Skip to main content

Full text of "The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case (March 1915) By Tom Watson"

See other formats

►++++♦++♦++++ ++++++++1 



I Watson's Magazine \ 

Entered as seconds/as* matter January 4, 1911, at the Post Office at Thomson, Georgia, 
Under the Jlct of March 3, 1879. 


::♦♦♦♦++♦++♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦++-, 

:: Vol. xx. 


MARCH, 1915 

No. 5 :: 



FRONTISPIECE-**The Shaming of Georgia," by Puck. 







FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE (d? Poem) Ralph M. Thomson 278 J 

FREE PRESS Henry Weinberger 279 


Kfmmmt H ♦ ♦ M ♦ » ♦+♦+♦ + ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦♦ ***** +++++++++++ 

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

♦ » MMM 

MMM M <M"M"f ♦♦^M M M M M f<M ^ HMM . f M ff ^ ff f + ^ 

j Wafco/z's Magazine j 

bntered as second-class matter January 4, 1911, at the Post Office at Thomson, Georgia, 
Under the cflct of March 3, 1879. 


l-M~M^+++++++++ M M M »^++^++++++++^ 

Vol. XX. 

MARCH, 1915 



No. 5 I 


FRONTISPIECE— "The Shaming of Georgia/* by Puck. 









FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVWE {<& Poem) Ralph M. Thomson 278 \ 

FREE PRESS Henry Weinberger 279 

BOOK REVIEWS _ ....292 

m»+ mm mm mm ♦♦♦♦♦♦+♦+++♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦++♦♦+♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦: 


l a 1 i 1 j i, ± AAli l l A iJ 














Watson's Magazine 

THOS. E. WATSON, Editor 

A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case 

OX the 23rd page of Puck, for the 
week ending January 16, 1915, 
there is, in the smallest possible 
type, in the smallest possible space, at 
the bottom of the page, the notice of 
ownership, required by laio. 

Mankind are informed that Puck is 
published by a corporation of the same 
name, Nathan Strauss, Jr., being Presi- 
dent, and H. Grant Strauss being Sec- 
retary and Treasurer. You are author- 
ized, therefore, to give credit to the 
Strauss family for the unparalleled 
campaign of falsehood and defamation 
which Puck has persistently waged 
against the State of Georgia, her peo- 
ple, and her courts. Inasmuch as the 
Strauss family once lived in Georgia, 
and are loudly professing their ardent 
devotion to the State of their birth, 
you may feel especially interested in 

Looking over the pages of this 
Strauss publication. I find a character- 
istic thing: on page 22, there is an 
illustrated advertisement of "Sunny 
Brook Whiskey" which is recoup 
mended as "a delightful beverage, and 
a wholesome tonic.*' To give force to 
the words of testimonial, there is a 
picture of an ideally good-looking man, 
and this smiling Apollo is pointing his 
index finger at a large bottle of the 
delightful Sunny Brook fire-water. 

On the next page, is a strikingly 
boxed advertisement of "The Keely 
Cure Treatment," with references to 
such nationally known stew-it-out re- 
sorts as Hot Springs, Arkansas; Jack- 
sonville, Florida; and Atlanta, Geor- 

gia. The advertisement states that the 
Keely Cure is "John Barleycorn's Mas- 
ter," and that during the last thirty- 
five years half-a-million victims of the 
drink appetite have been cured. 

Therefore, the Strauss magazine iu 
open to contributions from both sides. 
Those who don't want the Keely Cure, 
are told where to get the liquor ; while 
those who have had too much of the 
liquor, are told where to get the Keely 
Cure. In either event, the Strauss 
family continue to do business, and to 
add diligent shekels to the family pile. 

Puck is one of those magazines which 
indulges in fun, for the entertainment 
of the human race. You can nearly 
always tell what sort of a man it is, 
by the jokes he carries around with 
him. In parallel column to the ad. of 
the Sunny Brook Whiskey, Puck places 
a delicate little bit of humor, like this : 

"We stand behind the goods we sell!" 
The silver-throated salesman said. 

"No! No!" cried pretty, blushing Nell, 
"You see, I want to buy a bed!" 

Another bit of refined fun, Avhich is 
so good that the Strauss family went 
to the expense of a quarter-page car- 
toon, represents a portly evangelical 
bishop, seated in the elegant room of a 
young mother, who is at the tea-table, 
close by, pouring "the beverage which 
cheers but not inebriates." Her little 
boy sits on the bishop's knee, and the 
kindly gentleman, with one hand on 
the lad's plump limb, exclaims, "My ! 
my! TThat sturdy little legs!" and the 
boy answers, "O, you ought to see 



mother's!" and the mother is in arm's 
length of the bishop! 

The tone of Puck, and its sense of 
responsibility to its readers, when dis- 
cussing matters of the gravest public 
concern, is shown by its treatment of 
the profoundly serious and important 
subject of Prohibition. I quote what 
Puck says, not to exhibit Richmond 
Pearson Hobson, or the pros and cons 
of Congressional legislation on that 
question, but to exhibit the levity and 
dishonesty of Puck: 

Congress was treated to an excellent 
vaudeville a few days ago as part of the 
prohibition propagaBda engineered by that 
earnest young white-ribboner, Richard 
Pearson Hobson. Prom all press reports 
of the session, it must have been an inspir- 
ing sight. 

Mr. Hobson had placed in the "well" of 
the House — the big space in front of the 
clerk's desk — twenty large lettered plac- 
ards pointing out the alleged evils of the 
"liquor curse." Some of those placards 
were: "Alcoholic Dogs Had More Feeble 
and Defective Puppies," "Destructive 
Effect of Alcohol on Guinea Pigs/* etc. — 
New York Tribune. 

Puck has long pointed out the terrible 
effects of alcoholic indulgence among our 
canine friends. It feels, with Mr. Hobson, 
a heartfelt pity at the picture of a tipsy 
terrier going home to a boneless doghouse 
and a hungry litter. But Mr. Hobson's 
flapdoodle did not stop here. He rants: 

"The national liquor trust in America 
opened four different headquarters in Ala- 
bama and conducted the major part of the 
great Campaign against me, with their one 
hundred stenographers and eight hundred 
men on the salaried payroll. I found out 
also that Wall Street — and I am not guess- 
ing — raised a fund which was sent there to 
defeat me/' — New York Tribune. 

Poor old Wall Street! No sooner is it 
out of the doldrums of an enforced vaca- 
tion than it is dragged into action to lead 
that peerless force of "one hundred stenog- 
raphers and eight hundred salaried men" 
against Mr Hobson. It is a heart-rendiug 
picture, this spectacle of impoverished 
financiers passing 'round the hat to collect 
a fund to be used in behalf of the Demon 
Rum. Wall Street reeks with whiskey — if 
we believed the oratory of Prohibition's 
Alabama advocate. 

But, to continue: 

That whiskey is killing daily more men 
in the United States than the war is taking 
away in Europe, was one of the statements 
emphasized by Mr. Hobson. — New York 

Is it to be wondered that the cause of 
Prohibition, championed with such rubbish 
as this, met with a decisive and well-de- 
served defeat? 

The prominent feature of this num- 
ber of Puck, is another full-page car- 
toon, by Hy Mayer, representing Leo 
Frank, this time, as an innocent 
prisoner barred from his freedom by 
the symbolic columns of "Wisdom, 
Justice, and Moderation," as they ap- 
pear on Georgia's coat of arms. The 
Strauss accusation is, that the State lias 
falsified her own motto, and converted 
her temple into a Bastille, through 
whose bars the innocent Frank is gaz- 
ing outward for the liberty of which 
he has been so unlawfully deprived. 

A paragraph on another page runs 


Perhaps the Georgia mob that hooted 
its way to fame outside the court-room 
where Prank was being tried for his life 
will now pack up its carpet-bags and 
journey to Washington. 

The Supreme Court of the United States 
would doubtless be tremendously overawed 
by a demonstration of mob violence on the 
part of an Atlanta delegation. 

What are people to do, when merce- 
nary detectives, and newspapers, and 
Hessians of the pen, hire themselves to 
push a propaganda of libel and race 
prejudice, in the determined effort to 
hide the evidence of Frank's guilt, 
nullify the calm decisions of our high- 
est court, and substitute the clamor of 
Big Money for the stern, impartial 
mandate of the Law? 

In this same issue of the Strauss 
magazine, is another cartoon, by M. 
De Zayas, labelled, "ALONE IN HER 
SHAME/" The subject of odium is 
the State of Georgia, and she is pic- 



tured as being pointed at by the scorn- 
ful fingers of all the other States. 

If this kind of thing could work a 
mercurial public into hysteria, or hyp^ 
notize a governor into blue funk, what 

rich criminal would ever 

Georgia as a masked ruffian, with a coil 
of rope in his hand, trying to seize Leo 
Frank, and lynch him, without a legal 
trial. The witnesses to the scene are 

Uncle Sam, and a 


to the the other States in the 

full of 
Union ! A 


scaffold? If Big Money can hire Hes- 
sians enough to fight Frank's way out 
of the consequences of his awful crime, 
what is it that Big Money cannot do? 
In the same Strauss magazine for 
January 30th, there is a still more in- 
sulting and defamatory cartoon. We 
reproduce it, for the information of 
our readers. It pictures the State of 

guide, with a megaphone, is proclaim- 
ing the infamy of Georgia. 

In all of the months during which 
William J. Burns has been working 
these agencies to create sentiment in 
favor of Frank, not a page of the 
essential sworn testimony has been 
given to the public. On the con- 
trary, the wildest rumors, and the 



most craftily devised falsehoods, have 
been put into circulation, in the effort 
to get a favorable verdict from un- 
thinking editors and readers who are 
slow to suspect that there is a system- 
atic campaign of wilful lies. 

Excuse me for speaking plainly, the 
time has come for it. 

Let us begin with Colliers. This is 
the weekly paper which has sold books 
in so many peculiar ways, and made 
a nation-wide campaign against patent 
medicines — and then stopped quite sud- 

It is the paper which editorially ac- 
cused the white women of the United 
States of squealing on their negro para^ 
mours, and thereby causing them to be 
lynched — to avoid scandal! 

The exact language of Collier's was — 

It is well known that many identifica- 
tions are mere hysteria, often for crimes 
that were never committed, and ninny 
charges and identifications are founded on 
something worse than hysterical invention; 
they are the easiest escape from scandal. 
Now these are not the things to say, no 
doubt. They altogether lack chivalry and 
the aristocratic virtues. But perhaps it is 
time to put justice and truth above 
"honor," whatever that may be. 

Thus spoke Collier's editorially in 
October 1908. 

Is Collier's the kind of publication 
which you would select for the cham- 
pionship of Truth? 

Is Collier's the weekly that would 
go to great expense in the Frank case, 
for the holy sake of Justice? 

C. P. Connolly had been with Wil- 
liam J. Burns in the McNamara cases, 
and Burns took up Connolly in the 
Frank case, to blow some bugles 
through the Baltimore Sun. the daily 
paper of the worthy Abells. After the 
Abells got through with Connolly. Col- 
lier's picked him up, and translated 
him to Atlanta. What did he do there ? 
With whom did he talk? How did he 
try to get at the facts of the Frank 

He did not go over the record, with 
the Solicitor who was familiar with it, 
and tvho proffered his services to Con- 
nolly for that very purpose! 

If Connolly came for the truth, why 
did he not listen to both sides? Why 
did he not read the record? Or if he 
read it, why did he so grossly mis- 
represent it? 

Let us examine a few of Connolly's 
statements — statements which being ac- 
cepted as true, have poisoned the 
minds of honest people throughout the 
Union, just as they were meant to do! 

Connolly says — "Leo M. Frank is a 
young man of whose intellectual attain- 
ments any community might well be 
proud. Atlanta has been combed to 
find something against his moral 
character. . . . but without suc- 

There you have a flat, positive asser- 
tion that the city of Atlanta was dili- 
gently searched for witnesses who 
would testify against Frank's moral 
character, and that none could be 

What will be your amazement and 
indignation, when I tell you that 
numerous white girls and white women 
went upon the witness stand, and swore 
against Frank's moral character? 

One after another, those white ac- 
cusers, braved the public ordeal and 
testified that Frank was lewd, lascivi- 
ous, immoral ! 

Frank's lawyers sat there in silence, 
not daring to ash those witnesses for 
the details iipon which they based their 
tcwible testimony. 

Why did Frank's lawyers allow that 
fearful evidence to have its full effect 
upon the jury, without asking those 
white women what it was they knew 
on Frank? 

Suppose you had been accused in this 
case, and those same witnesses had 
testified against your character, would 
you have been afraid to cross-examine 

Only a man who shrank from what 






those women eould tell on him, would 
have let them go, without a single 
word ! The State could not ask them 
for specific facts. The defendant alone 
had the legal right to ask for those — 
and the defense was afraid to do it. 

Among those white witnesses were, 
Miss Marie Karst, Miss Nellie Pettis, 
Miss "Maggie Griffin, Miss Carrie 
Smith, Mrs, C. D. Donegan, Miss Myr- 
tie Cato, Mrs. Estelle Winkle, Mrs. Iff. 
E. Wallace, Mrs. H. R, Johnson, Miss 
Mary Davis, 

Another white girl who did not know 
enough of Frank's general character 
for lasciviousness, to swear against 
it, was offered by the State to prove 
that she went to work in Frank's fac- 
tory, and that Frank made an indecent 
proposal to her, on the second day! 

Frank's lawyers objected to the evi- 
dence, and Judge L, S. Roan ruled it 
out. But if Connolly was eagerly bent 
on finding the truth as to Frank's 
character, he would certainly have 
heard of Miss Nellie Wood, who doubt- 
less can tell Connolly at any time the 
exact language that Frank used in his 
effort to corrupt her. 

When you pause to consider that 
here were many white witnesses, nono 
of whom could be impeached, who took 
a solemn oath in open court, and swore 
to Frank's immoral character — standing 
ready to bear the brunt of the cross- 
examination of the crack lawyer of the 
Atlanta bar — what do you think of 
Connolly, when he states that no such 
witnesses could be found ? And what do 
you think of Burns, who pulled off the 
jackass stunt of afterwards offering "a 
reward" for any such witnesses? 

With reference to his said offer of 
the $5,000 reward, this impostor, 
Burns, said on Feb. 3, in the Kansas 
City Star, which is (disinterestedly, 
no doubt) giving so much space to the 
campaign of slander against the people 
and courts of Georgia: 

"Let me tell you this — no man has a 
more remarkable past than Frank. I in- 

vestigated every act of his life prior to the 
accusation against him. There was not a 
scratch on it. Then I offered a reward of 
$5,000 to anyone who could prove the 
slightest immorality against him. No one, 
not even the Atlanta police, have attempted 
to claim it." 

Instead of his flamboyant and empty 
offer of $5,000, why' didn't Bums 
quietly take Rev. John E. White, or 
some other respectable witness, with 
him, and visit the white ladies who had 
already publicly testified to Frank's 
lexcd character? 

Those white ladies were right there 
in Atlanta, while that noisy ass, Burns, 
was braying to the universe. The 
record showed him their names. // he 
wanted to know WHAT THEY 
didn't he go and ask them? 

He knew very well that nobody 
would claim his reward, for he knew 
that there wasn't anybody who was fool 
enough to believe they could ever see 
the color of his money. 

If he wants to learn the truth about 
Frank's double life, he can go to those 
ladies now! 

can save his imaginary $5,000, and 
ascertain the truth, at the same time. 

The mendacious scoundrel was quick 
enough to hunt up Miss Monteen Sto- 
ver, and use his utmost efforts to scare 
her into changing her evidence. He 
went so far as to entrap her, in Samuel 
Boornstein's office, where the attempt 
was made to hold her by force. 

Other girl witnesses, in the case were 
subjected to persecution and threats, by 
these infamous Burns detectives, who 
wanted to change their evidence, as 
they did change the fearful evidence of 
Frank's negro cook. 

Why was Burns afraid to ask Mrs. 
Johnson, or Mrs. Winkle, or Mrs. 
Donegan what it was, that caused them 
to swear that Leo Frank is a libertine? 
Miserable faker! He didn't want the 

Do William J. Burns and Luther 



Rosser mean to say that all these re- 
spectable white girls and ladies who 
swore to Frank's immoral character, 
perjured themselves? If so, what mo- 
tive did they have? And if Rosser was 
satisfied those ladies were swearing 
falsely, why clidnH he cross-examine 
them? Why was he afraid to ask them 
a single question? 

Your common sense tells you why. 
Rosser feared what would GOME 

Another statement made by Connolly 
is, that the face of the dead girl "was 
pitted and seamed with indentations 
and scratches from the cinders, a bank 
of which stretched along the cellar for 
a hundred feet or more. There had 
evidently been a struggle/' 

Again, Connolly says — 

There were cinders and sawdust in the 
girl's nose and mouth, drawn in, in the act 
of breathing, and under her finger nails. 
Her face had been rubbed before death 
into these cinders, evidently in the attempt 
to smother her cries. 

Here the purpose of Connolly was, 
to make it appear that Mary Phagan 
had been killed in the basement, after 
a struggle, during which her mouth 
had been held down in the cinders, to 
sti file, her screams! 

In that event, of course, her tongue, 
her mouth, her throat, and perhaps her 
Jungs would have shown saw-dust, and 

There is absolutely no evidence in 
the record to support any such theory. 

There was absolutely no evidence of 
any long "bank of cinders," in the base- 
ment. There icas, in fact, no such bank 
of cinders! 

(See evidence of Defendant's witness* 
I. IT. Kauffman, pages 148. 149, 150. 
Also, evidence of Dobbs, Starnes. Bar- 
rett, &c.) 

The evidence of all the witnesses is, 
that the girl's tongue protruded from 
her mouth, and that the heavy twine 
cord had cut into the tender flesh of 
her neck, and that the blood-settling 

showed the stopped circulation — mani- 
fest not only in her purple-black face, 
but under the blue finger nails. 

There was no evidence whatever of 
cinders, ashes, or saw-dust in her 
mouth, in her throat, or in her lungs. 

T here was not a scintilla of evidence 
that she had met her death in the base- 

(See evidence of Dobbs, Starnes and 

The sworn testimony in the record 
is, that, although the girl's face was 
dirty from having been dragged by the 
heels through the coal-dust and grime, 
natural to the basement where the fur- 
nace was, the negro who first saw her 
that night, by the glimmer of a smoky 
lantern, telephoned to the police that 
it was a white girl. The officers, Ander- 
son and Starnes, so testfied ! 

Sergeant Dobbs swore that the body 
seemed to have been dragged by the 
heels, over the dirt and coal-dust, and 
that the trail led back from the corpse 
to the elevator. His exact words are, 
"It began immediately in front of the 
elevator, at the bottom of the (eleva- 
tor) shaft." 

The word, "It," refers to the trail of 
the dragged body; and the witness 
swore that- he thought the condition of 
the girl's face u had been made from the 

There was the unmistakable sign of 
the dragged body, as legible as the 
track of a foot on the soft ground ; and 
the weight of the head and the friction, 
in dragging and bumping, would 
naturally cause soil lire and abrasions. 
(The distance was 136 feet.) 

V?. E. Thomson whose booklet of 32 
pages has been generously scattered 
"from the Potomac to the Rio Grande" 
— in the evident effort to reach all of 
his blood-relations who. as he tells us, 
are dissolutely distributed over the en- 
tire region between these two water- 
courses — W. E. Thomson says, on page 
IS of his rambling, incoherent pamph- 

"There is not a shadow of doubt that 



she was murdered in this basement, on 
this dirty floor. The back door had 
been forced open by drawing the 
staple. This door opened out on an 
alley back of the building. There is 
every reason for believing that the 
murderer went out that door." 

Thomson argues that Jim Conley did 
the work. 

But why did Jim Conley have to draw 
the staple, and leave the building by 
that door? Conley had the run of the 
building, was in it that fatal Saturday, 
was there when the white ladies and 
girls left, and was gone, in the usual 
way, when Newt Lee came on duty for 
the evening, as night watch. 

The basement door was not then 
open. But the crime had already been 
committed, and the dead body lay thera 
in the gloom. Whose interest would it 
serve to afterwards draw the staple, 
and give the door an appearance of 
having been forced? 

When William J. Burns came to At- 
lanta, last Spring, and began his cam. 
paign of thunder and earthquake, he 
deafeningly shouted to the public at 
every step he took. His very first 
whoop was, that a careful examination 
of the facts in the case showed that thfc 
crime had been committed by "a degen- 
erate of the lowest type." Burns 
roared the statement, that the guilt} r 
man had never been suspected, and was 
still "at large." 

Burns yelled that this unsuspected 
criminal of the lowest type was hiding 
out, somewhere nearer to the North pole 
than Atlanta ; and, with an ear-split- 
ting noise. Burns set out to find that 
man. Burns said he was "utterly con- 
fident" he would find this man — who 
was expected to wait calmly, until 
Burns could nab him. 

As everybody who read the papers 
last summer knows, that was precisely 
the theory upon which Barns started to 
work. He went on a wild-goose chase, 
into the Northern States, and was gone 

for months* working the Frank case. 
Working it how? Hunting for what? 

He didn't have to go North to find 
evidence against Jim Conley. Every 
bit of evidence against Jim was right 
there, in Atlanta. 

Burns has never produced a single 
witness from the North. Not a scrap of 
testimony resulted from all his months 
of labor in the North! What was he 
doing there? 

From day to day, and week to week, 
he put out interviews in which he de- 
clared he was making "the most grati- 
fying progress." 

* "Progress," at what? "Gratifying," 

My own idea was, that Burns spent 
his time chasing around after opulent 
Hebrews; and that his gratifying pro- 
gress consisted of relieving the prosper- 
ous Children of Israel of their super- 
fluity of ducats. It takes mone} T to 
stimulate the activities of such a pecu- 
liar concern as the Burns Detective 

In one of his many interviews, pub- 
lished in the papers of Cain and Abel, 
this great detective, Burns, said, "The 
private detective is one 01 the most 
dangerous criminals that we have to 
contend with." 

I considered that the superbest piece 
of cool effrontery that a Gentile ever 
uttered, and a Jew ever printed. You 
couldn't beat it, if you sat up of nights, 
and drank inspiration from the nectar 
Jupiter sips. 

Week after week. Burns pursued 
the pleasures of the chase, up North, 
presumably bringing down many a fat 
Hebrew. lie not only got a magnifi- 
cent "bag" of rich Jews, but, with the 
unholy appetite of an Egyptian turning 
the tables on the Chosen People, he 
spoiled them to such an extent that it 
was a "battue." 

