Audio Information
File Name: 1914-04-28-sensation-near-in-new-frank-affidavits-the-atlanta-georgian.mp3
Modified Date: 2026-06-19 16:31:35
File Size: 15.22 mb
Duration: 00:16:37 (997 seconds)
Bitrate: 128 kbps
Codec: MP3
Reading Time: 17 minutes, [3014 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Tuesday, 28th April 1914,
2nd Edition,
PAGE 2, COLUMN 5.
Rumor of Repudiation by Ragsdale and Barber Draws Denunciation From Defense.
Sensations were expected Tuesday in the mystery surrounding rumors that the Rev. C. B. Ragsdale, the Kirkwood clergyman, and R. L. Barber, member of his congregation, have repudiated their statements that they heard Jim Conley confess, followed by the attack of Frank's counsel, who said the two men had brought to them excellent credentials and every appearance of truth in their statement.
The lawyers for the defense were quick to repudiate the witnesses on the assumption that the clergyman and his associate really had denied their first stories. "If these rumors be true," said the lawyers' statement, "we denounce the perfidy of these men with all the vehemence of our natures."
No Action Contemplated.
Both Ragsdale and Barber made affidavits declaring they had heard a negro confess to the murder of a girl in the pencil factory. Barber even identified the negro as Jim Conley. They brought their stories to Frank's lawyers, and, according to the lawyers, presented character indorsements from prominent men. Dr. John E. White and Dr. J. M. Pierce testifying to the straightforwardness of Ragsdale, who is a Baptist minister, and George E. Knott indorsing the reliability of Barber.
It is not unlikely that criminal action will be taken against the men, if, indeed, the rumor of their acknowledgment to perjury are substantiated. Solicitor Dorsey would say nothing concerning the affair.
The statement of Frank's lawyers follows:
Not Known by Counsel.
"On Thursday, April 23, 1914, there appeared at the office of L. Z. Rosser, in the Grant Building, two men who professed to have important information in reference to the Frank trial. One of these represented himself to be a preacher and the other a former member of his flock."
"These two men were unknown to each of us. Neither of us had ever seen or heard of them before."
"L. Z. Rosser acted in taking the affidavits of these men. He put them to the test of the most thorough cross-examination of which he was capable. There was no effort to lead them, to add to or color their story. On the contrary, they were given clearly to understand that Frank's counsel wanted only the truth, and in taking their affidavits we were seeking nothing beyond just what they knew and knew accurately."
"The affidavits were prepared in their presence, almost their very words being taken by a competent and honest stenographer. After the affidavits had been typewritten they were carefully read to each of the witnesses and sworn to before a disinterested notary public.
Believed Motives Pure.
"Neither one of us dreamed that they were acting corruptly, but believed that they were acting from pure motives to correct the wrong of their former silence."
"They were asked to give the names of their friends and associates, as the law requires. They gave promptly some of the most correct and upright men in the city of Atlanta."
"Some of these men were promptly seen in an effort to determine whether these men were what they seemed and represented themselves to be."
"The result was in keeping with their claims. Some of the best men in Atlanta vouched for them, and we felt justified in presenting their story to the court."
"It has come to our ears this evening that both these men now recant and claim they framed up their story."
"If these rumors be true, we denounce the perfidy of these men with all the vehemence of our natures."
Want Only the Truth.
"In this Frank case we have never wanted anything but the truth, have never made use of anything but what was believed to be the truth."
"We have believed and now profoundly believe in Frank's innocence, but even that conviction has never induced us to say one word that the whole city of Atlanta could not hear, nor to do anything that the whole State of Georgia could not see."
"If these rumors are true, we will at once cut these perjured witnesses out of this case, just as we have in the past, and just as we will in the future every fact and circumstance that even squints at unfairness or perjury."
"In proof that we did not act even credulously and inadvisedly in this matter, we submit copies of affidavits of men who vouch for the character of these men."
