbarbarians.

"Americans have gazed askance at thebloody immorality of Serbia. But Serbia

How can the nationthe civilized, re-sponsible and self-governing part of itlonger tolerate this anarchy, this blood-lust on the part of a section that once de-fied humanity and government till it hadto be broken with swords and bullets?"And then this rot about the dangers ofmiscegenation! Who is responsible for

the mixture of Caucasian and Ethiopianblood in the country, the negro or theSouthern white? Not one light-coloredblack in 5,000 is the result of a negro'sdesign on a white woman. The light-col-ored black, with scarcely an exception,dates his ancestry to the lust of someSouthern white master, who did not hesi-tate to make the creature he bought and


12/66

308 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.sold as an animal the motber of his chil-dren.

"So much for the Southern hypocrisythat prates of misc'egenation to justify itscrimes.

"If the cries of the burning black vic-tims of a hundred Southern stakes havenot been able to rouse the conscience otthe North, can .t remain deaf to the last

LOOK AT GEORGIA.As a spectacle fit to make the gods

weep we commend to the people of theother States in the Union and especiallythose inclined to try the experiment ofprohibition the prohibition State of Geor-gia. Georgia stands today pre-eminent indisgrace before he rsister States in theUnion.

?^^TT>.Tf

LOOK AT GEORGIA !From Denver Post.agonized prayer of Leo Frank as his tor-tured body was swung by "Southern gen-tlemen' from a Southern pine?

"If Georgia cannot be scourged fromout the sister-hood of states, if she cannotbe reduced to a condition of dependancelower than that of the Philippines, she canat least be visited with a commercial, so-cial and political ostracism which will don-vince its gentry that true Americans stillenthrone justice and humanity as the chiefbulwarks of the nation. 'The Wine and Spirit Bulletin ismighty hard on us; it says:

"The professional prohibitionists havea way of tracing to the licensed liquortraffic the blame for nearly all crime ingeneral and for every startling crime orterrible disaster in particular, it remain-ing for them to even connect the slaugh-ter of the innocents, women and children,as well as men, in the Eastland disaster,with drinking. What then can they sayfor Georgia, one of their banner prohibi-tion States? And in view of their habitare we not justified in reversing the situa-tion?

"Yet the shameful acts of citizens of


13/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 309the prohibition State of Georgia, in intim-idating the court of justice and the juryin the Frank case, in threatening the Gov-ernor who had the courage to defy themob, and their subsequent acts in mur-dering their helpless victim and making amorbid show of his corpse, are but logicaland natural results following the teach-ings of the prohibitionists and of prohi-bition.

"Yes, Georgia is disgraced today as thenatural consequence of adopting prohibi-tion doctrine, which in its very nature isanarchistic and puts the rule of the mobabove the rights of individuals, abovecourts and law, above constitutions, abovehuman life, even, when they stand in theway of accomplishing its mad purposes.

"Look at Georgia, oh ye citizens of theUnited States, and then decide whetheryou want prohibition and its conse-quences!"

The Chicago Tiihune said

:

"The South is backward. It shames theUnited States by illiteracy and incompe-tence. Its hill men and poor whites, itsmasses of feared and bullied blacks, itsigno'-ant and violent politicians, its rottenmdustrial conditions and its rotten socialideas exist in circumstances which dis-grac'e the United States in the thought ofAmericans and in the opinion of foreign-er's."When the Noi'th exhibits a demonstra-

tion of violence against law Dy gutter ratsof scciety, there is shame in the localitywhich was the scene of the exhibition.When the South exhibits it there is defi-ance of opinion.

"The South is barely half educatea.Whatever there is explicable in the mur-der of Leo ]\I. Frank is thus explainable.Leo Frank was an atom in the Americanstructure. He might have died, unknownor ignored, a thousand deaths more 'agon-izing in preliminary torture and more cru-el in final execution, and have had no ef-fect, but the spectacle of a struggling hu-man being, helpless before fate as a mousein the care of a cat, will stagger Ameri-can complacency.

"The South is half educated. It is aregion of illiteracy, blatant self-righteous-

ness, cruelty and violence. Until it is im-proved by the invasion of better blood andbetter ideas it will remain a reproach anda danger to the American Republic."

The Pueblo, Colorado, Star-Journalsaid:

Georgia has added another chapter toits disgraceful story of the Frank case,the climax coming in the cowardly lynch-ing of Leo Frank by an armed mob thatforcibly removed him from the state pris-on farm and deprived him of life near thehome of the young girl for whose murderhe was convicted by a jury. The lync^hingof Frank is the logical outcome of the law-less scenes attending his trial and follow-ing the change of his death sentence tolife imprisonment by a courageous gover-nor who felt that Frank had not been giv-en a square deal. After the attack onFrank by a fellow prisoner it was ev-ident that further attempts would be madeto kill him, and the lynching therefore isno great surprise. It vms what could beexpecte


14/66

310 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.

AUO^VJST 1915 lO CENTS

IN THE OUTCAST STATE- According to the Denver paper, published where the Pope"s;Knights of Columbus,brutally lynched the Baptist Preacher.

The Denver, Colorado, Express said

:

"The assasination of Leo Frank by cit-izens of the sovereign state of Georgiabrought disgrace, not only upon that com-monwealth, but upon the entire nation.The arrest, ctonviction and the final mur-

der of the unfortunate victim of brutalblood-lust will go down in history as thevilest miscarriage of justice ever record-ed.

"Taken nearly a hundred miles, the ex-hausted invalid, handcuffed, was hangedand then, lest Georgia savages shpuld mu-


15/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 311tilate his mangled body, it was spiritedaway.

"The wars with the early Indians weremarked by scajlping and sometimes byburning at the stake. The story of thetorture of explorers by savage tribes ofcannibals has been written. The perpe-trators of this cruelty were savages.And yet, in this Year of our Lord, 1915,

in the Twentietn Century of civilization tothe Nth power, a stricken man under theprotection of what we are pleased to termthe Law, is cruelly assassinated in an or-ganized State. Savages is too mild a termfor the Georgia outlaws."The stain which tfie assassination hasbrought upon the nation can never bewashed out. Georgia today is an outc'astamong the States.The Chicago Post said

:

"If there is self-respect in Georgia, ifthere is courage in it^ governor, the menwho have dragged its name in the mire ofinfamy will be found and punished asthey deserve^and they deserve hanging.Georgia may resent outside interference,as some local Mississippian suggests, butGeorgia cannot be law and license to her-self in this malter. Her shame is theshame of the nation. Nor will the old ex-cuse that it was the deed of an impusiveand ignorant mob satisfy. It was thedeed of deliberation, not of impulse, andognorant mobs do not travel in automo-biles."

The Boston Traveler said

:

"In this crowning demonstration of herinherent savagery Georgia stands revealedbefore the world in her naked, barbarianbrutality. She is a shame and a disgraceto the other states of the bnion, who arepowerless in the matter of humane justiceto put upon her the cori-ective punishmenther crimes deserve. But the consciencesof the American people are not so callousas those of the Georgians, who sanctionby silence or take part in such crimesagainst fellow-beings, black and white.And to the degree that a humane public*can rebuke the state of Georgia by refusingto have any part of her unholy peoples'products they will do so. Anything made

or grown in Georgia will bear a sinisterbaud and be suggestive of lynchings andburnings and especially of this brutalmurder of Frank, and it ought to be anddoubtless will be left untouched. The onlvway in whic'h Georgia can be made to feelthe shudder of horror which is sweepinp.,the country and the utter contempt inwhich she is held by the rest of the na-tion, is by a deliberate boycott of Georgia-grown and Georgia-made goodspeaches,cotton, or whatever else bears the stampof the so-called "Empire State of theSouth."

