Reading Time: 54 minutes, [9817 words]
The Atlanta Georgian,
Saturday, 16th August 1913,
PAGE 17, COLUMN 1.
GIRLS TESTIFY FOR AND AGAINST FRANK
'I'D DIE FOR HIM!' CRIES ONE, CONVULSING COURT
MRS. FRANK'S SISTER; RESEMBLANCE GREAT MRS. URSENBACH. CLUB AND ENVELOPE FOUND BY PINKERTON MAN PUT IN EVIDENCE
Two factory girls, one of them defending Leo M. Frank with all the eloquence at her command, and the other admitting that she had known of the factory superintendent opening the door to the girls' dressing room on three different occasions and looking in, formed the center of interest among the score of witnesses who were called Saturday by the defense. They were Miss Irene Jackson and Miss Sarah Barnes.
Miss Jackson, daughter of County Policeman Jackson, testified on direct examination that she never had known of any improper conduct on the part of Frank, and that his character was good. Cross-questioned by Solicitor Dorsey she admitted that she had been in the room where the girls change from their street to their working clothes and had witnessed Frank open the door, look in and then turn around and leave. Once, she said, Miss Emmeline Mayfield was in the room with her. On another time her sister was there, and on a third occasion, she said Miss Mamie Kitchen was the other girl in the room.
She said that her sister had started to quit at the time Frank opened the door when she was in the dressing room. The witness also was asked if N. V. Darley, general manager of the factory, ever had made the remark at the time several girls were thinking of quitting the factory directly after the murder that "if the girls stick by us through this, they won't lose anything by it." Miss Jackson said she had heard Darley say this. Miss Jackson quit work the day after the body was found.
Frank's Mother Again on Stand.
Another long string of character witnesses occupied most of the session which was adjourned shortly after 1 o'clock for the day. Mrs. Rae Frank, the defendant's mother was placed on the stand at the beginning of court, but remained there only long enough to be questioned somewhat in detail as to the means of Frank's relatives.
One of the sensations of the day came during the testimony of W. D. Mc Worth, Pinkerton operative, who testified to the finding on the first floor of the pencil factory a pay envelope with Mary Phagan's initials and number on it, a bloody club, part of a whip, a piece of rope and spots near the trapdoor leading into the basement resembling bloodstains. Exactly the value of his finds did not develop either from the examination by the defense or the prosecution. Dorsey, however, sought to show that the Pinkertons dealt in bad faith with the city detective department by not reporting their discoveries as soon as made.
Court adjourned with the testimony of Harlee Branch, an Atlanta Journal reporter, who estimated the time it required Jim Conley to re-enact his version of the disposal of Mary Phagan's body, up to the writing of the notes as 47 minutes.
Girl Vehemently Defends Frank.
Miss Sarah Barnes was Frank's vehement defender. The first question asked her was the signal for a torrent of words that neither Attorney Arnold nor the Solicitor was able to stop until she paused for breath.
"Do you know Leo M. Frank, the defendant in this case?" was asked.
She replied that she not only knew him, but that she knew he was a good man, a perfect gentleman, always good to the girls and everyone else in the factory, never attempting any familiarities or talking to the girls except in regard to their work and never bring guilty of any of the charges that have been made against him by the State.
"I know Mr. Frank couldn't have committed that murder," she cried positively, emphasizing her words with a vigorous brandishing of her fan.
"I'd be willing to die in his place. I'd be willing to fight for him. I'd be willing they'd give me any sort of death they wanted to. I just wish I could make everybody believe in his innocence."
Judge Roan, just before court adjourned, made this statement to the jury: "For a number of reasons we won't hold a session this afternoon. I am very sorry you have been held together so long, but I believe this will be the last Sabbath you will be kept
PAGE 18, COLUMN 1
RED-STAINED CLUB AND PAY ENVELOPE ARE SHOWN TO JURY
Pinkerton Detective Says He Found Spots on the Floor Near Cubby Hole
FRANK'S MOTHER AGAIN ON STAND; WOMEN FROM FACTORY HELP ACCUSED
Continued from Page 1.
apart from your families. This duty is one of the burdens of good citizenship. You are here because you have measured up to the responsibility. If there was any way to relieve you I would, but you are under oath and so am I. Be very particular about your health. Be select in what you eat. Make the Sheriff exercise you as much as possible. I hope we will be able to wind up this case soon."
Mother Denies "Wealthy" Relatives.
Mrs. Frank declared Frank's relatives were of only moderate means. Solicitor Dorsey did not spare the defendant's mother in his cross-examination. He sought to show that Frank's parents in reality were wealthy and that Conley's quotation of Frank's alleged remarks about his "wealthy folks" was quite plausible. She said the source of the income of herself and her husband was the interest on about $20,000. They paid $6,000 for their home in Brooklyn and assumed a $6,000 mortgage on the residence.
"In what business is your husband?" the Solicitor asked her.
"He is not in business at present."
"Ah, he's a capitalist, is he?" said Dorsey.
Mrs. Frank replied that this was not so and added later that her husband was broken down in health and that this was the explanation of his being out of business at present.
Mrs. Frank was shown a photographic copy of the test note Frank wrote for the detectives which Dorsey had intimated was written in a disguised hand.
"That's my son's writing," she exclaimed, as soon as she saw the photographic copy. "He wrote me every week and I know his handwriting."
Mother to Son's Aid.
A hushed crowd leaned forward expectantly as the saddened woman, whose outburst of anger against Solicitor Dorsey was one of the sensations of the week, took her place in the witness chair.
The prisoner and his wife wore the same cool, unflinching demeanor. Frank kept his eyes on his mother. Luther Z. Rosser questioned Mrs. Frank.
Q. Mrs. Frank, you said you lived in Brooklyn? Has your son Leo Frank any rich relatives in Brooklyn? A. He has not.
Q. This letter that was received by him from his uncle, were show you here? "(The small letters were in a long envelope) A. Yes, a long paper. I don't know what it was.
Q. I show you a photograph letter. Is the writing similar to your sons? "(He handed her the photograph of Frank's writing for the police which witness Nix could not identify yesterday) A. That is my son's writing.
Dorsey Delves Into Family's Finances.
Dorsey took Mrs. Frank for cross-examination.