"L. Z. ROSSER,"
"HERBERT HAAS,"
"LEONARD HAAS,"
"REUBEN R. ARNOLD."
4th Edition, PAGE 1, COLUMN 1
AFFIDAVIT OF PASTOR OFF RECORDS
Dorsey Fights to Force Defense to Back Confession Evidence Now Reported Repudiated.
The defense in the case of Leo M. Frank Tuesday morning washed its hands of the Rev. C. B. Ragsdale, the Baptist minister who made an affidavit that he overheard a negro identified as Jim Conley confess to the murder of Mary Phagan, and who is said to have repudiated the affidavit in toto.
Attorneys Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Rosser, counsel for the condemned man, obtained from Judge Ben Hill an order striking from the extraordinary motion for a new trial the amendment setting up the Ragsdale affidavit as one of the grounds for a new hearing. Under this order the defense is relieved from urging the minister's story as evidence, but the affidavit itself will remain as part of the record.
Solicitor Dorsey announced Tuesday that when the hearing is resumed before Judge Hill Friday he will protest any move by the defense to eliminate the Ragsdale affidavit and will endeavor to force the whole Ragsdale matter into the record.
Comment of Defense.
Attorney Arnold, commenting on the striking of the amendment, said: "We are after only the truth in this matter. We won't stand for false evidence if we know it, and for this reason we obtained the order to strike the Ragsdale matter from the extraordinary motion. When a man will swear in an affidavit to a certain statement of facts or supposed facts, and then turn right around and repudiate what he said under oath, I don't think any court or any fair-minded man would want to consider him in the case at all. That is why we wish to wipe from the record all reference to Ragsdale. Ragsdale made this affidavit of his own volition and was recommended to us as a man of truthfulness and honor. If he swore falsely he alone must bear the responsibility. We want nothing to do with him."
Then Mr. Arnold remarked: "Since the State set the example for lying by placing Jim Conley on the stand, it seems that all of the liars in Georgia are trying to break into this case."
Burns Still Confident.
Detective William J. Burns was unperturbed Tuesday over the Ragsdale matter. He declared the repudiation by the minister would have no bearing on the new trial hearing nor any other evidence in the hands of the defense. "We have evidence enough right now to convict Jim Conley of the murder of Mary Phagan without any confession from the negro," he said.
RULE FOR NEW LEAD FRANK
Both Ragsdale and Barber made affidavits declaring they had heard a negro confess to the murder of a girl in the pencil factory. Barber even identified the negro as Jim Conley. They brought their stories to Frank's lawyers, and, according to the lawyers, presented character indorsements from prominent men. Dr. John E. White and Dr. J. M. Pierce testifying to the straightforwardness of Ragsdale, who is a Baptist minister, and George E. Knott indorsing the reliability of Barber.
A statement of Frank's lawyers follows:
Not Known by Counsel.
"On Thursday, April 23, 1914, there appeared at the office of L. Z. Rosser, in the Grant Building, two men who professed to have important information in reference to the Frank trial. One of these represented himself to be a preacher and the other a former
Continued on Page 5, Column 1.
4th Edition, PAGE 5, COLUMN 1
FRANK DEFENSE DROPS STORY OF PASTOR
Ragsdale Declared to Have Repudiated Affidavit Saying He Heard Conley Confess.
Continued From Page 1. member of his flock."
"These two men were unknown to each of us. Neither of us had ever seen or heard of them before."
"L. Z. Rosser acted in taking the affidavits of these men. He put them to the test of the most thorough cross-examination of which he was capable. There was no effort to lead them, to add to or color their story. On the contrary, they were given clearly to understand that Frank's counsel wanted only the truth, and in taking their affidavits we were seeking nothing beyond just what they knew and knew accurately."
"The affidavits were prepared in their presence, almost their very words being taken by a competent and honest stenographer. After the affidavits had been typewritten they were carefully read to each of the witnesses and sworn to before a disinterested notary public."
Believed Motives Pure.