The Louisville, Kentucky, Herald(owned by a Chicago Jew), said:"Surely such a state of aff'airs is the

South's shame and Georgia's shame!"Georgia's shame lies in the c.ty govern-

ment of Atlanta, which railroaded LeoPrank to an unmerited conviction, in herpolic'e force which made him a victim o'the demand of an inefficient constabularyto ocnvict someone at all hazards, whichturned loose the degenerate Conley be-cause it had made up its mind too soonthat it could and would convict Frank.

"The shame of the State is no greateron account of thfe lynching of Frank thanbecause of any of the other almost in-numerable lynchings which have precededit in that State and others.

"But because of these other thingswhich preceded his conviction, her shameis blacTi and continuing.

"It will continue until it may be saidin Georgia that a man may be prosecuted,no matter what his crime or how clear hisguilt, without the presence of the police inthe prisoner s dock asking for the vindi-cat'on of a detective theory, and withouta press which panders to the lowest pas-sions of the mob by such methods asmakes a fair trial and a just sentence be-yond the power of ordinary men in thejury box or on the bench to render.

The Investment Magazine^ Canton.Ohio, said

:

"Thousands of impartial investigatorsare convinced that Frank was not guilty,Millions have read the evidenc'e and knowthat he was convicted on "framed up" tes-


16/66

312 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.timonyand that he did not have a fairtrial. But Georgia was fletermined to"Hang the Jew' and has done so; in spiteof law and police protection and all theother apparatus of government.

"The lynching was participated in bythe entire commonwealth of Georgia. Allright minded mem 'familiar ^ with stateprisons know that FranK could not havebeen taken from bis cell without conniv-ance on the part of state officials. If this

der which led Austria to undertake thepunishment of Servia was insignificant.Georgia should be punished."In piou-s Boston, Massachusetts, theJews and the Knights of Cohimbiis

hehl a niass-niootiii


17/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 313he would be killed by a mob. The speakerlauded ex-Gov. Slatou for his action. Heattacked Thomas Watson, the editor ofthe Jeffersonian, and said it wias a dis-grace to have the American flag floatover him, as he was a disgrace to Ameri-can citizenship.

"Dr. Coughlin said that he knew thatLeo M. Frank died because he was a JewHe also said that it was not true thatrace prejudice showed itself on account ofoutside interference, as is claimed in Geor-gia. The speaker stated that the storiescirculated about the behavior of Frankiare not true and are used to cover overthe crime of the ones that killed him."In closing he said that he did not be-lieve it was going too far when he saidthat the present Governor and every of-ficial in Georgia knew the ones that tookpart in the lynching of Frank. He plead-ed with his auaience when they left thehall not to forget to work in aiding invindicating the name of Leo M. Frank.

"Rabbi M. M. Eichler of Temple OhabeiShalom, stated that he firmly believed inthe innocence of FrauK ana said that themeeting was both one of protest on ac-count of the lynching and a memorialmeeting for the martyrdom of Frank. Heclaimed that Frank never had a chanceand receiverd a mistrial because he wasa Jew and a Northerner. In closing hesaid that Georgia is not fit to be a sisterState of Massac'husetts.

"Rev. Charles Fleisher created someenthusiasm when he spoke of boycottingthe State of Georgia. He said that itmight have some effect to refuse to travelthere, to trade there, to loan money thereor to spend money there, for he said thatif the pocket nerve is touched it will makethe State squirm. H ealso said that, ifGermany is wrong regarding the Arabicmatter, America should boycott Germanyfor at least five years and such actionwould bring results.

"After the addresses Secretary Silver-man read the resolutions which were unan-imously accepted:

"One of the resolutions declares thatthe Jeffersonian has "aroused hatredamong the citizens of the United Statesand incited the mob spirit among the peo-ple of Georgia," and demands that 'the

United States postoffice authorities excludethis paper from the United States mail.'The second resolution was as follows:" 'Resolved, That citizens of Massa(?hu-

setts, in Faneuil Hall assembled, denouncethe lynching of Leo Frank by a Georgiamob as a deliberate and cowardly murdera high crime against civilization, and adisgrace to the United States, and urgeupon their fellow citizens of Georgia,both those who know the perpetrators andthose whose duty it is to enforce the lawsto redeem the honor of their state andnation and their own past reputation forhigh-minded citizenship, by bringing thosewho are responsible for the outrage toprompt and adequate justice."One point stressed in most of these-

attacks on the South is, that Leo Frankwas serving a life term in the peniten-tiary, and in good faith meant to takehis medicine.The Hearst papers argue it fromthat point of view, and so do most ofthe other traducers of Georgia.Yet every one of these editors knowthat the Burns agency, the Jew pa-pers, and the Hearst writers nad de-clared that the State "must redeem'herself" by granting Frank a full par-don.The Burns agency blatantly an-nounced that "the fight" was to be im-mediately renewed; and, since Frank'sexecution. Burns seems almost besidehimself because of the loss of so lu-crative a case. Are the editors at allchagrined for the same reason? Arethese virtuous publishers feeling sadlythe loss of the Jewish ducats that paidfor so much front-page space? Duringa whole year, Burns, Lehon, and a bat-talion of lawyerssome in New Yorkand some in Georgia, luxuriated in tha-Frank case.The Kansas City Star^ the New Or-leans Item^ the Chicago Tribune^ andvarious other righteous dailies, to saynothing of "farm" papers, have ban-queted on the Frank case. When hewas put to death according to Law,they had lost a gold mine. Of course,they deplore it. Othello's occupation'sgone, unless Slaton's attempt at a


18/66

314 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.''come back'' in Georgia re()[)en.s thegolden vein.As to that, we will soon know.Did Leo l^rank take the comnuitedsentence in good faith, intending toserve a life sentence? Did his i>artisansregard the 81aton commutation as any-thing more than a prelude to a pardon,or an escape?Let us see.The Straus Magazine, Furk^ said:"All credit to Governor Slaton, of Geor-

gia. His was a noble stand by his con-science and by his convictions against theclamor of prejudice and public opinion."Close upon the news of the commutingof Frank's sentenc'e came news of riotingin the streets of Atlanta, of the same mobspirit that has so often resulted in crimesthat are a stain upon Georgia's record.

"The fight for the vindication of Leo M.Frank has not ended; and even with hisacquittaland his ultimate acquittal isonly a matter of timethe fight for de-cency in Georgia will only have begun.This fight for decency will not end untillow-lived slanderers without moral char-acter, without public spirit, are run out ofthe state of Georgia. Tiie tight will not bewon until men like Ihomas Watson, thevery embodiment of the beast in looks,manners and conduct, are removed fromany influence upon the public sentiment ofthe community. This creature, whoseprivate conduct is such that we (?annotdescribe it in our pages, will be furtherexposed as our probe goes deeper.Burns said:Ultimately, perhaps in the very near fii-

tui'e, Leo tYank will he fi-eed. He willcome from the Georgia prison, where hehas been since Governor Slaton commutedhis sentence of death to life imprison-ment, vindicated of the murder of MaryPhagan, and the crime laid on the shoul-ders of the principal state's witness inthe famous trial. Governor Slaton, hissedby mobs in Georgia, will be hailed a hero.In the New York Evening Journal

(Hearst-Jew-Catholic), the Rev. Dr.Charles H. r*arkhurst said;At the time of this writing this young

liero i? hovering between life and death.

