Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
August 4^th, 1913

Secretary of State Board of Health Will Resume Testimony Interrupted by His Collapse on Last Friday.

STATE TO USE PHOTO OF SPOT WHERE BODY WAS FOUND BY NEGRO

Friends and Relatives Besiege Prisoner in Cell on Sunday. Shows Little Evidence of Strain of Trial, Say Jail Officials.

The state will open this afternoon’s session of the Frank trial with Dr. Roy Harris on the stand, it is stated, if the physician’s health is as much improved as it was on Sunday.

The solicitor had not finished his examination of Dr. Harris on Friday afternoon when he collapsed upon the stand and necessitated the support of Deputy Sheriff Plennie Miner in moving from the courtroom.

A sharp clash is expected between the state and defense over Dr. Harris’ testimony. In an exacting cross examination of Dr. J. W. Hurt Saturday morning, the defense proved that many of the opinions held by the two physicians were conflicting.

State Will Use Photo.

The solicitor has requested a reporter of The Constitution to produce in court this morning a photograph taken by The Constitution staff photographer on the morning of the discovery of the murder of the spot in the pencil factory basement at which Mary Phagan’s body was found. Just what use to which the picture will be put has not been divulged.

Arrangements have been made by Deputy Miner to prevent overcrowding the courtroom, which has been the case in the later sessions of the trial. Instructions will be given doorkeepers to let only a certain number within the building, after which the doors will be closed to all those who are not engaged in the proceedings.

Frank spent a restful Sunday in his cell in the Tower. Throughout the day, friends and relatives besieged his cell. His health, it is stated by jail officials, is good, and he shows but little evidence of the strain caused by the trial. His wife and mother remained at home during the day, recuperating from the effects of the long hours stay in the courtroom. They did not appear at the jail at any time during Sunday.

Will Use Dobbs Again.

Police Sergeant L. S. Dobbs, who has already been on the stand for the state in the Frank trial, is expected to be recalled this morning, as his name was called Saturday afternoon and his absence alone prevented him being used again.

What further detail the state expects to bring out by the police officer is not known and it may be that he will be kept on the stand only a few minutes to tell a few additional things about the trip to the factory Sunday morning that the body was found and thus impress certain facts upon the jury.

Jim Conley, the negro sweeper, will be placed on the stand some time during the early part of the week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday, as the state is gradually paving the way and leading up to Conley’s statement.

Will Lanford Take Stand?

Before Conley takes the stand Newport Lanford, chief of the detective department, may be put up. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey refuses to say definitely whether or not he will use Chief Lanford, but it is known that the defense has made preparation to attack him and fight against him the same battle that battered John Black to pieces.

Chief Lanford will be confronted with the various statements he made during the progress of the trial and the belief is that the defense will try to show that he went into the case with the view of fastening the crime upon one man the man against whom suspicion did not seem to point for a few days, but who is now the defendant in the case.

Just what will happen when the experienced detective faces the grilling that Luther Rosser is capable of or the alert and confusing questions that Reuben Arnold can fire at a witness is a matter of much speculation.

Mrs. May Barrett, who was examined by the solicitor and who was expected to appear during the trial has not been called upon and whether or not she will take the stand is yet unknown.

Mrs. Formby in Background.

Mrs. Mina Formby has remained in the background thus far and while the woman recently declared that she would be at the trial to testify she has not so far been mentioned and apparently no effort has been made to pave the way for the story she is said to have.

That the state is yet holding something to be used in the final effort is known and yet what that is no one can say. From the attitude of the state’s lawyers something is yet to come but whether it will be of more importance than what has already been developed remains to be seen.

It is expected that at least two days will be taken up by Conley’s statement and cross examination and should the negro be brought up as early as Tuesday and used as the final witness, the defense would not open its case until Thursday.

Already the state has introduced numbers of its witnesses. Sergeant Dobbs, Detective John Black and Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott. Boots Rogers and others who went to the factory and saw the body of Mary Phagan have told their story.

N. V. Darley, one of the factory heads and various employees of the factory have been used.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 4th 1913, “Dr. H.F. Harris Will Take Stand This Afternoon,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Journal
July 27^th, 1913

H. B. Pierce Declares Lanford Knew of Find of Bloody Stick in Factory

H. B. Pierce, head of the local branch of the Pinkerton detective agency, characterizes as absurd Chief Detective N. A. Langford’s [sic] charge that the Pinkerton sleuth has broken faith with the state in the Pinkerton’s investigation of the Phagan case.

Chief Lanford charges specifically that the Pinkerton broke faith by failing to report the find by two of his men of the part of a pay envelope and of a bloody stick on the first floor of the factory. The find was made in the absence of Harry Scott, who has conducted the Phagan investigation for the Pinkertons, and who Lanford says has been absolutely square and fair in all of his dealings with the state and the police.

Pierce, the chief charges, in the absence of Scott, turned the stick and the pay envelope over the attorneys for the defense, and said nothing to him or to the state about it.

Pierce denies this fully, saying that about May 15, only a few days after the find, he mentioned the fact that two of his men had picked up a bloody stick, a part of a pay envelope, and some rope at a certain point on the first floor of the basement.