Q. Mrs. Frank, you have no difficulty in recognizing that as your son's writing, have you? A. None at all.
Q. What were those other papers? A. A price list, I think.
Q. Now you look at the price list? A. No.
Q. Who are your relatives in Brooklyn? A. My sister, Mrs. Bennett. Her husband clerks for my brother-in-law.
Q. What does your son-in-law do? A. He is in the retail cigar business.
Q. What do your other sons-in-law do? A. I don't know, I have enough to do to keep up with my own affairs.
Q. What are your means of support? A. We have a little money out at interest.
Q. How much? A. About $20,000.
Q. Do you own your own home? A. Yes.
Q. What is it worth? A. I don't know. We pay about $86 taxes.
Q. Well, what does that make it worth? A. You must understand we have a large mortgage.
Q. How much? A. About $6,000.
Q. Was that about one-third of the cost? A. More than that. We paid $6,000 and assumed the mortgage.
Q. Now, haven't you more than $20,000 out at interest? A. No.
Q. What income do you get on that? A. Do you want me to tell you everything of my everyday life?
Q. I want you to answer my questions, if you please, Mrs. Frank. A. All right.
Doesn't Know Frank's Uncle Is Called Rich.
Q. What other relatives have you? A. Miss Jacobs, a single lady.
Q. Are these the only relatives your son has in Brooklyn? A. Yes.
Q. Where is his uncle? A. He lives in Atlanta.
Q. He is supposed to be very wealthy? A. I don't know.
Q. Don't you know he was in Brooklyn Saturday? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Don't you know what rate of interest your husband gets on his $20,000? A. About 6 per cent.
Q. Do you know how much money he has in the bank? A. About $200.
Q. How much interest are you paying on the $6,000 mortgage? A. Five per cent.
Q. How often do you pay it? A. Once a year.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. How old is your husband? A. Sixty-seven years.
Q. What's the condition of his health? A. Very poor.
Q. Too bad to come here? A. Oh, yes; he is very nervous.
The witness was excused and Knox T. Thomas, a civil engineer, was the next witness called. At this time Mr. Rosser offered the letter of Leo M. Frank to his uncle, M. Frank, as evidence. Arnold questioned Mr. Thomas.
Civil Engineer Tells Of Measuring Street.
Q. At our request did you make some measurements, one from Marietta and Forsyth streets to the National Pencil Factory? A. Yes.
Q. How far was it? A. One thousand and sixteen feet.
Q. Did you walk it? A. Yes.
Q. How long did it take you? A. Four and one-half minutes.
Q. Did you walk from the National Pencil Factory to Alabama and Whitehall streets? A. Yes.
Q. How far is it, and how long did it take you to walk it? A. 821 feet, and three and one-half minutes.
Q. Did you walk from Frank's office to Broad and Hunter streets? A. Yes.
Q. How far was it, and how long did it take you? A. A distance of 333 feet, and it required one and three-quarter minutes to walk it.
Q. How fast did you walk? A. My usual gait, rather brisk.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You could have quickened your gait and walked from Marietta and Forsyth streets in two minutes, couldn't you? A. Not easily.
Q. At that rate, how long would it take you to walk a mile? A. I'll have to figure it "60 minutes.
Q. Sixty minutes to walk a mile? A. No; fifteen minutes.
Q. You were more accurate in your measurements than you were with your first answer? A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Miss Corinthia Hall was recalled to the stand. She was the first of another array of witnesses employed in the factory and scheduled to be called during the day to repudiate the charges of immorality on the part of the prisoner in the plant.
Says Conley Delayed Paying Back Money.
Miss Hall said Frank's character was good. She added that she did not know Conley well enough to swear about his character.
Dorsey then took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. You don't know Conley's character? A. No. Only I loaned him some money once and could hardly get it back. I wouldn't lend him any more.
The witness was excused and Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled, but did not answer. Miss Ida Hayes, another employee, who works on the fourth floor, testified to the good character of Frank. She said she had never heard of any immoral practices in the factory. She would not believe Jim Conley under oath, she added.
Hooper cross-examined her.
Q. The principal trouble with Jim Conley was borrowing money and forgetting to pay it back, wasn't it? A. Yes.
The witness was excused and Eula May Flowers, another employee, was recalled to the stand. She testified to Frank's good character and gave Conley a bad record. She said Conley had borrowed money from her and never paid it back.
Miss Bessie White, another character witness, was called, but did not answer. Miss Ella Hayes, now an employee of Kress' store, but an employee of the National Pencil Company up to the date of the murder, testified to Frank's good character. Miss Minnie Foster, an employee in the factory, said Frank's character was good. She did not know Conley's character.
Objection by Arnold Upheld by Court.
Hooper cross-examined her.
Q. Up to this killing, whom did you ever hear discuss Frank's character? A. No one.
The witness was excused.
Miss Opie Dickerson was another pencil factory employee to give Frank a good character. Conley's character was bad, she said.
Dorsey cross-examined her.
Q. Where were you on Saturday night, April 26? A. I don't remember.
Q. Were you not with Louise Gershon, Wade Campbell and Mr. Darley on that night?
Arnold objected and was sustained.
Mrs. Emma Clark Freeman was recalled to the stand next. She testified to Frank's good character and declared that that of the negro's was bad.
Miss Jessie Wallace, another fourth-floor employee, following Mrs. Freeman, said that Frank's character was good. She stated that she did not know Conley well enough to testify regarding him.
Miss Annie Osborne and Mrs. Ella Thomas, both employees of the pencil factory, also testified to Frank's good character. Mrs. Thomas declared that Jim Conley had borrowed money from her and never repaid it.
Miss Bessie Thrailkill, another employee of the factory, said she did not know Frank's character.
Arnold "I mean his reputation.
Miss Thrailkill "He was always a gentleman around me.
Hooper took the witness.
Q. Did you see Jim Conley after the killing? A. Not that I know of.
Q. Did you hear anything about any blood on the floor? A. Not until Monday morning.
Q. Did you see it? A. No.
The witness was excused, and Miss Allie Denham, Miss Rebecca Sarson and Miss Maude Wright, all employees of the pencil factory, spoke highly of Frank's character.