Having bled these opulent Hebrews 
of the North until they were pale about 
the gills, and mangled in their bank- 
books, William J. came roaring back 



Southward, oozing newspaper inter- 
views at every stop of the cars. Burns 
said he had his "Report" about ready. 
That Report was going to create a seis- 
mitic upheaval. That Report would 
astound all right-thinking bipeds, and 
demonstrate what a set of imbeciles 
were the Atlanta police, the Atlanta 
detectives, the Pinkerton detectives, the 
Solicitor-General, the Jury, the Su- 
preme Court, and those prejudiced 
mortals who had believed Leo Frank 
to be the murderer of Mary Phagan. 

Naturally, the public held its breath, 
as it waited for the publication of this 
much-advertised Report. At last, it 
came, and what was it? To the utter 
amazement of everybody, it consisted 
of an argument by Burns on the facts 
that were already of record. He did 
not offer a shred of new evidence. 

His only attempt at new testimony 
was the bought affidavit of the Rev. C. 
B. Ragsdale, who swore that he over- 
heard Conley tell another negro that 
he had killed a girl at the National 
Pencil Factory. 

So, after all his work in the North, 
and after all his brag about what h& 
would show in his Report, Burns' bluff 
came to the pitiful show down of a 
bribed witness who was paid to put the 
crime on the negro. 

As Burns said, "the private detective 
is the most dangerous criminal we have 
to contend with." "We" have so found. 

Commenting upon the Connolly 
articles, the Houston, Texas, Chronicle 
says, editorially : 

Collier's Weekly has espoused Frank's 
cause in its usual intense way, and has 
put the work of analyzing the facts into 
the hands of a man who does not mince 
words; and, while one may not he willing 
to agree with all of its contentions, there 
is one point on which it hits the bullseye— 
that of the speech of the solicitor general, 
or prosecuting attorney. 

In what manner had Collier's hit the 
bull's eye ? 

According to Collier's, the speech was 
"venomously partisan," and the wish is 
editorially expressed that all lawyers in the 
United States could read it and let that 
paper know what they think of it. So 
presumably it was stenographically re- 
ported, and it may safely be assumed that 
Collier's quotes correctly. It says the 
Reu'f case, the Rosenthal murder and other 
crimes in which Jews played a part were 
dragged into the argument. 

Elevating himself to the pinnacle of 
moral rectitude, the editor of the 
Chronicle says — 

In England, where trials are conducted 
more nearly along proper lines than they 
are anywhere else in the world, a crown's 
counsel who would make a denunciatory 
or emotional appeal to a jury would be 
adjudged in contempt. 

With such a speech, and a crowd which 
had already prejudged the case filling the 
court house, a fair trial in the meaning of 
the constitution and the law was impossi- 

In England it would have been 
different, says the Chronicle. 

Yes, it would. In England, Leo 
Frank would long since gone the way 
of Dr. Crippin, and suffered for his 
terrible crime. 

But was Dorsey's speech such a veno- 
mous tirade? Was he in contempt of 
court in his allusions to Eeuf and Hum- 
mel and Rosenthal ? Did Dorsey bring 
the race issue into the case? 

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey's 
speech was stenographically reported. 
It makes a booklet of 146 pages. On 
pages 2, 3, and 4, Mr. Dorsey deals with 
the race issue and deplores the fact that 
the "defense first mentioned race? 

Mr. Dorsey says, ''Not a word 
emanated from this side, not a word 

indicating any feeling against 

any human being, black or white, Jew 
or Gentile. 

"But, ah ! the first time it was ever 
brought into this case, — and it was 
brought in for a purpose, and I have 
never seen two men manifest more de- 



light or exultation than Messrs. Eosser 
and Arnold, when they put the question 
to George Ken d ley at the eleventh 

"A thing which they had expected us 
to do, and which the State did not do, 
because we didn r t feel it and it wasn't 
in this case. 

"I will never forget how they seized 
it, seized with avidity the suggestion, 
and you know how they have harped 
on it ever since. 

"Now, mark you, they are the ones 
that mentioned it, not us: the word 
never escaped our mouth." 

There sat Frank's lawyers, two of 
the most aggressive fighters, men who 
rose to their feet, again and again„ 
during the course of Dorsey's speech, 
to deny his statements, and interject 
their own, but the}' did not utter a word 
of denial when he charged them to their 
teeth, in open court, with bringing into 
the case the evidence that Frank is & 
Jew. Nor did they challenge his state- 
ment that they had "laid for" him to 
do it, and had done it themselves when 
they saw that he did not mean to gfve 
them that string to harp on. 

Having made his explanation of how 
the fact of Frank being a Jew got into 
the case, Dorsey paid this glowing 
tribute to the great race from which 
this degenerate and pervert sprung: 

"I say to you here and now, that the 
race from which that man comes is as 
good as our race. His ancestors were 
civilized when ours were cutting each 
other up and eating human flesh; his race 
is just as good as ours, — just so good, but 
no better. I honor the race that has pro- 
duced D'Israeli, — the greatest Prime Min- 
ister that England has ever produced. I 
honor the race that produced Judah P. 
Benjamin, — as great a lawyer as ever lived 
in America or England, because he lived 
in both places and won renown in both 
places. I honor the Strauss brothers — 
Oscar, the diplomat, and the man who 
went down with his wife by his side on 
the Titanic. I roomed with one of his race 
at college; one of his race is my partner. 
I served with old man Joe Hirsch on the 
Board of Trustees of the Grady Hospital. 

I know llabbi Marx but to honor him, and 
I know Doctor Sonn, of the Hebrew 
Orphan's Home, and I have listened to 
him with pleasure and pride. 

"But, on the other hand, when Becker 
wished to put to death his bitter enemy, 
it was men of Frank's race he selected. 
Abe Hummel, the lawyer, who went to the 
penitentiary in New York, and Abe Reuf, 
who went to the penitentiary in San Fran- 
cisco, Schwartz, the man accused of stab- 
bing a girl in New York, who committed 
suicide, and others that I could mention, 
show that this great people are amenda- 
ble to the same laws as you and I and the 
black race. They rise to heights sublime, 
but they sink to the depths of degrada- 

After Rosser and Arnold had 
dragged the Jewish name into the case, 
could Dorsey have handled it more 
creditably to himself, and to those Jews 
who believe, with Moses, Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, that crime must be 

Read again what Dorsey actually said 
as stenographically reported, and re^ 
member that Connolly pretended to 
have read it before he wrote his arti- 
cles, and then sift your mind and see 
how much respect you have for a writer 
who tries to deceive the public in that 
unscrupulous manner. 

C. P. Connolly makes two statements 
about the law of Georgia. 

On Dec. 14, 1015, he stated in Col- 
lier's that, "By ft constitutional amend- 
ment, adopted in 100G, the Supreme 
Court of Georgia cannot reverse a case 
on other than errors of law." 

This remarkable statement he varies 
somewhat, in his article published Dec. 
19, 1915. 

Under a constitutional amendment 
adopted in 1906, the Supreme Court of 
Georgia is not allowed to reverse any capi- 
tal case where no error of law has been 
committed in the trial, no matter how 
weak the evidence may be, and cannot in- 
vestigate or pass upon the question of 
guilt or innocence. 

Since the days of Magna Charta, it 
may be doubted whether any State, set 



up under English principles, could le- 
gally deprive reviewing courts of the 
right to annul a verdict which has no 
evidence to support it. In such a case, 
the question of evidence would become 
a question of law. Without due pro- 
cess of law, no citizen can be robbed 
of life, liberty, or property; and, while 
it is the province of the jury to say 
what has been proved, on issues of 
disputed facts, it is for the court to de- 
cide whether the record discloses juris- 
dictional facts. 

It necessarily follows that, if a 
record showed that no crime had been 
committed, or, if committed, the evi- 
dence failed to connect defendant with 
it, the verdict would have to be sev 
aside, as a matter of law. 

The constitutional amendment of 
190G, to which Connolly refers, had for 
its main purpose the creation of a 
Court of Appeals, as an auxiliary and 
a relief to the Supreme Court. In do- 
ing this, the legislature had to divide 
appealed cases between the two courts. 
The new law provided that the Su- 
preme Court should review and decide 
those civil cases which went up from 
the Superior Courts, and from the 
courts of ordinary, (our chancery 
courts) and "all cases of conviction of 
a capital felony." 

To the Court of Appeals, was as- 
signed those cases going up from city 
courts, and all convictions in criminal 
cases less than a capital felony. 

The Supreme Court of Georgia in 
every open case of motion-for-new-trial, 
is now constantly passing upon the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support 
the verdict; and the Court passed upon 
that very question, in Frank? s first mo- 
tion for new trial. 

I cannot imagine anything that 
would cause a more universal wave of 
protest, than an effort to emascu- 
late our Supreme Court, by robbing it 
of the time-honored authority to re- 
view all the evidence in contested cases; 
and to decide, in the calm atmosphere 
of the consulting room, — remote from 

personalities, passions, and the dust of 
forensic battle — whether the evidence 
set out in the record is sufficient to sup- 
port the verdict. 

If Connolly's idea of the change 
made in 190G were correct, it would lead 
to the preposterous proposition, that 
the Supreme Court might have before 
it a case of a man condemned to death 
for rape, when the evidence showed 
that there had been no penetration. The 
Court would have to let the man die, 
because the judge below had committed 
no error of law ! Would it not be the 
greatest of errors of law, to allow a 
citizen to be hanged, when there is 
no proof of a crime? Would it be 
"due process of law," to kill a man, 
under legal forms, without evidence of 
his guilt? 

Those men who alleged that Con- 
nolly is a lawyer, also allege that Burns 
is a detective. Both statements cut a 
large, and weird figure, in the realm of 
cheap, ephemeral fiction. If being a 
lawyer were a capital offense, and Con- 
nolly, were arraigned for the crime, 
the jury would not only acquit him 
without leaving the box, but would find 
a unanimous verdict of "malicious 

If being a detective were virulent, 
confluent small-pox, the wildest advo- 
cate of compulsory vaccination would 
never pester Burns. It is as much as 
Burns can do, to find an umbrella in a 
hall hat- rack. 

A prodigious noise has been made 
over the alleged statement of Judge L. 
S. Roan, who presided at Frank's trial, 
that he did not know whether Frank 
was guilty or innocent. All of that 
talk is mere bosh. What Judge Eoan 
said was exactly what the law con- 
templates that he shall say! The law 
of Georgia, constitutes the trial judge 
an impartial arbiter, whose duty it is 
to pass on to the jury, in a legal man- 
ner, the evidence upon which the jury 
are to act as judges. 

They are not only the judges of the 



evidence, but the sole judges of it. The 
slightest expression of an opinion from 
the bench, as to what has or lias not 
been proven, works a forfeiture of the 
entire proceeding. 

In no other way, can a defendant be 
tried constitutionally, by his peers, than 
by clothing the twelve jurors whom he, 
in part, selects as his peers, with full 
power to adjudge the facts. 

(I am confident that it is the inten- 
tion of the law to also make these peers 
of the accused the full judges of the 
laic, to exactly the same extent that 
they are absolute judges of the facts; 
but that is a question not germane to 
the Frank case.) 

Now, if Connolly and Collier's had 
taken the pains to examine our law, 
they would have realized that the legal 
intendment of Judge Roan's declara- 
tion was no more than this: 

"It is not for me to say whether this 
man is innocent or guilty. That is for 
the jury. They have said that he is 
guilty, and I find that the evidence sus- 
tains the verdict. Therefore, I refuse 
to grant the motion for new trial." 

In ninety-nine cases out of a hun- 
dred, our judges utter some such words 
as those, in charging the jury, and in 
passing upon motions for new trial. 

I will say further, that a lack of defi- 
nite opinion as to the guilt or innocence 
of the defendant at the bar, is an ideal 
state of mind for the presiding judge. 

TVe are all so human, that if the 
judge feels certain of the guilt, or in- 
nocence of the accused, he will "leg" 
for one side or the other. 

So well is this understood, that the 
trial judge almost invariably takes 
pains to say to the jury — 

"Gentlemen, the court does not mean 
to say, or to intimate what has. or has 
not. been proven. That is peculiarly 
your province. It is for you to say, 
under the law as I have given it to 
you. whether the evidence establishes 
the defendant's guilt beyond a reasona- 
ble doubt. &c." 

There isn't a lawyer in Georgia who 
hasn't heard that kind of thing, times 
without number. 

If Judge L. S. Roan did, indeed, 
keep his mind so far above the jury- 
function in this case, that he did not 
form an opinion, either vmy,he main- 
tained that ideal neutrality 'and im- 
partiality ichicJi the Law expects of 
the perfect judge. 

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is 
another paper that has taken jurisdic- 
tion of the Frank case. It emplo} r s 
another famous detective for the de- 
fense, a Xew York person, named 
George Dougherty. Every detective 
who favors Frank is a famous detec- 
tive, a scholar, a gentleman, a deep 
thinker and a model citizen — just as 
Frank is. 

Those detectives and police office rs 
who testify the other way, are bad 
men, the scum of the earth, crooks, rap- 
scallians, liars, and pole-cats. 

The famous detective. George 
Dougherty, appears to have studied the 
case hurriedly. He says — 

And the office in which Frank was 
charged with having committed immoral 
attacks was in direct line of possible ob- 
servation from several people already in 
the building, whose approach Conley would 
have known nothing of. 

George D. is mistaken. Frank and 
the other man took the women to a 
place where they were not "in direct 
line of possible observation," &c. 

The famous detective again says — 

Another point: Conley's statement is 
that Frank knew in advance that Mary 
Phagan was to visit the factory that day 
for the purpose of getting her pay. There 
is no reasonable cause for believing this to 
have been true; no other employe went 
there that day to be paid. If Frank did 
not know that Mary Phagan was to be 
there, Conley's entire story falls. And, as 
a matter of fact, there seems to be more 
reason to believe that he did not, than 
there is to believe that he did. 



ttow. what will you think of this fa- 
mous detective, when I tell you that 
page 2G of the official court record of 
this case shows, that Monteen Stover 
swore she went there to get the wages 
due her. and was at the office of Frank 
at the fatal half-hour during which he 
cannot give an account of himself? 

George Dougherty does not even 
know that Frank, in his statement 
to the jury, stated that Miss Mat- 
tie Smith came for her pay envelope, 
that Saturday morning, and also for 
the wages due her sister-in-law; and 
that he gave to the fathers of two boys 
the pay envelopes for their sons. 

This makes five other employees— two 
in person, and three by proxy— who 
were there for the wages due them, on 
the identical day when Mary Phagan 
went for her pay, and disappeared— 
the very day when Dougherty asserts, 
"no other employee went there that day 
to be paid!" 

(See Frank's statement, page 1*9-) 
Is it any marvel that the public has 
been bamboozled, and the State of 
Georgia made the object of condemna- 
tion, when famous detectives write such 
absurdities, and respectable papers pub- 
lish them? 

The State of Georgia has no press 
agent, no publicity bureau, no regiment 
of famous detectives, no brigade of 
journalistic Hessians. The State can 
only maintain an attitude of dignified 
endurance, while this mercenary, made- 
to-order hurricane of fable, misrepre- 
sentation and abuse passes over her 

head. . 

All she asks of an intelligent, fair- 
minded public is, to judge her by the 
official record, as agreed on by the at- 
torneys for both sides. All that she ex- 
pects' from outsiders is. the reasonable 
presumption that she is not worse than 
other States, not worse than Missouri 
which tried the Boodlers of St. Louis, 
not worse than California which tried 
the grafters and the dynamiters; not 
worse than Virginia, which tried and 

executed McCue, Beattie and Cluve- 
rius, on less evidence than there is 
a q a hist Frank, 
' The New York World, owned by the 
Pulitzers, said in its report of the case: 

May 2 4 — On evidence of Conley, Frank 
was indicted for murder. 

July 28 — Trial of Frank began. 

Aug> 24 — Conley testified Frank en- 
trapped the girl in Ms office, beat her un- 
conscious, then strangled her. 

Aug. 25 — Jury found Frank guilty of 
murder, first degree. 

"On evidence of Conley," Frank was 
indicted and convicted, according to 
the Pulitzers. Of course, the general 
public does not know that Frank could 
not have been convicted upon the evi- 
dence of Conley, a confessed accom- 
plice. The general public— which in- 
cludes such lawyers as Connolly— can- 
not be supposed to know that the law 
does not allow any defendant to be 
convicted upon the evidence of his ac- 

In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 
(which I believe is also a Pulitzer pa- 
per) there are two recent letters by 
Wm. Preston Hill, M. D. Ph. D., in 
which the State of Georgia is violently 

Wm. Preston Hill. M. D. Ph. D., 
starts out by stating that "anybody who 
has carefully read the proceedings in 
the murder trial of Leo Frank must be 
convinced . . - the whole trial was 
a disgraceful display of prejudice and 
fanatical unfairness. . . . This whole 
proceeding is a disgrace to the State 
of Georgia, and will bring on her the 
just contempt of the whole civilized 


Everywhere thoughtful men will 
judge Georgia to be filled with semi- 
barbarous fanatical people of low men- 
tality, and strong, ill-controlled pas- 
sions, a race to be avoided by anybody 
who cares for liberty, order or justice." 

Then to show what a thoughtful man 
is Wm. Preston Hill. M. D. Ph. D., and 



how carefully he has read the record 
in the case, he proceeds to state that 
"Frank ivas convicted on the unsup- 
ported evidence of a dissolute negro of 
bad character" who was contradicted 
in 22 different instances! 

Then Win. Preston Hill, M. D. Ph. 
D., gives himself away by advising peo- 
ple to stiuty the case — how? 

By an examination of the record that 
went up to the Supreme Court? 

Oh no ! Study it by the paid columns 
of C. P. Connolly, who got his ideas of 
the case from the rascally and menda- 
cious poseur, William J. Burns. 

In the Chicago Sunday Tribune of 
December 27, 1914, appears a full page 
article beginning, "Will the State of 
Georgia send an innocent man to the 

The writer of the article is Burton 
Eascoe. The entire article proceeds 
upon the idea that poor little Mary 
Phagan was a lewd girl; that she had 
been immorally intimate with two em- 
ployees of the factory; that Jim Con- 
ley, drunk and hard-up, wanted her 
pay envelope; that he seized her, to rob 
her, and that he heard some one calling 
him, and he killed her. 

Mr. Eascoe says that, ordinarily, 
juries are instructed that they are to 
assume the defendant is innocent, until 
he is proven guilty, but that in Frank's 
case, it was just the opposite. 

Mr. Eascoe says that, during the 
trial, men stood up in the audience and 
shouted to the jury : "You'd better hang 
the Jew. If you don't, we'll hang him. 
and get you too." 

The Chicngo Tribune claims to be 
"the world's greatest newspaper,'' with 
a circulation of 500,000 for the Sunday 

It is therefore reasonable to suppose 
that at least two million people will 
get their ideas of the case from this 
special article, in which the public is 
told that Judge Eoan allowed the audi- 
ence to intimidate the jury by shout ing 
their threats, to the jury, while the 
trial was in progress. 

Of course, any one, who will stop 
and think a moment, will realize what 
an arrant falsehood that is. 

Had any such thing occurred, the 
able, watchful, indefatigable lawyers 
who have been fighting nearly two 
years to save Frank's life, would have 
immediately moved a mistrial, and got 

No such incident ever has occurred, 
in a Georgia court- room. 

And no white man in Georgia was 
ever convicted on the evidence of a 
negro ! 

As a specimen of the misrepresenta- 
tions which are misleading so many 
good people, take this extract from the 
article in the Chicago Tribune: 

It has been declared by Burns, among 
others, that the circumstantial evidence 
warranting the retention of Conley as the 
suspected slayer was dropped and Conley 
was led to shoulder the blame upon Frank 
in somewhat the following manner: 

"What do you know about this mur- 


"Who do you think did it?" 

"I don't know." 

"How about Frank?" 

"Yes. I confess. He's the one who did 

"Sure he was. That's the fellow we 

And forthwith Frank was locked up as 
a suspect. 

In fact, the statements of Mr. lias- 
coe. like those of C. P. Connolly, are 
re-hashes from Win. J. Burns. 

Does not the Chicago Tribune know 
that Burns was expelled from the 
National Association of Police Chiefs? 

Does not the Tribune know that 
Burns' confidential man in this Frank 
case, Lehon, was expelled from the 
Chicago police force, for blackmailing 
a woman of the town '? 

Does not the Tribune know that the 
detectives bribed Kagsdale and Barber, 
the preacher and the deacon, to swear 
thi^ crime onto the negro, Jim Conley? 

Does not the Tribune know that the 
official records in the U. S. Department 



of Justice disclose the fact that Attor- 
ney-General Wickersham, and Presi- 
dent Taft set aside some convictions in 
the Oregon land cases, upon the over- 
whelming evidence that Burns is a 
crook, and corruptly obtained those 

As already stated in this Magazine, 
Conley's evidence is not at all neces- 
sary to the conviction of Frank. Elim- 
inate the negro entirely, and you 
have a dead case against this lewd 
young man, who had been pursuing the 
girl for nearly two months, and who, 
after setting a trap for her, on Memo- 
rial Day, 1913, had to use such violence 
to overcome her struggle for her vir- 
tue, that he killed her; and then had 
the diabolical cruelty to attack her 
character, after she was dead. 

Mr. L. Z. Eosser telegraphed to a 
Northern newspaper a long statement 
in which he says — 

Leo M. Prank is an educated, intelli- 
gent, normal man of a retiring, home mak- 
ing, home loving nature. He has lived a 
clean, honest, busy, unostentatious life, 
known by few outside of his own people. 
In the absence of the testimony of the 
negro, Jim Conley, a verdict of acquittal 
would have been inevitable. 

If Mr. Eosser believed that Leo 
Frank was the pure young man and 
model husband, wiiy did he sit silent 
while so many white girls and ladies 
swore to Frarik's lascivious character? 

Do you suppose that any power on 
earth could have produced twenty 
white women of Atlanta who would 
have sworn that Dr. John E. White's 
character is lascivious? Or that Judge 
Beverly Evans' character is lascivious? 
Or that Governor Slaton's character is 

The ex-lawyer from Montana — C. P. 
Connolly — says in Collier's : 

The State contended that Frank mur- 
dered Mary Phagan on the second floor of 
the pencil factory. There was found four 
corpuscles of "blood" — a mere iota — on 

the second floor. The girl was brutally 
handled and bled freely, not only from the 
wound in her head, but from other parts 
of her body. 

"Four corpuscles of blood — a mere 
iota — on the second floor." 

That is what Connolly says. But 
what says the official record? 

