Reading Time: 38 minutes, [6890 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Friday, 15th August 1913,
PAGE 19, COLUMN 1.
Girl Brought From Cincinnati to Testify Against Leo Frank
PAGE 19, COLUMN 2
GIRLS CALLED TO TESTIFY FOR THE DEFENSE
MISS O. VICKERY. MISS L. HAYES.
MRS. J. W. WARDLAW.
PAGE 19, COLUMN 7
PRISONER'S NAME IS DEFENDED BY MANY; CLIMAX IN CASE NEAR
One after another in rapid succession men and women went to the stand Friday as character witnesses in the closing stages of the battle for the life of Leo M. Frank, charged with the murder of Mary Phagan.
Startling disclosures inimical to Frank were promised by Solicitor Dorsey in rebuttal of the scores of witnesses called by the defense.
That Dewey Hewell, a 16-year-old girl who has been brought from the Home of the Good Shepherd in Cincinnati especially to testify against the young factory superintendent, will be one of the State's most important witnesses, was learned Friday after the girl's arrival in Atlanta, where she formerly lived.
Exactly the nature of her testimony was not revealed. Mrs. Mary Bohnefeld, police matron, who returned with the girl Friday noon, said that she had not talked with her charge in regard to the matter.
The Solicitor is known to have about twenty other witnesses whom he may call in the rebuttal.
Friday's witnesses were drawn from many walks of life. Most of them were well known in Atlanta. Some of them had met the defendant in a business way, others socially. Some had known him from their associations with him at the National Pencil Factory and at Montag Bros. Others formed their opinion of his character from knowing him in the work of the N'Nai Brith, of which Frank is the president.
Persons Who Knew Him at Home Called.
Previous days had introduced men who had known him in his college days at Pratt Institute and Cornell University and, later at his home in Brooklyn. Friday narrowed the character witnesses down to those who had known him during the five years he had been in Atlanta.
If numbers count for anything, Frank's case will be helped by the number and character of people who have been called to swear to his good character up to the time of the tragedy of April 26. The court attaches were kept busy directing the witnesses into the courtroom. Few of them were cross-questioned. The majority were asked only the formal questions as to their acquaintance with Frank and their knowledge of his character and were then excused.
Solicitor Dorsey for the most part seemed content until the time when he should be able to call his own witnesses in rebuttal. He questioned a few of Frank's acquaintances briefly to determine exactly the ground they had for their conviction of the defendant's good character, but seldom went further than that.
Defense Near End of Case.
When court reconvened in the afternoon Attorneys Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold announced that the defense probably would not rest until some time Saturday, although there remained a possibility that they would close their case with the statement of Frank Friday afternoon.
The State, if the defense rests Saturday noon, will finish with its rebuttal Monday night or Tuesday forenoon, it is expected.
One of the character witnesses, Ray Bauer, went through a severe grilling at the hands of Solicitor Dorsey. After he had testified to the general good character of Frank, he told Attorney Arnold that he had been at the pencil factory on Saturday afternoons last January, times when Frank was said to have had women in his office.
Solicitor Dorsey inquired of the witness how he happened to be sure of the days he was at the factory and the time in the afternoon when he visited there. Bauer said there were special reasons why he recalled the time on the first occasion in January, but could not give an explanation that satisfied the Solicitor about the other times he was there.
Girl Witness Closely Guarded.
The Hewell girl formerly lived in Atlanta before her commitment to the reform institution in Cincinnati. Chief Beavers stated shortly after the arrival of the girl that he does not know what her testimony will be. He intimated that the girl's connection with the case had developed since the trial began, and that the Solicitor is the only person who knows just what she will testify. Mrs. Bohnefeld also denied knowledge of what the girl's evidence is to be, declaring that during the trip from Atlanta to Cincinnati the Frank trial was not mentioned.
The Hewell girl was taken to the matron's ward at police headquarters immediately upon her arrival in the city, and will
PAGE 20, COLUMN 1
FRANK, WIFE AND MOTHER CALM AS END OF TRIAL NEARS
Paint Used in Pencil Factory Made Blood-Like Stains, Employee Says
PAGE 20, COLUMN 1
COURTROOM THRONGED AGAIN AT PROSPECT OF DEFENDANT TESTIFYING
Continued from Page 1.
be kept there until she is called to the witness stand. Chief Beavers has issued orders that no one is to be allowed to see her but himself and Mrs. Bohnefeld.