W. D. Mc Worth, a Pinkerton detective, was next called. Under Rosser's questioning he said he devoted fifteen days to the Phagan murder investigation, beginning May 12.
Q. What did you do? A. I questioned the employees and made a search of the ground floor.
Q. What did you find? A. I found stains by the trapdoor which might have been blood. It was on the ground floor.
Q. What else did you find? A. Behind a radiator I found a good bit of rubbish. There was a heavy cord in the trash. One end of it looked like it had just been cut with a sharp knife.
Pay Envelope and Bloody Club Introduced.
Q. What else did you find? A. In one corner a few inches from the radiator, I found a piece of pay envelope folded up. It was in a pile of trash.
The torn bit of envelope was introduced by the defense.
Q. What did you do with the envelope? A. I saw the number 186 on it and initials "M. P." I handed it to Officer Whitfield and told him to take it to the light and see what it was.
Q. Did you find anything else? A. Yes; I found a big stick lying near the radiator beside some pipes.
At this point a blood-stained stick was exhibited.
Q. Do you know what this stick is used for? A. Mr. Holloway said it was a roller on which boxes were moved.
Q. Was there anything odd about it that you noticed? A. It was stained as is apparent now "stains that looked as though they might be blood.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Did you ever see this stick before? (The blunt end of a buggy whip was exhibited.) A. Yes.
Q. Where? A. Behind the front door.
Blood Stains Found Around Cubby Hole.
Q. Where did you find the envelope? A. In the door to the Clark Woodenware department.
Q. What day? A. May 15.
Q. Where did you begin to search? A. On the office floor.
Q. What did you see on that floor? A. In the metal department I saw half a dozen stains like the one Mr. Darley showed me by the water cooler.
Q. Did they look like the other stains? A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any search of the office for that envelope? A. No; I was looking for a mesh bag.
Q. Who told you to? A. Mr. Scott.
Q. You made that search all day, alone? A. Until 5 o'clock, when I was joined by Whitfield.
Q. He searched with you? A. Yes.
Q. You found bloodstains around the cubby hole? A. Yes.
Q. Was that your report to the Pinkertons? A. Yes.
Q. You didn't say anything about blood? A. I said it looked like blood.
Q. How many stains were there? A. About six or seven.
Q. How large was each? A. About six or seven inches in diameter.
Q. And were they blood? A. I don't know; I took up the chips.
Q. Now, after you found the bloodspots you found pieces of cord around the radiator? A. Yes Q. The bloodspots led you to that? A. No.
Q. You showed those bloodspots to Whitfield? A. Yes.
Envelope Found Near Trap Door.
Q. And while he was examining the stains, you picked up a roll of paper? A. Yes.
Q. And in that roll you found the envelope? A. The roll was the envelope itself.
Q. Was that envelope lying right out in the open space? A. Within eight or ten inches of the trapdoor.
Q. Were there any other pieces of paper? A. Yes, one or two little ones.
Q. Was it light enough for you to see the number "186 "in the right-hand corner? A. Yes.
Q. Has that envelope been changed any? A. None at all.
At this point Attorney Rosser conferred with Attorney Hooper.
Rosser "The officer in charge of the witnesses talks to them, then comes down and reports to Detective Starnes. If it doesn't stop, I will make a protest to the court.
Hooper "If anything improper is going on, I wish you would make it public.
Solicitor Dorsey, who was standing near the witness, turned and said:
"Your honor, we want this matter settled, if they think anything improper is going on."
Judge Roan "No complaint has been made.
Dorsey "We are bringing it now.
The officer came in and spoke to Mr. Starnes.
Dorsey: "If there is any objection, I will have Mr. Starnes state what the officer said to him."
Asks Schiff Be Sent From Room.
Arnold: "We have no objection to make to the court. We just made a personal request."
Dorsey continued questioning the witness.
Q "This envelope did not have a figure 5 on it did it? A. No.
At this point Solicitor Dorsey noticed that Herbert Schiff was in the courtroom. He addressed the court:
"Your Honor," he said, "I want Mr. Schiff to be put out of the room. I will want him as a witness a little later."
Rosser: "We merely want to have him here when we are questioning these witnesses who work at the factory."
Judge Roan: "The witness will have to leave." Rosser: "All right, we will go upstairs to confer with him. I don't care if it takes a month."
Schiff left the courtroom and Dorsey continued to question the witness.
Q. Did you show this envelope to Herbert Schiff? A. Later.
Q. Did he identify it as his handwriting?
Rosser: "We object. Mr. Arnold is a little excited about a fire close to his building and will be back in a few minutes."
Dorsey "Well, I want this witness held until I can examine Schiff. He continued his questioning.
Q. Wasn't there a figure "5" on that envelope? A. Not any more than there is now.
Hints at Change in Figures on Envelope.
Q. Didn't Mrs. Coleman call your attention to a figure "5"?
Rosser objected.
Dorsey "This is for the purpose of impeachment. I want to show that when this envelope was shown to the Colemans on May 15 it had a figure "5" on it. They told the Pinkertons Mary did not get but $1.20 the week she was murdered.
Judge Roan overruled the objection.
Dorsey "Did any conservation between you and the Colemans about a figure "5" take place? A. No.
Q. Where did you get this information in your report? (Solicitor Dorsey handed the witness a typewritten report.) A. From Mr. Schiff.
Q. When did you report the finding of this stick to the police?
Rosser objected.
Dorsey "I want to show in reference to this club, what the head man for the Pinkertons instructed this police asked about that club, the Pinkertons gave them a little stick. Mr. Rosser has tried to make it appear that the Pinkertons employed at the instance of Frank, went down the road on and on with the police. The jury was taken from the room at the request of Dorsey.
Judge Roan "Let me hear your objection, Mr. Rosser. I don't want to hear any argument. Rosser Through Arguing, He Says. Rosser: "I don't want to argue. I don't expect to argue here any more. All I want is to have my objection recorded. He has tried to impeach every witness we have put up on the grounds that he did not report to the police." Judge Roan: "Mr. Dorsey, you can ask the witness whether he told any city detectives about the note and the bludgeon, or whether he sought to conceal it. You can not ask him what somebody told him to do." Hooper: "What we want to do is to show that Pierce is the head of the Pinkertons, and that he controls the policy of the Pinkertons." Judge Roan: "This man is not responsible for what somebody told him." The jury was brought back, and Dorsey continued his questioning.