The situation is pathetic. We want himto live. The country wants him to live,with the exception of some portions of dis-honored Georgia. Our ambition for himgoes farther than that. We want to havehim restored to the enjoyment of thatliberty of wh.ch it is the almost univer-i^al sentiment he has been unjustly de-prived.

It is entirely safe to claim that in thejudgment oi ex-Governor Slaton, the manie either innocent or unfairly convicted.In either alternative a life sentence or anyother penalty is an injustice. Under thec'ircumstances the only course open tothe ex-Governor was to commute. Frank'ssafety lay not in freedom, but in impris-onment. Jail was supposed to be atleast a place of security. It was assumedthat convicts already immured there, es-pecially if they were convicted murderers,would not be allowed to roam aroundthe jail yard with concealed butcherknives.

If poor Leo lives he will have to pos-sess his soul in patience till the unac-countable bitterness of his persecutors hasworn itself out, which it will do in time.Passion cannot maintain itself indefinite-ly. It is like tire which goes out unlessfed with fresh combustibles. We maysafely believe that unless he is set freeby the liberating mandate of death, hewill eventually have freedom given himby the order of the court.When the New York preachers

Parkhurst. Hillis and othersfirst butt-ed into the (ieorgia situation, I wroteeach of them a courteous letter, aslc-ing them to allow me to put beforethem the evidence on which Frank wasconvicted.

Neither of the minsiters of the gospelcondescended to give me an answer.The New York Evening Mail pub-lished the following:

If Georgia would nivite the respect oflaw-abiding c'itizens the governoT- wouldproceed to pardon without any furtherdelay the man who stands before thewhole world as an innocent man, exceptin the estimation of some Georgians.


19/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 315Blin. the Boston Jew who had been

sj'ndicating articles in Frank's behalf,followed the commuting of his sen-tence, by publishing a philip])ic;iti:iinst The Jett'ei'soiiian. in which hedeclared that before any ettective movecould be macie to release Frank fromthe State Farm, Watson and his pub-lications must be outlawed. Blin stat-ed that certain "gentlemen" were atwork on a plan to have the Post-officede})artment issue an order against me.The son of William J. Burns, incharge of the Xew York office of thatnotorious crook, gave out a statementto the papers immediately after thecommutation, that "the fight"' to securefreedom for Fi-ank was to be renewedat once.

Therefore, the evidence is overwhel-ming; Frank and his partisans didnot take the commutation in goodfaith. They regarded it as a necessarystep to a full pardon, or to an arrang-ed escape.AMien Frank reached the State Farm,lie was received as a guest of honor.He was given a separate room and hisoAvn furniture : his floor was carpeted,and an electric fan was installed. Heeven had his electric cigarette lighter.A negro convict was assigned to waiton him. His roller-top desk was movedin, and he went to work on his cor-respondence, preparatory to shapingpublic sentiment again. Only one day.and not all of that, did he wear stripes,and that was the day the Farm wasunder inspection. The other convictswere so maddened at the favoritismshown this vilest of criminals, thatCreen tried to kill him. Of course, agreat uproar followed, and the attemptwas credited to The Jeffersonian. Ittranspired that Creen had never seena copy of my paper; and, of course, thepaper never contained anything incit-ing to murder.

All the outside papers were astound-ed that no ett'ort was made to resist thefew men who took Frank away fromthe guards, is it possible that the ed-itors have not guessed the reason?There are but two possible solutions

:

One is that the guards were infuriated

at him, and at the double duty theywere made to do for him, aloiie; theother is, the guards believed thatFrank^n friends were talcing him out.On his night ride to Cobb county.Frank told the Vigilantes that, at firsthe did not know whether they were

his friends, or his enemies.I may as well state it here, as else-where, that i^ rank did not at any time

protest his innocence; but, on the con-trary, he said just before he was exe-cuted: ^'The negro told the stori/.'^Then, he added the remark about hiswife and mother, a remark whichmeant he would rather die silent thanto bring shame upon his people.The Vigilantes said to Frank, justbefore he was executed:"Tell us if the negro is guilty. Weknow where he is, and if you say he.

too. is guilty, we will give him thesame that you are to get.'''Frank i^emained silent. He did askthe Vigilantes to shoot him.They answered, ''No, you were not.sentenced to be shot; you were sen-tenced to be hanged, and that's whatwe are going to do."He seemed about to make a full con-fession, but a nervous A'igilante saidsomething about the soldiers comingto rescue him, and he closed up.He asked for a box, that he mightjump off, and break his neck. He wastold that there was no box at hand,and no time to get one.His last words were:"God, forgive me!''''Not once did he say that the negrohad lied on him: not once didheclaim that the other witnesses hadsworn falsely: not once did he claimthat the trial was unfair and the ver-dict unjust.He made one very significant state-ment which seems to prove that the

.

negro held back some part of thetruth. He said. "The ne^ro did nottell it all''Once or twice, he appeared to be onthe point of telling what it was thenegro left out, but he checked him-self.

Strange to say, he slept uk st of the


20/66

316 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.way, on that long night-ride; hiswound had practically healed, and alltalk upon the "tortures" he sufferedon the road, or at the tree is utterlyunfounded.He Avas treated just as though theSherill' and Bailitts were taking himto the gallows, under the sentence ofthe courts.My information as to Frank's con-fession ("The negro told the story")came to me September 12th, from agentleman who got it from one of theVigilantes.The negro did tell the story, and hewas corroborated, not only by the tes-

timony of more than forty white wit-nesses, but by the physical condition ofthe second floor of the factory, by thephysical conditions in the basement, bythe physical condition of Mary Pha-gan's body, and hrj the physical condi-tion of Leo Franks on the morning aft-er the crime.

Celebrated crimes have their uncan-ny fascination, else so many bookswould not have been written aboutthem, I fear that wicked people in-tei'est us more than the good ones do;and I feel certain that most boys wouldrather read about robbers, highwaymenand pirates, than about Moses, Job, andthe other Saints, Give us the biogra-phy of a truly virtuous man, likeArchbishop Whatley, and we are aptto doze over it; but place in our handsthe memoirs of some grand rascal-like Benvenuto Cellini and we willget wide awake at once.Now, this Frank case has been madeone of the celebrated cases; and, formany years to come, its baleful conse-quences will be felt. Let us, therefore,try to understand it.In the August and September num-bei-s of this magazine, the official evi-dence was discussed and a digest of iipublished. I will not repeat anythingcontained in those issues, but will giveyou a view of the case from altogetheranother standpoint.