On page 2G, Mr. E. P. Barrett, the 
machinist for Frank's factory, testifies, 
that on Monday morning, early, he dis- 
covered the blood spots, which were not 
there the Friday before ! He says — 

"The spot was about 4 or 5 inches in 
diameter, and little spots behind these 
in the rear — 6 or 8 in number. It was 

Here we have one of Frank's re- 
sponsible employees swearing posi- 
tively to a five-inch splotch of blood, 
with 6 or 8 smaller spots leading up to 
the main spot, as large as the lid of the 
average dinner-pail; and Connolly tells 
the public that "four corpuscles, a mere 
iota," w T ere all that were found ! 

When a man makes public statements 
of that kind, after having gone to At- 
lanta ostensibly to study the record, is 
he honestly trying to inform the public, , 
or is he dishonestly trving to deceive 

Mell Stanford swore, "These blood 
spots, were right in front of the ladies 1 
dressing room," where -Conley said he 
dropped the body of the girl, after 
Frank called on him for help. 

Mrs. George Jefferson, also a worker 
in Frank's place, swore that they found 
the blood splotch, "as hig as a fan" 

Mrs. Jefferson had been working 
there five years. She knew paint spots 
when she saw them, and told of the 
maroon red, and red lime, and bright 
red. but she added, in answer to 
Frank's attorney, "That spot I saw was 
not one of those three paints." 

She swore that the spot was not ther\ 
Friday, April 25th. They found it 
Monday morning at about G or 7 
o'clock. "We saw blood on the second 



floor, in front of the girl's dressing 
room. It was about as big as a fan." 

The foreman of the metal room, 
Lemmic Quinn, also testified to seeing 
the blood spots, Monday morning. 
Quinn was Franks own witness. 

J. X. Starnes, police officer, testified 
(page 10 of the official record) that he 
saw the "splotches of blood." "I should 
judge the area of these spots to be a 
foot and a half." 

Capt. Starnes saw the splotches of 
blood on Monday morning, April 28th. 
opposite the girls' dressing room ; and 
they looked as if some white substance 
had been swept over them, in the effort 
to hide them, 

Herbert Schiff, Leo Frank's assistant 
superintendent, also swore to the blood 
spots. He saw them Monday morning. 

These witnesses were unimpeachable. 
Five of them worked under Frank, 
and were his trusted and experienced 
employees. They were corroborated by 
the doctors who examined the chips cut 
out of the floor. Those blood-stained 
chips are exhibits "E.," in the official 

Yet. C P. Connolly, sent down to 
Georgia to make an examination into 
actual facts, ignores the uncontradicted 
evidence, and tells the great American 
public, that on the second floor, where 
the State contends the crime was com- 
mitted, there were found "four cor- 
puscles of blood," only "a mere iota." 

Upon consulting an approved En- 
cyclopedia and Dictionary; which was 
constructed for the use of just such 
semi-barbarians as we Georgians, I find 
that the word "corpuscle" is synony- 
mous with the word "atom." Further 
research in the same Encyclopedia, 
leads me to the knowledge, that an 
atom is such a very small thing that it 
cannot be made any smaller. It is, 
you may say, the Ultima Tkvle of 
smallness. The point of a cambric 
needle is a large sphere of action, com- 
pared to a corpuscle. The live animals 
that live in the water, and sweet milk, 

which you and I daily drink, wo whales, 
buffaloes, and Montana lawyers, com- 
pared to a corpuscle. The germs, 
microbes, and malignant bacteria, that 
swim around invisibly in so many 
harmless-looking liquids, are behe- 
moths, dragons and Burns detectives, 
compared to a corpuscle. 

The smallest conceivable thing — in- 
visible to the naked eye — is what Con- 
nolly says they found, on that second 
floor; and they not only found one of 
these infinitely invisible things, bat 

I want to deal nicely with Connolly, 
and therefore I will say that, as a law- 
yer and a journalist, I consider him a 
fairly good specimen of a corpuscle. 
What he is, as a teller and seller of 
"The Truth about the Frank case," I 
fear to say freely, lest the best Govern- 
ment the world ever saw arrest me 
again, for publishing disagreeable 

Pardon me for taking your time with 
one more exposure of the impudent 
falsehoods that are being published 
about the evidence on which Frank 
was convicted. In his elaborate article 
in the Kansas City Star, A. B. Mac- 
dona Id says — 

The ashes and cinders were breathed 
before she died in the cellar, while she 
was fighting off Conley. In his drunken 
desperation lest she be heard and he be 
discovered he ripped a piece from her 
underskirt and tried to gag her with it. It 
was not strong enough. Then he grabbed 
the cord. 

The testimony proved that cords like 
that were in the cellar. He tied it tightly 
around her neck. It was proved at the 
trial that a piece of the strip of under- 
skirt was beneath the cord, and beneath 
the strip of skirt were cinders. That 
proves beyond doubt that both were put 
on in the cellar. 

Having . strangled her to death and 
eternal silence the negro had leisure to 
carry her back and hide her body at 
(fig. 12) where it was dark as midnight. 

Then he sat down to write the notes. 
Against the wall opposite the boiler was 
a small, rude table with paper and pencil.. 



Scattered around in the trash that came 
down from the floors above to be burned 
were sheets and pads of paper exactly- 
like those upon which the notes were 
written. The pad from which one of the 
notes was torn was found by the body by 
Police Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, who so testi- 

Here Ave have a graphic, gruesome 
picture of a fight between the girl and 

In the next line, Macdonald tells you 
that the strip of clothing was so strong 
that it remained underneath the cord, 
and that, beneath this strip, were cin- 
ders. "That proves beyond a doubt 
that they were both put on in the cel- 

It is sufficient to say that the evi- 
dence of Newt Lee, of Sergeant L. S. 

.:y:<y::'y'.. :■'.: ■'■:■;' 


ihe negro, down in the cellar. He over- 
comes her, and in her death struggles, 
she breathes her nose, mouth and lunga. 
full of ashes and cinders. The negro 
tears off a strip from her clothing, and 
binds it round her neck. "It was not 
strong enough. Then he grabbed the 
• cord." 

Dobbs, officer J. N. Starnes, and both 
the examining physicians, (Doctors 
Hurt and Harris) totally negatives 
the statement of Macdonald about the 
cinders under the girl's nails, the 
cinders packed into her face, and the 
cinders breathed into her nose, mouth 
and lungs. There was nothing of the 



kind. Macdonalcl made all that up, 
himself, aided by Connolly's imagina- 
tion and Burns 1 imbecility. 

(See official record, pages 3, 4, 5, 0, 
7, 8, 0, 10, 11, and evidence of the doc- 
tors as per Index.) 

But let me ask you to fix your atten- 
tion on the specific statement of Mac- 
donald, that the cord pressed down 
upon the strip of clothing, one being 
under the other, and that the cinders 
were under this inner choke-strip. 
Now, turn to page 48 of the official 
record, and see what Dr. Harris testi- 
fied. He swore that she came to her 
death from "this cord" which had been 
tied tight around her neck. He did 
not say a word about any strip of 
clothing around her neck, under the 
cord, nor a word about any cinders, 
ashes or dust, under the cord — not one 

Turn to page 46, and read the testi- 
mony of Dr. J. W. Hurt. He said, 
"There was a cord round her neck, and 
this cord was imbedded into the skin." 
Not a word about any strip of cloth 
under the cord ! Not a word about 
cinders, ashes, or dust under the cord, 
or on her neck. 

Sergeant Dobbs after saying that 
"the cord was around her neck, sunk 
into her flesh," added that "she also 
had a piece of her underclothing 
around her neck." "The cord was 
pulled tight and had cut into the flesh 
and tied just as tight as could be. 
The underclothing around her neck 
was not tight/" 

Sergeant Dobbs. swearing that the 
cord had cut into the flesh, shows that 4 
there was no cushion of cloth to keep 
it from doing that very thing. Not a 
word did he say about cinders under 
her nails, under the cord, under the 
strip of underclothing, or in her nose, 
mouth and lungs. 

In other words, the official record 
shows Macdonald r s version of the evi- 
dence to be a reckless fabrication ! 

Can you picture to yourself, in the 

sane recess of your own mind, a South- 
ern negro, raping and killing a white 
girl, and then dragging her body back 
to a place "where it was dark as mid- 
night;" and then, after all his terrific 
struggle with his victim, huntings 
around in the trash to find a pencil and 
some pads — two different colors — and 
seating himself, leisurely, at "a small 
rude table near the boiler," to scribble 
a few lines of information to mankind 
as to how he came to commit the 

Can you picture to yourself a com- 
mon Georgia nigger, killing a white 
woman in that way, and then seating 
himself near her corpse, deep down in 
a dark cellar, to indulge in literary 

Jim Conley, you see, had not only 
murdered the girl down there below 
the surface, but was writing notes close 
to where the dead body lay, with the 
intention of carrying the notes out 
there to where "it was as dark as mid- 
night," to lay them by the dead girl's 

Then, he meant to get so scared that 
he would violently break out of the 
basement door, into the alley, rather 
than walk out, as usual, up stairs. 

Macdonald doesn't know much about 
Southern niggers, but he understands 
us white folks. Just tell us any old 
ludicrous yarn, and keep on telling it 
in the papers: and, if nobody denies it, 
we will all believe it. 

There was not a scratch on the nose 
of the dead girl, and yet all these reck- 
less writers tell the public she was held 
face downward by her murderer, and 
that her face was ground into the 
cinders, to smother her screams. How 
could the nose escape bruises in such 
a frightful process, and how could she 
fail to have cinders and coal-dust in 
her mouth and nose? There were none!' 

In the Philadelphia Public Ledger, 
there is a copyrighted article by Waldo- 
G. Morse, whose legend runs, "Coun* 
cillor, American Academy of Juris- 



prudence." Councillor Morse begins 
on the Frank case, by asking a ques- 
tion, and quoting himself in reply — 

May a mob and a Court scare away your 
lawyers, a sheriff lock you away from the 
jury which convicts you, and may the 
sheriff then hold and hang you? Yes, say 
the Georgia Courts and so also says the 
United States District Judge in Georgia. 
Says the Supreme Court of the United 
States: "We will hear arguments as to 
that, and in the meantime we will defer 
the hanging." 

The fancy picture of a Georgia mob, 
putting Rube Arnold, Luther Rosser, 
the Haas brothers, and the governor's 
own law firm to ignominious flight, 
and of the sheriff ruthlessly locking 
Frank away from the jury — and all 
this being done with the hearty ap- 
proval of Judges Roan and Hill, the 
State Supreme Court, and Federal- 
judge William Newman — is certainly 
a novel picture to adorn the classic 
walls of the American Academy of 

Councillor Morse proceeds as fol- 
lows — 

This is no mere question of a single 
life, but one for every man. Shall you be 
put on trial for your life or your liberty 
and shall timid or careless lawyers lose or 
dishonest lawyers barter away your rights? 

We wish for the honor of the bar and 
the dignity of the Court that the lawyers 
had stood their ground and had braved 
the mob and that their client had joined 
in the defiance, inquiring from every juror, 
face to face, whether the verdict of guilty 
was the verdict of that individual juror. 
Such is due process of law. 

Was Rosser "timid. " in Frank's case? 
I would like to see Rosser, when one of 
his timid spells gets hold of him. 

Were Rosser and Arnold and the 
Haas brothers not only timid, but 
"careless ?" Councillor Morse, spokes- 
man for the American Academy of 
Jurisprudence (whatever that is) ac- 
cuses these Georgia lawvers of cow- 

ardice, or culpable negligence, in their 
defense of Leo Frank ! 

What? Is nobody to be spared? 
Shall no guilty Georgian escape ? Must 
the propagandists of this Frank litera- 
ture slaughter his own lawyers? Is it 
a misdemeanor, per se, to be a Geor- 

"For the honor of the bar," Waldo 
Morse wishes that Rosser and Arnold, 
and Haas, and the governor's law firm, 
"had stood their ground." Then, they 
did not stand their ground, and they 
dishonored the bar. 

That's terrible. Surely it is a cruel 
thing to stand Luther Rosser up before 
the universe, in this tremendous man- 
ner, and arraign him for professional 
cowardice. What say you, Luther? 
Are you guilty, or not guilty ? 

But Waldo Morse relentlessly con- 
tinues — 

Might not the result have been differ- 
ent? Jurors have been known to change 
their verdict when facing the accused. We 
hope that the Court may declare that no 
man and no State can leave the issue of 
life as a bagatelle to be played for, ar- 
ranged about and jeopardized by Court 
and counsel in the absence of the man who 
may suffer. 

So, you see, Frank's lawyers are ac- 
cused, in a copyrighted indictment, of 
playing with their client's life, "as a 
bagatelle;" and of jeopardizing that 
life, with a levity which showed an 
utter lack of a due sense of professional 

That's mighty rough on Rosser, and 
Arnold, and Haas, and Governor Sla- 
toirs law firm. 

What will be your opinion of Coun- 
cillor Morse, when I tell you that 
Frank's lawyers did demand a poll of 
the jury, and each member was asked 
whether the verdict was his verdict, 
and each juror answered that it was. 

And each juror, months afterwards, 
made written affidavit to the same effect, 



utterly repudiating the charges of mob 

Councillor Morse proceeds — 

Shall a man charged with an infamous 
crime he faced by a jury of 12 men, each 
one ready to announce their verdict of his 
guilt? May he ask each man of the 12 
whether the verdict be his? Yes, has 
answered the common law for centuries. 
The accused may not even waive or 
abandon this right. 

That's absurd. The accused may 
waive or abandon "this right," and 
nearly every other. There are Courts 
in which the accused is constantly 
waiving and abandoning his Constitu- 
tional right to be indicted by a grand 
jury, and tried by a petit jury. ^ In 
"almost every case, the accused waives 
his legal right to actual arraignment, 
oral pleading, and a copy of the in- 
dictment. Almost invariably, lis waives 
the useless and perfunctory right of 
polling the jury. If he likes, he 
can go to trial with eleven jurors, 
or less, and he may waive a legal 
disqualification of a juror. In fact, 
the accused, who can waive and 
abandon his right to the jury itself, 
can of course, waive any lesser right. 
This may not be good law in the 
American Academy of Jurisprudence, 
but it is good law among good lawyers. 

Councillor Morse says that "for cen- 
turies" it has been the common-law 
right of the accused to ask each juror 
"whether the verdict be his." This 
cock-sure statement of what the Eng- 
lish common-law has been "for cen- 
turies," would have had considerable 
weight, had the Councillor cited some 

It was in 1705, that Sir William 
Blackstone published the first volume 
of his Commentaries; and at that time, 
the accused, in a capital case, did not 
even have the right to be defended by 
a lawyer. At that time, there were 
upwards of 116 violations of law,^ 
punishable by death, some of these 

capital offenses being petty larcenies, 
and others, trivial trespasses. In all 
those terrible cases, the accused was 
denied a law} r er, at common law; and 
these fearful conditions were not ma- 
terially changed, until Sir Samuel 
Romilly began, his noble work of law 
reform, in 1S0S. At that time, it was 
death to pick a pocket, death to cut 
a tree in a park, death to filch from a 
bleachfield, death to steal a letter, death 
to kill a rabbit, death to pilfer five 
shilling's worth of stuff out of a store, 
death to forge a writing, death to steal 
a pig or a lamb, death to return home 
from transportation, death to write 
one's name on London bridge. Sir 
Samuel was not able to accomplish a 
great deal, before his suicide in 1818; 
but another great lawyei, Sir James 
Mackintosh, took up the work, Lord 
Brougham assisting. It was not until 
near the middle of the last century, that 
the Draconian code was stripped of 
most of its horrors, and the prisoner's 
counsel was allowed to address the 
jury. (See McCarthy's Epochs of Re- 
form, pages 144 and 145. Mackenzie's 
The Mth Century, pages 124 and 125.) 
Therefore, when any Councillor for an 
American Academy of Jurisprudence 
glibly writes about what have been 
the common-law rights of the accused 
"for centuries," he makes himself 

As a general rule, a prisoner may 
waive any legal privilege; and what- 
ever he may waive, his attorney may 
waive; and this waiver can be made 
after the trial and will relate back to 
the time when he was entitled to the 
privilege. This waiver may be ex- 
pressed, or it may be implied: it may 
be in words, and it may be in conduct. 

In Blackstone's Commentaries, noth- 
ing is said on the point of the prisoner's 
presence, when the verdict comes in. 
Unquestionably, it is the better prac- 
tise for him to be in court. But if his 
^attorneys are present, and they de- 
mand a poll of the jury, expressly 



waiving the presence of their client, 
they have done for the accused all that 
he could do for himself, were he in 
court — for the prisoner is not allowed 
to ask the jurors any questions. The 
judge does that. Hence, Frank lost 
nothing whatever by his absence; and 
when he failed to make that point, as 
he stood in court to be sentenced and 
was asked by the judge, "What have 
you to say why sentence should not be 
pronounced on you?" he ratified the 
waiver his lawyers had made. He con- 
tinued that ratification, for a whole 

Xot until after two motions for new 
trial had been filed, did Frank raise 
the point about his absence at the time 
the verdict came in ; and, if he is set free 
on that point, the world will suspect 
that Kosser and Arnold, laid a trap 
for the judge. 

Does it seem good law to Councillor 
Morse, that a man whose guilt is made 
manifest by the official record, should 
be turned loose, to go scot free, on a 
technical point", which involves the re- 
pudiation of his own lawyers, and the 
retraction of his own ratification which 
had lasted a year? Is there no such 
thing as a waiver by one's attorneys 
and a ratification by one's prolonged 

Xow before going into close reason- 
ing on the established facts in the case, 
allow me to call your attention to this 
point : 

Whoever wrote those notes that were 
found beside the body seems to say that 
she had been sexually used. "Play with 
me." "Said he would love me." "Laid 
down." "Play like night witch did it," 
but that long tall black negro "did (it) 
by hisself." 

Those words are inconsistent with a 
crime whose main purpose was murder. 
Uppermost in the mind of the man 
who dictated those notes, was quite 
another idea. Consistent with that idea, 
and not with murder alone, are the 
words "Play with me, said he would 

love me, laid down," (with me) "and 
play like the night witch did it." 

All have claimed that the words 
"night witch" meant "night watch." 
It may not be so. For the present, 
I only ask you to consider that 
the State's theory all along, has been 
that Leo Frank was after this girl, to 
enjoy her sexually, and that the mur- 
der was a crime incident to her resist- 

The girl worked for Frank, and he 
knew her well. He had sought to push 
his attentions on her. She had re- 
pulsed him. She had told her friend 
George Eppes that she was afraid of 
him, on account of the way he had 
acted toward her. 

He had refused, on Friday after- 
noon, to let Helen Ferguson have 
Mary's pay-envelope, containing the 
pitiful sum of one dollar and twenty 
cents. He thus made it necessary for 
Mary to come in person for it, whicn 
she was sure to do, next day, since the 
universal Saturday custom is, to pay* 
for things bought during the preced- 
ing week and buy things, for the next. 

Why did not Frank give Mary's pay 
envelope to Helen, when Helen asked 
for it, on Friday? It had been the 
habit of Helen to get Mary's envelope, 
and Frank could hardly have been 
ignorant of the fact. 

Did he refuse to let Helen have 
Mary's pay, because it was not good 

That hypothesis falls, when we ex- 
amine Frank's own statement to the 
jury. On page 179 of the record, he 
tells the jury that Mattie Smith came 
for her pay-envelope on Saturday 
morning, the 26th of April, and 
she asked for that of her sister-in-law, 
also, "and I went to the safe .... 
and got out the package . . . and 
gave her the required two envelopes."** 

Therefore, Frank himself was in the 
habit of letting one employee have 
another's pay envelope. On that 
same morning, he gave the pay-envel- 



opes of two of the boys to their 
fathers, Graham and Burdette. (Page 

Why did Frank make an exception 
of Mary Phagan, this one time? Why 
did he discriminate against her, and 
only her, that week-end ? 

Be the answer what it may, the girl, 
all diked out in her cheap little finery 
for Memorial Day, comes with her 
smart fresh lavender dress, the flowers 
on her hat, the ribbons on her 
dress, her gay parasol, and her 
best stockings and silk garters — 
comes into the heart of the great 
cit} T , about noon, goes immediately to 
Frank's office for her one dollar and 
twenty cents, is traced by evidence, 
which Frank dared not deny, into his 
office — and, is never more seen alive. 

Is there any reasonable person, on 
the face of God's earth, who wouldn't 
say Frank must account for that girl? 

When a mountain of evidence piled 
up, on the fact of the girl's going to 
him, he then admitted that she did go 
to him, somewhere around 12 o'clock 
that day. 

He says that a little girl whom he 
afterwards learned to be Mary Pha- 
gan, came to him for her pay-envelope. 

He pretended not to know that a 
girl of her name worked for him, until 
he consulted the pay-roll! He went 
through the motion of looking at the 
pay-roll for the purpose of ascertain- 
ing whether such a human being- 
worked in his place ! After having 
found her name on the list, he then 
admitted that a girl named Mary Pha- 
gan had been working there. 

What sort of impression does this 
make on you. in view of the fact that 
four white witneses swore they had 
seen Frank talk to her, and that, in 
doing so. he called her "Mary ? r " 

Why did Frank, when her dead body 
was found in the basement, feign not to 
know her. and say that he would have 
to consult the pay-roll? 

The girl, dressed up for a Holiday, 
was in Frank's office, at about the noon 

hour of that fatal day — and those two 
ice re alone/ 

Frank is driven to that dreadful ad- 
mission. Inexorable proofs left him no 

By his own confession, he is alone 
with the girl, the last time any mortal 
eye sees her alive/ 

She is in the flush of youthful bloom. 
She is nearly fourteen years old, buxom, 
and rather large for her age. She has 
rosy cheeks, bright blue eyes, and 
golden hair. She is well-made, in per- 
fect health, as tempting a morsel as 
ever heated depraved appetite. Did 
Leo Frank desire to possess the girl? 
Was he the kind of married man who 
runs after fresh little girls? Had he 
given evidence, in that very factory, of 
his lascivious character? 

The white ladies and girls whose 
names have already been given, swore 
that Frank was just that kind of a 
man; and neither Frank nor his bat- 
talion of lawyers have ever dared to 
ask those white women to go into de- 
tails, and tell why they swore he was 

Does it make no impression on your 
mind, when you consider that tre- 
mendous fact? 

We start out, then, with a depraved 
young married man whose conduct, in 
that very -place, is proved to have been 
lascivious. Did he desire Mary Pha- 
gan? Had he "tried" her? Did he 
want to "try" her. again? 