Q. Who is the head of the Pinkertons? A. H. B. Pierce.
Q. Where is Whitfield? Rosser: "I object to that, your Honor."
Dorsey: "It is a well-known principle of law that we can ask that."
Judge Roan: "You can ask the question."
Q. Where is Pierce? A. I don't know.
Q. Where is Whitfield? A. I don't know.
Q. Now how long after you found that club did you report it to the police? A. Seventeen hours.
Q. How long after that did you have a conference with the police? A. Four hours.
Q. Now, did you not show Black this stick when you told him about the club? A. I did not.
Q. Were you there when the stick was shown Black? "I was not.
Rosser took the witness.
Q. Now, is this your report? A. Yes.
Q. Is this your diagram showing the place where you found the club and the pay envelope? A. Yes.
Girl Bursts Forth In Frank's Defense.
Q. You attached this to your report and we now get it from Mr. Dorsey? A. Yes.
Q. You don't know whether I ever saw it or not? A. No.
Q. Now, this piece of envelope is just like it was when you found it? A. Yes.
Q. If there are any changes, they don't show here? A. No.
The witness was excused, and Miss Mollie Blair, a former employee of the pencil factory, was called as a character witness. She did not answer. Miss Cora Barnes then took the stand. Before Attorney Arnold could ask her any questions, she burst forth into oratory to declare:
"We love our superintendent because he was a good business man and a gentleman."
Her words were interrupted and when the formal questions were put as to whether she knew Leo M. Frank, she arose to her feet and said:
"I believe Mr. Frank is innocent. He is too good a man and I wish I could make everybody else believe he is innocent. I would be willing to take his place and die for him. I would be glad to die for him."
Miss Barnes' spasmodic statements threw the courtroom into a volcanic eruption. As her words flowed freely from her mouth, attorneys for both sides sprang to their feet in various attitudes of protest, some shouting their objections at Judge Roan and others in pleading gestures to the witness to come to a halt. Yet her words waxed more eloquent and flowed more freely with each protest that was registered against them.
Spectators in Courtroom Convulsed With Laughter.
Sheriff Mangum and Chief Deputy Plennie Miner, with a dozen deputies, strove for several minutes in the courtroom crowd. Several spectators were so convulsed with laughter that they were compelled to leave the courtroom. One man of large avoirdupois threatened to go into convulsions.
Following the restoration of quietude, the witness was excused without an attempt to question her.
Miss Ethel Stewart, a telephone operator and a former employee of the pencil factory on the fourth floor, was next called and testified to Frank's good character.
Miss Irene Jackson, an attractive young woman, a daughter of County Policeman A. W. Jackson, and a former employee of the pencil factory, who stated that she left there the day of the murder, was the next witness. On direct examination the witness testified that Frank's character was good. Dorsey cross-examined her.
Q. Did you ever hear any of the employees say anything about Frank? A. They seemed to be afraid of him.
Q. How? A. They would always work hard when they saw him coming.
Q. Do you recall Emily Mayfield? A. Yes.
Says Frank Looked Into Dressing Room.
Q. Where does she work? A. She worked at Jacobs' until Easter.
Q. What about that dressing room incident you told Mr. Starnes about in the presence of your father? A. Emily Mayfield was in the dressing room one day and Frank came back there. I was back there to take off my apron.
Q. How was Miss Mayfield dressed? A. She had off her dress.
Q. Did he come all the way in? A. He opened the door and looked in.
Q. Did he laugh? A. I don't know.
Q. Did you threaten to quit? A. Yes. Q. To whom? A. Mr. Darley.
Q. What did he say? A. He said that we girls should stick together and that we would not lose anything by it.
Q. You told your father about it? A. No, my sister did.
Q. Did you hear anybody but Miss Emily Mayfield talk about Frank going into this dressing room? A. Yes, I heard about it.
Q. Who told you? A. I don't remember. I heard them talking about him going into the dressing room two or three times.
Q. What did Frank do when he came into the dressing room? A. He walked in, turned around and walked out.
Q. Were you in there? A. Yes.
Q. You have told me of two times. Have you heard of any other times besides your sister and Miss Mayfield? A. Miss Mamie Kitchens and I were in there one day when I came in.
Q. Did you hear the girls talk about other times? A. Yes.
Q. Where were they? A. I don't remember.
Q. What else did you hear about Frank besides the fact that he went into the dressing room and stared at the girls? A. Nothing.
Arnold took the witness on re-direct examination.
Q. How long did you work in the factory? A. About three years.
Q. You were willing to work on there after this? A. I had some bills to pay and I wanted to get the money Papa wanted me to quit.
Q. The murder was the real reason you quit, wasn't it? A. Papa said he didn't want me to work there, so I quit.
Q. Didn't you hear Frank issuing an order about the girls flirting through the fourth story window?
Dorsey objected and was sustained.
Q. What street did those windows look out on? A. Forsyth street.
Q. People were constantly walking along the street, were they not? A. Yes.
Q. Did any rule or order come to you against flirting out of the window? A. There were orders against it.
Q. Frank never came into the room. He just came to the door and turned away? A. He pushed the door open and looked in.
Q. Did he ever come in? A. No.
Girls Partly Undressed When Frank Looked In.
Q. Which time was it you were not fully dressed? A. When I was with Mamie Kitchens.
Q. The other times you were dressed fully? A. Yes.
Q. How were you when you were with Miss Kitchens? A. I had off my top dress and was preparing to put on my street dress.
Q. You had on your underskirt? A. Yes.
Q. Were any of the girls anywhere nude at any time he came and looked in? A. No, sir.
Q. When was this? A. Last summer.
Dorsey took the witness on recross-examination.
Q. How soon after Frank opened the door on your sister did she quit? A. She wanted to quit right then, but the forelady persuaded her not to.
Q. There was no way he could tell before opening the dressing room door how near any of the girls were to being undressed? A. No, sir.
Q. It was near to the dressing room wasn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Arnold took the witness.
Q. What time were you girls expected to be at work? "At 7 o'clock.
Q. What time was it Frank came to the door? A. Ten or fifteen minutes after 7 o'clock.
Dorsey took the witness.