1, The negro's story was corrobor-ated by more than forty white wit-nesses, in that Frank was proven to

have been just the kind of man the ne-gro said he was; in that the elevatorwas found unlocked, as the negro saidit had been left, after the carrying ofthe corpse to the basement; in that tiiesigns of dragging over the gritty dirtfloor came straight and continuous^from the elevator to where the corpselay; in that lliero wci'c al)sohUely nosigns of any struggle on any floor ex-cept Frank's; in that the girl's faceshowed she had been dragged on it : inthat her drawers showed a rip-up, tothe vagina, which had been penetratedhut which contained no seminal emis-sion; in that white o^irls swore toFrank's lewd doings with one of the-girls in the factory in the daytime; andin that one white girl swore thatFrank had proposed sodomy to her, inhis office, on the second day she wentto work for him.A stubborn contest was made by thedefense in the effort to show that Frankwas not aware of Jim Conley's where-abouts, on the day of the crime, thesame being a legal holiday, and therel)eing no aj^parent cause for Jim'spresence at the factory.

If Frank was in touch with the negrothat morning, and kept him at theclosed-down factory, there would hesomething to explain. Besides, it wouldpowerfully corroborate Jim.

It so hoppened that Mrs. HattieWaites and her husband were return-ing by rail from Savannah, where hehad been attending an Odd Fellow con-vention. At Jesup they saw the At-lanta paper which told of the arrestof Leo Frank and the supposed com-plicity of Jim Conley.On seeing the picture of Frank inthe paper, the lady exclaimed, "Why.that's the man I saw in close conversa-tion with a negro, last Saturday morn-ing."

Mrs. Waites had taken Frank to bea friend of hers and had approachedhim to speak to him, when, on getting-close to him and looking into his face,she saw her mistake.

Therefore, when she saw the face inthe paper she recognized it, for it wasa face not easy to forget.


21/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 317When the solicitor heard of this piece

of evidence, he ran it down, by havinf;Mrs. Waites taken to see both Frankand Conley. She unhesitatingly iden-tified them as the two men she had seentalking together, between 10 and 11o'clock, on the day of the crime, nearSig Montag's place, where Frank ad-mitted he had gone, at that time.Three other white witnesses placed

the negro in the factory, that morning,sitting at the foot of the stairs, nearthe front door.What bvsiness had he, loiteringthere, on that legal holida?What did Frank talk to him about,on the street, so near the time of thecrime ?

Obviously, these questions could notbe answered to the satisfaction of thejury ; and therefore Frank had to braz-en it out that he had not seen the negrothat day, at all.Which would you have believedthe four disinterested white witnesses,or the man on trial for his life?You would have believed the fourwhite witnesses, two of them honestmenTillander and Grahamand twoof them ladies of unimpeachable char-acters. Mrs. Arthur White and Mrs.Hattie Waites.

Believing these witnesses, you mighthave felt constrained to place credit onthe explanation of the negro, as to whyhe came to the factory, that closeddown that morning, and remained un-til Frank got through with him.

There had to he a reason for the ne-:gro's giving up his holiday, and stay-ing at the factory. Isn't it so?

Well, then, what was the reason?Frank gave none ; the negro did. Thenegro said it was to keep a watchoutwhile Frank was with a girl whom he-expected to come. Conley did not evenkn* w what girl Frank expected.

2. The negro's story was corrobor-ated l)y the pliysical condition of thesecond floor. Frank's office floor.Swoim to as Man/s, the hair foundon the handle of the lathe machinecould never be shown to have possi-bly been the hair of another girl. Those"few strands of the dead child's o-olden

crown, literally dragged Leo Frank toinevitable conviction. They had to heaccounted for, because they had comeupon that projecting crank-handle, aft-er Friday evening and before Monday.Whose hair i and how came it thereat that time?Nobody could answer. Even the ne-gro did not ioiow what it was thatMary fell against when Frank struckher; but his evidence cleared up themystery, and without his story, itwould still be a mystery.The blood on the second floor, andthe absence of blood anywhere else,corroborated the negro; and the factthat neither Frank nor Mary could beseen by Miss Monteen Stover, whenshe searched for Frank and waited forhim from 12:05 to 12:10, most power-fully supported the negro's story ofMary's previous coming, and of thesteps of two persons that he heardwalking hack to the metal room, wherethe identified hair of the murdered girlwas found, the next time the loorkmancame to put his hand on his lathe ma-chine.

3. The negro's story was corrobor-ated by the physical condition of thebasement.There were no signs of any struggle

in it; no blood, no torn-out hair, nounusual appearance on the dirt floor.There was a trail leading from theelevator shaft to the corpse, showing

that she had been dragged from theone place to the other, and her faceshowed that she had been dragged bythe heels.

This indicated the work of one man,and a man not strong enough to liftand carry the body. Conley had doneit, but Frank was not strong enough.Therefore, when Frank returned to thefactor3^ that holiday afternoon, andlocked himself in, he had to get thegirFs body away from the elevator,where he and Conley had left it, andhe had to drag it. He wanted to placeit as far as possible from the elevator,and in the darkest part of the base-ment to prevent the night-watch fromdiscovering it.

(I may here state that there was no


22/66

318 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.bank of cinders in the basement, noth-in


23/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 319-Selig, on Sunday morning, had not

onl}' made a full recovery from hisalarming illness, but showed no bad ef-fects fro^i the liquor.

It was his soii-iu-law tliat looked andacted like the man who had been attacked by indigestion, and who hadused up -iill the Avhiskey.As you know, the murder of ISfaryPhagan was committed on the South-ern JSIemorial day, April 20th, 1913.At that time Leo Frank was enteringthe 3'2d year of his age, and Mary lack-ed a few da3's of being fourteen. Forsentimental reasons, Nathan Straus,AA'alliam J. Burns, and the Jewishpress generall}^, have referred toFrank as a "boy;" and Governor Sla-ton went so far as to say in defense ofhis virtual fardon of his client, thatFrank was "too delicate" to havestruck Mary the blow which knockedher down.This delicate middle-aged Jew

weighed 127 pounds, and was so full ofvitality that no ordinary amount ofvenery could satisfy him. His eyes,mouth, chin, nose, ears and neck typedhim as a sexual pervert.His lawyers announced ready for

trial, when his cnse '>vas called in ccurt,and they did not suggest a change ofvenue. The}^ had had months to pre-pare; they were intimate with localconditi(!ns: and, while their manage-ment of themselves, their client andtheir witnesses, showed the grossestlack of discretion and preparedness,they never at any time moved for amistrial.

Let me explain to the layman, thata presiding judge will stop a trial, dis-charge the jury, and set another timefor the case to be tried, before anotherjury, if anything occurs in the courtroom to prejudice defendants right toa fair trial.Had any "mob spirit," any "junglefury," and "psychic drunk," any"blood lust" manifested itself in thesight or hearing of the ]ury, it wouldhave been the duty of Frank's lawyersto have put an end to the proceedings,then and there, hy moving that a mis-trial he declared.No such motion could be made, be-

cause no such facts existed. FranFslawyers filed, a length]/ affidavit, as apart of their extraordinary motion fora new trial, and nowhere do they statethat anything occurred in the court-room, outside those inevitable peals oflaughter when one lawyer "chaws" an-other. I went over this affidavit, ofFrank's lawyers, reading it carefully,and was amazed to see that they didnot even accuse the court of toleratingmisbehavior. These lawyers explicitlysay that the jury was not present atall, when the audience in the court-room applauded a ruling, by JudgeRoan, m favor of Solicitor Dorsey.