One white girl swore that she had 
seen Frank with his hand on Mary's 
shoulder and his face almost in hers, 
talking to her. One white boy swore 
that he had seen Mary shrinking away 
from Frank's suspicious advances. 
Another white boy swore that Mary 
said she was suspicious and afraid of 
Frank. Another white girl swore she 
heard him calling her "Mary,"' in close 

Tloir many witnesses are necessary 
to prove that the licentious young 
Jew lusted after this Gentile girl? 

The record gires you four. 



(See the evidence of Kuth Robinson, who had dressed up for the Holiday 

J. M. Gantt, Dewey Howell and W. E. and gone out, radiant with youth 

Turner.) and health and beauty, to enjoy it, as 

Why, then, did she continue to work other young girls all over the South 

there ? were doing. She goes into Frank's own 

She needed the money, and felt private office, and that's the last of her. 



strong in her virtue : she never dreamed 
of violence. 

She kept on working, as many poor 
girls do, who cannot help themselves. 
Freedom to choose, is not the luxury of 
the poor. 

But let us pass on. The fatal day 
comes, and Mary comes, and then her 
light goes out — the pretty little girl 

What became of her? Tell us, Lu- 
ther Rosser! Tell us, Herbert Haas! 
Tell us, Nathan Strauss! Tell us, 
Adolph Ochs! Tell us, Rabbi Marx! 
Tell us, William Randolph Hearst! 

What became of our girl? 




So far as I can discover, the only 
theory advanced by the defenders of 
Leo Frank, is hung upon Jim Conley. 
They claim that Jim darted out upon 
Mary as she stepped aside on the first 
floor, cut her scalp with a blow, 
rendered her unconscious, pushed hei 
through the scuttle-hole, and then went 
down after her, tied the cord around 
her neck, choked her to death, hid the 
body, wrote the notes, and broke out by 
the basement door. 

If the defense has any other theory 
than this, I have been unable to find 
it. And they must have a theory, for 
the girl was killed, in the factory, im- 
mediately after she left Frank's pri- 
vate oflice. There is the undeniable 
fact of the murdered girl, and no mat- 
ter what may be the "jungle fury" of 
the Atlanta "mob," and of the "semi- 
barbarians" of Georgia, these mobs 
and barbarians did not kill the girl. 

Either, the Cornell graduate did it, 
or Jim Conley did it. 

Did Jim Conley do it? If so, how, 
and why? What was his motive, and 
what was his method? 

The defense claims that he struck 
her the blow, splitting the scalp, on the 
first floor, where he worked, immedi- 
ately after she left Franks office on the 
second floor. 

They claim that the negro then 
dragged the unconscious body to the 
scuttle-hole, and flung her down that 

What sort of hole is it? All the evi- 
dence concurs in its being a small 
opening in the floor, with a trap-door 
over it, and only large enough to admit 
one person at a time. (It is two- feet 

Eeaching from the opening of this 
hole, down to the floor of the basement, 
is a ladder, with open rungs. 

Now, when Jim Conley hit the girl 
in the head, and split her scalp, they 
claim he pushed her through the trap- 
door, so that she would fall into the 
basement below. 

But how could the limp and bleed- 
ing body fall down that ladder, strik- 
ing rung after rung, on its way down, 
without leaving bloodmarks on the 
ladder, and without the face and head 
of poor dying Mary being all bunged 
up, broken and cut open, by the re- 
peated beatings against the "rounds" 
of the ladder? 

How could that bleeding head have 
lain at the foot of the ladder, without 
leaving an accusing puddle of blood? 
How could that bleeding body, still 
alive, have been choked to death in 
the cellar, leaving no blood on the base- 
ment floor, none on the ladder, none at 
the trap-door, none on the table where 
they claim the notes were written, and 
none on the pads and tlte notes? 

Not a particle of the testimony points 
suspicion toward the negro, before the 
crime. He lived with a kept negro 
woman, as so many of his race do; but 
he had never been accused of any 
offense more grave than the police com- 
mon-place, "Disorderly." (His fines 
range from $1.75 to §15.00.) 

He was at the factory on the day of 
the crime, and Mrs. Arthur White saw 
him sitting quietly on the first floor, 
where it was his business to be. After 
the crime, there was never any evidence 
discovered against him. He lied as to 
his doings at the time of the crime, but 
all of these were consistent with the 
plan of Frank and Conley to shield 
each other. Frank was just as careful 
to keep susfneion from settling on the 
negro, as the negro teas to keep it from 
settling on Frank. 

You would naturally suppose that 
the white man, reasoning swiftly, 
would have realized that the crime lay 
between himself and the negro; and 
that, as he knew himself to be innocent, 
he knew the negro must be guilty. 

Any white man, under those circum- 
stances, would at once have seen, that 
only himself or the negro could have 
done the deed, since no others had the 



Hence, the white man, being con- 
scious of innocence, and bold in it, 
would have said to the police, to the 
detectives, to the world — 

"No other man could have done this 
thing, except Jim Conley or myself; 
and, since I did not do it, Jim Conley 
did. I demand that you arrest him, at 
once, and let me face him/" 

Did Frank do that? Did the Cor- 
nell graduate break out into a fury of 
injured innocence, point to Conley as 
the criminal, and go to him and ques- 
tion him, as to his actions, that fatal 

No, indeed. Frank never once hinted 
Conley's guilt. Frank never once asked 
to be allowed to face Conley. Frank 
hung his head when he talked to Newt 
Lee; trembled and shook and swal- 
lowed and drew deep breaths, and kept 
shuffling his legs and couldn't sit 
still; walked nervously to the win- 
dows and wrung his hands a dozen 
times within a few minutes ; insinuated 
that J. M. Gantt might have committed 
the crime; and suggested that Newt 
Lee's house ought to be searched ; hat 
never a single time threw suspicion on 
Jim Conley, or suggested that Jim's 
house ought to be searched. 

Did the negro want to rob somebody 
in the factory? Could he have chosen 
a worse place? Could he have chosen 
a poorer victim, and one more likely 
to make a stout fight ? 

Mary had not worked that week, ex- 
cept a small fraction of the time, and 
Jim knew it. Therefore he knew that 
her pay-envelope held less than that of 
any of the girls! 

Did Jim Conley want to assault some 
woman in the factory? Could he have 
chosen a worse time and place, if he 
did it on the first floor at the front, 
where white people were coming and 
going; and ivhere his boss, Mr. Frank, 
might come down stairs any minute, on 
his way to his noon meal? 

No negro that ever lived would at- 
tempt to outrage a white woman, al- 

most in the presence of a white man. 

Between the hour of 12 :05 and 12 :10 
Monteen Stover walked up the staira 
from the first floor to Frank's office on 
the second, and she walked right 
through his outer office into his inner 
office — and Frank was not there! 

She waited 5 minutes, and left. She 
saw nobody. She did not see Conley, 
and she did not see Frank. 

Where were they? And where was 
Mary Phagan? 

It is useless to talk about street-car 
schedules, about the variations in 
clocks, about the condition of cab- 
bage in the stomach, and about the 
menstrual blood, and all that sort of 
secondary matter. 

The vital point is this — 

Where was Mary, and where was 
Frank, and where was Conley, during 
the 25 minutes, before Mrs. White saw 
both Frank, and Conley? 

Above all, where was Frank when 
Monteen Stover went through both his 
offices, the inner as well as the outer, 
and couldn't find him? 

She wanted to find him, for she 
needed her money. She wanted to find 
him, for she lingered 5 minutes. 

WJiere was Frank, while Monteen 
was in Ms office, and was waiting for 

CASE : all else is subordinate. 

Eosser and Arnold are splendid law- 
yers: no one doubts that. They were 
employed on account of their pre-emi- 
nent rank at the bar. I have been with 
them in great cases, and I know that 
whatever it is possible to do in a 
forensic battle, they are able to do. 

Do you suppose for one moment that 
Eosser and Arnold did not see the ter- 
rible significance of Monteerts evi- 

They saw it clearly. And they made 
frantic efforts to get away from it. 

First, they put up Lemmie Quinn, 
another employee of Frank, to testify 



that he had gone to Frank's office, at 
12:20, that Saturday, and found Frank 

But Lemmie Quinn's evidence re- 
coiled on Frank, hurting the case 
badly. Why? Because two white 
ladies, whom the Defendant put up, as 
his witnesses, swore positively that they 
were in the factory just before noon, 
and that after they left Frank, they 
went to a cafe, wliere they found Lem- 
mie Quinn; and he told them he had 
just been up to the office to see Frank. 

Mrs. Freeman, one of the ladies, 
swore that as she was leaving the fac- 
tory, she looked at Frank's own clock, 
and it was a quarter to twelve. 

Mrs. Freeman testified that as she 
passed on up the stairs in the factory 
building, she saw Frank talking to two 
men in his office. One of these men 
was no doubt Lemmie Quinn. At any 
rate, after she had talked to the lady 
on the fourth floor (Mrs. White) and 
had come down to Frank's office to use 
his telephone, the men were gone; and 
when she met Quinn at the cafe, he told 
her that he had just been up to Frank's 
office. Hence the testimony of Mrs. 
Emma Clarke Freeman, and Miss Co- 
rinthia Hall, smashed the attempted 
alibi. And of course the abortive at- 
tempt at the alibi, hurt the case tern- 

Let me do Mr. Quinn the justice to 
say, that he merely estimated the time 
of day, b} T the time it would have taken 
him to walk from his home; and that 
he admitted he had stopped on the way, 
at Wolfsheimers, for 10 or 15 minutes 
— all of which is obvious guess-work. 
He frankly admitted that when he met 
Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall at the 
Busy Bee Cafe, he told them he had 
just been up to Frank's office. 

Secondly, the able lawyers for the 
defense endeavored to meet Monteen 
Stover's evidence by the statement of 
Frank himself. This statement is so 
extraordinary, that I will quote the 
words from the record: 

"Now, gentlemen, to the best of my 
recollection, from the time the whistle 
blew for twelve o'clock until after a 
quarter to one when I went up stairs 
and spoke to Arthur White and Harry 
Denham, to the best of my recollection, 
I did not stir out of the inner office, 
but it is possible that to answer a call 
of nature or to urinate I may have gone 
to the toilet. Those are things that a 
man does unconsciously and cannot tell 
how man}' times nor when he does it." 

Here then was the second of the two 
desperate, but futile, attempts to ac- 
count for the whereabouts of Frank, at 
the fatal period of time when he and 
3fary are both missing. 

Pray notice this: Frank's first state- 
ment made a few hours after Mary's 
corpse was found, made no mention of 
Lemmie Quinv\s coming to the office 
after H attic Hall left. The effort to 
sandwich Quinn between Hattie Hall 
and Mrs. White, was a bungle, and an 
afterthought. It showed he felt he 
must try to fill in that interval and the 
failure showed his inability to do it. 
Hence he is left totally unaccounted for, 
during the half-hour when the crime 
was committed. 

Frank's final statement — the one he 
made to the jury — hurt him anothei 
way: he said he was continuously in 
his inner office, after Hattie Hall left, 
whereas Mrs. Arthur White on her un- 
expected return to the factory surprised 
him in his outer office where he was 
standing before the safe with his back 
to the door. He jumped when she spoke 
to him, and he turned round as he 

He did not explain what he was do- 
ing at the safe at that time 12:35, and 
the State's theory is, that he had been 
putting Mary's mesh bag and pay- 
envelope in the safe. 

The only material thing about it is, 
that he was out of his inner office at 
12 :35, and not continuously in it up to 
nearly 1 o'clock, as he declared he was. 
And he had never even attempted to ex- 



plain why he was at the safe at that 

The fact that Conley may have been 
missing too, is secondary, and more 
doubtful. Monteen did not come there 
to look for him. Her mind was not on 
Jim Conley. 

Monteen's mind was on her money 
and the man who had it. She went 
there to find Frank. She says — "I 
went through the first office into the 
second office. I went to get my money. 
I went in Mr. Frank's office. He was 
not there. 

I stayed there 5 minutes, and left at 
10 minutes after 12." 

Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall had 
already been there: Lemmie Quinn had 
already been there: and these visitors, 
having gone up to Frank, came down 
again. Next comes pretty Mary Pha- 
gan, and she goes up to Frank, and 
Frank receives her in his private office : 
and when Monteen comes up into that 
same office, in her noiseless tennis shoes, 
at 5 minutes after twelve, neither Mary 
nor Frank were to be heard or seen. 
0! where were they, THEN? 

To the end of time, and the crack of 
doom, that question will ring in the 
ears and the souls of right- feeling peo- 

Frank says he may have uncon- 
sciously gone to the toilet. Then he 
as unconsciously PUT HIS FEET IN 

The notes make Mary Phagan go to 
the same place, at the same time; and 
the blood spots and the hair on the 
lathe show that she died there ! 

On page 185 of the official record, 
Frank says — 

"To the best of my knowledge, it- 
must have been 10 or 15 minutes after 
Miss Hall left my office, when this lit- 
tle girl, whom I afterwards found to 
be Mary Phagan, entered my office and 
asked for her pay envelope. I asked 
for her number and she told me; I 
went to the cash box and took her en- 
velope out and handed it to her, identi- 
fying the envelope by the number. 

She left my office and apparently 
had gotten as far as the door from my 
office leading to the outer office, when 
she evidently stopped, and asked me 
if the metal had arrived, and I told 
her no. She continued her way out, 

Note his studied effort to make it 
appear that he did not even lift his 
eyes and look at this rosy, plump and 
most attractive maid. He does not 
even know that she stopped at his inner 
office door, when she spoke to him. She 
evidently stopped, apparently at the 
door: he does not know for certain: he 
was not looking at her to see. She 
spoke to him, and he to her, but he 
does not know positively that she 
stopped, nor positively where she was, 
at the time. He did not recognize her 
at all. She gave him her number, and 
he found an envelope to match the num- 
ber, and he gave it to the little girl, 
whom he afterwards found to be Mary 
Phagan! kk Found," how? By looking 
at the pay-roll, and seeing that Mary's 
name corresponded with the number 
that was on the pay envelope! 

Let me pause here long enough to 
remind you that J. M. Gantt, Dewey 
Howell, W. K Turner and Miss Ruth 
Robinson, all swore positively that 
Frank did know Mary Phagan, per- 
sonally, by sight and by name. 

But what follows after Mary leaves 
Frank's office? 

He says — "She had hardly left the 
plant 5 minutes when Lemmie Quinn 
came in." 

But Miss Corinthia Hall, and Mrs. 
Emma Clarke Freeman, and QuinK 
himself, made it plain that Quinn had 
already been there and gone, before 
they arrived. 

When did they arrive? And when 
did they leave? 

They came at 11 :35 and left at 11 :45 ! 
They were Frank' '$ own witnesses, and 
they demolished the Lemmie Quinn 
alibi and Frank's own statement! 

What can be said in answer to that? 
Nothing. It is one of those provi- 



clential mishaps in a case of circum- 
stantial evidence, that makes the cold 
chills run up the back of the law} T er 
for the defense. 

I know, for I have had them run up 
my back: I know them, of old. 

Sec if you get the full force of the 
point. Kemember that Frank's lawyers 
put up Mrs. Freeman and Miss Hall, 
to account for Frank at the fatal period 
when he seemed to be missing. Evi- 
dently, they were expected to account 
fo Frank up to Lemmie Quinn's ar- 
rival, and after that, Lemmie was to 
do the rest. But Mrs. Freeman and 
Miss Hall not only arrived too soon, 
but got there after Lemmie! When 
they left at 11 :45, hy the clock in 
Frank's office, they went to the cafe, 
and who should be there but Lemmie, 
and Lemmie, in the innocence of his 
heart, said he had just been up to 
Frank's office. 

Mary Phagan, as all the evidence 
shows, was at that time on Jier way to 
the fatal trap! 

The evidence of Frank's three wit- 
nesses. Miss Hall, Mrs. Freeman and 
Lemmie Quinn, proves that he told the 
jury a deliberate falsenood when he 
said that Quinn was with him. after 
Mary PJiagan left. 

That's the crisis of the case ! 

Desperately he tries to show where 
he was, after the girl came; and, des- 
perately, he says that Quinn came after 
Mary left, and that Quinn knows he 
was there in his office, after Mary had 

Ah no ! The great God would not 
let that lie to prosper! 

Mrs. Freeman, Miss Hall, and Quinn 
put themselves in and out — there and 
away, come and gone, before Mary 
came — and mhcre does that leave 

The plank he grabbed at. he missed. 
The straw he caught at. sunk with him. 
When Lemmie Quinn fails him, life 
sinks into that fearful unknown of the 
half hour when the unexpected Mon- 

teen Stover softly comes into the outer 
office, goes right on into Frank's inner 
office, seeking her money, and cannot 
find Frank! 

The place is silent; the place is de- 
serted; she waits five minutes, hears 
nothing ,and sees nobody. Then she 

Whe?*e were you, Leo Frank? 

And where was our little girl? 

Desperately, he says he may have- 
gone to the closet. 

Fatefully, the notes say Mary went 
to the closet. 

Fatally, her golden hair leaves some 
of its golden strands on the metal lever, 
where her head struck, as Frank hit 
her; and her blood splotched the floor 
at the dressing room, where Conley 
dropped her. 

What broke the hymen? What tore 
the inner tissues? What caused the 
dilated blood vessels? What lacera- 
tion stained the drawers with her vir- 
ginal blood? How came the outer 
vagina bloody? 

Who split her drawers all the way 
up? Who did the violence to the parts 
that Dr. Harris swore to? 

The blow that bruised and blackened, 
but did not break the skin, was in 
front, over the e} T e, which was much 
swollen when the corpse was found. 
The blow that cut the scalp to the bone 
and caused unconsciousness, was on the 
back of the head. 

Who struck her with his fist in the 
face, and knocked her down, so that, in 
falling, the crank handle of the machine 
cut the scalp and tore out some of her 

How did anybody get a chance to 
hit her in the back of the head, and not 
throw her on her face? Would a negro 
go for a cord with which to choke a 
white woman he had assaulted? AVould 
a negro have remained with the body, 
or cared what became of it, and taken 
the awful risks of getting it down two 
flooi^s to the basement? Would a ne- 
gro have lingered by the corpse to 



write a note on yellow paper, and 
another note on white paper? Would 
a negro have loafed there to compose 
notes at all ? What negro ever did such 
a thing, after such a crime? 

Place in front of you a square piece 
of blank paper, longer than it is broad : 
an old envelope will do. This square 
piece of paper, longer than it is broad, 
will represent the floor of the building 
— the second floor, upon which Mary 
Phagan was done to death. 

Draw a line through the middle of 
the square, from top to bottom, cutting 
the long square into two lesser squares. 
These will sufficiently represent the two 
large rooms into which the second floor 
was divided by a partition. Mark a 
place in the center of the partition, for 
the door which opens oiic room into the 

Where was Frank office? 

It was at the upper right-hand cor- 
ner of the room, to your right, as the 
square lies lengthwise before you. 

Mark off a small square at that cor- 
ner, for Frank's office. 

Mark off a small square, in the left 
hand lower corner of the second room, 
and run a line through it, to divide this 
small closet, into two divisions. One 
of these small divisions was the water- 
closet of the men: the other, of the 
women ! You cannot crumple a piece 
of paper in the one, without being 
heard in the other! 

We naturally turn to Frank, and we 
naturally ask him— 

What did Mary do, after you gave 
her the pay-envelope? Where did she 

He cannot answer. 

But thereupon we take it up, another 
way, and we ask him this question — 

Where were YOU after Mary left? 
Did you stay in your office? Did you 
go anywhere, and do anything? 

Now, follow the facts closely: 

Frank's own detective, Harry Scott, 
in his energetic efforts to find the 
criminal, pinned Frank down, as to 
where he was, after 12 o'clock. 

Frank told Harry Scott, in the hear- 
ing of John Black, that he was con- 
tinuously in his office, during the 45 

The white lady, Mrs. Arthur White, 
returned at 12 :35, and found Frank in 
his office, standing before the iron safe. 
He jumped nervously, when he heard 

Now, then: Monteen Stover went to 
Frank's office, after Mary had gone 
away from it, AND BEFORE MRS. 

Where was Frank, then? 

Eight there, in that fateful half- 
hour, lies the crime. 

Who is the criminal? 

If Frank had been in his office, Mon- 
teen would, of course, have seen him 
when she went to it — and he would 
have seen her. 

He did not see her, and therefore did 
not know that she had been there, until 
after he had told Harry Scott, posi- 
tively and repeatedly, that he was in 
his office, THEN. 

It was afterwards, when the unim- 
peachable Monteen told what she knew, 
that Frank saw how he had boxed him- 
self up. 

Then it was, that such a persistent 
and desperate effort was made to get 
Monteen's evidence out of the way. 

Then it was, that Buims in person 
tried first to persuade, and then to bull- 
doze her. 

(Why don't some of Frank's paid 
champions die ell on that ugly pfiase 
of his case?) 

The enormous weight which Frank's 
lawyers and detectives (Burns and 
Lehon) attached to Monteen's evi- 
dence, is the best proof that Monteeivs 
evidence clinches the guilt of Frank. 
When Frank told Scott and Black that 
he was in his office, continuously, after 
Mary left, he knew the vital necessity 
of accounting for his whereabouts, at 
that particular time. 

He knew it, even then! 

His definite, positive placing of him 



self, during that particular half-hour, 
shows that he knew it. 


Tf some one else made away with 
the girl, he did not THEN know when 
the deed was done. 

If he is as innocent as you and I, 
he did not then know, any better than 
you and I then did, the vast materi- 
ality of his whereabouts, at any one 
half-hour of that fatal day. 

How came he, at that time, to be so 
extremely careful to account for him- 
self, for that special half-hour, and 
why did he lie about it? 

He does not deny what he told Scott 
and Black : he does not accuse Monteen 
of a perjury for which she had no mo- 
tive : he stated to the jury that he might 
have gone to the water-closet, on a call 
of nature, which he curiously said is 
an act that a person does "without be- 
ing conscious of it." 

If Frank told Scott and Black a 
deliberate falsehood as to his where- 
abouts, that is a powerful circumstance 
against him. 

If he was actually out of his office, 
just after Mary left, that, also, is a 
powerful circumstance against him, 
provided he cannot tell where he was. 

If, in giving the only possible ac- 
count of himself, he puts himself at 
the water-closet^ then the crime gets 
right up to him, provided Mary was 
ravished and killed, in that same room. 

Now, where was Mary ravished and 

The blood-marks and the hair say, 
in that same r 00771/ 

And the notes say, in that same room! 

The blood-marks tell where she was; 
and if Frank went out ot his office, to 
go to the closet, he went right there! 

The notes make Mary say that she 
went to the closet", "to make water," 
and, if she did, she went right there. 

If a negro seized her, raped her and 
killed her, he had to ~be right where 
Frank says he was, when absent from 
his office. 