Q. You never flirted with anyone out of the window? A. No.
Q. Did the forelady come in? A. No.
Q. Did you ever see any signs around there not to flirt? A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Frank say anything about flirting? A. I heard him say something once.
Smiled or Made Face at Girl.
Q. Well, when he stood in that dressing room door and smiled did he "
Arnold: "Your honor she never said anything about smiling."
Miss Jackson: "He never asked me."
Dorsey: "Well, I am asking you now; did he smile?" A. Yes, he smiled, or made some kind of face at Miss Mayfield.
Q. Did he say anything? A. No, just looked at her and walked out.
Q. He never said anything about flirting? A. No.
The witness was excused and Harlee Branch, a reporter for The Atlanta Journal, was called to the stand. Arnold questioned him.
Q. Do you recollect having an interview with Jim Conley? A. Yes.
Dorsey: "The story of his actions is practically the same."
Judge Roan: "He can go as far as this evidence is similar. The jury can tell whether it is the same or not."
Rosser: "It is the duty of the Judge to pass on it before it goes to the jury."
Q. I call your attention to this interview of May 31. Read it over and tell the substance.
Before Mr. Branch had replied, Mr. Rosser questioned him.
Q. I will get you to state whether Conley said anything about seeing the little girl's purse? A. He did not.
"Took 30 Minutes to Take Body to Basement."
Q. Didn't he say it took him 30 minutes to get the body down into the basement? A. Yes.
Q. I will ask if he didn't say Lemmie Quinn got to the factory after 12 o'clock and stopped eight or nine minutes? A. Yes.
Dorsey took the witness on cross-examination.
Q. Was he positive about the time? A. I tried to get him to be as definite as he could, but he qualified his statements with the word "about."
Q. Did you get this interview before or after Conley went through what he said was his part in the crime at the factory? A. It was two or three days after.
Q. Did you see him go through that performance at the factory? A. I did.
Rosser objected.
Dorsey "I want to show by this witness Conley's performance and that it was just as admissible as the evidence of Dr. Owens the other day.
Judge Roan overruled the objection. Rosser continued to object, on the ground that Conley has told a different story since the interview.
Branch went through the negro's re-enactment of the crime. He estimated the start at 12:18. Rosser made another strenuous objection, but Judge Roan admitted the evidence.
Branch said that at 1:05 o'clock he left the building and the negro had reached the point in his pantomime where he wrote the notes in Frank's office.
At this point court adjourned until 9 o'clock Monday morning.
PAGE 18, COLUMN 3
DIAGRAM SHOWING MAIN POINTS IN FRANK'S ALIBI
FRANK Left Montag Bros 11 A.M. for Office. (FORSYTH ST.)
CORINTHIA HALL and EMMA FREEMAN enter 11.45 A.M. (FORSYTH ST.)
LEMMIE QUINN Entered 12.20 P.M. (FORSYTH ST.)
FRANK arrived at factory 8.25 A.M. Goes to Montag Bros 10 A.M. (FORSYTH ST.)
Mrs. WHITE Enters office 12.30 (FORSYTH ST.)
MARY PHAGAN entered at 12.05 P.M. (FORSYTH ST.)
LEMMIE QUINN Left 12.25 P.M. (FORSYTH ST.)
REBECCA CARSON saw FRANK here at 2.20 P.M. and here at 2.50 (WHITEHALL ST.)
CAUGHT CAR here for Home 6.05 P.M. (ALA. ST.)
HELEN CURRAN saw FRANK on this Corner at 1.10 P.M. (ALA. ST.)
FORSYTH ST. (Horizontal)
BROAD ST. (Horizontal)
WHITEHALL ST. (Horizontal)
TRINITY AVE. (Vertical)
MITCHELL ST. (Vertical)
HUNTER ST. (Vertical)
ALA. ST. (Vertical)
A street map showing Forsyth St., Broad St., Whitehall St., Hunter St., Trinity Ave., Mitchell St., and Alabama St., with the National Pencil Factory building and annotated arrows tracing Leo M. Frank's movements and the movements of witnesses throughout the day of the murder, corresponding to the individual notations displayed in the document (Frank leaving Montag Bros. at 11 A.M. for the office; Corinthia Hall and Emma Freeman entering at 11:45 A.M.; Lemmie Quinn entering at 12:20 P.M.; Frank arriving at the factory at 8:25 A.M. and going to Montag Bros. at 10 A.M.; Mrs. White entering the office at 12:30; Mary Phagan entering at 12:05 P.M.; Lemmie Quinn leaving at 12:25 P.M.; Rebecca Carson seeing Frank at 2:20 P.M. and 2:50 P.M.; Frank catching a car for home at 6:05 P.M.; and Helen Curran seeing Frank on the corner of Alabama and Whitehall at 1:10 P.M.)
The defense claims it would have been utterly impossible for Frank to have murdered Mary Phagan and disposed of her body in the lapses in time in the alibi they have set up. They also contend that it proves Conley's story a tissue of falsehoods. Thus, they declare, Conley lied when he said Quinn preceded Monteen Stover and Mary Phagan because Quinn did not arrive until 12:20, just as they charge the negro was caught when he said he saw Mary go in ahead of Monteen because according to State's Witness George Epps, Mary was at Marietta and Forsyth at 12:07, while Monteen entered the factory at 12:05. Proceeding further, the defense attacks Conley's story of the disposition of the body on the ground that Helen Curran saw Frank at Alabama and Whitehall at 1:10, and Conley says the disposing of the body began at 12:56. The events Conley describes could not have occurred in the intervening 14 minutes, according to the defense, because Conley said he was in the wardrobe 8 minutes, and the writing of the notes must have taken at least 6 minutes, according to the State itself. The State will undoubtedly attack this formidable alibi in its rebuttal evidence.
PAGE 18, COLUMN 8
Frank Trial Halts As Clanging Engines Run to Fire Nearby
Proceedings at the Frank trial were interrupted about 11 o'clock Saturday morning when the fire department was called to Pryor and Hunter streets. The clanging gongs drowned the voices of the attorneys and witnesses, and for a brief time nervousness prevailed in the fear that the fire was in the courthouse.
Sharp rapping by deputies restored order.
