album-art
Reading Time: 7 minutes [1146 words]

The Atlanta Constitution,

Sunday, 24th May 1914,

PAGE 28, COLUMN 1.

Says They Could Have Escaped Trouble by Asserting Frank's Guilt, But It Would Have Violated Their Convictions.

Asserting that if he and Detective Burns were as questionable as they are accused by the police, it would have been an easy matter for them to have announced that Leo Frank was guilty and thereby escaped the prosecutions that are being waged against them, Dan S. Lehon has issued through The Constitution a statement to the public. Lehon accuses Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford of inconsistency, in that they announced publicly that they would gladly cooperate with Detective Burns and his investigators when the noted detective first entered into the Mary Phagan murder investigation. Now, however, Lehon states, although no objection was made at first, the two police officials have associated themselves with the prosecution that is now underway in police court.

Lehon's Card.

Atlanta, Ga., May 23, 1914.

To the People of Atlanta: In justice to myself, my family, and my friends throughout the Southern states, I feel that some statement should come from me as to the numerous charges which are being preferred against me and my employer, William J. Burns, which are being published broadcast throughout the country, on account of our connection with the investigation into the murder of Mary Phagan.

To begin with, I hold the position of manager of the Southern division of the William J. Burns International Detective Agency, and deem it an honor to hold a position under Mr. Burns, who has performed so many great services for this country, and whose every effort is to conduct his agency on the very highest plane.

At the request of Mr. Burns, I came to Atlanta on March 25 to assist him in this investigation. We entered upon this investigation, as we have done all of our cases, with the sole purpose in view of ascertaining the truth, and of making public and declaring whatever we did find to be the truth. Mr. Burns informed me that his contract with our clients had this express understanding.

We began the investigation with this end in view, and after several weeks of thorough investigation into the various angles of the case, we became thoroughly satisfied that Leo M. Frank was innocent of this murder, and we had no hesitancy in expressing our conclusion in this respect.

Of course, we realized at the time it would meet greater popular favor had we announced that Frank was the guilty man, and if we were inclined to resort to questionable methods, as charged against us, how easy it would have been for us to have announced, against our own convictions, that Frank was the guilty man and have secured the favor of those now turned against us, and thus avoiding all this unpleasant notoriety which we are now subjected to, being indicted by the Grand Jury on a charge that I am thoroughly innocent of, and being brought to police headquarters and subjected to other humiliations which any American citizen will find extremely unpleasant.

Utterly Shocked.

I have resided in the South for the past fifteen years and have in the South numberless friends who will be utterly shocked at the charges preferred against me and published throughout the South, which charges are wholly without foundation.

As to the indictments found against me by the present Grand Jury, based upon the testimony of a confessed perjurer, I have had no connection with any transaction which will even smack of subornation of perjury, but on the contrary, I have used my utmost endeavors to bring out the truth and that alone, and I am willing to have my every act in this case bear the closest scrutiny. There is no man living who can truthfully state that Mr. Burns, myself, or anyone connected with the Burns agency requested anyone to give testimony which was false or which we believed was false.

Said They Would Cooperate.

As to the cases made against Mr. Burns and myself by the police commissioners, this is indeed surprising in view of the fact that when we first came to this city and announced that we intended to investigate the Mary Phagan murder, all of the city officials, including Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford, publicly announced that they would gladly cooperate with us, and no objection whatever was made at that time, nor since that time, to our investigating this case without the approval of the police commissioners. We did not conceal our presence in the city, and have never interviewed a single person without first explaining who we are, and what our purpose was in seeking the interview, and no one can truthfully gainsay this. The Burns agency does business in every city of prominence in this country and in some of the principal cities of Europe, employing over 8,000 operatives, and it was our purpose to render the same service here as we have done elsewhere.

We have committed no act of which we are ashamed since our connection with this investigation, and our only crime has been possibly the public announcement of our belief in Leo M. Frank's innocence, which was only made after the most thorough investigation on our part. To have announced any other conviction would have been to stultify our own conscience, which we are unwilling to do even for public approval; and, while there may be some who are willing for us to suffer any indignity or persecution because of our conviction in Frank's innocence, I am confident that the fair-minded public will not submit to the continuance of this persecution for such unjust reasons.

DAN S. LEHON.

PAGE 55, COLUMN 5

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OPPOSED BY DORSEY

Solicitor Charges Document Is Incomplete, as Presented By Frank's Lawyers.

Solicitor Hugh Dorsey yesterday opposed the Bill of Exceptions presented by Frank's counsel to Judge Ben Hill for his certificate of approval. His objection was based on alleged incompleteness of the exceptions document. He charged that omissions of important matters had been made, and insisted that the contents of the affidavits involved in the retrial hearing be contained in the bill.

Attorney Leonard Haas, representing counsel for the convicted man, appeared before Judge Hill with the Bill of Exceptions, which will carry the motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence to the supreme court. Upon the objection of the solicitor, Judge Hill granted additional time, and set Monday afternoon at 3 o'clock for the time in which he will give his certificate to the document.

Attorney Haas and the solicitor will seek to agree on the disputed phases of the bill. The Tye motion to upset the Frank verdict was postponed Saturday morning until 10 o'clock next Friday morning. The contempt cases against Dan Lehon and Detective Burns were also delayed indefinitely on account of the absence of Judge Arthur Powell, counsel for the two detectives.

Related Posts