But if Frank was in his oflice. and 
Monteen is a liar without motive, how 
could a negro come up from the lower 
floor (where Mrs. White saw him,) and 
commit the crime, without Frank hear- 
ing, or seeing a single thing to excite 
his suspicion? 

Where is the negro who would go 
that close to a white man's office, when 
he knew the white man was there, to 
commit such a fiendish crime upon a 
white girl? And how did the negro, 
by himself, get the body from the 
second floor, down to the basement? 

Mary's body was found on the night 
of Saturday the 2Gth. It appeared to 
have been dead a long time. "The 
body was cold and stiff." The notes 
were lying close by. 

Newt Lee went on dirty for the night, 
as usual, that Saturday night, and it 
was he who found the body on that 
night, at about 3 o'clock. 

Therefore, you have a clear case of 
murder, on Saturday, sometime after 
the noon hour, and before Newt Lee 
came on duty as night-watchman, at G 

Conley was not back in the building 
that day, after 1 o'clock. Frank was. 
The record shows this. 

The circumstances conclusively prove 
that somebody did the deed, during the 
half-hour following Mary's coming to 
Frank's office. 

Frank admits that he is the last white 
person with whom she was ever seen. 
The blood and the notes say she was as- 
saulted on Frank's floor, near the 
closets, which she and Frank both used. 

The notes make her go to the closet, 
to answer a call of nature, immediately 
after she left Frank! 

She did not go up stairs; she had no 
work to do in the factory, that day; 
and if she went to the toilet at all, she 
went there from Franks office. 

She never again appeared down 
stairs; or out of doors. 

If she had gone up stairs, Mrs. 
White and others would know it. If 



she had gone down stairs, both Frank 
and Conley would know it. 

Yet at 12 :35, Mrs. White saw Frank, 
hut did not see the girl. 

She had disappeared, during the 
very time that Frank disappears ; and 
when Frank gets back into his office, 
at 12:35, that little girl is out there 
near the toilet, in the next room, chok- 
ing to death. 

It was Frank who was close to her: 
it was the negro who was down stairs. 

No wonder Frank "jumped," when 
Mrs. White came up, behind, and spoke. 

No wonder he hurried Mrs. White 
out of the building, hesitated to allow 
J. M. Gantt to go in for his shoes, and 
refused to let Newt Lee enter. 

By all the evidence, Frank and Jim 
were the only living mortals in that 
part of the house, at that time. Mary 
undoubtedly was there, at the time, by 
Frank's own line of defence. 

There was one short sentence in Capt. 
J. N. Starnes' re-direct examination, 
that did not rivet my special attention 
at first. That sentence was — 

"Hands folded across the breast." 

That simple statement came back, 
again and again, knocking at the door, 
as if it were saying, "Explain meP' 1 

How did it happen that a girl who 
had been raped or murdered — or both 
— was found with her hands folded 
over her breast? 

How could a girl who had been 
knocked in the head, on the first floor, 
and tumbled down into the basement, 
through a scuttle-hole, and over a lad- 
der, as Defendant claims, have her 
hands resting quietly on her bosom? 

Frank's theory represents Jim as 
attacking Mary on the first floor, finish- 
ing her in the basement below, then 
writing the notes, breaking the door, 
and speeding away. 

That theory does not account for 
those folded hands. 

A girl knocked on the head, into un- 
consciousness, and then choked to death 

with a cord, does not fold her own 
hands across her bosom. O no ! 

In the agony of death, her arms will 
be spread out. And if, hours later^ 
those arms are found across her bosom, 
the little hands meeting over the pulse- 
less heart, be sure that somebody who 
remembers intuitively how the dead 
should be treated, has put those ago- 
nized hands together! 

There were the indisputable and un- 
disputed facts: a bloody corpse, with a 
wound in the head, torn underclothing, 
privates bloody, a tight cord sunk into 
the soft flesh of the neck, the face 
blackened and scratched by dragging 
across a bare floor of cinders and grit, 
and yet when turned over and found 
"cold and stiff," the testimony curtly 
adds — 

"Hands folded across the breast." 

How did that happen? Who folded 
those Ittle hands across the heart which 
beat no more? 

In vain, I searched the evidence. 
Nowhere was there an explanation. In 
fact, nobody had seemed to be struck 
by that brief, clear statement of Capt. 
Starnes, which everybody conceded to 
be strictly true: 

"Hands folded across the breast" 

Mind you, when she was found in 
the basement, she was lying on her face, 
not directly on her stomach, but so 
much so that they had to "turn her 
over" to see her face, and wipe the 
dust and dirt off, for the purpose of 
recognition. (See official record, pages 
7, 8 and 9.) 

Lying on her face ! Had to turn her 
over, and "the body was cold and stiff." 
But the frozen hands — where were 
they? "Folded across the breast." 

Then, they had become rigid in that 
position ! They had not come off the 
bosom, even when the body was turned 
over! They had remained across the 
breast, while the body teas being 

Dr. Westmoreland and Dr. Harris 
would probably agree, for at least one 



time, and both would say, as competent 
experts, that those hands, (to remain 
fixed under those circumstances,) had 
been placed across the girl's bosom, be- 
fore the stiffness set in. 

Death froze them there ! 

You may read every line of the evi- 
dence on both sides, as I did, and you 
will not find any explanation of those 
folded hands — hands folded as no 
murdered woman's were ever found be- 
fore, except where somebody, not the 
murderer, instinctively followed uni- 
versal custom, and folded them! 

Can you escape that conclusion ? No, 
you can't. At least, I couldn't, and I 
have been reading and trying murder 
cases, nearty all my life. 

Then, as a last resort, in my efforts 
to satisfy myself about that unpar- 
alleled circumstance of the folded 
hands, I decided to turn to Jim Con- 
ley's evidence, saying to myself, as 1 
did so, "If that ignorant nigger ex- 
plains that fact, whose importance he 
cannot possibly have known, it will be 
a marvellous thing." So I turned to 
Conley's evidence, searching for that 
one thing. On page 55, I found it. 
Here it is: 

"She was dead when I got back there, 
and I came back and told Mr. Frank, 
and he said c Sh-sh!' .... The 
girl was lying flat on her bach and her 
hands were out, this way. I put both 
of her hands down, easy, and rolled 
her up in the cloth. ... I looked 
back a little way and saw her hat and 
piece of ribbon and her slippers, and I 
taken them and put them all in the 

The girl was lying flat on her back, 
hands out this way — and he illustrated. 
"I put both of her hands down." Then, 
they were not only out, but up — as if 
the pitiful little victim had been push- 
ing something, or somebody, off! 

Those dead hands are fearful accusers 
of the white men who now say that 
Mary Phagan did not value her virtue. 

Only the other day, there was issued 

by the Neale Publishing Company, a 
new book of war experiences, written 
by a Philadelphia surgeon, Dr. John 
II. Brinton; and he relates some vivid 
incidents showing the rapid action of 
the rigor ?nortis — the "instantaneous 
rigor," following mortal wounds re- 
ceived in battle. He made a special 
study of the dead, on the field which 
the North calls Antietam. (Our name 
for it is, Sharpsburg.) 

On page 207, Dr. Brinton speaks of 
the cornfield and sunken road, so fa- 
mous to the literature of the War; and 
he says, "Dead bodies were everywhere. 
. . . . Many of these were in extra- 
ordinary attitudes, some with their 
arms raised rigidly in the air. . . . 

I also noticed the body of a Southern 
soldier. . . . The body was in a 
semi-erect posture. . . . One arm, 
extended, was stretched forward. . •. 
. . His musket with ramrod halfway 
down, had dropped from his hand." 

This Southern soldier had been lying 
in the road, had half risen to load and 
shoot, had been shot while driving the 
ramrod home, and the gun had 
dropped ; but the soldier himself re- 
mained, face to the foe, half -erect, with 
"one arm extended, and stretched for- 

Brave Southern soldier ! Death it- 
self could not rob him of the proofs 
of his unfailing heroism. 

Brave Southern girl! Death itself 
would not rob Mary Phagan of the 
proofs, that she fought for her inno- 
cence to the very last. 

Shame upon those white men who 
desecrate the murdered child's grave, 
and who add to the torture of the 
mother that lost her, by saying Mary 
was an unclean little wanton. 

Jim Conley had no motive to de- 
scribe her hands as being uplifted ; and 
he, an ignorant negro, could not have 
realized the stupendous psychological 
significance of it. 

Providence was against Frank in this 
case. The stars in their courses fought 



against him, as they fought against 
Sisera. His lawyers must have felt it. 

Providence was against him, in the 
time of Monteen Stover's unexpected 
visit to his office. 

Providence was against him, in the 
unexpected return of Mrs. White. 

Providence was against him, in the 
fatal break-down of his alibi. 

Providence was against him, in the 
apparently trivial fact that Newt Lee's 
call of nature, Saturday night, did not 
occur on any of the floors above the 
basement — all of which had closets — but 
occurred in the basement, where the 
closet teas close to the dead girl. 

Providence was against him, in the 
fact that Barrett worked that crank 
handle, the last thing on Friday 
evening, and was thus able to credibly 
swear that it had no woman's hair on it ? 

Providence was against him, in that 
Stanford swept the whole floor Friday, 
and was thus able to credibly swear 
that there was no blood on it, then. 

Providence was against him, when 
he was forced into explaining his 
absence from his office by unwittingly 
putting himself at the place of that 
womarfs hair and those fresh blood 

Providence was against him, when 
that cold and stiff girl was found in 
the basement, with "hands folded 
across the breast," for that fact — 
apparently little — imperiously demands ' 

And when you start out to hunt for 
the explanation which you know must 
exist, you search every nook and 
cranny in the case without finding it, 
until you read a line or two which the 
negro did not understand the mean- 
ing of — and which, so far as I can 
learn — has never been the subject of 
comment, on either side. 

It happened to flash across me, that 
I had recently read something similar, 
in the book which Walter Neale had 
sent me for review ; and then I saw the 

meaning of Mary's hands being in such 
a position upward, that Jim had to 
put them "down." 

No negro could have invented that 
No negro could have known the im- 
portance of that. Apparently, the 
lawyers did not pay any attention to 
it. Am / mistaken in doing so? Am 
I wrong in saying that this little fact 
absolutely establishes the truth of the 
State's theory? 

How, else, do you account for the 
hands folded across her breast, so 
rigidly that when her body had been 
dragged, and then turned over, the 
rigid posture of the hands was main- 
tained, by the frozen muscles? 

To save your life, you cannot explain 
it, except by saying that somebody, 
almost immediately after the girl's 
death, put her hands in that position. 
She didn't do it. 

Who was that someboay? 

Not the man who hilled her, you may 
be dead sure. 

But the nigger says, he did it. 

Then you may stake your life on the 
proposition, that the nigger didnH kill 

Negroes who assault and murder 
white women, don't loiter to fold hands, 
write notes, and pick up hats, ribbons 
and slippers. 

Negroes who assault and murder 
white women, have never failed to hit 
the outer rim of the sky-line, just as 
quick as their heels can do it. 

But as it was the nigger who put 
down the girl's hands, and folded 
them across her breast, soon after he* 
life went out, who did kill her? 


Was it Frank, and not the nigger, 
who was "lascivious." at that factory? 
Twelve white women swore, "Yes." 

Was it Frank, and not the nigger, 
who had been after this little girl. 
Three white witnesses swear, "Yes." 

How many more witnesses do you 
want, than fifteen white ones? 



And yet the BurnseSj and Connollys, 
and Pulitzers, and Abells, and Ochses, 
and Thomsons and Rossers are still 
telling the outside world that the virtu- 
ous Frank was convicted on race 
prejudice, and the evidence of one be- 
sotted negro ! 

Was any State ever so maligned, as 
Georgia has been? 

Let me call your attention to another 
little thing in the negro's evidence 
which there was no need to "make up." 
It is his statement that he wrote, at 
Frank's dictation, four notes before 
Frank was satisfied. Why say fow\ 
when only two were found? The negro 
in testifying at the trial, knew that only 
two notes were found, yet he swore to 
writing four. 

At least, I so understand his words, 
which were — 

*TIe taken his pencil to fix up some 
notes .... and he sat down and 
I sat down at the table and Mr. Frank 
dictated the notes to me. Whatever it 
was, it didn't seem to suit him, and he 
told me to turn over, and write again, 
and I turned the paper and wrote 
again, and when I had done that, he 
told me to turn over and write again, 
and I turned over and I wrote on the 
next page, and he looked at that, and 
kinder liked it, and he said that was 
all right. Then he reached over and 
got another piece of paper, a green 
piece, and told me what to write. He 
took it and laid it in his desk." 

If that doesn't make four notes. I 
don't understand the language in the 
record: and if it means four, when 
only two were found and introduced 
into the case, it shows, at least, that 
the negro was not making up a tale to 
fit the known facts. 

The negro said another thing that he 
could not have "made up," because he 
does not even yet realize the meaning 
of it. The lawyers made no allusions 
to it. Jim said — "When I heard him 
whistle (the signal Frank had often 
used when he had lewd women with 

him) I went ... on up the steps. 
Mr. Frank was standing up there at the 
top of the steps, and shivering and 
trembling, and rubbing his hands like 

He had a little rope in his hands — 
a long wide piece of cord. His eyes 
were large and they looked right 

He asked me, "Did you see that lit- 
tle girl who passed up here a while 

Jim told him he had seen two go up, 
and only one come down. 

Mind you, Frank had not heard 
Monteen Stover, whose tennis shoes 
made no noise; and Frank knew 
nothing of her visit at all. When he 
asked Jim if he had seen that little 
girl, Frank meant^ "Did you see the 
Phagan girl?" 

Frank's purpose was, to learn 
whether Jim had seen the little girl, 
who was then lying out there in the 
metal room, with a piece of that 
cord around her neck. If the negro 
had answered, "No. I didn't see any 
girl," Frank would never have said 
another word to him about her. It was 
only after he found out that Jim had 
seen her go up, but not come down, 
that he had to take Jim into his con- 
fidence one more time. 

Much has been said about the im- 
probability of Frank making a con- 
fidante out of a negro of low character. 
Does an immoral white man make a 
confidante out of a negro of high 
character? Will a respectable negro 
act as go-between, procurer, or watch- 
out man, for a white hypocrite who is 
one thing to his Rabbi and his Bnai 
Brith, and quite a different thing to 
the cyprians of the town? 

Suppose I can show you from the 
official record that Frank's lawyers 
knew that the murder was committed 
on Frank's floor, back there where the 
blood and hair were found, won't you 



be practically certain that they also 
knew Frank to be guilty? 

Come along with me, and see if I 
don't prove it to you : 

Leo Frank employed Harry Scott, 
a detective, to ferret out the criminal, 
and Scott went into the case with great 
vigor. In fact, he soon showed alto- 
gether too much vigor to suit Frank, 
and Herbert Haas. Herbert became 
alarmed— why? And Herbert told 
Scott to first report to him, Herbert, 
whatever he might discover, before 
letting any one else know. Herbert 
Haas was chairman of the Frank 
Finance Committee, and he was one 
of the lawyers for the defense. 

Scott did not like to be shut off from 
the police, and confined to a Herbert 
Haas investigation, and so he remon- 
strated with the Chairman of the Fi- 
nance Committee. 

But before Scott was fired, he had 
drawn from Frank two material state- 
ments. One was, his alleged continuous 
presence in his office after Hattie Hall 
left; and the other was, his answer to 
Mary Phagan, when she asked him if 
the metal had come. 

Frank told Scott that when Mary 
asked him whether the metal had come, 
he replied, "/ donH know" At that 
time, Frank was not aware of the fact 
that Monteen Stover could prove that 
he was absent from his office when 
Mary was being murdered. 

What did Mary's question about the 
metal prove? That her mind was on 
her work. She had lost nearly the 
whole week, because the supply of 
metal had run out. They were expect- 
ing more. // it had come, she could 
go back to work in that metal room, 
next Monday. Therefore, when she 
asked Frank, "Has the metal come?" 
her thoughts were on her work and she 
was eager to know whether she could 
return on Monday to resume it. "Has 
the metal come?'' Equivalent to, "Will 
there be any work far me next week? 
Must I lose another week, or can I come 
back Monday?" 

This was the meaning of the ques- 
tion. What was the meaning of 
Frank's answer? 

If he said, "/ donH know" the girl 
would naturally suggest, or he would, 
that they go back there, to that metal 
room, and see. 

Can you escape this conclusion? If 
he didn't know whether the metal was 
there or not, the only way to tell for 
certain, was to go and look. If he was 
doubtful, the girl would want to go 
and look to see if it was there, for the 
girl wanted to resume her work. 

Now, if that answer, "I don't know," 
were allowed to stand, Rosser realized, 
quick as lightning, that it led to the 
inevitable conclusion that the girl went 
back to the metal room to see about it, 
and was assaulted there! 

Consequently, Frank not only 
changed his answer of, "I don't know," 
into a positive, "No;" but Rosser went 
at Scott, hammer and tongs, to badger 
him into saying that he may have been 
mistaken, and that Frank may have 
said, "No," instead of, "I don't know." 

But the point is this: If Rosser had 
not felt certain that the blood and the 
hair proves that Mary was killed on 
Frank's floor, near Frank's closet, and 
at about the time Frank puts himself 
at the closet, what would Rosser have 
cared xohether Mary went to the metal 
room, or not? 

If Jim Conley killed Mary on the 
first floor, or in the basement, it did 
not at all matter whether she went to 
the metal room, either with Frank, or 
by herself. 

The strenuous effort of Rosser to es- 
cape from that answer of "I don't 
know," proves what he knows. He 
knows very well that the girl was killed 
on the second floor. Otherwise, you 
cannot understand why Frank was 
made to change his statement, and why 
such herculean strength was used to 
get a change out of Harry Scott. 

The difference between "No," and "I 
don't know," is a difference between 
tweedledum and tweedledee, unless 



Mary icas murdered on Frank's floor. 

Rosser knew, just as you must now 
see, that if Frank told the girl. "I don't 
know," he might just as iccll have 
admitted that he and Mary went back 
there together, where the blood and 
hair were found. 

That answer of, "I don't know," — 
suggesting as it did, an inspection of 
the room, to see about the metal — is 
the only plausible way to account for 
the girl's being back there, unless in- 
deed the notes speak the truth about 
her going to the closet. 

(See Harry Scott's evidence in 

Rosser's desperate struggle to get 
away from the "I don't know," is 
wonderfully illuminating as to what 
was in Rosser $ mind. If he had placed 
the slightest reliance on the theory that 
the negro killed the girl, he would not 
have cared a button whether Frank 
went with Mary to see about the metal. 
If Rosser had not been absolutely cer- 
tain that the girl was attacked and 
killed, bach there, he would not have 
struggled so hard to keep her and 
Frank away from there. If Rosser 
had believed for a moment that Mary 
went on clown stairs, after she left 
Frank, and was killed by the negro 
down stairs, he wouldn't have wasted 
a breath over that question of whether 
Frank said, "No," or said, "I don't 

If the girl was killed down stairs, 
it would not have hurt Frank's case 
in the least, if he had boldly admitted 
that, after telling Mary, "I don't 
know," he had gone back there with 
her to see. It is to be presumed that 
he, as well as she, wanted the work to 
go on; and therefore he, also, would 
be interested in the matter, with a view 
to her return on Monday. 

Suppose he had said, "Yes, Mary 
came to my office, got her money, and 
we went back to the metal room to see 
if the expected metal had come; and, 
after that, she went on down stairs, 

and I went back into my office, and saw 
no more of her." 

"Where would have been the danger 
of his saying that? She was with him 
in the office: he admits that, after the 
evidence forces him to it : but wiry not 
go a little farther, and admit that he 
and she went to the metal room, before 
she left his floor? 

Ask Rosser to tell you the answer to 
that question. Ask your own intelli- 
gence ! What danger, was to be 
dreaded, in allowing Frank to say that 
he and Mary went to the metal room, 
even for one single minute? 

If she was killed on the first floor — 
no matter who did it — there was no 
danger in letting Frank admit that he 
went to the metal room with her. 

If she was killed in the basement — 
no matter who did it — there was no 
danger in the admission that she and 
Frank went to the metal room. 

But Rosser's desperate drive, to re- 
move the very idea of her going to the 
metal room with Frank, proves the im- 
mense importance he attached to it. 
He could not allow it, he dared not 
allow it ! Mary and Frank must not 
for an instant be allowed in the metal 
room, during that fatal half -hour! 


Is there any possible answer, but the 
one? And that is — Mary's tress of 
g old cn-bro ivn hair is hanging out there 
in that room, on the crank of Barrett's 
machine; and Mary's life-blood is out 
there, on that recently swept floor! 

Rosser said in his heart, "I dare not 
let Frank go there!" 

When you test the theory that Conley 
Mone did the deed, you have no evi- 
dence to rest it on. Jim never bothered 
those white girls, did not act like a 
negro who had committed the unpar- 
donable crime on a white woman, did 
not try to lay suspicion on anybody, 
and went about his work as usual, on 
Monday and Tuesday. 

There is absolutely no evidence 



against the negro, upon which the 
State could have made the shadow of a 

When you test in your mind the 
hypothesis that Frank and Jim both 
committed the crime, you make some 
slight headway, for Jim and Frank 
shielded each other, until Frank was 
jailed. But this is not enough to im- 
plicate both, in the actual crime. It is 
enough to prove a common guilty 
knowledge of the crime, but it does not 
shut out the idea of Conley's being ac- 
cessory to the fact, after the deed was 

It is only when you test in your mind 
the theory that Frank alone committed 
the crime, that all proved circumstances 
harmonize, and interlink to make the 

Twelve white girls swore that Frank 
had a lascivious character; and they 
learned what he was, inside this very 

One of his own witnesses, a white 
girl, swore to his immoral conduct, 
inside this very factory. 

Conley mentioned the names of the 
white women and the white man who 
came into this very factory, to engage 
in vice with Frank, and one of these 
persons corroborated Conley on the 
witness stand. 

White witnesses swore that Frank 
had been after little Mary, ever since 
March, inside this very factory. 

Frank laid a trap for Mary, by forc- 
ing her to come back inside this very 
factory, when he might have sent her 
money by Helen Ferguson. 

Mary walks into the trap inside that 
factory, and it closes on her. 

God in Heaven! was guilt ever 
plainer, and more deliberately diaboli- 

And are we to be dictated to by mass- 
meetings in Chicago, and by circular 
letters from New York and New Eng- 
land, when this awful crime stares us 
in the face? 

Nothing corroborates Frank when he 

says that Conley alone committed the 
crime; and every undisputed fact is 
against that hypothesis. 