The fire proved to be nothing more than smoke issuing from a leaky flue on the second floor of the Brown Building at Pryor and Hunter streets.
PAGE 19, COLUMN 1
STATEMENT BY FRANK WILL BE THE CLIMACTIC FEATURE OF THE TRIAL
By JAMES B. NEVIN.
The defense is nearing its end in the Frank case.
A few more character witnesses "there seems to have been no difficulty whatever in securing character witnesses by the score to testify in behalf of the defendant "the statement of Frank, and the defense will rest.
The State will then introduce its witnesses in rebuttal of the defense's character witnesses, and along other lines. Not improbably, the State will undertake to rebut in a measure the defendant's personal statement.
The entire case should go to the jury Monday or Tuesday "meaning by that that the argument should begin then.
The State has been all along much more sensational and spectacular than the defense. That generally is the way these cases go, and in respect of that, therefore, the Frank case has not been particularly remarkable.
In the length of time required to develop fully both sides, however, the case is in a class by itself, so far as Georgia is concerned.
The Frank case has been noticeable, too, because of the fact that women have been excluded from the courtroom practically from the beginning of the trial "and yet in the main there hasn't been a great deal said in the courtroom that might be called particularly offensive, as those things go.
Innuendo Plays Large Part.
Aside from Conley's direct statement, as to unspeakable depravity upon the part of Frank, the most that has been said by way of the very offense has been said largely through suggestion and innuendo.
Unless the State comes forward in rebuttal with some direct allegations to bolster up Conley, the chances are that there will be no further ultra sensational testimony introduced.
The constant dread has been present in the mind of the court, however, that in this case there always is the chance that something highly offensive to sensitive ears may "break," and at any moment.
The court has had no way of knowing what either direct or cross-examination might develop in a witness, and for that reason the presiding judge has kept the courtroom clear of women and children as the case proceeded.
This circumstance has served to emphasize the presence of the defendant's wife and mother, and to make them at all times conspicuous among the spectators "as they must have been, in a large degree, in any event.
Both of these women have faced the long and trying ordeal with remarkable fortitude and patience, all things considered, and it probably is true that at no stage of the trial has anything less than genuine sympathy gone out to them from the crowds constantly on hand to witness the proceedings.
The elder Mrs. Frank was on Friday a most interesting witness. A day or so before she had "for the first and only time "lost control of her feelings in the courtroom and permitted herself to say things to the Solicitor that she herself no doubt almost instantly regretted.
Mother a Dignified Figure.
On Friday, however, when reading the somewhat remarkable and significant letter of her son to his uncle, she was a most impressive and dignified figure. I have no doubt whatever that her testimony had a fine effect upon the jury. She is the defendant's mother "it is her son about whom all those horrible things have been said "and her deep concern and interest in the case could not be mistaken.
Her heart is involved necessarily as the heart of no other one person possibly can be "no human being would expect less of her than that "but her calmness and deliberation on the stand Friday showed that she appreciated the material value of the evidence she was then giving, and that it was necessary then that her best and most discriminating intelligence be given full play, no less than heretofore her heart had been.
I think the public now is looking forward to the defendant's statement with far more interest than anything else "unless it be to the forthcoming evidence of the more or less mysterious witnesses the State still has in reserve.
Frank never has told his own story. He has maintained a reserved silence ever since he was arrested, and it will be particularly interesting to hear what the main actor in the drama has to say in his own behalf, after all else has been said on that side.
It is by no means too much to say that Frank's statement may make or mar his case "it may clear him entirely, for that thing has happened, and many more times than once "or it may cut the other way. It certainly will be a dramatic utterance "whether the thrill of it be pronounced or repressed.
It looks as if the defendant has said about the last word that can be said in establishing his good character. Good character can be proved only in the way he has gone about it.
If the State relies upon the defendant's lack of character to hold together its other story "and that seems to be the way the State is fighting its way along "it must break down the defendant's exhibits completely, or the defendant's showing is bound to figure tremendously in shaping the verdict.
Can the State do it?
That is a question Atlantans and Georgians have asked themselves continually for the past week or ten days. It is the question they still are asking themselves "and it is the question they will ask themselves until it is answered.
Upon the rebuttal of the Frank character witnesses much depends "and it has been promised, inferentially, at least, that this rebuttal will be complete and final. It must be, if the State hopes to win out.
There is nothing now that goes so directly to the very core of the issue between Leo Frank and the State of Georgia as the question of the defendant's possession or lack of character.
When the attorneys pro and con come to sum up the case, for the benefit and theoretical enlightenment of the jury, it will be found, I think, that both the State and the defense have made out cases remarkable in point of strength for and against the defendant.
In other words, I mean it will be found that the State has made the very best of the material it had on hand by way of outlining and establishing the charge against Frank, the while the defense has been every bit as circumspect and astute in providing for the refutation of the charges.
Trial a Fair Fight.
Certainly the trial has been such a trial as men call fair. The case was not called until both sides had had ample time to prepare for it, and until both sides announced ready.
The State and the defense each is supplied with as able and intelligent counsel as might be secured, there has been no limit whatever upon the time taken up, court officials have left nothing undone to have the witnesses both ways on hand at the moments wanted, and the witnesses under the rule while the case has proceeded, have been handled as they should be.
Judge Roan, occupying not only a most responsible position, but certainly a most trying one, has borne himself with a degree of official dignity and fair-mindedness that must commend him very highly to the public.
The jury has been taken care of like real human beings "nothing has been left undone for its comfort.
Consideration has been shown the defendant, the members of his family, and the warm friends constantly in attendance upon him.
The spectators have been orderly, even the hours observed by the court have been adjusted to the accommodation of the lawyers, the defendant, and the jury.
So far as human ingenuity and law can make it so, therefore, the trial of Leo Frank has been fair, I think "as fair as could be asked. And when I say that I mean fair to both the defense and the State.
The presiding judge let in one big, significant line of evidence supposedly unfavorable to the defense. It so happens, however, that later he let in another line supposedly as unfavorable to the State.
An Even Break.
There was no possible connection, really, between these two things, of course, for the judge did exactly the thing he thought was right in both instances. It merely is a fact that his two biggest rulings cut evenly between the State and the accused "and to that extent is noticeable, in that it makes an even break.