As the last witnesses were being called by the defense, Frank, his wife and his mother viewed the proceedings with the same calmness that has marked their demeanor since the trial began, with the exception of the outburst of the mother two days before. On Friday she looked steadfastly downward and slightly toward the judge's bench as though she might be having some difficulty in maintaining her attitude of confidence and calmness.
Likely Not to Call Mincey.
As the defense neared the close of its case, the probability of the calling of W. H. Mincey diminished. Mincey is the insurance solicitor who swore that he talked to Conley the afternoon of the murder of Mary Phagan, and that Conley boasted to him of killing a girl. The attorneys for Frank would not announce definitely their intentions in respect to Mincey or with what credence they looked upon his story.
Solicitor Dorsey brought before the jury for the first time, Friday the intimation that Frank might have sought to have disguised his handwriting when he was asked to write the test notes by the police and detectives.
M. O. Nix, a credit man at Montag Bros., was called to the stand to identify Frank's handwriting on the financial sheet. When Dorsey took the witness over for cross-examination he showed photographic copies of the notes Frank wrote and asked Nix if it was Frank's writing. The witness was unable to say. The Solicitor did not suggest any motive in disguising his hand.
The Solicitor endeavored to get Joseph Stelker, one of the factory foremen, to testify that Frank did not go in to view the body of Mary Phagan when he was taken down to identify the girl. Stelker testified for the defense that some of the red varnish used in the factory made stains very much like the supposed blood spots found on the factory floor.
The defense continued calling character witnesses at intervals throughout the forenoon. None was cross-questioned yesterday and all said Frank's character was good.
When the case was resumed Friday it was very problematical when the defense would finish. According to Luther Rosser, the defense may rest before evening with Leo Frank having told his story on the stand, but Reuben Arnold was of the opinion that the defense still would be putting in evidence to-morrow.
Frank's statement on the stand unquestionably will be one of the striking features of the trial. He has studied the State's case carefully, and it is said will not content himself with merely denying his guilt and explaining his movements on the fatal day, but will go somewhat into what he believes are the weaknesses of the State's chain of circumstances. According to Frank's friends, the prisoner has been anxious for his attorneys to allow him to be cross-questioned, but they have doubted the wisdom of allowing him to go through the ordeal after the strain of the last few months.
Dr. J. E. Summerfield, No. 300 Washington street, who said he had lived in Atlanta for nineteen years and F. Schiff, No. 38 Fair street, who has lived here for fifty years, were the first witnesses called Friday and both responded favorably to the usual questions about Frank's character put by Attorney Arnold.
No attempt at cross-examination was made by Solicitor Dorsey. The State had an equally imposing army of witnesses "most of them women "ready to go on the stand in rebuttal of the evidence upholding the prisoner's character.
A curious problem will arise when they are summoned. The State can only ask its witnesses as to the general character of the defendant, just as the defense has done, and it will be up to the defense to ask about particular incidents on the cross-examination or rest content with allowing the opinions of the State's witnesses to go unchallenged. In that event it would be merely one group saying Frank's character is good against another saying it is bad, with the jury to decide which it prefers to believe.
Another Former Office Boy Called.
B. J. Nix, of Marietta, an office boy for the National Pencil Company from April to October, 1912, was the third witness of the morning.
Q. What days were you off? A. I was off nearly every Saturday until September.
Q. What time did you leave on the Saturdays you worked? A. Usually I worked until 4 or 6 o'clock.
Q. Do you recall missing any Saturdays when you were supposed to work? A. No.
Q. Did you ever know Frank to have any women there drinking with him? A. No.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. When they were working on that building on Forsyth street, what time did you leave? A. About 4 o'clock.
Q. You don't know whether Frank had those women there when you were off or not, do you? A. No.
The witness was excused and R. D. Greenfield was called.
Q. Are you one of the owners of the Venable Building in which the pencil company has its factory? A. Yes.
Q. Who leased it? A. Montag Bros., for a period of ten years.
Q. Do you know where the metal room is? A. No.
Q. Where is the Clark Woodenware Company? A. They occupied part of the building known as No. 37 Forsyth street.
Q. Since Montags have had that building has any new flooring been put down? A. No.
Q. Do you know Leo M. Frank? A. Yes.
Q. Is his character good or bad? A. It is very good.
Hooper took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Are you closely connected with the defendant? A. As landlord and tenant.