Everything corroborates Conley, 
when he says that Frank did it, and 
that he himself became mixed up in it, 

And if there is one feature of the 
case more convincing than another it is, 
that Frank was at least as careful to 
' shield Conley from suspicion, AT 
FIRST, as Conley was, to shield Frank. 
Until Frank himself was arrested, 
he tried to set the dogs on Lee and 

At first, Frank and Conley loth acted 
like a pair who held a guilty secret 
between themselves. 

Ah, it is a heartrending case. Big 
Money may muzzle most of the papers, 
hire the best legal talent, and bring re- 
mote popular pressure to bear upon our 
governor, but all the money in the 
world cannot destroy the facts, nor 
answer the arguments based on those 

Let me refer to the negro's explana- 
tion of how it happened — my reference 
being confined strictly to facts where 
there is abundant corroboration. 

Jim says he heard steps of two per- 
sons going back to the metal room ; and 
Frank himself, states that Mary in- 
quired about whether the metal had 
come, which would give her more work 
next week. What more natural than 
that Frank, when the girl asked, "Has 
the metal come?" should say, "Let's go 
back there and see?" 

What more natural than that she 
should go? And what more in keep- 
ing with Frank's proved character, and 
his proved desire for this girl, than that 
he should make indecent advances to 
her, back there, where no one is in sight 
or hearing? 

Jim says Frank called him by their 
agreed signal of stamping on the floor, 
and whistling, and that when he 
went up, Frank, looking wild and 



excited, told him, in substance, 
that he had tried the girl, that 
she had refused, that he had struck her, 
and he guessed he had hit her too hard ; 
she had fallen, and in falling had hit 
something; she was unconscious. 

Jim says he went back there where 
the girl lay, at the lathe, where her hair 
was found in the handle; and she was 
lying motionless with the cord around 
her neck. "The cloth was also tied . 
around her neck, and part of it was 
under her head like to catch blood." 

All the witnesses swore to the strip 
of cloth; and the hair on the metal 
handle of the lathe was as fully identi- 
fied as Mary's, as hair could be under 
those circumstances. Frank's own wit- 
ness, Magnolia Kennedy testified that 
the hair looked like Mary's; and Miss 
Magnolia was herself the only other 
girl there whose hair was at all like 
the golden brown of Mary Phagan's. 

Frank's own machinist found the 
hair on the metal handle, and swore 
positively it was not there when he 
quit using that very machine — handle 
and all — Friday night, before the 
Saturday of the crime. 

Mr. Barrett, the machinist, found the 
hair on the handle when he went back 
to the machine Monday morning. He 
was not at the factory Saturday. No 
one is shown to have been in that room 
Saturday. How did that long, golden- 
broion, womanh hair get on that metal 
crank, where Barrett found it? 

No girl or woman could be produced 
who pretended she was in the metal 
room on Saturday. No girl or woman 
could be found who could explain about 
the hair. Why not? Half-a-dozen of 
Frank's own employees, several of 
them his own witnesses, swore to find- 
ing the hair, soon Monday morning; 
and they swore that it was not there 

Why couldn't it be accounted for? 

The only answer is, Mary in falling, 
after Frank struck her and gave her 
that bruise on the eye, hit the metal 

handle, and it ripped her scalp and tore 
out some of her hair. 

In no other way under the sun can 
that hair on the machine be explained. 

Then the blood on the floor at the 
dressing room, some 23 feet from where 
the girl fell: whose blood? 

All the witnesses say it was not there 
Friday when they quit work. Mell 
Stanford had swept the whole 2nd 
floor, and tidied up, generally; and he 
swore positively the blood spots were 
not there Frida} r . Barrett swore they 
were not there Friday. But the blood 
spots were there early Monday morn- 
ing, seen by numbers of the employees, 
and denied by none. Schiff, the assist- 
ant superintendent, admitted it, Quinn 
admitted it, the men saw T it, the women 
saw it, chips were cut out of the floor, 
and the doctors saw it. 

Whose was it? 

Not there Friday evening, right 
there Monday morning, whose was it? 

If not Mary's blood, produce your ex- 
planation ! If not Mary, somebody else 
bled there. Who bled there, between 
Friday and Monday, if not Mary PJia- 

The question can not be answered, 
save in one way. You know quite well 
that if money or skill, or hard work, 
could have accounted for those guilty 
stains on that floor, the man or the 
woman who bled there would have been 

Conley says he dropped the girl on 
the floor, and that the blood spattered 
where those spots were found. Take 
that explanation, or go without one, 
for I assure you the court record offers 
no other. Frank in his own statement 
could only offer the explanation that 
Duffy or Gilbert when injured in the 
metal room, months before, might have 
bled there. Gilbert went on the stand 
and swore to his cut finger, but said 
none of the blood had dropped any- 
where near those spots. 

The futile effort to account for the 
blood, only deepens the significance of 



the fact that it was there, and adds 
fearful weight to the evidence of R. P. 
Barrett and Mell Stanford, that it was 
not there on Friday. 

Jim says he and Frank carried the 
body down, in the elevator, to the base- 
ment. He says they had wrapped her 
up in a cloth which was taken off in the 
basement. He said that Frank made 
him promise to return to the plant, that 
afternoon, to help him dispose of the 
body, but he did not go back. 

I have on purpose left out everything 
but the barest outline. Conley did go 
home and did not return, whereas 
Frank was back — we don't know ex- 
actly when — and sent Newt Lee away 
at 4, when Newt wanted to go in and 

A white man, whose character is not 
assailed, swears that he wanted per- 
mission to go into the ^factory at 6 
o'clock, and that Frank not only first 
tried to dodge back out of sight into 
the gloom of the building, but lied to 
him about the sweeping out of the 
shoes, and then sent a negro to watch 

Then the negro who was a trusted 
night-watchman— and whom Frank 
•detailed to watch Gantt — swears that 
when he went down into the basement 
at 7 o'clock in the course of his regular 
rounds of the big building, less than an 
hour after Frank had gone, the light 
that had always been kept burning 
brightly there, by Frank's own orders, 
had been turned down. "It was burn- 
ing just as low as you could turn it, 
like a lightning bug. / left it Saturday 
moiming turning bright" 

Who turned that light down? 

Who went into that basement, after 
Newt went off duty early Saturday 
mo?-ning? Who was there during 
Saturday? What was the motive, in 
turning the light down and leaving it 
•so? The motive was, to prevent Newt 
from seeing that corpse. 

Not a single employee of the plant 
:s-id that he or she had been in the 

basement that day. The light could not 
turn itself down. It was not a case of 
gas burning dim and low, for it burned 
brightly again when turned up. 

Somebody turned down the light — 

Over the telephone came the inquiry 
to Newt— "How is everything?" That 
was an hour or so after Frank had left. 
He had never done that before. He 
does not even claim that he had. But 
he explains it by saying he wanted to 
know whether Gantt had gone ! What 
danger did he apprehend from Gantt? 

Why was Gantt on Frank's nerves? 
Newt swears that Frank did not 
mention Gantt, but simply asked. 
"How is everything?" 

Was it not the jangling nerves and 
haunting suspicions, whose question 
really meant, "Have you found any- 
thing? Have you seen the dead girl? 
Is the murder out?" 

Minola McKnight's repudiated affi- 
davit is in this terrible record, and in 
those statements which she verified and 
swore to in the presence of Mr. George 
Gordon, her attorney, she tells of that 
night of horror at Frank's home. 

You will probably suspect that if 
Newt Lee had not had occasion to go 
to the closet in the basement that night, 
Mary Phagan's body never would have 
been found, for the going to the closet 
took him close to the corpse, and he 
saw it! 

Frank did not intend for the corpse, 
to te found; and he meant to creep 
tack into the basement next day, and 
tury that girl in the dirt floor! 

That door worked on a slide. It did 
not open, as door shutters usually do. 
It was locked and it was barred, 
usually. On Saturday night, Newt 
looked that way, and it was closed. He 
did not notice the bar, or the staple. 
On Sunday morning, the door was sub- 
jected to close examination. The wit- 
nesses say the staple had been drawn, 
and the bar taken down. But the door 
was completely closed! 



Would a frightened, fleeing negro 
rapist and murderer, have pried out 
the staple, lifted off the bar, and then 
carefully, from, the outside, pushed the 
door to, on. the slide? 

Why should Jim Conley break the 
basement door, when he could walk out, 
in front, on the first floor where he was 
sitting when Mrs. White saw him? 

And why should any frightened and 
fleeing negro, too scared to walk out of 
the unlocked doors, break that door, 
and then carefully close it? 

To me, it looks like a careful plan 
for somebody, to go in, without being 
seen. To me, it looks as if somebody, 
who had the run of the plant, came 
down there, pried out the staple, and 
lifted the bar, without opening the door 
at all. The opening was to be from 
the outside, next day. 

Jim Conley could have unlocked that 
door easier than he could draw the 
staple. He could have lifted the bai* 
and gone out, without violence, easier 
than he could go out by a burglarious 

It wasn't a question of going out: it 
was a question of coming in! 

Do you say that Frank could have 
left the door unlocked, with the bar 
merely lifted off? The answer to that 
is, had he done so, he would have had 
to involve persons who had the keys! 

To unlock from the inside, there must 
be an unlocker, on the insde. 

Now, if Frank had unlocked the 
-door, as well as removed the bar, the 
crime would have come home, right 
then, to one of the men who toted the 
keys. And a narrowing circle would 
have brought that search right up to 
him and Conley — for all the others 
could easily account for themselves at 
the exact half -hour of the crime. 

Frank's defenders claim that Conley 
broke open the basement door to get 

What will you think of their sincerity 
and honesty, when I tell you page 21 
of the agreed record shows that the ne- 

gro was sitting near the front door, up 
stairs on the 1st floor, at ahout 1 
o'clock, when Mrs. J. A. White passed 
him and went out at the front door? 

What hindered the negro from walk- 
ing out of the front door? The crime 
had been committed: the corpse was in 
the basement; and there was Jim sitting 
between the upper stairway and the 
regular entrance door. 

What need for him to squeeze 
through that scuttle hole, return to the 
basement, and break out the back way, 
in the alley? All he or Frank had to 
do, to get out, was to do what Mrs. 
White did — walk out. But if some- 
body wanted to come back around the 
back way, and glide into the basement 
unseen, then $ sliding door, left in such 
a manner that it could be pushed back, 
from the outside, w T as necessary. 

Another queer thing is, that Jim 
said that they left the corpse on the 
floor in front of the elevator, but that 
he flung the ribbon, hat and slippers 
into the trash-heap near the furnace, 
where Frank wanted body and all 
burnt that afternoon. 

Now, when the body was found, it 
had been dragged from the elevator 
back to near the basement door, the 
ribbon, slippers and hat were at the 
same place, and only two notes — a white 
one and a yellow one — were lying near 
the girl's head. Did Frank, who is a 
small man, drag that body away from 
the elevator? Did he gather up all her 
things and lay them by her? Did he 
select two of the notes, and destroy the 
other two? Did the other two notes go 
with her mesh bag and pay-envelope? 

It is certainly a peculiar detail that 
Newt Lee, when an accident took him 
to the toilet near the corpse, saw the 
leg, first. In being dragged by the feet, 
and on the side face, at least one of the 
legs would be exposed. 

Nobody but Frank and Conley are 
entrapped by that providential clock- 
work of the fatal half-hour. 



Conley admits himself caught, and 
is being punished for it. 

But it catches Frank, also ; and where 
two criminals are involved in a crime 
against a white girl, the white man is 
the more apt to be the leader, the 
principal, especially in a case like this 
where ten white women swore to 
Frank's lewd character, and three white 
witnesses swore that he had been after 
this very girl. 

What is a demonstration of any 
man's guilt, on circumstantial evidence? 
It is that degree of moral certainty 
which arises from the evident fact that, 
under those circumstances, no one else 
could have committed the crime. 

Given a murder, and a state of facts 
which excludes everybody except the 
accused, and the accused is the guilty 
man, necessarily. 

Wlien it is admitted that somebody 
committed a crime, and the testimony 
shows that nobody but the Defendant 
could have done it, human Reason is 
satisfied, and so is Jie Law. 

Let your mind rest upon one other 
very significant fact. 

The ignorant negro who is accused 
of the crime, stood, a terrific cross- 
examination, lasting eight hours. The 
strongest criminal lawyer of the At- 
lanta bar wore himself out on Jim 
Conley, without damaging Jim's evi- 
dence in the least. 

On the contrary, the educated white 
man who is accused of the crime made 
a statement covering 45 large pages of 
closely printed matter, and refused to 
offer to answer one single question! 

His defenders paint him as a man 
of intellectual gifts of which any com- 
munity should be proud, as a man of 
spotless morals, as a man who is un- 
justly accused, foully convicted, and 
eager for vindication. 

Why, then, did he shrink from a 
cross-examination? Why did he fear 
an ordeal through which the illiterate 
negro triumphantly passed? 

In its tenderness to the accused, our 
law will not permit an examination of 

the defendant, unless he voluntarily 
consents. So just was the horror of 
our ancestors against that system of 
torture to compel confessions which 
popery had introduced into Europe, 
that they swung the pendulum back to 
the other extreme, and screened the 
prisoner from any question, whatever. 

It is an unwise thing to give to the 
guilty an immunity from answering 
fair questions, for no innocent man 
could ever be hurt by it. But leaving 
all that out, a defendant can say — and 
often does say— "Ask me any fair ques- 
tion, and I will answer it." Such an 
offer always makes a most favorable 
impression. The jury and the public 
at once begin to feel confident of the 
innocence of an accused, when he shows 
confidence in it himself. 

Here was a college graduate, an in- 
tellectually superior man, environed by 
a terrible array of suspicious circum- 
stances, with the whole republic look- 
ing on at his trial, with a mother and 
father intensely agitated, and the He- 
brews of the Union, profoundly con- 

What a magnificent opportunity for 
an innocent man to rise before the 
court and country, panoplied in the 
armor of conscious rectitude, and say 
to the State of Georgia — 

"I have nothing to conceal. There 
are no guilty secrets in my soul. The 
more carefully you open my book of 
life, the more clearly will my innocence 
be seen. If I have not spoken to your 
satisfaction, and given a full account 
of myself, ash me about it! Put your 
questions. I am not afraid. No answer 
of mine can uncover a guilt that does 
not exist. Therefore I do not fear your 
questions: ask them!" 

Wouldn't that have been the attitude 
and the feeling of Nathan Strauss, for 
instance, had he been iis Frank's place ? 

What, then, is the net result of all 
this evidence, direct and circumstantial ? 
It is this: 

Leo Frank was a lecherous hypocrite, 



a moral pervert; a model, to Rabbi 
Marx, but a rake — and something more 
— to women who would allow it: 

He wanted this little girl, and the 
opportunity came on Saturday, April 
26th, 1913: 

She goes into his possession, and is 
found in his possession — but when she 
goes in, she is alive and well, and when 
found, she is cold and stiff, with the 
dried blood matted in her golden hair, 
and a tightly tied cord cutting into her 
soft neck. 

Alive and dead, she is that day in 
Fma&s possession, and he cannot trace 
her out of it ! To say that the negro 
shared that possession with him, may 
be true, but it does not help Frank. 

At most, that gives him an accom- 
plice, and the negro is even now being 
punished for that! 

Mary goes into Frank's house alive: 
she is soon afterwards found there, 
dead, cold and stiff: no mortals had the 
opportunity to assault and kill her, 
save Frank and Conley. 

Say that the negro did the deed with- 
out the white man, and you cannot 
travel at all : no evidence whatever sup- 
ports the theory. 

Say that the white man did it, and 
then called for the negro's help in 
getting rid of the body — and all the 
evidence harmonizes, facts link into 
facts, to make the iron chain of convic- 

On the great Knapp case, the fame 
of Daniel Webster, as a criminal law- 
yer, mainly rests; and in that case of 
circumstantial evidence the verdict of 
"Guilty" had no stronger support than 
was given to the verdict against Frank. 
In the Knapp case, the prosecution 
aided the State of Massachusetts by 
employing the greatest lawyer and 
forensic orator the American bar could 
boast. In the Frank case, the youn& 
Solicitor stood alone, and fought the 
strongest team of attorneys that money 

could enlist. Against Frank's dozens 
of lawyers, detectives, press-agents, &c., 
the State of Georgia has arrayed no- 
body, save her regular officers of the 

In the Knapp case, Mr. Webster in- 
dignantly answered the friends of the 
defendant, who claimed that a popular 
clamor had been excited against the 
accused. He turned upon these too- 
zealous champions of the prisoner and 
exclaimed — 

"Much has been said, on this occa- 
sion, of the excitement which has ex- 
isted, and still exists, and of the extra- 
ordinary methods taken to discover and 
punish the guilty. No doubt there has 
been, and is, much excitiment, and 
strange indeed were it, had it been 
otherwise. Should not all the peacea- 
ble and well-disposed naturally feel 
concerned, and naturally exert them- 
selves to bring to punishment the au- 
thors of this secret assassination ? Was 
it a thing to be slept upon or forgotten? 
Did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as 
quietly in your beds after this murder 
as before? Was it not a case for re- 
wards, for meetings, for committees, 
for the united efforts of all the good, 
to find out a band of murderous con- 
spirators, of midnight ruffians, and to 
bring them to the bar of justice and 
law? If this be excitement, is it an 
unnatural or an improper excitement?" 

"It is said that even a vigilance com- 
mittee was appointed. . . . They 
are said to have been laboring for 
months against the prisoner. 

Gentlemen, what must we do in such 
a case? Are people to be dumb and 
still, through fear of overdoing? Is it 
come to this, that an effort cannot be 
made, a hand cannot be lifted, to dis- 
cover the guilty, without its being said, 
there is a combination to overwhelm 
innocence ? 

Has the community lost all moral 
sense? Certainly a community that 
would not be roused to action, upon an 
occasion such as this was, a community 



whirh should not deny sleep to their 
eyes, and slumber to their eye-lids, till 
they had exhausted all the means of 
discovery and detection, must, indeed, 
be lost to all moral sense, and would 
scarcely deserve protection from the 

Thus thundered Daniel Webster, re- 
buking those men of New England who 
blamed the people of Massachusetts for 
being aroused over the murder of an 
old man. 

Great God! What would Webster 
have said to those New York preachers, 

and only true main object. It forfeits 
the life of the murderer, that other 
murders may not be committed. When 
the guilty, therefore, are not punished, 
the law has, so far, failed of its pur- 
pose: the safety of the innocent is, so 
far. endangered. Every unpunished 
murder takes away something from the 
security of every man's life." 

In pressing the case on Leo Frank, 
the State of Georgia has been free from 
any hostility toward a Jew: the State 
has sternly prosecuted him because he 
is a murderer. 


and those Northern papers, who are so 
fiercely misrepresenting and denounc- 
ing the people of Georgia, for being 
aroused over the murder of a little 

Nobly expounding the purpose of 
the penal law, Mr. Webster said — 

"The criminal law is not founded on 
a principle of vengeance. The hu- 
manity of the law regrets every pain 
it causes, every hour of restraint it 
imposes, and more deeply still, every 
life it forfeits. But it uses evil as to 
means of preventing greater evil. It 
seeks to deter from crime, by the ex- 
ample of punishment. This is its true. 

In pressing the case against Leo 
Frank, we have felt none of the fury 
of prejudice and race hatred: we 
have demanded his punishment a* a 
protection to other innocent Mary Pha- 
ganS) as well as a vindication of the 
law, to strike terror into other Leo 

We respectfully ask the other States 
of the Union to usurp no further juris- 
diction over us than a high court of re- 
view would have — and that would be 
to examine the official record, as agreed 
upon by the attorneys on both sides, 
and judge us by that record. 

If the sworn testimony supports the 



verdict of the -"jury, quit abusing us. 
If that sworn testimony not only sus- 
tains the evidence, but rendered any 
other verdict humanly impossible, quit 
talking about the semi-barbarians of 
Georgia, accusing them of Jew baiting, 
mob methods and jungle fury. 

Unless Frank is entitled to immu- 
nity because he is a Jew, let the light- 
nings of Sinai strike him ! 

A married man, he was false to his 
young and buxom wife. A member of 
the Synagogue, he was false to the 
•creed of his church. An educated He- 
brew of splendid connections, he was 
false to the higher standards of his 
race. A citizen of Georgia, he was 
false to "her bociety, a canker and a 
pest. Subject to her laws, he broke 
them .repeatedly., with shamieless ef- 

frontery, in his place of business] and 
when one Gentile girl whom he lusted 
after persisted in repulsing him, he 
laid in wait for her, assaulted her, 
killed her, leaving her blood and her 
corpse in his place of business. 

O my lords and gentlemen, what 
must we do to be saved from such men 
as these ? Every race has them. Every 
State has them. Every nation has 

Please God, I have written an argu- 
ment that will vindicate our State, 
justify her courts, defy refutation, 
and stand unshaken to the end of time. 
That my work has been done volun- 
tarily and without reward, or the re- 
motest hope thereof, will not lessen its 

For Good of the Service 

Ralph M. Thomson 

Discharged for the good of the service, 

Condemned as <a clog to the cause; 
Cashiered for incompetent labor, 

Chastised, and to public applause; 
As if we were gullible Children, 

As if we were fools gone awry, 
To munch on the fatuous figment, 

To gulp down the insolent lie! 

Impaled at the sniff of a puppet, 

Subdued by an arrogant screech; 
Hamstrung at the beck of a beadle, 

Lampooned by the lips of a leech; 
Regarding the ballot as holy, 

Resenting the club of the clan, 
The curse was in scorning to grovel, 

The crime was in being a man! 

Oh, what of the vaunted traditions, 

And what of the squeamish who prate; 
And what of the fables of Justice, 

And what of the hope of the State, 
When men who have proven their fitness, 

When men who have braved every brink, 
May fall at the hawk of a heeler, 

For daring to vote as they think! 

Free Press 

Harry Weinberger, Member New York Bar 

SOME people are naturally pugna- 
cious; some are pugnacious only 
when opposing an infringement 
on their rights. Samuel W. Simpson 
is such a man. 

Section 408, Subdivision 5 of the 
Ordinances of the Corporation of the 
City of New York, reads as follows : 

"No person shall throw, cast or dis- 
tribute in or upon any of the streets, 
avenues or public places or in front 
yards or stoops, any hand bills, circu- 
lars, cards or other advertising matter 

Samuel W. Simpson distributed on 
the streets of New York City a circular 
entitled "Tenant's Week," which was a 
circular in reference to land monopoly 
in New York City, and pointing the 
benefits of untaxing buildings and in- 
dustry, and attached to the circular 
was a petition to the Governor and tha 
State Legislature. Simpson was ar- 
rested and on the 16th day of August, 
1914, was convicted in the Magistrates' 
Court of violating Section 408. 