I make the foregoing observation now because, looking at the case from the present point of view, in advance of the verdict, I feel that he observation is true "and whatever the outcome of the trial, I for one shall not feel that the case has been unfairly tried.
Judicial error may have crept in "it certainly is not for laymen to say as to that. It perhaps is not right and proper even to speculate upon such a thing.
Whatever judicial error has crept in, however, if any has, it may be corrected upon review before a court higher up. Either that or the error will redound to the defendant's benefit "for once acquitted, he never can be tried again for the murder of Mary Phagan.
There is on advantage that has come of the long drawn out battle, perhaps, and that is in the time it has given the public to weigh carefully and discriminatingly every bit of evidence as it has fallen from the lips of witnesses.
There is no reason why any person able to read the English language should be unfamiliar with any detail of the trial.
The newspapers certainly have done their part in spreading the story, as told by each side, before the public from day to day.
PAGE 19, COLUMN 3
"CLUB OF TEMPORARY WIDOWS" GATHERS
EACH DAY TO GREET THEIR HUSBANDS ON JURY
They have chosen Mrs. W. M. Jeffries "forewoman."
Many fast friendships have been formed.
MRS. M. F. WOODWARD. MRS. F. V. L. SMITH. "Widows" hope to perpetuate club when widowhood is over, adding twelfth member.
HELEN WOODWARD, DAUGHTER OF JUROR.
PAGE 19, COLUMN 7
There Are Eleven Full-Fledged Members and "Associate" Member, Who Waves at Bachelor.
Atlanta has a brand new club. It is called "The Club of Temporary Widows."
Its membership, as its name indicates, is made up entirely of women. There are just eleven of them. All were brought to their temporary widowhood by the trial of Leo M. Frank. All are wives of jurors in the great murder case, or, at least, they were before the trial began. All are thoroughly tired of the tedious processes of the law which have kept them in their somber weeds for three long weeks.
Mrs. Jeffries, "widow" of W. M. Jeffries, a real estate man, who is serving on the Frank jury, has been elected the "forewoman." They do not have a president in the Club of the Temporary Widows.
They Meet Every Day.
Every night the eleven widows may be seen at Alabama and South Pryor streets as the jurors file by under as close a guard as though they were prisoners, and very dangerous prisoners at that.
They are privileged only to wave their handkerchiefs "the young bride of the club throws kisses "as the men go by on their way to the Kimball House for the night. This same young bride "or young widow "rushed up to the line the first day of the trial and tried to speak to the husband of whom she had been bereft.
A stern look from one of the deputies repulsed her. Softening, the officer explained that it would be worth as much as his job if he should let her or any of the widows say just one little word to one of those jurors.
There's One Associate Member.
Several times another young woman has been noticed on the edge of the little group making up the widows' club. She has had eyes only for the bachelor of the jury. He has had eyes only for her. It is said that she is to be taken into associate membership in the club. Report also has it that she will qualify for full membership soon after the trial.
None of the widows knew each other before the trial began. Now a number of strong friendships have been formed. In addition to the daily gatherings at Alabama and South Pryor streets, meetings are to be held each week during the life of the club, which its members hope to perpetuate for years. The meetings will be held at the members' homes, and the regained husbands may be permitted to attend once in a while.
PAGE 19, COLUMN 3
MANY TESTIFY TO FRANK'S GOOD CHARACTER
Nearly half a hundred witnesses testified in behalf of Leo M. Frank Friday. As a climax to the day's proceedings in Judge Roan's court the defendant's mother, Mrs. Rae Frank, went on the stand to add her testimony to that which she hoped would save her son from the gallows.
Virtually all who were called were character witnesses. Near the close of the day Reuben Arnold announced that he proposed to call every woman and girl employed on the fourth floor of the pencil factory, as well as many from the other floors, to testify to Frank's conduct about the factory and his attitude toward the girls in his employ.
He called three before the close of the day and explained to them in advance that he was going to ask them questions which he planned to direct at every girl employee called. He then asked them if they ever had had any part in the gay parties that the State has said took place in Frank's office either during or after factory hours. He asked them if they ever had drunk beer in Frank's office or ever were there for a questionable purpose. All of the witnesses denied knowing of or participating in any such parties.
Frank's lawyer said that he would continue this line of questioning with all of the women he called from the factory. The testimony was obtained to discredit the stories of some of the State's witnesses charging that Frank was in the habit of entertaining women in his office.
Employees Show Loyalty.
The factory employees called Friday displayed the utmost loyalty to their superintendent. They testified as though they could believe nothing wrong of Frank and appeared indignant at the suggestions of immorality made by Solicitor Dorsey.
When the day closed there were still many witnesses to be heard. It was problematical if the defense would finish during the day. The statement of Frank was being reserved until the last moment before the defense rested its case. His attorneys announced that they did not know themselves whether it would be a formal written statement or whether Frank would make it informally from notes he had taken before and during the trial.
The first move by the State in rebuttal is awaited with the keenest interest. It generally is conceded that Solicitor Dorsey will occupy the major part of his time in attacking the character of the young factory superintendent. He is said to be willing to let the main theory of the crime, as suggested by the defense, go practically unassailed except by the testimony already given by his witnesses, Jim Conley principal among them.
Girl to Assail Frank.
Dewey Hewell, a 16-year-old girl, recently sent from Atlanta to the Home of the Good Shepherd in Cincinnati, was returned to this city Friday for the express purpose of testifying against Frank. She was brought back under the Solicitor's directions, and is reported by persons connected with the prosecution to have testimony extremely damaging to Frank's moral character.
Many of Friday's witnesses who testified to the excellence of Frank's character, testified at the same time to the worthlessness of Conley's.
Miss Dora Small, a machine operator on the fourth floor, swore that she always had known Frank as a gentleman, and never had heard any stories of immorality in regard to him.
She said that Conley's character was bad, and that he had a reputation for being shiftless and dishonest. Mrs. E. H. Carson, mother of Miss Rebecca Carson, another of the witnesses, declared that Conley acted suspiciously after the crime.
Says Conley Cringed.