Q. Did you contribute to the fund for Frank's defense? A. No.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. Have you ever heard of any such fund? A. No.
Arnold, aside, said: "I wish there was one."
Montag's Credit Man on Stand.
The witness was excused and N. O. Nix, credit man for Montag Brothers, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Have you come in contact with the handwriting of Leo Frank? A. Yes, I saw many of his reports to Montag Brothers.
Q. Have you a fairly good acquaintance with him? A. Yes, fairly good.
Mr. Arnold showed the witness a number of financial sheets of the National Pencil Company, including the one of April 26.
Q. Whose handwriting were these made in? A. All are in the handwriting of Mr. Frank.
Q. Whose handwriting is that below those orders? A. Miss Hattie Hall, our stenographer.
Q. Did you employ her? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know anything about her getting a raise in salary recently? A. Yes, I gave her one August 1.
Q. Why? A. Because I promised it to her when she first came to work.
The witness identified Frank's handwriting on requisitions said to have been made out April 26.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. How do you know it was Frank's handwriting on those slips and reports? A. By these reports coming to me.
Q. You never did see him write one of these, did you? A. No.
Q. Did you ever see him write? A. Yes.
Q. Doesn't this order show that it came in on April 22? A. Yes.
Q. They would not have waited until April 26 to make a requisition for it, would they?
Arnold objected and Judge Roan sustained him.
Q. Are you the brother of the office boy who has just testified? A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been with Montag Brothers? A. Seven or eight years.
Q. Whose handwriting is this (the witness was handed the photograph of a letter)? A. I can not say. It looks something like Mr. Frank's.
Q. Won't you say whether it is or is not? A. I can not say.
Q. Then how can you identify that other handwriting? A. The other is mostly figures. It is different from this.
Unable to Identify Frank's Writing.
Q. Will you say this is not Frank's handwriting? A. I can not identify this writing.
Q. Give the jury some reason. A. The writing of Frank's which I have seen has been mostly figures.
The photograph which Dorsey showed the witness was of the note which Frank wrote to the police for comparison with the murder notes found beside the body of Mary Phagan.
On redirect examination the witness said he was not familiar with Frank's style of letter writing. The witness was excused and Joseph Stelker, in charge of the polishing and varnishing department at the pencil factory, was called to the stand. Arnold examined him.
Q. Did you see the blood spots which Barrett found? A. Yes.
Q. Did you see the white stuff over these spots? A. Yes; it looked like it might have been a substance we used on the machine, or face powder.
Q. Is there any red varnish used in the factory? If so, how would it compare with this? A. Some varnish looks like blood.
Q. Do you know what that substance was? A. I do not.
Q. Would it have been possible for the red varnish to have been splashed out of a bottle to this point? A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see these spots on the floor? A. Yes, all the time.
Q. You never would have noticed
Continued on Page 3, Column 1.
PAGE 21, COLUMN 1
DOZENS OF WITNESSES TELL OF LEO FRANK'S GOOD STANDING
Defense Paves Way for Placing the Accused Superintendent on the Stand
MINCEY LIKELY NOT TO TESTIFY ABOUT ALLEGED CONFESSION OF CONLEY
Continued From Page 2.
this particular spot if Christopher Columbus Barrett had not pointed it out to you? A. I don't think I would.
Q. Were you at the undertaking establishment Sunday afternoon? A. Yes.
Q. What impression were you and Frank under about the Coroner's inquest?
Dorsey objected and was sustained.
Q. Do you know whether Frank saw the body of little Mary Phagan? A. No.
Q. Did you understand the Coroner's inquest was to be held there? A. I heard it was there.
The witness was offered as a character witness and declared that Frank's character was good. He further said that Jim Conley's character was bad and that he would not believe the negro under oath.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. What wages do you get? A. $20 a week.
Q. How long have you been getting that? A. A year and a half.
Q. Where are you from? A. New York.
Q. Did you know Frank there? A. No.
Q. Whom did you discuss Conley's character with? A. No one.
Q. Then you don't mean to tell me that you are giving just an opinion? A. I was talking about what he had done to me.
"Then I move to rule it out," said Dorsey. "It is nothing but this man's personal opinion."
Judge Roan "I sustain you under those circumstances.