"Neither one of us dreamed that they were acting corruptly, but believed that they were acting from pure motives to correct the wrong of their former silence."
"They were asked to give the names of their friends and associates, as the law requires. They gave promptly some of the most correct and upright men in the city of Atlanta."
"Some of these men were promptly seen in an effort to determine whether these men were what they seemed and represented themselves to be."
"The result was in keeping with their claims. Some of the best men in Atlanta vouched for them, and we felt justified in presenting their story to the court."
"It has come to our ears this evening that both these men now recant and claim they framed up their story."
"If these rumors be true, we denounce the perfidy of these men with all the vehemence of our natures."
Want Only the Truth.
"In this Frank case we have never wanted anything but the truth, have never made use of anything but what was believed to be the truth."
"We have believed and now profoundly believe in Frank's innocence, but even that conviction has never induced us to say one word that the whole city of Atlanta could not hear, nor to do anything that the whole State of Georgia could not see."
"If these rumors are true, we will at once cut these perjured witnesses out of this case, just as we have in the past, and just as we will in the future every fact and circumstance that even squints at unfairness or perjury."
"In proof that we did not act even credulously and inadvisedly in this matter, we submit copies of affidavits of men who vouch for the character of these men."
"L. Z. ROSSER.
"HERBERT HAAS.
"LEONARD HAAS.
"REUBEN R. ARNOLD."
4th Edition, PAGE 1, COLUMN 5
The Atlanta Georgian.
Gentlemen I hand you herewith a copy of a letter which the subscribers of the "Journal" at this place have signed and mailed to "The Journal" with their request that they publish same.
We will thank you to publish the enclosed letter with all the names. Thanking you in advance and with kindest regards, I am,
Very truly,
C. E. ALMAND.
Social Circle, Ga.
Editor Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, Ga.
Dear Sir: We, the undersigned citizens of Social Circle and subscribers of your paper, respectfully ask you to publish the news and court proceedings in reference to the "Frank Case." We have noticed for several days that you have published the news in Frank's favor, the opinions of William J. Burns, as well as cards from Leo M. Frank. By all means when you publish a sketch on the first page of your paper and refer to a continuation of same on another page, please do not omit the continuation. We regret that you have adopted the plan of publicity on one side and suppression of the other. We desire to assure you that we care nothing for your opinions and the opinions of William J. Burns in reference to the case, but as we have paid you for your paper we believe that we are entitled to the news.
Very truly,
H. L. Conner, C. E. Almand, J. F. Wiley, C. W. Butler, J. P. Upshaw.
E. M. Herndon, L. A. Malcolm, J. L. Newton, E. Ernest, C. M. Haralson, W. P. Taylor, H. H. Herndon, L. L. Tucker, Sr., C. N. Roberts, G. L. Hurst, R. E. Stacy, R. L. Paine, P. A. Stanton, W. D. Spearman, M. D., Matthew Williams, W. T. Crawley, Hugh Abercrombie, W. C. Johnson, I. N. B. Spence, M. D., H. E. Dunaway, C. W. Miller, J. M. Hurst, H. T. Beavers, W. T. Patrick, A. E. Patillo, W. H. Wiley, T. M. Wofford, H. P. Spence, C. T. Wiley, W. L. Lane, C. H. Hackett, W. C. Stanton, T. H. Sawyer, C. A. Crawley, E. S. Herndon, G. M. Duval, O. N. Stanton, O. R. Lindsey, W. F. Young, H. L. Rowe, B. A. Clegg, J. B. Avery, T. D. Stanton, J. W. Hanson, W. B. Spearman, J. J. Campbell, J. M. Langford, C. A. Banks, J. P. Freeman, J. B. H. Day, M. D., P. B. Knox, Thomas Mc Clain, A. P. Malcom, E. L. Shepherd, J. L. Williams, J. D. Mc Dowell, W. D. Bailey, W. L. Wallace, G. W. Yarbrough, J. H. Reeves, C. W. Williams, C. R. Phillips, B. Davis, W. D. Dolvin, J. M. Riley, Jno. H. Adams, R. B. Garrison, G. T. Doster, E. G. Mathis, Jas. A. Mobley, W. B. Kirkpatrick, R. D. Camp, W. H. Lloyd, Perry Hilliard, M. M. Chamblee, Albert C. Cheek, A. L. Fry, O. S. Haralson, J. O. Hollis, F. M. Langston, C. W. Beeland, J. W. Lang, E. L. Almand, W. L. Parker.