Miss Mary Pirk said that she had accused Conley of the murder and that the negro slunk out of her sight and had not appeared around her again during the day. She was asked by the Solicitor if she ever had seen Frank struggling with Mary Phagan or ever had noticed Frank taking her to one side to talk with her during the weeks immediately preceding the tragedy.
She replied she had not. The Solicitor pressed this question, demanding if it was not true that Frank, about two weeks before the Phagan girl was murdered, had taken her to one side of the room and caught hold of her when she tried to get back to her work.
Miss Julia Fuss testified that Conley had said Frank was "as innocent as the angels in heaven."
Harry Gottheimer, a traveling salesman for Montag Bros. and the National Pencil Company, testified that he had an engagement with Frank for Saturday afternoon. Miss Hattie Hall, stenographer, swore two days previously that Frank tried to persuade her to work at the pencil factory during the afternoon.
Combats Premeditation Theory.
These two witnesses were produced by the defense to combat the State's announced theory that Frank deliberately planned on Friday, the day before the crime, the attack which the State says he made on Saturday.
Gottheimer testified that Frank asked him to come over to the factory during the day.
"I'm not sure that I can get over this forenoon," Gottheimer said he told Frank.
"Well, if you can't come this forenoon, be sure and come this afternoon," Frank replied, according to Gottheimer.
Interest was at fever heat throughout the day because of the report that Frank was about to make his statement.
It increased when Mrs. Rae Frank, mother of the defendant, was called to the stand late in the afternoon.
She was asked by Attorney Rosser to identify a letter said to have been written by Frank the afternoon of April 26 to his uncle, M. Frank, who was in New York at the time. Mrs. Frank read the letter and identified it as the one which had been read in her presence April 28 in the Hotel Mc Alpin, New York.
Letter to Show Frank Calm.
The letter was another of the pieces of evidence submitted by the defense in an effort to show Frank's mental and nervous condition Saturday afternoon after the time the State claims Mary Phagan was attacked and killed.
The message was quite like any letter that might be written in ordinary circumstances. The writing was regular and without any indications that the writer was laboring under mental excitement. In the course of the letter the word "Yontif" occurred, which Mrs. Frank described as a pure Hebrew word meaning holiday.
The letter follows:
"Atlanta, Ga., April 26, 1913. "Dear Uncle: I trust that this finds you and dear auntie well after arriving safely in New York. I hope that you found all the dear ones well in Brooklyn, and I await a letter from you telling me how you found things there. Lucile and I are well.
"It is too short a time since you left for anything startling to have developed down here. The opera has Atlanta in its grip, but that ends today. I've heard a rumor that opera will not be given again in a hurry here. To-day was Yontif (holiday) here, and the thin gray line of veterans, smaller each year, braved the rather chilly weather to do honor to their fallen comrades."
"Inclosed you will find last week's report. The shipments still keep up well, though the result is not what one would wish. There is nothing new in the factory, etc., to report. Inclosed please find the price list you desired."
"The next letter from me you should get on board ship. After that I will write to the address you gave me in Frankfurt."
"With much love to you both, in which Lucile joins me, I am, your affectionate nephew."
"LEO M. FRANK."
Negro Drayman Denies Seeing Conley
Four negro witnesses were called during the day. One of them, Truman Mc Creary, a drayman, testified he never saw Conley watching at the factory door as Conley testified it was his frequent custom to do.
Walter Pride, a negro helper, declared he would not believe Conley on oath. He said he often was at the factory on Saturday afternoons and that he never saw women in Frank's office.
Ray Bauer, a white youth, told of visits to the factory on Saturday afternoons. He declared he always had found Frank there alone working on the books. He never saw any women.
PAGE 18, COLUMN 8
MOTHER'S LOVE GIVES TRIAL ITS GREAT SCENE
By L. F. WOODRUFF.
Every human emotion has been paraded during the long three weeks of the Frank trial.
There has been pathos. Comedy has opposed tragedy. Science has met sympathy. Truth has been arrayed against fiction. Negro has conflicted with white.
The erudite Arnold has matched wits with the thick-lipped, thick-skulled Conley. Luther Rosser, stern, determined and skillful, has had to try to meet the machinations of a brain of a cornfield negro, Newt Lee. Hugh Dorsey, young and determined; Frank Hooper, smiling and ambitious, have breast to breast encountered the battleax of Rosser and the rapier of Arnold.
There remained but one thing "the dramatic touch that sends the violins trembling a high crescendo and the hearts of the audience beating a long roll in double time. It was furnished during the past week.
The Mother's Part.
It was furnished by the person that a Belasco would have picked for the part. The touch was added by the person to whom the trial means more than a seat in high heaven "a woman whose son is on trial for his life.
The stage had been appropriately set for the dramatic effect. The audience had a man of unquestioned wealth back of him, with a little girl of the common masses of the common people called the victim of his degenerate lust.
Atlanta's most noted criminal lawyers confronted a young prosecutor and a young lawyer who is seeking the accolade of the bar.
A cornfield "nigger" had told his simple story. There was even the air of minstrelsy in his testimony, though it was as black as the charge against the man who looked on him calmly and unafraid during the minutes and hours in which he spoke words that helped the opposition in its desire to fasten a rope around his neck.
This same man had sat coolly when another negro, a being of a different type, had told a story as sinister as Satan, as awful as the wrath of Jove. He sat, and without noticeable change of expression, heard this being accuse him of a deed as dark as murder.
And all through this ordeal a woman had sat near the accused man. Her eyes had faced his accusers. They had faced them boldly. Her bearing was remarkable.
The Last Straw.
But a straw will break a camel's back, the old saw declares.
The straw fell, and the camel's back caved as dynamite destroys.
But the break came unexpectedly.
Ashley Jones, an insurance man, had told of Frank's good character on the witness stand.
He paused for cross-examination. Solicitor General Dorsey asked him if he knew of any acts of perversion Frank had committed.
Then the volcano that had been dormant for ages became active. Then the race that has endured martyrdom broke its silence. Then the mother, who believes in her heart that her boy could do no wrong, spoke.
"He never heard such a thing, and neither have you," and her voice was blazing when she spoke it. Then the drama was furnished. The audience rose from the seats. Eyes were fixed. Breaths were shortly drawn. Seconds seemed hours. It had taken mother love, the tenderest of all passions, to furnish the incident that had really stirred.