Q. Did you ever hear anyone say anything about Conley's character? A. I heard he was in the chaingang.
Q. Who said it? A. I saw him myself.
Q. Frank took him back when he came out of the chaingang, didn't he? A. Don't you know that a negro is much better when he comes out of the chaingang than he was before?
Q. Well, what did Conley do to you? A. I sent him out for 25 cents' worth of beer, and when he brought it back it was half water. I said, "Didn't you put water in here?" and he said, "No; I wouldn't do anything like that."
Q. How do you know he put water in the beer? A. By the taste.
Q. When was this? A. Last summer.
Q. What time was it? A. At 10:30.
Q. How do you know the time? Was it your habit to get that bucket full every day at this time? A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with this beer? A. I threw it out.
Q. Did you send him again? A. No.
Q. What time did Frank come to the undertaker's? A. A little after 2 o'clock.
Q. How was he dressed? A. In a blue or brown suit.
Q. Who came with Frank? A. He came alone.
Q. How big was the room in which the body was? "Fifteen by fifteen.
Q. It was a great big room? A. Not very.
Q. What kind of a room? A. I never noticed it. I just looked at the body and walked out.
Q. How was the door located? A. On the right side of the passageway.
Q. How far did you go into this room? A. Just to the door.
Q. Describe the body? "One eye was badly discolored. There was a scar on the right of the face. The hair was hanging loose.
Q. Well, go on. A. I didn't look so close.
Q. Who suggested you going to look at the body? A. Fritz Yankee.
Q. Didn't you say a while ago that you sat there two minutes and got up and looked at the body, and that Frank arrived three minutes later? A. Yes.
FORMER EMPLOYEE OF FACTORY HELPS FRANK
John Finley, who testified to the accused's good character.
Q. Well, explain that to the jury. A. I don't know what time it was, I was so nervous. It might have been twenty minutes.
Q. How long did it take you to get yourself together? A. I haven't gotten myself together yet.
Q. When did Frank go in to view the body? A. Later.
Q. How much later? A. It might have been twenty minutes.
Q. How far did you have to go back to see the body? A. You could stand in the door.
Q. Did the seeing of that body have any effect on Frank's appearance? A. No, he looked just like he does now.
Q. You don't know whether Frank went into that room or not? A. No.
Q. You felt nauseated? A. Yes.
Went to Morgue To See Bruises.
Q. Was there anybody connected with the factory who went back to the undertaking establishment with Frank? A. No.
Q. Can you name anyone else from the factory who was there? A. Lemmie Quinn.
Q. Now, why did you go there? A. I wanted to see who she was.
Q. Didn't you know it was Mary Phagan? A. I heard it when I got there.
Q. Well, why did you go there when it would tear you all to pieces? A. I wanted to see the bruises.
Arnold "He has already gone into that.
Dorsey "Your honor, I want to test this witness' recollection.
Arnold's objection was sustained, and he took the witness.
Q. You are a German, aren't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You like to drink your beer, don't you? A. Yes.
Q. You sent Jim Conley after beer and he brought it back half water, didn't he? A. Yes, and I asked him if he had put his black mouth where a white man was to drink. He said no, and I cussed him.
The witness was excused and P. D. Mc Corley, of No. 24 Hampton street, who has charge of the cotton seed oil business of M. Frank, the wealthy uncle of Leo M. Frank, was placed on the stand.
Mc Corley testified to Frank's character as being good.
Mrs. M. W. Meyer, followed Mc Corley, and said she had known Leo Frank for five years and that his character was good.
Mrs. David Marx, No. 354 Washington street, the wife of Rabbi Marx, followed Mrs. Meyer. Mrs. Marx said that Frank's character was very good.
Mrs. Arthur I. Harris, A. L. Guthman, No. 479 Washington street, and M. S. Rice, of No. 14 Washington street, followed each other in rapid succession on the witness stand as character witnesses for Frank. They each declared that they knew the defendant very well, and that his character was good.
Mrs. B. Glogowski, who has a boarding house at No. 499 Washington street, testified that Frank boarded with her for several months prior to his marriage and that his character was very good.
Mrs. J. E. Summerfield, a physician; Mr. and Mrs. L. H. Moss, Mrs. Joseph G. Brown, William Bauer, No. 52 Washington street; Miss Helen Loeb and Emil Dittler took the stand as character witnesses in behalf of Frank.