It seems that Dorsey was hailed, inthe streets, with cheers, and thesecheers were all that the lawyers ofFrank could allege in support of thecharge of mob violence, mob spirit,jungle fury, psychic drunk and blood-lust.On the contrary, it was shown bythe affidavits of the Sheriff, and all hisdeputies and the court bailill's, that nodisorders took place during the trial.Col E. E. Pomeroy, of the FifthGeorgia regiment, swore to the samething, and so did the newspaper re-porters. Every member of the jurymade affidavit to the good order main-tained, and to their freedom from anydisturbance, interruption or attempt-ed influence.But it is the Sunday American (Mr.Hearst's Atlanta paper), that fur-nishes the most remarkable evidenceas to what was thought, at the time,of the fairness of Frank's trial.On Sunday, August 21, 1913."Hearst's Sunday American" publish-ed a story of the' four weeks' trial, "Byan old Police Eeporter," which con-cludes as follows:

Regardless of all things else, the pub-lic is unstinting in its praise and approv-al of the brilliant young Solicitor Generalof the Atlanta Circuit, Hugh Dorsey, forthe superb manner in which he has han-dled the State's side of the case.

"It all along has been freely admittedthat those two veterans of criminal prac-tice, Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold,would take ample care of the defendant.


24/66

320 WATSON'S MAGAZINE."Two more experienced, able and ag-

gressive attorneys it would be impossi-ble to secure in any cause."When it was first learned that Rosserand Arnold were to defend Frank, thepublic realized that the defendant had

Chap,' not widely experienced, willing andaggressive enough, but"He had been but lately named Solicitor

General, and he hadn't been tried out ex-haustively."Maybe he could measure up to the

determined to take no chances. He se- standard of Rosser and Arnold, but it

EX-GOV. JOHN M. SLATON AND MRS. SLATON, FROM A PHOTOGRAPH TAKENAT THE PANAMA EXPOSITION FOR A LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPER.lected from among the cream of the Geor-gia bar.

"That the state's interests, quite as sa-cred as the defendant's, would be lookedafter so jealously, so adroitly, and soshrewdly in the hands of the youthfulDorsey, howeverthat was a matter notso immediately settled!

Dorsey an Unknown Quantity."Dorsey was known as a 'bright young

was a long way to measure up, neverthe-less!

"It soon became evident that Dorseywas not to be safely underrated. Hecould not be sneered do^^n, laughed do^\n,ridiculed down, or smashed doAvn."He took a lot of lofty gibing, and was

called 'bud' and 'son' right alongbutevery time they pushed him down, he aroseagain, and generally stronger than ever!


25/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 321"Time and again he outgeneraled his

more experienced opponents."He forced them to make Frank's char-

acter an issue, despite tnemselves."He got in vital and far-reaching evi-dence, over protest long and loud."Whenever the Solicitor was called

upon for an authority, he was right therewith the goods. They never once caughthim napping. He had prepared himselffor the Frank case, in every phase of it.

"The case had not progressed very farbefore the defense discovered unmistak-ably that it had in Dorsey a foeman wor-thy of its most trustworthy and best-tem-pered steel

!

"And the young Solicitor climaxed hislong sustained effort with a masterfulspeech, that will long be remembered inFulton county!

"In places h literally tor to pieces theefforts of the defense. He overlooked nodetailat times he was crushing in hisreply to the arguments of Kosser and Ar-nold, and never was he commonplace!Fixed His Fame by Work.

"Whatever the verdict, when Hugh Uor-sey sat down, the Solicitor General had fix-ed his fame and reputation as an able andaltogether capable prosecuting attorneyand never again will that reputation bechallenged lightly, perhaps!"Much credit for hard work and intel-

ligent effort will be accorded Frank Hoop-er, too, for the part he played in the Franktrial. He was at all times the repressedand pains-taking first lieutenant of theSolicitor, and his work, while not so spec-tacular, formed a very vital part of the.whole case made out and argued by theState. He was for fourteen years the So-licitor General of one of the most impor-tant South Georgia circ'aits, and his ad-vice and suggestions to Dorsey were in-valuable.""A noteworthy fact in connection witlithe Frank trial is that it g/enerally is ac-cepted as having been as fair and squareas human forethought and effort couldmake it.

It may be true that a good deal of theirrelevant and not particularly pertinentcrept into it, but one side has been toblame for that quite as much as the otherside.

lluUng Cut Both Ways.The judge's rulings have cut impartially

both wayssometimes favorable to theState, but quite as frequently in favor ofthe defense.

Even the one big charge of degeneracy,which many people hold had no properplace in the present trial, wsnt in witlioutprotest from the defense, and cross-ex-amination upon it even was indulged in.

Unlimited time was given both thestate and the defense to make out theircases; expense was not considered. Thatrial has lasted longer than any other inthe criminal history of Georgia. Nothingwas done or left undone that could giveeither side the right to complain of unfair-ness after the conclusion of the hearing.

It is DirncuLT to conceive how hu-man MINDS AND HUMAN EFFORTS COULDPROVIDE MORE FOR FAIR PLAY THAN WASPROVIDED IN THE FrANK CASE.Mark it ! This was published after

the evidence was all in^ and while Dor-sey was closing the argument for theState.Nobody knew what the verdictiLwuld he. But Hearst's Atlanta pa-per told the world, that it is difficult toconceive hoAV human minds and hu-man efforts could provide more., FORFAIR PLAY, than was provided inthe Frank case.The trial had been generally re-garded "a^ fair and square., as humanforethought and human effort couldmake it.''''So said the Hearst papers on Sundaybefore the verdict had been rendered.After the verdict of "Guilty" was

Hearst one of the men who bitterlydenounced the jury, and the courts?He was.When the officers told Frank that a

girl named Mary Phagan had beenfound in his basement, he did notmake any exclamation of surprise andhorror ! He took the news as a matterof course. He did not ask anythingabout the condition of her body, thephysical evidences of the crime, or theprobable time, place, manner and mo-tive of the act. He did not offer anysurmise as to who did it. He expressedno concern whatever. His demeanor


26/66

322 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.was exactly' that of a man who knewall about it and who had no questionsto ask, (iftev bein


27/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 323tically certain that the Burns agencywould have hired Ragsdale and Bar-ber to swear tliat it was the night-Avatchman whom tliey heard confessthe crime, instead of Jim Conley.This deliberately planned scheme tolay the crime on the night-watch re-veals itself in the notes, in the forgedtime-slip, in the ''planted'' shirt, andin Frank's sinister suggestions to thedetectives that the night-watch oughtto know more about it.

If a black case could be made black-er, this diabolical attempt to hang theinnocent negro, while shielding theguilty one, would deepen the darknessof this terrible crime.During the days of excitement, sus-pense, eager inquiry, tireless researchtdiat followed the crime.Leo Frank never uttered a sylla-ble which would implicate Jim Con-ley. Yet he was familiar with Con-ley's crude ''hand-write,'* had seen thenotes when they Avere first found, andsaw that in those notes Jim Conleywas describing and accusing the night-watch, who had onlj^ been three weeksand whom Conley had never seenStanding out in the turbid waters of

this case are three peaks upon wdiichthe Ark of Life would have rested,had the Jcav been innocent

:

1. He would have explained, andhad his parents-in-law to explain, whytheir daughter, Frank's wife, shunnedthe imprisoned husband for threewhole weeks, after he was committedto jail.His father-in-law and his mother-in-

law both went on the stand to testifyto Frank's natural conduct on the Sat-urday night of the crime, and the Sun-day following.