On an appeal from the conviction, 
Judge Kosalsky of the Court of Gen- 
eral Sessions, of the County of New 
York, decided that: 

•"The distribution on the public high- 
way of a petition to be signed by citi- 
zens and addressed to the Governor 
and to members of the Legislature of 
this State favoring a local referendum 
vote on the question, namely, whether 
or not the tax rate should be reduced 
on buildings in New York City to one 
per cent of the tax rate on land, etc., 
does not come within the purview of 
Subdivision 5, of Section 408 of the 
Ordinances of the Corporation of the 
City of New York. ... and as no 
successful prosecution can be main- 
tained, the complaint is dismissed." 
Promptly thereafter, on the 18th day 

of October, 1914, Simpson was again 
arrested and again convicted for dis- 
tributing to people in and upon the 
streets of New York City "an advertis- 
ing circular" entitled the "Cause of 
War," which included an advertise- 
ment of the meetings ana lectures of 
the Manhattan Single Tax Club of 
New York City. No petition was at- 
tached to this circular. 

An appeal was taken to the Court 
of General Sessions, and Hon. Joseph 
L. Mulqueen, Judge of that Court, re- 
versed the conviction and dismissed 
complaint, holding that Hhe distribu- 
tion to people of advertising circulars" 
is not a violation of law. 

The infringement of free speech and 
free press comes often in various shapes 
and disguises, and must always be 
fought. What "free press" really 
means is not often clear to the lay 
mind, and the fact that Simpson was 
twice convicted shows that even some 
legal minds have not grasped its true 
meaning. The arguments in the two 
cases of Simpson's were based on the 
broad question of "free press." 

The distribution of opinions hostile 
to the present government, or vested 
interests, or any church, or powerful 
individuals, always arouses a strong 
inclination to suppress by those at- 
tacked, and sometimes where the re- 
sistance is lacking or weak, "free press" 
is suppressed. 

The argument made before the Ap- 
pellate Court can be used in every fu- 
ture fight and makes clear what "free 
press" actually means. 

The argument before the Court was 
that Simpson's circulars, even that 
called by the Court an advertising cir- 
cular, had as much right to be handed 
to the people on the streets of New 
York City as the "New York Times" 



or the "Evening Journal," which con- 
tain advertisements of department 
store sales, beer, furniture, etc., and a 
statement of where it is published and 
where it can be purchased, and no 
magistrate would even dream of fining 
anyone for "distributing*' those news- 
papers, yet a newspaper is only an ad- 
vertising circular with a news attach- 

An examination of the historical 
background of "free press" and "free 
speech," is necessary for a proper de- 
termination of what "free press" in the 
Constitution means. 

Pamphlets (i. e. circulars and hand- 
bills) have been the weapons of all 
thinkers in the struggles of the past 
for liberty, and were in circulation long 
before the age of printing and news- 
papers. Sam Adams issued dozens of 
pamphlets before the American revo- 
lution. The speech of Patrick Henry 
about "Give me liberty, or give me 
death;" was issued in pamphlet form 
and reached one-half million people. 
Thomas Jefferson issued pamphlets. 
The greatest pamphlets ever issued in 
America were Thomas Paine's "Com- 
mon Sense," and "The Crisis." The 
original pamphlets of "The Crisis," be- 
ginning with the words : "These are the 
times that try men's souls," was the 
explosive that turned the tide toward 
victory in the Revolution. Every sol- 
dier in the Continental Army was 
given one of these pamphlets and they 
were read at the head of each regiment. 
Some of these men helped write the 
United States Constitution with its 
guarantee of the right of free press and 
free speech. 

The worcl "press," is defined in Funk 
& Wagnall's Standard Dictionary as: 

"The newspapers or periodical liter- 
ture of a country, district or town 
taken collectively; also printed litera- 
ture in the abstracts 

Sec. 8 of the N. Y. State Constitu- 
tion* is as follows: 

"Every citizen may freely speak, 

write and publish his sentiments on all 
subjects, being responsible for the 
abuse of that right. No law shall be 
passed to restrain or abridge liberty of 
speech or of the press." 

All State Constitutions have practi- 
cally the same kind of a clause. 

Thomas Jefferson said that : 

"If given to choose only one, a free 
government or a free press, I would 
choose the latter. Wherever there is a 
free press the government cannot long 
be unjust." (Jefferson aid not mean 
newspaper only.) 

The great crime is repression of hon- 
est thought, and James Russell Lowell 
well expressed the intentions of the 
makers of the Constitution, when he 
said : 
"We will speak out, we will be heard, 

Though all earth's systems crack; 
We will not bate a single word. 

Nor take a letter back." 

This much is certain— any honest 
belief, the expression of which a person 
thinks necessary to the public interest, 
should be given to the public. 

If the right of free speech and free 
press is guaranteed in the Constitution, 
how can opinions be expressed except 
by means of books, magazines, news- 
papers, circulars and handbills sent by 
mail, or handed to people, and how can 
the public know of meetings (free 
speech) to be held except by the same 
means and by the word of mouth, and 
how otherwise can they be invited to 
attend the meetings? 

Cicero in his treatise De Republica, 
Lib. 1. Sec. 32. insisted that: 

"Equality of rights was the basis of 
a common-wealth ; for since property 
could not be equal, and talents were 
not equal, rights ought to be held equal 
among all the citizens of the State, 
which was. in itself, nothing but a com- 
munity of rights." 

Who will contend that newspapers 
are a privileged class and only entitled 
to the use of the streets and avenues of 
a city? 



Blackstone in his Commentaries, at 
p. G38 ; said: 

"Every freeman has an undoubted 
right to lay what sentiments he be- 
lieves before the public; to forbid this 
is to destroy the freedom of the press." 
(Blackstone was not talking of news- 

Story on the Constitution, says at p. 
625, (5th Ed.) : 

"Every man shall be at liberty to 
publish what is true, with good mo- 
tives and justifiable ends. And with 
this reasonable limitation, it is cer- 
tainly right in itself, but it is an in- 
estimable privilege in a free govern- 
ment. ... A little attention to 
the history of other countries and other 
ages will teach us the vast importance 
of this right." 

In Respublica v. Oswald, I Dall. 
(Pa.) 319, the Court said: 

"The true liberty of the press is 
amply secured by permitting every 
man to publish his opinions." 

Cooley^s Constitutional Limitations, 
p. 596, states : 

"The first amendment to the Consti- 
tution of the United States provides, 
among other things, that Congress 
shall make no law abridging freedom 
of speech or of the press. The privi- 
lege which is thus protected against 
unfriendly legislation by Congress is 
almost universally regarded not only 
as highly important, but as being es- 
sential to the very existence and per- 
petuity of free government 

And is supposed to form a shield of 
protection to the free expression of 
opinion in every part of our land. . . 
„ . . The liberty of the press might 
be rendered a mockery and a delusion 
and the phrase itself a by-word, if, 
while every man was at liberty to pnib- 
lish what he believes, the public au- 

thorities might, nevertheless, punish 
him for harmless publications." 

Before our present-day newspapers, 
the moulders of public opinion, were 
pamphleteers: Addison, Steele, Burke, 
Milton, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, 
Paine, etc. If all newspapers should 
be closed to certain propaganda, or the 
speeches of certain candidates for pub- 
lic offices, cannot we safely in New 
York City go back to pamphlets, (i. e., 
handbills, circulars,) as of old? 
Pamphlets, if given to people on the 
streets, might be thrown into the street 
and litter the same ; we know that news- 
papers do litter the streets. But what 
is the danger of the streets being lit- 
tered in comparison to the awakening 
of public opinion ! Burke said he 
would rather be awakened by the fire 
alarm, than be burnt by the fire. 

We are a government of and by dis- 

In Ex-party Neill, 32 Tex. Crim. 
Eep. 275, the Court said : 

"A city ordinance declaring a news- 
paper called 'The Sunday Sun' to be a 
public nuisance and prohibiting its cir- 
culation within the city, is a violation 
of the Bill of Eights. . . . We are 
not informed of any authority which 
sustains the doctrine that a municipal 
corporation is invested with the power 
to declare the sale of newspapers a 
nuisance. The power to suppress one 
implies the power to suppress all, 
whether such publications are political, 
secular, religious, decent, indecent, ob- 
scene or otherwise. The doctrine of 
the Constitution must prevail in this 
State, which clothes with liberty to 
speak, write or publish his opinion 
upon any and all subjects, subjects 
alone to the responsibility for the abuse 
of such privilege." 

Vigilance is still the price of liberty. 

Editorial Notes and Clippings 


FEW clays ago, I was in corre- 
spondence with William Black, of 
Belaire, Ohio. He was lecturer 
and organizer for the Knights of Lu- 
ther. He is dead. 

Four Knights of Columbus of Mar- 
shall, Texas, w T cnt to Black's room at 
the hotel, and demanded that he call 
off his proposed lecture on "Convent 
Life," and leave town. He answered, 
that this is'a free country, and that he 
would not call off the lecture, and leave 

For no other provocation than his 
refusal to surrender the rights guaran- 
teed him by the Constitution of the 
United States, those members of one of 
the Italian Pope's secret organizations, 
immediately fell vpon hi?n, and killed 

Supposing that they were casual 
callers on a civil visit, William Black 
had invited these assassins into his 
room, and had seated himself for a 
peaceable conversation. These assassins 
thus threw him completely off his 
guard, before they made their murder- 
ous attack. He never had a chance to 
use a weapon. He got two bullets 
through his heart and died in his room 
in the arms of his adopted daughter, 
who had tried to shield him and who 
had begged for his life. 

A more dastardly crime was never 
committed in Texas. William Black 
was as truly a martyr to free speech, as 
Ferrer was to modern schools, and Wil- 
liam Tyndale was to free Bibles. 

The Roman church which murdered 
William Tyndale, long, long ago, is the 
same in spirit now that it was when it 
murdered "heretics" for worshpping 
God according to the dictates of their 
own consciences. 

How long has it been since these 
Knights of Columbus were vowing to 
high heaven that they had been vilely 

slandered in reference to their secret 
oath, and that the oath they took was, — - 

"/ swear to support tlie Constitution 
of the United States?" 

The type was hardly dry on those ly- 
ing pamphlets put out by William J. 
McGinlcy. James Flaherty and P. H. 
Callahan, before the Knights of Colum- 
bus murdered a citizen in his own room, 
because he insisted upon his Constitu- 
tional rights ! 

The entire sanctimonious oath which 
this murderous secret society gave to- 
the public, after three years of refusal 
to show any oath and of denial that 
they took an oath, reads — 

*'I swear to support the Constitution of* 
the United States." 

"I pledge myself, as a Catholic citizen 
and Knight of Columbus, to enlighten my- 
self fully upon my duties as a citizen and 
to conscientiously perform such duties en- 
tirely in the interest of my country and 
regardless of all personal consequences. I 
pledge myself to do all in my power to. 
preserve the integrity and purity of the 
ballot, and to promote reverence and re- 
spect for law and order. I promise to 
practice my religion and consistently but 
without ostentation, and to so conduct 
myself in public affairs, and in the exercise 
of public virtue as to reflect nothing but 
credit upon our Holy Church, to the end 
that she may flourish and our country 
prosper to the greater honor and glory of" 

(Supreme Council Seal.) 

"A true copy. 

(Signed) WM. J. McGINLEY, 

Supreme Secretary." 

This was the fake oath they fixed up* 
to gull the public with, and they intro- 
duced it in one of the sham cases they 
have had in court. 

Their own conduct, WRITTEN IN 
BLOOD, proves what a subterfuge it 

Why should the foreign Pope want 
another secret organization for the^ 



mere purpose of supporting the Con- 

Why should anybody want a secret 
society for that purpose alone ? 

Protestant churches have been 
mobbed, Protestant preachers brutally 
assaulted, riotous crowds of Romanists 
have invaded Protestant meetings, 
Protestant writers and speakers have 
been arrested and flung in jail for tell- 
ing the truth on popery; and yet these 
Knights of Columbus prate about 
"bigotry" and "prejudice." 

They propose an organized fight on 
Protestants, with a $50,000 fund to 
finance it. They word it in their usual 
sanctimonious style, as follows: 

At the annual meeting of the Supreme 
Council of the Knights of Columbus held 
at St. Paul, Minn., August 4, 5, 6 last the 
following resolution was adopted: 

Resolved, That the Board of Directors 
be authorized to expend a sum not exceed- 
ing Fifty Thousand Dollars to study the 
causes, investigate conditions, and suggest 
remedies for the religious prejudice that 
has been manifest through the press and 
rostrum in a malicious and scurrilous cam- 
paign that is hostile to the spirit of Ameri- 
can freedom and liberty and contrary to 
God's Law of "Love Thy Neighbor as Thy- 
self," and that the Supreme Knight shall 
be authorized to appoint a Commission to 
be known as the Commission on Religious 
prejudices, consisting of five members of 
the Order to conduct such investigation 
under the direction of the Board of Di- 
rectors and to ascertain exactly who are 
the persons behind these movements and 
who are financing them, and who will learn 
what the authorities at Washington can 
and will do toward eliminating the most 
disturbing menace to the peace and pros- 
perity of our land. 

The Supreme Knight has appointed on 
the Committee a sabove authorized: 

Chairman, Col. P. H. Callahan of Louis- 
ville, Ky., Joseph Scott of Los Angeles, 
€al., Thomas A. Lawler of Lansing, Mich., 
A. G. Bagley of Vancouver, B. C„ Joseph 
C. Pelletier of Boston, Mass. 

The Committee will submit its plan to 
the Archbishops of the United States at 
their meeting in Washington, D. C, on 
November 17, and to the Archbishops of 
Canada by mail. 

Those having any helpful suggestions 

are asked to submit them without delay to 
Mr. Callahan, Chairman of the Committee. 

This Commission on Religious 
Prejudices is a cover for the establish- 
ment of another Spanish Inquisition. 
These Americans who take oaths of 
allegiance to a foreign potentate, and 
thereby forfeit all rights as citizens of 
this country ■, are not content with being 
allowed to vote, hold office and serve on 
juries, but they arrogate to themselves 
the authority to create a private cen- 
sorship of the press and a private des- 
potism over public expression. 

Their object is as truly Inquisitorial, 
as was ever that of Torquemada, and 
of the medieval popes who gave papal 
sanction to the atrocities of the Inquisi- 
tion in Spain, in Italy, in Portugal and 
in France. 

This Roman Catholic Commission on 
Religious Prejudices means to do pre- 
cisely what was done by the "Holy 
Office" of old. It means to use the 
name of God and of religion to in- 
augurate a reign of persecution and 
terror. It means to use the boycott, 
commercially and politically: it means 
to harrass Protestant publishers with 
prosecutions in the federal courts; it 
means to manipulate Congress and the 
Post Office Department into a dicta- 
torial censorship of the mails. 

This Roman Catholic Commission, 
controlled by foreign priests who live 
in Rome, is the first formal beginning 
of the setting up of a foreign institu- 
tion in our Republic. 

The Protestant bodies and all non- 
Catholics must prepare for action. 
There is no time to lose. We have 
already lost too much. Our churches, 
and the Masons, and the patriotic or- 
ganizations must cut out the dry rot, 
and become alive. 

We must get ready to fight the Devil 
with fire/ 

In close connection with this Calla- 
han-McGinley-Flaherty campaign is 



the movement of Gallivan and Fitz- 
gerald in Congress, to throw out of the 
mails, everything that "reflects" upon 
the system of the foreign potentate who 
is straining every nerve to gain political 
control of America. 

Loudly vowing that their oath binds 
them to support the Constitution, they 
are not only using brute force to sup- 
press free speech, but using two trai- 
torous Congressmen in the effort to stab 
the very Constitution those Congress- 
men swore to support. 

To exclude from the mails everything 

two of the pope's subjects get them- 
selves elected to Congress as Democrats, 
take the solemn oath required by law to 
support the Constitution, and then in- 
troduce bills to nullify an essential part 
of that Constitution, they are acting 
like perjured traitors. 

Fitzgerald and Gallivan ought to be 
expelled from Congress. 

That a concerted movement is on 
foot to "make America Catholic," has 
long been known. Since Woodrow 
Wilson's election, it has gained immense 


that "reflects" upon popery, would deny 
the entire mass of Protestant literature 
any right to use the mails of this Pro- 
testant Republic. 

I call it a Protestant Republic, be- 
cause it is based upon strictly Protest- 
ant principles. 

Popery's fundamental law denies to 
the people the right to govern them- 
selves, the right to exercise liberty of 
conscience, the right to unlicensed 
printing and the right of free speech. 

Our Republic's fundamental law is 
just the reverse of popery; and when 

headway. Few can doubt that he and 
his managers had made a secret bargain 
with the pope's American subjects. 
Few have b< en blind to the manner in 
which Cardinal Gibbons and Tumulty 
and O'Hearn have manipulated matters 
in Washington. Inasmuch as the Dem- 
ocrats are in power, all of this popish 
aggression is under the Democratic 
name. Were a Republican in power, as 
the result of another secret bargain 
with the pope, it would be different. 
All of the encroachments would then 
be made under the Republcan name. 



Art. VI., Sec. 3, of the U. S. Constitu- 
tion reads: 

"The Senators and Representatives be- 
fore mentioned, and the members of the 
several States Legislatures, and all execu- 
tive and judicial offices, both of the United 
States and of the several States, shall be 
bound by oath or . affirmation to support 
this Constitution; but no religious test 
shall ever be required as a qualification to 
any office or public trust under the United 

Art. XIV., Sec. 3, Rebellion against the 
United States: 

"No person shall be a Senator or* Rep- 
resentative in Congress, or elector of 
President and Vice President, or holding 
any office, civil or military, under the 
United States, or under any State, who, 
having previously taken an oath, as a 
member of Congress, or as an officer of 
the United States, or as a member of any 
State Legislature, or as an executive or 
judicial officer of any State, to support 
the Constitution of the United States, shall 
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion 
against the same, or given aid and com- 
fort to the enemies thereof. But Congress 
may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, 
remove such disability." 

Has not Congressman Fitzgerald violated 
his oath of office? If so, why has he not 
been removed? 

The above citations and questions are 
sent me by a citizen of Greater New 
York, practically one of Fitzgerald's 
own constituents. 

There is no such thing as religious 
intolerance among non-Catholics. No 
book written by anybody except a 
Catholic, ever advocated the murder of 
people who differed from the author on 
religion. There isn't a church in ex- 
istence that would stand for vhe intoler- 
ant, malignant, and sanguinary dogmas 
of "Saint" Thomas Aquinas, the 
favorite theologian of the Italian 

There isn't a church on earth — ex- 
cepting the Catholic — which would 
sanction theological books whose lan- 
guage is so nasty that, even when it is 
published in Latin, the courts will not 
permit the copying of it in an indict- 

The fact that the non-Catholics of 
America never bothered the Catholics, 
so long as they confined themselves to 
their so-called "religion" as a form of 
"worship, is a historic fact that cannot 
be denied. 

It was only after the heads of the 
hierarchy of Rome began to persecute, 
boycott, secretly arm, make political 
deals with candidates, discharge non- 
Catholics from office, and wage war on 
free speech and free press — it was only 
then that the non-Catholics saw that 
their indifference and acquiescence had 
been imposed upon by these insolent 
hierarchs, and that they must be 
fought, "even unto the shedding of 

In order that you may see for your- 
self the nature of the insidious attempt 
the Itaian pope is making to drive a 
stiletto into the Constitution of the 
United States, the Gallivan bill is here 

The names of the members of the 
Post Office Committee are given, so 
that you can write to these gentlemen 
and tell them what you think of the 
pope's Gallivan, and his infamous bill. 


3d Session. H. R. 20780. 


January 11, 1915. 
Mr. Gallivan introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Commit- 
tee on the Post Office and Post 
Roads and ordered to he 


To amend the postal laws. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House- 
of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That 
whenever it shall be established to the 
satisfaction of the Postmaster General 
that any person is engaged in the business 
of publishing any scandalous, scurrilous, 
indecent, or immoral books, pamphlets, 
pictures, prints, engravings, lithographs, 
photographs, or other publications which 
are, or are represented to be, a reflection. 



on any form of religious worship practiced 
or held sacred by any citizens of the United 
States, it is hereby declared that the Post- 
master General shall make the necessary 
rules and regulations to exclude such mat- 
ter from the mails. 

Members of The House Committee on the 
Post Office and Post Roads. 
John A. Moon, of Tennessee; David E. 
Finley, of South Carolina; Thomas M. Bell, 
of Georgia; William E. Cox, of Indiana; 
Frank E. Wilson, of New York; William 
E. Tuttle, Jr., of New Jersey; Arthur B. 
Rouse, of Kentucky; Robert H. Fowler, of 
Illinois; Fred L. Blackmon, of Alabama; 
Alfred G. Allen, of Ohio; Thomas L. 
Reilly, of Connecticut; Edward E. Holland, 
of Virginia; Samuel W. Beakes, of Michi- 
gan; John P. Buchanan, of Texas; Samuel 
W. Smith, of Michigan; Halvor Steenerson, 
of Minnesota; Martin B. Madden, of Illi- 
nois; William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin; 
William W. Griest, of Pennsylvania; Am- 
brose Kennedy, of Rhode Island; Ira C. 
Copley, of Illinois; J. Kuhio Kalanianaole, 
of Honolulu. 

Has Cardinal O'Connell taken any 
action against his Bishop Beaven, who 
knowingly appointed a wolf named 
Petrarca to be the shepherd of the 
Cathoic women in Milford, Massachu- 

Is Petrarca still roaming freely 
among the Catholic women, ready to 
have another William Back murdered 
in cold blood, if another William Black 
discusses the inevitable immoralities of 
the papal system ? 

Is bishop Beaven still protecting Pe- 
trarca who raped the Catholic woman 
in the Catholic church, and is the bishop 
also ready to encourage the assassina- 
tion of another William Black, if an- 
other exposes the innate rottenness of 
the system which does not allow robust 
priests to marry, but which gives them 
the custody of buxom women ? 