E. E. Fitzpatrick, of 105 Sinclair avenue, Inman Park, foreman of the shipping department of Montag Bros., testified that he had known Frank for several years, and that his character was good.
Saw Frank At Montag's.
J. C. Matthews, a clerk at Montag Brothers, residing at No. 82 Sinclair avenue, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Do you recall Memorial Day? A. Yes.
Q. Where were you? A. At Montag's.
Q. Did you see Mr. Frank? A. Yes, while I was there.
Q. Do you know the time? A. No.
The witness also testified as to Frank's good character. He was then excused and Alfred Fox, a furniture manufacturer, was called. He testified as a character witness in behalf of Frank.
Mrs. Aloph Montag was the next character witness. She declared she had known Frank for some time and that his character was very good. Dorsey cross-examined her.
Q. When did you hear Frank's character discussed? A. I have heard women, as well as my husband, speak of what a fine gentleman he was.
The witness was excused and F. F. Hilburn, No. 22 Inman street, West End, was called. He testified in Frank's behalf as a character witness. When asked if he knew Frank's general character, the witness said: "I will have to answer no. I only know him in a business way."
Dorsey "I object, your honor. He is not acquainted with the general character of the defendant.
Judge Roan "The witness does not qualify.
The witness was excused and Mrs. Martin May, Julian Boehm, No. 332 Myrtle street; M. H. Silverman, a lawyer; Mrs. Mollie Rosenberg, a trained nurse; Mrs. M. A. Sterne, Charles Adler, Mrs. R. A. Sonn, wife of the superintendent of the Hebrew Orphans' Home; O. J. Jones, of West End, an employee of Montag Brothers; Mrs. Dan Klein, Nathan Copeland, an attorney, and Miss Ray Klein testified in rapid succession as to Frank's good character.
Hadn't Heard of Immorality at Factory.
L. Finstein testified that he had been in Frank's employ for more than a year and that his general character was good. M. J. Barnard, of the Atlas Paper Company, testified also as to Frank's good character. Barnard declared that he had never heard of any immoral actions within the pencil factory.
Mrs. John O. Parmelee, No. 417 Spring street, the wife of a stockholder in the pencil company, said Frank's character and reputation were excellent. Dorsey cross-examined her.
Q. How many times have you seen Frank? A. I have known him about four years. I saw him when I went to the factory with my husband about four years ago.
Q. How many times have you seen him since? A. I saw him on the street and visited him in jail.
Q. Who ever discussed him with you? A. I am a member of the board of directors of the Sheltering Arms. In that way I have heard of Mr. Frank and I have also heard a number of Jewish people speak highly of him.
The witness was excused.
Jacob Fox, manager of the children's department of Eiseman's, next took the stand and said he had boarded at the same place with Frank and testified as to Frank's good character.
Marcus Loeb, a manufacturer, testified next to Frank's good character.
Roy Bauer, a youth, who formerly worked at the pencil factory, was the next witness. Arnold questioned him.
Went to Plant Often on Saturdays.
Q. Have you ever worked at the National Pencil Company with Mr. Frank on Saturday? A. Yes; during the summers of 1909 and 1910.
Q. Have you worked there in the last twelve months? A. No.
Q. Have you been there since you quit working there? A. During the Ohio flood I went there often on Saturdays.
Q. Did you find anybody there? A. Mr. Holloway, Mr. Darley and Mrs. Frank.
Q. Did you ever see any women there? A. No.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You saw Mr. Schiff there? A. Until January. He was in the flood district then and I went there to find whether there was any news of him.
Q. Do you remember the time? A. Yes; it was about 3 o'clock the first Saturday.
Q. How do you know? A. I just bathed and dressed.
Q. What time was it then? A. About 2 o'clock.
Q. Did you see the office boy that Saturday? A. Yes.
Q. Who else? A. Mr. Frank.
Q. What time did you leave? A. About 4 o'clock.
Q. Do you recall the conversation while you were there? A. No.
Q. Did you go there often? A. I made a practice of going there every Saturday and talking to them.
Q. Most of the time that particular Saturday was Frank working? A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to him while he was working? A. Not much.
Court then adjourned until 2 o'clock.
PAGE 22, COLUMN 1
WHAT 'THEY SAY' WON'T HURT LEO FRANK; STATE MUST 'PROVE' DEPRAVITY
By JAMES B. NEVIN.