^yhlJ didn't they explain the unnat-ural conduct of their daughter?The Solicitor could not have goneinto this, for it would have been usingwife against husband, which our lawwill not allow. But the defendantcould have gone into it fully, to ex-plain an extraordinary fact that wasalready in evidence.

AAHiy didn't Frank's lawyers callupon the Seligs to tell the jury why

their daughter shrank away from herhusband for three whole weeks, whenhe was in jail, accused of rape andmurder ?

2. When eleven white girls sworeto Frank's vicious character, the indig-nation of an innocent inan^ would haveprompted him to a rigid cross-examin-ation of those witnesses.The innocent man would have facedthose perjured women, and fired atthem questions like these:What did you ever see me do, or at-tempt to do, that W'as immoral'^What did you ever hear me say, thatwas lewd?Did I ever attempt to mislead you?If so, where and when?What did I say, and what did youDid you ever notice any lascivious

conduct of mine in the factory?If so, with w^hom?AVere you ever in my employ, and

did you quit, or were you discharged?If you voluntarily quit, what wasyour reason?

If you were discharged, w^hat wasthe cause?To whom, before now, have you everstated that my character was lascivi-ous ?

In other words, if these women wereperjurers, defendant hneio it., and hislawyers should have riddled them oncross-examination.On the contrary, if they were tell-ing the truth, defendant l-iuw it. andit w^as better not to make mattersworse by a cross-examination.Which course did Frank and hislawyers adopt?The latter!

3. Beleaguered by false witnessesand suspicious circumstances, the in-nocent man invites investigation,courts inquiiy, offers to explain awaywhat is otherwise inexplicable.The guilty man fears investigation,and shuns inquiry. It told heavidlyagainst Police Lieutenant, CharlesBecker, of Xew York, that he did notgo to the witness stand. His seemingfear of cross-examination -Jiurt himbadly in public opinion.


28/66

324 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.But Leo Frank went to the stand,

and occupied many, many hours talk-ing to the jury, and then refused toallow the Solicitor to ask him one sol-itary questionOur Georgia law gives that privilegeto every defendant, and this most len-ient of codes gives the jury the lightto believe the unsworn, unsifted state-ment of the defendant in preference toall the sworn and sifted testimony IAccused by a "low-down, drunken,

shiftless negro!"Accused of indescribable practices

in his place of businessAccused of proposing the obscene

thing to a girl on the second day ofher employmentAccused of bringing a most dissolutewoman of the town into his office, and

acting lower than any beast with herAccused of taking Rebecca Carson

into the ladies' private room, andshuUing himself in there with heralone for 15 to 30 minutes the grVsmother heing a worker on the samefloor!Accused of lusting after Mary Pha-gan, pushing his attentions on her.laying a trap for her by refusing tosend her pittance by her chum.Accused of giving Jim Conley his

instructions the morning of the crime,and causing him to come and be readyto watch the front door, when thedoomed child should arrive.Accused of decoying the little one

to the metal room on the pretence oflooking to see whether there would bematerial for her to work with, the nextwork dayAccused of shutting the door on thisemployee of his, and attempting to get

her to let him do, with her^ what MissNellie Woods swore he wanted to do.with herself, and what Dewey Mollistold Judge Roan, to Frank's face, hedid do with herAccused of resenting the girl's hor-

rified i-efusal, and of knocking herdown, committing the act with her,after she was down, and then, to pre-vent exposure and punishment, tieinga hemp cord around her throat andchoking her to death

Accused of dragging the dead girlby the heels over the basement floor,until she was lying prone upon herpurpled face, in the obscurest nook ofthat dark room, and of then turningdown the gas-jet, until it was no big-ger and brighter than a "lightning-bug," so that the night-watch wouldnever see that grewsome figure lyingall rumpled, and bruised, and bloodyaway off there by the back door.Accused of all this, menaced by the

coinciding testimony of more than for-ty white witnesses, encircled by a chainof physical facts which no humanpower could annihilate, ignore, con-fuse, or elucidatecompassed roundabout in this way, and then stand uponthe privilege of not allowing a singlequestion to be asked him?Never in God's world did Innocence

so act, never!After the verdict of guilty, the de-

fendant made a motion for a new tri-al, alleging many errors committed byJudge Roan, and, also, that there wasnot sufficient evidence to support theverdict.

After a long, careful, conscientiousconsideration of the motion, JudgeRoan overruled it. In doing so hesaid that he himself did not knowwhether Frank were guilty, but thatthe law placed the responsibility forthat issue upon the jury. Of course itdoes. For hundreds of years, jurieshave been the judges of the facts.Governor Slaton stated the legal prin-ciple, in almost the same words, whenin 1914, he denied the application forclemency in the Nick Wilburn case. Hedid the same thing, last year, in theUmphrey ana Cantrell cases.

Frank's lawyers took the case to theSupreme Court, where the alleged er-rors were elaborately argued. Themajority Justices held that the evi-dence was sufficient to support the ver-dict, and that Judge Roan had notcommitted any substantial errors oflaw.The minority Justices held thatJudge Roan nad committed one error,

to-wit: He had allowed the evidenceof Dalton and Conlev to establish in-


29/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 325dependent acts of licentiousness on thepart of Frank. This evidence, how-ever, was merely cumulative, there be-ing enough unquestioned testimonybefore the jury to convmce them ofi* rank's vices.The majority Justices reasoned that

the evidence m question was properlyadmitted, because it tended to proveFrank's character and conduct in theplace where the crime was committed;and, therefore, tended to establish theidentity of the criminal.The State's theory being that themurder was incidental to a sexual act,and there bemg evidence to supportthis theory, it was competent to intro-duce testimony to prove that it wasFrank who used the factory for sexu-al acts.The minority Justices never saidthat the evidence was not sufficient tosupport the verdict.After the Supreme Court decided

the case, the trial recommenced, in thenewspapers. According to all prece-dent and practise, the question ofJb rank's guilt had been settled. Hisguilt had been judicially ascertained.The Law had done its do. The Lawsaid "It is finished."Not so the newspapers. The AtlantaJournal (whose managing editor is aJew), published an inflammatory edi-torial, demanding that the decision ofthe Supreme Court he defied!The Journal announced a new doc-trine as to the responsibilities of aState for the administration of justice.It said:

"Responsibility for the enforcement ofthe law and the punishment of crime restslargely but not exclusively upon thecourts. The press also has its share ofresponsibility, and It seems to the Journalthat the time has come foT the press tospeak. The Journal will do so now eventhough every other newspaper in Georgiaremains silent. '

Here was a novelty. Never before hadany Southern man announced that a por-tion of the judicial power is vested in thepublishers of newspapers.

The Constitution of Georgia puts the

responsibility on judges and juries; butthe Journal declared that "a share" ofthis responsibility is on the press.What share? Half, or less than half?Where is the "share" to be allotted, when,and by whom?Did the press tote its "share" in the

3'ear 1914, when four Gentiles werehanged for murdering men? "WHiatdid the Atlanta Journal do with its"share," when Lep Myers got off atmanslaughter, after going to a Gen-tile woman's room, in Macon, and atro-ciously shooting her to death.The Journal further said:The courts have their great responsi-

bilities and their arduous duties to per-form, and be it said to their everlastingcredit, they discharge those duties to thebest of human ability. But even juriesare sometimes swayed by environmentand the judicial ermine is not infallible.Infallibility is an attribute of omnipo-tence.