5th Edition, PAGE 5, COLUMN 2
NEW APPEAL TO PUBLIC ISSUED BY LEO FRANK
Scores Chief Lanford for Statement Made to Burns Concerning Character Attacks.
Leo M. Frank issues this statement to-day:
To the People of Atlanta:
The city of Atlanta has grown to its present greatness and must depend for its future growth upon young men like myself who, reared in other places but hearing of the greatness of Atlanta, come here to cast their fortunes with its people.
When six years ago I left my former home in Brooklyn, where I was raised, to come to Atlanta to help build up a new enterprise that would increase its prosperity and give employment to many people, I accepted the opportunity gladly and came without any foreboding of evil.
I supposed that so long as I lived a decent, upright life and did my duty that no harm would come to me anywhere. I did not suppose that there was a place in the United States where a man could not get fair play. Suddenly, like a bolt of lightning from a clear sky, this terrible calamity came upon me. I was at work on a Saturday afternoon in my office where I had a right to be, where it was my duty to be, when a young girl was foully murdered in the same building. As to how she was killed or who killed her I knew no more than a man ten thousand miles away.
Tells of His Trial.
I was arrested and put on trial, or rather what was called a trial. The minds of the people, already infuriated by the brutality of the crime, were driven to madness by the whispered word that I was a pervert and a degenerate of the foulest type. I became an object of detestation and loathing. The whole city, except a few faithful friends, turned away from me in disgust and abhorrence. People said: "Even if he is not guilty of the murder, he ought to be hanged." Under such conditions, it was impossible for me to get a fair trial.
As one of the lawyers expressed it, I had as much chance for my life as a canary bird in a basket of cats. No wonder that the judge of the court certified that he feared for my life and the lives of my attorneys should the jury acquit me. No wonder one of the jury was moved to tell a friend that if they had freed me not one of the jury would have left the courthouse alive.
And now, here at the last hour, comes Newport A. Lanford, head of the detective department, after Mr. Burns has cornered him, and serenely announces that the charge of perversion never entered into the case, that neither the State nor the police department ever claimed or did now claim that I was a pervert, and that the charge was injected into the case by my own lawyers.
Evidently, he considers the people of Atlanta an aggregation of asses. But was there ever such effrontery? After using this charge in every way conceivable to railroad me through to the gallows, after the Solicitor has made it the chief subject of his nine-hour speech, after the Supreme Court has affirmed the verdict principally on that ground, he now says it did not enter into the case.
Whole Case, He Says.
Not enter into the case!
I say it was the whole case.
It is deeply significant that simultaneously with the withdrawal of the charge of perversion against me, Mr. Burns has come into absolute proof through letters written in Conley's own hand that he is a vile degenerate and practiser of unnatural crimes which the law of this State punishes by life imprisonment in its penitentiary. These letters are in his possession and are open to the inspection of any men in Atlanta who wants to look at them.
Is it possible that I am to be hanged on the word of a creature like this? Is it possible that my life of decency is to weigh nothing? Is it possible that this city has in it so little of the spirit of fair play?
Am I not stating the truth when I say that the withdrawal by Chief Lanford of the charge against me of perversion puts my case in a new and entirely different light? Is it not a circumstance that should appeal most powerfully to the courts in my application for a new trial? Is there a man in Atlanta who would deny that the charge of perversion was the chief cause of my conviction, or deny that the case, without that charge, would be an entirely different question?
LEO M. FRANK.