There is nothing apparently so plain to outside observation as character "just character "and there is, strange to say, nothing so difficult at times to prove.
"They say" and "but" are the two most notorious scandalmongers in the universe ""they say" so and so; and he or she is all right, "but!"
Character, upon which so much depends in this world, upon which civilization itself and decency and right is founded, is, nevertheless, the most elusive of all things when it comes right down to brass tacks of proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Human nature, too, for some curious and vague reason, seems rather to relish the downfall of character and the undermining of reputation "and that, moreover, the while it is vehemently and rather piously assuring itself that it does nothing of the kind!
Kind words travel on leaden feet "gossip gallops in seven-league boots!
Pessimist?
Not at all "just truthimist, that's all!
You stop me to tell me that Jones is the best man you ever knew, that his wife loves him immensely and that his children and all the neighbors' children fairly dote upon him, and I am mildly, but not rampantly, interested. I am a pretty good fellow myself, you know, and so are you "who are telling me about Jones "and while I am glad that Jones is a fine fellow "like I am and like you are "I can not see why I should throw any fits about it.
And I "being the average sort of fellow, really "proceed not to throw any fits whatever in re the good Jones.
BUT " "
Scandal? That's Different.
You stop me and tell me Jones is a grafter, despite his churchgoing proclivities, and that, besides, he turns Jack habitually from the bottom of the deck "and up go my hands in holy horror!
Sakes alive! I always DID think there was SOMETHING out of whack with Jones "and so forth and so on!
And you can bet your sweet life I stop to listen while you unwind all "they say" of Jones, and how he's a good fellow, "but!"
If Jones is pulling his freight uphill, Jones interests me indifferently in a way "but if Jones and his freight are involuntarily on the toboggan, it's me to stand along the edge of the slideway and watch the fun and make note of the wreckage at the bottom!
I feel sorry for Jones "just as I used to feel sorry always for the teacher beneath whom I had dexterously set up a pin, when said teacher innocently sat down upon it. And after Jones has gone to smash down the old toboggan, I may experience an attack of sorrow for Jones, and next Sunday when I go to church it may so happen that I even pray for Jones "after I have prayed carefully for myself!
Now these broken observations are not altruistic, of course "they may be out of order, and all that.
Preface to Character Sketch.
They are submitted merely by way of prefacing the citation just here of an ancient quatrain running thuswise:
"There's so much good in the worst of us,
And so much bad in the best of us,
That it hardly behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us."
Now, then, having brought ourselves to the point where we can give even such persons as Frank and Conley the benefit of the doubt in an argument adverse to the character of either "you know, good and well, gentle reader, we always hand ourselves ALL the doubts, and some! "let us proceed in order to a consideration of the status of the Frank case involved in the character or lack of character in the defendant.
Contemplating the matter of Frank's character as a thing apart from the murder charge against him, the attack upon it thus far dwells within Conley, and Conley's isolated word.
Conley's charge against Leo Frank has not been corroborated by one witness worthy of belief "and it has not been corroborated even by that one in anything save relatively inconsequential detail.
One just as well believe what "they say" and ask no questions, as to believe anything such persons as Dalton say "and probably better.
I am sure I do not know whether Frank's character is good or bad. In respect of a conclusion either way, I am "from Missouri."
My mind is entirely open as to that "and I hope to keep it so until the
Issues Challenge to State.
I hope I shall know the TRUTH of the matter eventually "I should like to know, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense has put Frank's character in issue. It thereby challenges the State to break it down, if the State can.
If the State can break it down, it should proceed to the breaking with all the vigor it fairly and honorably can command. If Frank is a wolf in sheep's clothing, the public is entitled to know it, and it is the duty of the Solicitor General to make it known, if he can.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is a highly undesirable and dangerous thing to have at large in any peaceful, orderly and law-abiding community.
Far from quarreling with the Solicitor General for showing that Frank is a depraved character, I for one shall thank him if he makes his charge unmistakably plain. Maybe he can make it plain, and maybe he can not. He hasn't had his opportunity yet, and I am willing to be patient as he goes
The defense is seeking to establish Frank's good character by the testimony of many admittedly good citizens. To the best of their knowledge and belief these good people are speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Hard to Back Up "the Daltons."
People generally will be inclined to accept their statements as conclusive, unless the evidence combating the same is overwhelming.