The Journal further said:"Leo Frank has not had a fair trial.He has not been fairly convicted and his

death without a fair trial and legal con-viction will amount to judicial murder."The Journal further said:"Unless the courts interfere we are go-

ing to murder an innocent man by refus-ing to give him an impartial trial."The Jew Editor of the Atlanta Jour-

nal further said

:

"It was within the power of humanjudges, human lawyers and human jury-men to decide impartially and withoutfear the guilt or innocence of an accusedman under the circumstances that sur-rounded the trial. The very atmosphereof the courtroom was charged with anelectric current of indignation whichflashed and scintillated before the eyes ofthe jury. The courtroom and streetswere filled with an angry, determinedcrowd, ready to seize the defendant if thejury had found him not guilty."A verdict of acquittal would havecaused a riot."


30/66

326 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.When John Cohen published this in-famous libel in his Athmta -JonriKih lie

lired the signal for every Jewish editorin America. From that day to this,the scurrility of outside writers hasbeen fed on John Cohen's lying edito-rial in the Journal.The only evidence these hack writ-ers and their honest dupes have hadas to mob spirit, mob atmosphere andthe rest of it, has been the unsworn,uiisu})ported, and utterly false state-ments of this Atlanta Jew.Judge Roan had seen no mob "scin-tillation" in the court-room; the otherofhcers of the court swore there wasnone; the Colonel of the Fifth regi-ment testified, on oath, there Avas none;the reporters of the papers made af-fidavit there was none; and the Hearstpaper emphatically stated before theverdict Avas known, but after the tri-al was closed, that there never hadbeen a fairer trial.Xot until the Supreme Court decid-ed against Frank, did John Cohen

himself allege that the trial had beenunfair. If he knew it to have beenunfair, why didn't he contradictHearst's paj^er the year before^ whenit paid so high a tribute to JudgeRoan, and the State? Why wait un-til another year, and then discover thatthe trial was a mob-controlled affair,and that Frank's death under JudgeRian's sentence would be "judicialmurder?"Xot long after John Cohen opened

his cannonade on our Courts, Collierssent C. P. Connolly to Atlanta to writeup the case. Connolly took his cueand his tone from Cohen, and otherwriters followed the lead of Connolly.Concerning the story of our Montanapatriot. Coll'ierH has recently said:"We cannot find it in us to cry out for

vengeance upon the men who lynchedFrank. We know as well as anyone elsethat Frank was innocentwe know it bet-ter than some folks, for we think thepainstaking investigation made by Mr.Connolly in Collier's was not excelled inthoioiiohness or conscientiousness by anyother review. Nevertheless we find it im-possible to get up any blood lust of our

own. The feeling that the whole thinginspires in us is a good deal nearer tosadness than to anger. Consider the menwho did this act. Consider their motive.It could by no possibility be selfish. Theydid not expect to make any money out ofit. They had no personal feeling againstFrankthey had never seen him. Forthem there was neither gain nor satisfac-tion in what they did. On the other hand,they took grave risksrisks in theshadow of which they will continue towalk until they die. It is impossible toconceive that their motives were otherthan patriotic. By all accounts they werethe best men in the communitytheycarefully excluded the violent elementfrom their counsels and their action.These men were inspired by the kind ofhigh devotion that has frequently madeheroes. Of course they were utterlywrong, but the place for the blame, as wesee it, is not on the individuals who didthe act, but the state of ignorance whichmade it possible for these individuals tothink their act was good. It is not atime for self-righteousness. It is not atime to cry out against anyone. Georgiais not a neighbor; she is a part of us. Itis time for searching of hearts. It is atime for all of us to enlarge our heartsby being charitable.

Collier's may very well feel like"forgiving" us: whether we can for-give Collier's, is another question. Itlent itselfif lent is the right wordto a most unscrupulous falsification ofthe official record, and is largely re-sponsible for the tragedy of a fugitivegovernor, an informal enforcement ofa formal death-sentence on Leo Frank,and such other tragedies as may at-tend John M. Slaton's return to Geor-gia .

Let me take up the Connolly story,and prove to you how untruthful itwas, and how shamefully it traducedus.The first statement of Connolly is:

"Saturday, April 26, 1913, a holiday,Mary Phagan went from her home in At-lanta to the National Pencil Factory atwhich she worked, to get some pay stillowing her. She did not return to herhome. A search was instituted, without


31/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 327success. At 3.30 o'clock the followingmorning her dead body was accidentallydiscovered in the basement of the pencilfactory by the night watchman, whoseduty it was to make the rounds of thebuilding. Two men were immediately ar-rested. One was Leo M. Frank, the sup-erintendent of the factory, who admittedhaving paid the girl her wages in his of-fice at noon on Saturday. The other wasNewt Lee, the night watchman, who haddiscovered the body.''

How very superficial must havebeen Connolly's study of the facts!Leo Frank was not ''immediately ar-rested." Newt Lee was immediatelyarrested at Frank^s instigation^ andJim Gantt was next jailed, because ofwhat Frank insinuated as to his inti-macy with the dead girl. Frank wasnot arrested until Tuesday.Frank did not "pay the girl herwages at noon^ His stenographer didnot 'leave until 12 :02, and Mary thencame, next.

Connolly's next statement is:"Then a third man, a negro named Jim

Conley, who also worked in the factory,but who was not known to have been inthe factory at the time of the murder,was accidentally discovered wasliing astained shirt. He was arrested and heldas a suspect, but suspicion was not seri-ously directed toward him. The stainedshirt was returned to him by the police,and his name was practically eliminateduntil three weeks later, when it was dis-covered that he could write. He had pre-viously denied that he could write.

Connolly says "stained shirt ;" thosewho trod in his tracks impiôved onthis and called it "a blood-stainedshirt!"The official record, page 79, showsthat E. F. Holloway, the day watch-man^the man who twice swore heleft the elevator locked Saturdaymorning, and then changed his storyswore

:

"I saw Conley * * * down in theshipping room watching the detec-tives, officers and reporters. I caughthim washiniT his shirt. Looked like

he tried to hide it from me. / pickedit up and looked at it carefullyÂny stains'^ None. Any hloodstains? None. Just dirt, that was all,and the negro was washing it, not insecret at home., but in public, at thefactory. He washed that shirt to cleanit up for court next day, and he woreit next day, ]ust as he had been wear-ing it Monday morning. The policenever took it away from him.

Yes, he denied that he could write,and Frank did not tell the police anybetter. The two men were then pro-tecting one another, and Frank wasframing a case on the night watch.Connolly states that:"No defendant in a criminal case in

Georgia may give testimony under oathin his own behalf, nor is his wife allowedto testify either for or against him; buthe may make a statement not under oathto the jury. His own lawyers are notallowed to ask him any questions, andthe prosecutor never asks any, for he fearsthe answers of a witness not subject tothe penalties of perjury."The prosecutor always asks ques-

tions, provided the defendant will al-loio it. Frank would not allow it.Connolly again says:"Frank was convicted solely on Conley's

testimony. Without it there was no case.Not one person ever came forward on thetrial who saw Frank and Conley togetheron the day of the murder, although Con-ley swore they walked the streets of At-lanta for blocks."