From Law Notes, for January 1915, 
the following comments upon the hor- 
rible Massachusetts case are taken : 


Civil Liability of Catholic Bishop for 
Rape Committed by Parish Priest. — In 
Carini v. Beaven, (Mass.) 106 N. E, 589, 

which was an appeal from a judgment sus- 
taining a demurrer to a declaration, it 
appeared that the plaintiff sought to hold 
the defendant liable for damages on the 
ground that he appointed as his agent to 
take charge of a parish of the Roman 
Catholic Church in Milford, to care for the 
property of the defendant in that parish 
and to perform the pastoral and religious 
duties of a priest therein, one Petrarca, a 
man who, it was averred, was "of low 
moral character," "of vicious and degener- 
ate tendencies and gross sexual proclivi- 
ties. " She averred that the defendant 
made this appointment with full knowl- 
edge of the bad character and evil ten- 
dencies of Petrarca, and knew or in the 
exercise of reasonable care ought to have 
known that the appointment of such a 
man to such a position was dangerous and 
likely to result in attempts of said Pet- 
rarca "to debauch and carnally know the 
female members of said parish, and that 
by reason of such confidential relations 
between such agent and priest and such 
members of the parish such attempts would 
be successful." She averred that while she 
was a member of the parish, "not quite 
eighteen years of age, innocent and con- 
fiding," and while she was engaged alone 
"in the act of a religious service in the 
Church of the Sacred Heart parish, said 
church being the property of the defend^ 
ant," Petrarca, being the agent of the de- 
fendant and "occupying the position of 
the defendant's moral and religious in- 
structor to the people of said parish, and 
sustaining said confidential relations with 
the members thereof," dragged her from 
the altar to the vestry of said ehurch, as- 
saulted and overcame and debauched her, 
in consequence whereof she afterwards 
gave birth to a child. And she averred 
that all her injuries and sufferings re- 
sulted from and were caused by the de- 
fendant's negligent appointment of said 
Petrarca as his agent and priest in said 
parish. On a consideration of this declara- 
tion the Supreme Court affirmed the judg- 
ment of the court below on the ground 
that the declaration did not state a cause 
of action. Judge Sheldon wrote the opin- 
ion of the court which was in part as fol- 
lows: "The gravamen of the plaintiff's 
charge is that the defendant negligently 
put or retained in the position of a parish 
priest one whom he knew or in the exercise 
of proper care ought to have known to be 
a man of bad character and of gross sexual 
proclivities, who he knew or ought to have 
known would be likely to attempt success- 
fully to debauch the female members of 



the parish, and that t^is man committed 
upon the plaintiff what must upon the 
language of her declaration be taken to 
have been a rape. In other words, her 
claim is that the defendant appointed an 
unfit man; that this appointment was apt 
to give and did give to the appointee, by 
means of these opportunities, committed a 
rape upon the plaintiff. It would be diffi- 
cult for the plaintiff in any event to main- 
tain such an action. Upon elementary 

act of the alleged agent was itself the effi- 
cient cause of the plaintiff's injury. . . . 
Upon the plaintiff's averments the defend- 
ant had no reason to apprehend that Pet- 
rarca would do more than to seek to se- 
duce the women of his parish into acts 
of adultery or fornication; and flagitious 
as such acts would be, they could afford 
no ground of action to a woman who, 
under whatever stress of temptation, had 
shared in their commission. " 


principles she could not do so without prov- 
ing that the negligence of the defendant 
in appointing or retaining an unfit man 
was the direct and proximate cause of the 
injury to her. But according to her alle- 
gations the injury to her was done by 
Petrarca entirely outside the scope of his 
alleged agency or of his duties; it was a 
crime committed of his own free will, the 
result of his own volition, for which no one 
but himself was responsible. The criminal 

The American press was very coy as 
to publishing the facts concerning the 
hand played by the Italian pope in the 
A B. C. mediation at Niagara. As 
every one now knows, that mediation 
was an effort to bolster Huerta with 
the influence of the Roman Catholic 
heads of the Pan-American Union. 
The mediation failed, because the pa- 



triot leaders — Carranza and Villa — 
were not fools enough to walk into a 
trap that was so clumsily concealed. 

But the illegal Pan-American Union 
into which our Republic was inveigled 
a few years ago, has not by any means 
been discouraged by the failure of its 
first attempt to bring the Italian papa 
into our political affairs. 

The following news item is signifi- 

Rome, Feb. 3. — The Giornale d'ltalia 
publishes today a report that Pope Ben- 
edict will participate, through a represen- 
tative, in the conferences of the Pan- 
American Union, held at Washington to 
define the relations of North and South 
American countries to the belligerent na- 
tions in respect of questions arising from 
the war. 

The newspaper says, furthermore, that 
it is the desire of the Pope to assist in 
any movement designed to diminish suf- 
fering from the war or to shorten the 
period of hostilities. 

Secretary Bryan, who is the presiding 
officer of the Pan-American Union, said 
last night he knew of no invitation to the 
Vatican to participate in the conferences 
here between the American republics on 
the subject of neutral rights. It was pre- 
sumed generally, however, that the report 
had reference to the invitation sent to all 
neutral governments by Venezuela, sug- 
gesting a conference in Washington of all 
neutral nations after the Pan-American 
Union had agreed on a program for dis- 

It is supposed that Venezuela addressed 
its circular note to the Vatican as well as 
neutral governments. The proposal itself 
is still under consideration by the Pan- 
American Union. 

Not in his own name, but in that of 
the Government and people of the Uni- 
ted States, the President sent congratu- 
lations to the German emperor on his 
5Gth birthday. Did Woodrow Wilson 
have the right to do that? Was he 
elected for the purpose of sending the 
good wishes of the American people to 
hereditary monarchs who claim to rule 
by "divine right?" 

His 55th birthday found the Kaiser 

at peace with the world — a peace which 
he had often endangered by his despotic 
and belligerent disposition. 

His 5Gth birthday found him at war 
with the world — a war which a word 
from him to Austria would have pre- 

Instead of speaking the word that 
would have kept Austria from threaten- 
ing the existence of Servia, the Kaiser 
signalled Austria to "full steam ahead," 
and in the meantime ordered the other 
nations to "hands off," while Austria 
ravaged and subjugated Servia. 

Therefore, this German autocrat is 
directly responsibe for the war which 
has cost two million lives, darkened 
countless homes, caused incalculable de- 
struction, piled up national debts which 
will be national curses for ages to come, 
and which threatens to engulf every 
neutral, including our own Republic. 

Upon what theory of approval and 
fielicitation did President Woodrow 
Wilson act, in sending the German 
autocrat a slop-over telegram of con- 

Two Germans living in China ex- 
cited ill-will, and they were murdered. 
It seems to me that I remember that 
something similar has happened to 
Chinamen, living in foreign countries. 
At any rate, there was nothing so very 
extraordinary in a couple of obnoxious 
foreigners being killed by natives. 

There was Captain Cook, for in- 
stance, who landed in the Sandwich 
Islands without previous invitation. 
His sailors took it upon themselves to 
change the religion of the natives, and 
they proceeded, too hurriedly, by pull- 
ing down an image — not of the Virgin 
Mary, or Saint Thomas Didymus, or 
Saint Mary Jane Theresa, but an image 
of some other deity who suited the 
untutored natives of those Islands. 

When Captain Cook's sailors fell 
upon the Sandwich image, the natives 
fell upon Captain Cook's sailors. There 
is always a fight when you accuse the 



other fellow of idolatry, and pull down 
his image. It never is your image that 
causes you to be an idolater: it is the 
other fellow's. Hence, many fights. In 
this way, civilization progresses, and 
according to the men who enjoy wealth 
and health, "the world is growing bet- 

But to recur to Captain Cook : he ran 
up to stop the fight between the sailors 
and the natives; and, of course, he got 
killed. The way of the peace-maker, 
like that of the transgressor, is hard. 

Now, as already stated, two interlop- 
ing Germans, who went to China to vio- 
lently pull down the other fellow's 
idols, got into just such a scrimmage as 
befell Captain Cook, and they got 
killed, just as he did. 

This same egomaniac, William 
Hohenzollern, the Kaiser, made a tre- 
mendous noise about the two Germans, 
ordered out the army and the navy, 
and sent them to China, where the Ger- 
mans killed ten thousand Chinese men, 
women and children who had nothing 
whatever to do with the murder of those 
two missionaries. 

After the fearful butcheries of this 
war of revenge, the Christian emperor 
seized a great slice of Chinese territory 
— territory that was far too good for 
mere heathen. 

When the German soldiers — all of 
whom are Christians — were setting out 
upon this war of revenge, their Chris- 
tian emperor, who rules by direct au- 
thority from God, addressed them in 
the following variation of the Lord's 
Prayer and the Sermon on the Mount: 

"When you meet the foe, you will 
defeat them. No quarter will be given. 
No prisoners will be taken. Let all 
who fall into your hands be at your 

The troops obeyed, literally ; and the 
indiscriminate havoc wrought upon the 
non-combatant population of China 
shocked the whole world. 

For the informing of those happy-go- 
lucky Americans who accept the loud 

denials of Romanists, as to the military 
equipment and drills of the Catholic 
secret societies, I public the following ; 

Oelwein, Iowa, Jan. 15, 1915. 
To Whom It May Concern: 

This is to certify that I, J. O. Riley, was- 
a member and in good standing in the 
year of 1903, and in part of the year of 
1904, and that I have my receipts to show 
the same, and that I was a member or 
The Ancient Order of Hibernians in 
America. And that while I was a member 
of this order, that I did Military Drill while- 
I was a member of this order at the com- 
mand of our drill master, and that we- 
then left our rifles in the basement of the 
Polish Roman Catholic Church, located in 
the 4th ward in the city of Winona, Minn. 
And furthermore, to any one who will send 
10c in coin to defray the expenses of print- 
ing and mailing, I will mail them a true 
Copy of the Constitution of this order, 
and it shows and teaches, that the Roman 
Catholic Church authorizes this order as 
a Military body, and that the laws of this 
order are in harmony with the laws of the 
Catholic Church at all times. And further- 
more, that I left this order of my own 
free will, and later united with the Chris- 
tian church, and was baptised into this 
church, and I was united into the fellow- 
ship by Pastor C. B. Osgood, of Winona, 

I was a member of the St. Thomas 
church, located (I think) at the corner of 
7th and Johnson Sts. This was a small 
church and our lodge met on the second 
floor of the Parochial school, that stood 
near the church, and the Irish Catholic 
priest was always present at every meet- 
ing that I was at. 

Yours faithfully, 


411-4th Ave., South, Oelwein, Iowa. 
State of Iowa, Fayette County. — ss. 

I, J. 0. Riley, being duly sworn, say that 
I have read the facts, and allegations of 
the foregoing, dated Jan. 15, 1915, and 
that the facts, allegations and statements 
therein contained and therein set forth are 
just and correct. 

Dated this 15th day of January, A. D., 
1915. J. O. RILEY. 

Subscribed in my presence by J. O. 
Riley, and by him sworn to before me on 
this 15th day of January, A. D., 1915. 
Notary Public in and for Fayette County,. 




September, 1912, Archbishop Quig- 
ley, speaking at the annual convention 
of the German Catholic Central Verein 
in Chicago, said: 

"I am glad to see that the Central 
Verein is so thoroughly organized, for 
organization is the hope of the Catholic 
church. In France and Portugal the 
Catholic chuch was defeated and perse- 
cuted because the Catholics were not or- 
ganized. Although there were thousands 
of devout and learned Catholics who would 
have given their lives if need be for con- 
science sake, they were merely a mob 
without a leadership, and were defeated. 
I want to say that when the time comes 
in this country, as it surely will come, and 
the same forces attack the church, here 
they will not find us unprepared or un- 
organized, and they shall not prevail. We 
have well-ordered and efficient organiza- 
tions ,all at the beck and nod of the hier- 
archy and ready to do what the church 
authorities tell them to do. With these 
bodies of loyal Catholics ready to step in 
the breach at any time and present an 
unbroken front to the enemy, we may feel 

Who are "the enemy?" Necessarily, 
the non-Catholics of this country. 
What was it in France and Portugal 
that Quigley so venomously resented, 
saying that thousands of devout and 
learned Catholics would have given 
their lives to have prevented it, and 
those devout and learned Catholics been 
organized and prepared ? 

It was nothing but the separation of 
Church and State, and the dissolution 
of certain immoral houses maintained 
by monks, priests and nuns. 

Quigley proudly boasts that in this 

country, the devout and learned Cath- 
olics will not be caught unorganized 
and unprepared, "when the time comes, 
as it surely will come" and the same 
forces attack the church. 

In France and in Portugal, it was 
the Government which acted, in a 
regular legal manner, in divorcing itself 
from the Koman church and in sup- 
pressing certain papal dens of idleness 
and debauchery. 

Does Archbishop Quigley of Chicago 
mean to say that, if the Catholics in 
France and Germany had been orga- 
nized, they would have risen in arms 
against the government? Does he 
mean to say that the Italian pope would 
have resorted to civil war to prevent 
the separation of Church and State? 

Quigley says that the time will surely 
come when the same forces will attack 
the Italian pope's church in this coun- 
try; and that the pope has organizations 
ready for the combat. 

Does he mean to say that if the 
government, in a regular manner, 
adopts legislation which the Italian 
pope considers an attack on his church, 
the Knights of Columbus and the Cen- 
tral Verein will rise in arms against 
such laws? 

If he did not mean that, what was 
his meaning? 

If ever a civil war breaks out in this 
country between papists and patriots, 
it should be remembered that such high- 
priests as Quigley boasted, in public, 
that the papists were the first to expect 
it and prepare for it. 



)! : P 


Creating a New Art 

At the Centennial Exhibition at 
Philadelphia, the exhibit of the Bell 
System consisted of two telephones 
capable of talking from one part of 
the room to another* 

Faint as the transmission of speech 
then was, it became at once the 
marvel of all the world, causing 
scientists, as well as laymen, to ex- 
claim with wonder. 

Starting with only these feeble in- 
struments, the Bell Company, by 
persistent study, incessant experimen- 
tation and the expenditure of immense 
sums of money, has created a new art, 
inventing, developing and perfecting; 
making improvements great and small 
in telephones, transmitter, lines, cables, 
switchboards and every other piece of 
apparatus and plant required for the 
transmission of speech, 

American Telephone an 

As the culmination of all this, the 
Bell exhibit at the Panama-Pacific 
Exposition marks the completion of 
a Trans-continental Telephone line 
three thousand four hundred miles 
long, joining the Atlantic and the 
Pacific and carrying the human voice 
instantly and distinctly between New 
York and San Francisco. 

This telephone line is part of the 
Bell System of twenty-one million 
miles of wire connecting nine million 
telephone stations located everywhere 
throughout the United States. 

Composing this System, are the 
American Telephone and Telegraph 
Company and Associated Companies, 
and connecting companies, giving to 
one hundred million people Universal 
Service unparalleled among the na- 
tions of the earth. 

d Telegraph Company 

One Policy 

And Associated Companies 

One System 

Universal Service 

Book Reviews 

LEGAL LAUGHS. By Gus C. Edwards. 
Legal Publishing Co., Clarksville, Ga. 

A book which consists altogether of fun, 
is not usually funny, for the same reason 
that a book composed of sermons, Is a 
dull volume, usually. Too much of any 
one note is monotonous, whether in music 
or literature. We want our jokes and 
our sermons to come along in broken 
doses, if we can so manage it. 

But the book of Mr. Edwards is a de- 
lightful exception to the rule that jest 
books are a bore. Legal Laughs is ar- 
ranged on a novel plan, and it is the plan 
that gives continuous enjoyment to his 
selection of anecdotes and witticisms. 

He has put up his Legal Laughs in 
alphabetical order; and you feel a keen 
sense of pleasure in passing from one 
letter to another. After you have laughed 
in A., you pass to B., and then on to C, 
and so on down the line. By the time 
you have reached Z., you are ready to be 
disappointed at not finding another lot of 
jokes under the old familiar sign &c, that 
used to be at the bottom of the alphabet 
in Webster's blue-back speller. 

A very wide field has been explored by 
Mr. Edwards in the culling of his selec- 
tions. He seems to have exhausted the 
possibilities of richness, variety, spiciness, 
and up-to-date-ness. 

He runs the whole gamut of court-house 
humor, from the country J. P. and the 
town officer, up to the Supreme Courts. 
Inevitably, a few chestnuts found their 
way into his collection, but they are sur- 
prisingly few, whereas the immense 
amount of entirely new material, not to 
be had in any work, is astonishing. 

Evidently, Mr. Edwards has given years 
to his task; and he has produced 
a book that, if widely advertised, will 
supplant every other volume of bench-and- 
bar wit and humor. 

T have never seen a book of this type 
that even compares to it in varied excel- 
lence. T. E. W. 

The Baker Taylor Co M New York City. 

To the very devout, and the one who has 
t>een able to maintain the mystical concep- 
tion of Jesus through this age of skepti- 
cism and scientific research, this book will 
lie a revelation and one that has no shock 
of irreverance attached to it. 

The drama has been uplifted, in spite 
-of the great percentage of problem plays 

and the fervid drama that makes one shud- 
der for the fate of humanity, and it is 
with a feeling of interest, rather than one 
of reverence that the average reader will 
begin Ehrman's book. 

The play opens in "a portion of the 
Court of the Gentiles in the Temple of 
Jerusalem. It is about the year 29, a 
spring morning before the Feast of the 
Passover." Preparations are being made 
in the Temple for this great Feast, and the 
opening dialogue is between the servants 
who are cleaning the floor of the Temple; 
one learns the attitude of the Jew toward 
all those pilgrims who journeyed to Jeru- 
salem at this season of the year, and the 
human note is touched from the first line 
of the dialogue. Word has been passed 
that the Jesus is to appear at this season's 
Feast, and the rulers are frightened. The 
scene closes with Caiaphas' instructions to 
the guard, as to the means to be taken to 
keep Jesus from entering the Temple. 

From the first act, until the last the 
story runs along the accepted lines of the 
Scriptural story of the Christ, but in the 
last chapter, the author has taken liberties 
with tradition which will probably be the 
basis for many adverse criticisms, but 
which take nothing from the character of 
the central figure. 

There is no effort at making Jesus any- 
thing but a thoroughly human figure; this 
perhaps, constitutes the greatest shock of 
the author's handling of the subject, and 
yet it should have the happiest effect on 
the one who had doubted, because it had 
not been possible to get to the human 
basis in an understanding of the Man of 

Perhaps the most intensely dramatic 
portion is the trial before Pilate. One 
can almost see the confusion, feel the ex- 
citement, and bear the whispered com- 
ments of the Roman guards, the palace 
servants, and feel the effect the simple 
dignity of Jesus on this mob that feared, 
while it reviled him. One has a very clear 
conception of the cowardice of Pilate when 
one reads the simple dialogue between 
himself and Caiaphas. 

And the story takes one on, step by step, 
to the Crucifixion. 

Of his work, the author says: "The per- 
sons who founded Christianity are here 
stripped of supernatural embellishment, 
and they are represented as simple, real, 
ardent Orientals in the throes of a great 
and impending tragedy." This is true, but 
the play will not lessen the strength of 



the belief of those who regarded the Man 
of Sorrows as of Divine origin, nor will 
it lessen the great worth of the influence 
of His simple life among a people who re- 
fused to accept Him. 

The book is beautifully printed, in large 
clean type. There are no illustrations, 
but the word painting is so vivid, one does 
not miss them. A. L. L. 

Harper & Brothers, New York. 

If one had been in doubt of the ex- 
istence of any of the old school of real 
flesh and blood writers; writers who could 
make characters of brawn and muscle, one 
has a pleasant surprise if one gets hold of 
any of Zane Grey's works. The book 
which probably classed this author among 
the better net ou writers of the purely 
American school, "Riders of the Purple 
-Sage" made readers anxious for another 
work from her pen, and "The Lone Star 
Ranger" is a most worthy successor to 
the first named book. 

Texas is a land of possibilities in many 
lines, but in fiction it has an unlimited 
field for authors who can handle char- 
acters, conditions and "atmosphere" as 
can Zane Grey. 

The average reader has probably classed 
the Texas ranger with the Ku Klux Klan, 
with the difference of object and environ- 

The making of an outlaw seems a simple 
process, when one reads of Buck Duane. 
The almost inevitable acceptance of the 
inheritance of his father, the stoicism 
with which that inheritance was taken, 
and the stirring incidents of the life it 

entailed, makes the book one of the most 
fascinating it has been the good luck of 
some of us to get into, in many days. 

There are real men, in whose veins flows 
red blood, and lots of it. It is true some 
of it is spilled, but that has been the fate 
of many a Texan, and the story isn't 
"gory" enough to hurt the sensibilities of 
even the most delicate. There is a beauti- 
fully handled love- theme through the 
whole book, like a thread of gold, and 
though at times one feels a gripping sor- 
row for the lonely, wandering outlaw, one 
somehow never quite loses the hope that — 
some how, somewhere he will come into 
his own and take his place among men, 
as he should — and as he does. 

This book is warranted to make you 
forget even an engagement with the dent- 
ist, and insomnia will lose Its horrors, or 
a dreary Sunday its dreariness. 

Like all the output of the Harper 
Brothers, the book is beautifully gotten 
up — clear type, splendid binding, and a 
book to give the young chap who wants 
to read of real men, and real life. 

A. L. L. 


FREE FOR SIX MONTHS — My special offer to 
introduce my magazine "INVESTING FOR 
PROFIT." It is worth $10 a copy to anyone 
who has been getting poorer while the rich, 
richer. It demonstrates the REAL earning 
power of money, and shows how anyone, no 
matter how poor, CAN acquire riches. INVEST- 
ING FOR PJtOFIT is the only progressive finan- 
cial journal published. It shows how $100 
grows to $2,200. Write NOW and I'll send it 
six months free. H. L,. BARBER, 458, 20 W. 
Jackson Blvd., Chic ago. 

Strawberry VDVV To introduce our Pedigreed Ever- 
PLANTS* "•L' lj bearing strawberries we will send 
25 fine plants free. PEDIGREED NURSERY CO., St. Louis, Mo. 







Limited Edition PRICE, $1.50. 


ROMAN CATHOL1CISM-7t h h A s s a alw n a °vs £g& 

Full reprint of main points of the celebrated Senate Document 
No. 190, in which the Taft Commission reported to President 
McKinley the terrible conditions that Roman Catholicism had pro- 
duced in the Philippine Islands. 

That official document quoted almost in full, as it was sent to 
the Senate by President McKinley, embodying the sworn testimony 
taken in the Islands. 

Critical examination of those principles and practices of the 
Roman Catholic Church which necessarily make it a deadly menace 
to Democratic principles and a Republican form of government, as 
well as to civil and religious liberty, and to the morality of the 

The terrible evils of the confessional box shown up, as demon- 
strated from Roman Catholic sources; historical examples given. 





The Cream of Mr. Watson's Miscellaneous 
Writings Covering a Period of 30 Years 


They reflect the rare, occasional mood of the man of ideals, of hopes 
and dreams, of love and sorrow, of solitary reflection, and of glimpses 
of the inner self. We call the volume 


We have a beautifully printed and illustrated edition bound in board 
covers, and the book is typographically as pretty as new shoes.