It isn't going to do, I think, for the State to bring more Daltons into the case for the purpose of corroborating Conley. The trouble about the Daltons as corroborators is that one never can find anybody to corroborate the Daltons "as sadly in need of corroborating, apparently, as even the Conleys.
Frank, by putting his character in evidence, has gained some ground in public estimation, I believe. At least, this action seems to show that he is willing to risk his all on the contention that the State can find nothing vile in him, save in so far as the word of Conley can establish such an allegation.
Conley is not to be corroborated by innuendo, by suggestion, or by roundabout methods.
He must be corroborated by people of some degree of decency and standing themselves, or not very many people will take unquestioned the sinister charge of the negro.
One Good Witness a Peril.
If the State comes forward, after Frank has made his showing as to good character, with a number of witnesses that the defense is able to impeach beyond question, as fast as they are introduced, I do not believe Frank will suffer irreparable injury from the Conley charge, in the long run.
On the contrary, if the State comes forward with even so few as one reputable and believable witness as to Frank's evil character, there will remain in the minds of the jury, I suspect, an impression most dangerously unfavorable to the defendant.
One honorable and upright witness against Frank in the matter of his character can do him far greater harm than a hundred impeachable witnesses.
The State, having been confronted with the issue of Frank's character "challenged in the gate, so to speak "must make brave, categorial, and complete answer, or the State's case necessarily will be weakened markedly and, perhaps, fatally.
I believe the public, however prone to rush to conclusions primarily, and to make up its mind upon surface indications all too readily at times, nevertheless is fair and just in the end.
I think it likely there are few extremists either way "for or against Frank "who really wish to see him convicted or acquitted, regardless.
I think it is altogether likely, indeed, that hundreds of people, even inclined to side against Frank now, will gather a measure of satisfaction eventually, if he comes through the fire unscorched.
PAGE 20, COLUMN 5
Girl's Testimony Mainstay Of Defense Alibi for Frank
In the presentation of its alibi for Leo M. Frank, the defense probably accomplished more Thursday than it had in all of previous time since the prosecution rested its case. Frank's lawyers had promised that they would show where Frank was practically every minute on the day the murder of little Mary Phagan was committed and would demonstrate that it would have been impossible to carry out the disposal of the slain girl's body and the writing of the notes as the negro, Jim Conley, described them.
If their alibi witnesses are to be believed, the lawyers appear to have fairly well accomplished this. On the credibility of one young witness, pretty Helen Curran, of No. 160 Ashby street, the whole alibi may stand or fall. She could, of course, be proved mistaken in her statement that she saw Frank at 1:10 o'clock standing at Jacobs' Pharmacy, Whitehall and Alabama streets, awaiting a car home from the factory on the afternoon of the murder, and the remainder of the alibi witnesses remain unimpeached, but it would serve to weaken the alibi materially.
Apparently Disinterested.
She is at once the most important and the most disinterested of the witnesses who have testified to seeing Frank immediately after the State says the crime was committed. If Frank was at Whitehall and Alabama streets at 1:10 o'clock, it would have been almost beyond human possibility for him to have taken part in the disposal of the girl's body, which Conley said was undertaken at 12:56 and finished about 1:30, together with the writing of the notes in Frank's office.
Frank's father-in-law and mother-in-law testified that he arrived home that day about 1:20 o'clock, but their testimony, because they are most vitally interested in the outcome of the case from their ties of relationship, will in all probability have far less weight with the jurors than the apparently straightforward statement of the girl.
The establishing of the alibi for Frank, which was begun early in the week through the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Emil Selig, was practically completed Thursday, although there were several more witnesses to be called on Friday who had seen him the day of the crime.
Times in the Alibi.
Thursday's testimony began with the time he went to Montag Bros., Nelson and Forsyth streets, Saturday forenoon. Sig Montag, one of the firm and also treasurer of the National Pencil Company, testified that Frank came to his plant about 10 o'clock and left about 11.
Miss Corinthia Hall, Mrs. Emma Freeman, Miss Hattie Hall, Alonzo Mann and others had testified to seeing him in the factory between 11 o'clock and noon. Lemmie Quinn, metal department foreman, the day before declared that he visited Frank in his office at 12:20 o'clock. Mrs. Arthur White, a witness for the State, saw him in his office at 12:30. He went to the fourth floor at 12:50, according to Mrs. White, Harry Denham and Arthur White.