I have already shown from the of-ficial record how the chain of circum-stantial evidence was formed by manywhite witnesses, most of whom werethe employes of Frank, and not un-friendly.Conley did not swear that he andFrank "walked the streets of Atlanta

for blocks." vVhat he swore was, thatFrank and he met near Sig Montag's,and that Franlc told him there what todo for Frank at the factory, after thegirl should arrive. On this vital pointConley wâs corroborated by Mrs. Hat-tie Waites, a ladv of unblemished


32/66

328 WATSON'S MAGAZINE.character, and of absolute disinterest-edness in the case,

Connolly says:"The State insisted that Mary Phagan

was attacked before Monteen Stover cameto the factory at 12.05. But Mary Pha-

, gan, according to three of the State's wit-nesses, was on the street car severalblocks away as late as seven minutes af-ter twelve."

That no two watches or clocks tally,is known to everybody, and the effortto confuse the facts by time-tables,outside the factory, was one of the nu-merous devices of Frank's lawyers.What's the use of street-car watcheswhen we have Frank's own clock togo by? His stenographer punched hisclock as she went away at 12:02, andFrank repeatedly said that Mary Pha-gan came in a few minutes afterwards.Xot until he discovered that MissMonteen Stover had been in his officelooking for him, at from 12 :05 to 12 :10did he place Mary Phagan's visit laterthan that.

Connolly then says that "tell-talecinders" proved that the crime wascommitted in the basement. He putscinders in her mouth, in her nose, inher lungs, and under her finger-nailsThe evidence does not.The undertaker, W. F. Gheesling,

took possession of the body soon afterit was found, and he washed it, washedthe hair in tar-soap water, opened herveins to relieve the congested condi-tion of her face, etc.With the exception of some dirt un-der the finger nails, and the dirt soil-ure of the face and hair, he foundnothing unusual. There were no cin-ders in her mouth, none in tier nose,none in her nostrils, none anywhere.Sergeant Dobbs, who first examinedbody, sW'Ore to the same thing, W. W.Rogers, who was with Dobbs, sworeto the same thing.Where did Connolly, and those whofollowed his lead, get all of these cin-ders that were ^n the girl's mouthand nose?They got them from Leo Frank'sstatement to the jury, and Frank, of

couTbo, git tliem from his lawyers.Frank told tiie jury he saw the cin-ders when he examined the corpse atthe morgue, whereas, the witnesses allswore that he shrank away from thesight of the girl, and never looked atJici' face at all.

Fraiilv's words were:"Mr. Gheesling * * * took the head

in his hands, turned it over, put hisfinger exactly on the wound on theleft side of the head; I noticed thehands and arms of the little girl werever}' dirtyblue and ground withdirt and cinders, the nostrils andmouththe mouth being opennos-trils and mouth just full, full of .saw-dust and swollen."After looking at the girl, I identi-

fied her as the one that had been upafter noon the previous day and got.her money from me," (Pages 202 and203, Official Brief),Hero was the corpse of a girl whomhe had claimed not to know; it *liadundergone a frightful change since thenoon before; the face was swollen outof its natural proportions; it was dis-colored with dirt and congested blood:the mouth was wide open in ghastlydisfigurationand yet he told the jurythat he identified this corpse as thatof the girl who had come to him theday before.Even her chums had some difficultyin recognizing her, and it was her hairthat enabled them to do it.'

"I loiew her by her hair," swore herwork-companion. Miss Grace Hicks.(Page 15).W. H. Gheesling, who turned thegirl's face so that Franlv could see it,testified that ho did not know whetherFrank looked at it ! The officers sworethat he did not. No witness said thather mouth was open, but everyone saidthe tongue protruded through theteeth. Xot a single witness said thatthere were any cinders on her tongue,on her nose, ??i her nose, in her mouth,,or under her nails. "Some dirt" wasfound under her nails, just as somecan be found under those of all per-sons who are not very careful of theirhands,Mr. I, U. Kauff'man was put up by


33/66

WATSON'S MAGAZINE. 329Frank's lawyers to prove the conditionof the basement at the time of thecrime. He said, ''The floor of the base-ment is dirt and ashes. The trash-pileis 57 feet from where the body wasfound. There are ashes and cindersalong the walk in the basement."Xo witness swore to any pile of cin-ders, pile of ashes, pile of sawdust,bank of cinders or anything else inwhich a person could be held facedownward and smothered. Absolutelyno evidence of that sort is in the rec-ord.How could anybody crush a girl'sface into cinders, or ashes, or trash,and not leave evidences of such a crimein the cinders, in the ashes, in the trashand in the girVs face?

All the witnesses said there were nobruises or even scratches on thechild's nose, but were on the eye,where she had been struck, and onher side-face, where she had been drag-ged over the dirt floor.And why would anybody need a cin-der pile, when they had the horriblecord tied fast and tight around herneck?Xo I Frank's lawyers invented thebanks and piles of cinders; and Frankmerely repeated what he told them:but the jury could not disregard thesworn testimon}^ of Gheesling, Doc-tors Harris and Hurt, Sergeant Dobbs,I. U. Kaufi'man and other disinterest-ed witnesses.

Connolly proceeds:"There was not an ounce of cinders on

the second floor, where Conley said hefound her dead. The upper floors wereswept clean every day. There were somestrands of loose hair found on a machineon the second floor where Frank is sup-posed to have struck Mary Phagaii Theywere not discovered by the officers onSunday in a complete search of the fac-tory. The expert who microscopically ex-amined this hair and compared it withMary Phagan's informed the prosecutorbefore the trial that the hair was not thatof Mary Phagan's; but this informationwas withheld from the defense, and wasnot brought out by the prosecutor on thetrial who afterward said the matter was

not important, and that he had proved byother witnesses that the hair "resembled"Mary Phagan's. On the trial the prose-cutor claimed to have lost these strandsof hair."Whose hair was it, Mr. Connolly?You sav the officers failed to find it,

Sunday. "^ What of that? They alsofailed to find the blood-spots on thefloor. What difference does it make,if they were not found Sunday andwere found, early Monday morning ?The unanswerable question remains,How came the hair and the spots tohe there?You say the floor was swept everyday. So it was; and the man whoswept it Friday, to clean up beforeclosing for the week, swore that noblood-spots were on the floor, then.And Frank's machinist, whose handshad left that lathe handle Fridayevening at 6:30, swore there was nohair on it, then ,but he discovered itimmediately, when he went to use hismachine Monday morning.At that time, nobody suspected LeoFrank, except the rich Jews who hadpussy-footed to Kosser and employedhim to defend Frank.They knew what was coming, forthey had learned of Frank's wilddrinking and confession, the Saturdaynight of the murderAs an illustration of Connolly's"thoroughness" and "conscientious-ness," I respectfully beg the editor ofCollier's to consider the following:"Monteen Stover's testimony contra-

dicted Frank, who swore he had not beenout of his office between 12 and 12:30noon. .Frank said it was possible that hehad stepped out of his office for a momentin the performance of some routine whichwould not ordinarily hav? impressed itselfon his mind'"

It's a small matter, yet tremendous-ly important, for that was one of thefatalities against Leo Frank. He hadsaid so positively and so often that hedid not leave him office between 12 and12 :30 o'clock, there was no way forhim to deny saying it. But there was


34/66

Documents

5 Rich Jews Indict State Watsons Magazine October 1915