This brought the defense down to the time someone saw him after he left the factory.
Miss Curran was called to the stand and declared she saw the factory superintendent at 1:10 at Whitehall and Alabama streets apparently waiting for a street car. This made an interval of but eighteen minutes from the time he was seen by the three persons on the fourth floor of the factory, allowing two minutes for him to walk to his car, and an interval of but twelve minutes from the time that Conley said they started to carry the body to the basement.
Eight of the twelve minutes were spent by Conley in a closet in Frank's office, according to the negro's testimony. Of the remaining four, part were occupied in disposing of the body and part in writing the notes.
Witness Who Helped Build Alibi.
Mrs. Albert P. Levy, No. 69 East Georgia avenue, swore she saw Frank get off a car at about 1:20 o'clock and walk to the Selig home, No. 68 East Georgia avenue.
Mr. and Mrs. Selig already had testified he arrived home at 1:20 and ate luncheon.
Mrs. M. G. Michael, of Athens, Ga., said she saw Frank at about 2 o'clock at the home of Mrs. C. Wolfsheimer, No. 387 Washington street, where she was visiting. She said he walked on to Glenn street and caught his car for town.
Jerome Michael, son of the former witness, saw Frank at the same time.
Mrs. Wolfsheimer was another witness who saw Frank just before he caught his car. She said he was not nervous and bore no scratches or other marks.
Julian Loeb, No. 380 Washington street, said that from across the street he saw Frank stop at No. 387 Washington and then go on to his car.
J. C. Loeb, No. 445 Washington street, testified that he caught the Washington street car for town at Georgia avenue at about 2 o'clock. Frank got on, he said, at Glenn street. The car was stalled near the Capitol, and Frank, according to Loeb, got off the car and walked down Hunter street toward town.
Miss Rebecca Carson, a forelady on the fourth floor at the pencil factory, told the jury that she saw Frank in front of Rich. Bros. between 2:20 and 2:25 and that she saw him going into Jacobs' Pharmacy at about 2:50.
Harry Denham, who was in the factory the day of the murder, testified that Frank came to the fourth floor about 3 o'clock and told him and Arthur White they could leave.
Emil Selig and Minola Mc Knight had testified previously that Frank came home Saturday night about 6:30.
Mrs. M. Marcus, Mrs. A. E. Marcus, M. J. Goldstein and others told of seeing Frank at home Saturday evening. They said there was nothing unusual in his demeanor and that he bore no scratches or marks of any sort. He was reading a magazine, they said, and laughed heartily over a story in regard to a baseball umpire. They testified that he retired about 1:30 o'clock.
The defense also made good its promise that it would not hesitate to put Frank's character in issue. Following its action of the day before, when the first of the character witnesses were put on the stand, nearly a score of Frank's acquaintances, some of them his classmates and instructors at Pratt Institute and Cornell University, were called to testify to Frank's good character.
These witnesses for the most part were excused without cross-examination. Prominent citizens of Atlanta also declared Frank to be of good character. Among these witnesses were Rabbi David Marx, V. H. Kriegshaber, Milton Klein and R. A. Sohn.
A peculiar situation arose through the calling of Max F. Goldstein and Arthur Heyman as character witnesses by the defense. Goldstein is a law partner of Frank A. Hooper and Heyman of Solicitor Dorsey, the two attorneys who are prosecuting Frank.
Says Conley Told Her He Was Drunk
One of the startling statements of the day came from Miss Rebecca Carson. She declared Conley had sworn to her that he was not in the factory the day of the murder "in fact, that he was so drunk he did not know where he was or what he did.
Solicitor Dorsey obtained an admission from J. R. Leach that cars frequently run ahead of time on practically all lines. This serves to lessen in value the testimony of the crew of the car on which Mary Phagan came to town. They swore they never ran ahead of time and that the Phagan girl could not have arrived in town before 12:07 o'clock the day she was slain.
Judge Roan threatened Thursday afternoon to clear the courtroom if disorder did not cease. V. H. Kriegshaber was on the stand testifying to the character of Frank when laughter at some of the testimony disturbed the courtroom.
Attorney Arnold protested.
"This is not a side show," he said. "Must we put up with such disorder?"
"Find the man that laughed and put him out, ordered the judge. "If there is any further disorder, no one will be admitted to the trial to-morrow."