Lanford, when he was told this, Pierce says, declared that the articles had been placed there as a plant; that his men and Harry Scott and representatives of an insurance company had scoured the three floors of the factory, and that the articles in question could not have been there, but a very short time before they were found.

“I was not working on the case myself,” says Pierce, “and knew nothing about it. In fact I had been out of town practically since the murder. As a result, when Chief Lanford cried ‘plant,’ I considered the find of no importance. I did turn the stick over to the defense, telling them that it might be a plant and leaving it to them to investigate.’

“That is absolutely the last I thought of the matter until I read a story in The Journal saying that the bloody club was considered of importance in the case.

“Then I went to Mr. Rosser and asked that it be turned over to the solicitor general, and this I understand, has been done.

“The Pinkertons have sought to find the murderer of Mary Phagan and have given the state every bit of evidence which they found, regardless of who is hit. I am sure that the solicitor general will confirm my statement that we have not broken faith with the state.”

Chief of Detectives Lanford denies the statement attributed to him that he is going to seek a police board investigation of the conduct of Pierce in the case.

Atlanta Georgian (Hearst’s Sunday American)
July 27^th, 1913

Emphatic denial of the charges by Chief of Detectives Lanford that he had kept bad faith with the city department in connection with the investigation of the murder of Mary Phagan was made by H. B. Pierce, superintendent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency in Atlanta, Saturday night.

Chief Lanford’s accusations against the Pinkerton official were mainly that he had withheld evidence from the city police, especially the bloodstained stick and the pay envelope of the Phagan girl, both of which were found by Pinkerton operatives on the first floor of the factory and were later reported in possession of the defense. The Chief intimated that the Police Board would be asked to take action against Pierce personally.

“The stick was submitted to Chief Lanford by myself,” declared Mr. Pierce. “The Mary Phagan pay envelope was shown him by our representative, Harry Scott.

Scoffs Stick Story.

“When I displayed the stick to Mr. Lanford, he informed me that it could not have been found in the place it was reported found, as a minute search of every bit of the three floors in the factory already had been inspected by two of the city detectives, in company with Mr. Scott. Under this information, we cast the stick aside and did not regard it as evidence and thought nothing else about it until I read about it in the newspapers—I think, Thursday.

“The stick was turned over to Mr. Rosser. When I learned a day or two ago that Mr. Dorsey had not heard of it, I went to Mr. Rosser’s office, obtained the stick, and took it to Mr. Dorsey. Mr. Dorsey, I understand, does not think much of the stick as evidence, and neither does Mr. Rosser.

“As to it being planted evidence, I desire to say that I believe Mr. Rosser to be entirely too honorable to have been connected with the planting of evidence, while I also hold the same opinion of Mr. Dorsey.

“Inasmuch as two city detectives and Mr. Scott had made a minute investigation of the factory before the time of the reported finding of the stick, I do not regard the stick highly as evidence.

“Scott Has Been Fair.”

“The policy of the Pinkerton Agency is to be fair and impartial in its investigations. Mr. Scott has been absolutely in charge of this investigation, and I think the least that could be said is that he has been absolutely fair with the police, Solicitor General and the National Pencil Company people in his work upon it.”

Mr. Scott was with Mr. Pierce at the time of the interview. He said he did not remember hearing the conversations between Chief Lanford and Pierce regarding the stick.

“I submitted the pay envelope to Chief Lanford, though,” he said. “He asked me for it, and I said that I preferred to keep it. The Police Department has been advised of everything we have developed in the case, while the same is true of the Solicitor General and Mr. Rosser.”

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Georgian
July 26^th, 1913

Says Pierce Broke His Promise

Detective Head Also Asserts Phagan Evidence Private Sleuth Unearthed Was Plant.

Chief of Detectives Lanford roundly scored H. B. Pierce, head of the Pinkerton Detective Agency in Atlanta, Saturday for what he termed questionable procedure in connection with the Phagan murder investigation.

When application was made by the agency for permission to operate in Atlanta and the matter was under consideration by the Police Board, the promise was made that the Pinkerton’s would work in harmony with the city detective department and would co-operate in the apprehension of criminals.

This promise, according to Lanford, has been kept by all connected with the agency with the exception of Pierce. The Chief intimated that the Police Board would be asked to take action against Pierce personally.

Lanford Hints at “Plant.”

“In the Phagan case Mr. Scott has reported to this department every day and has turned over all the evidence he has found,” said Chief Lanford. “During his absence from the city a bloody stick and an envelope, supposed to have been that in which the money due Mary Phagan was placed, were turned over to the attorneys for the defense, and no mention of the fact made to the detective department.

“The place where these articles were reported to have been found had been searched by officers so thoroughly that it was an absolute impossibility for them have been overlooked. In fact, a search for ten feet around had been made for blood spots.

“In addition to this, the insurance company had all the rubbish removed from this part of the building and the floor scrubbed afterward and before the articles were said to have been found. They were not there at the time, and if they were found there, as Mr. Pierce claims, they were placed there for a purpose.

Charges Breach of Faith.

“Mr. Pierce has not made good his promise (or the promise of his company) to the Police Board, and if the matter is taken up by the board, I will give them the facts.”

The Police Board probably will take the matter up at its next meeting.

Harry Scott, who has conducted the investigation into the Phagan murder mystery for the Pinkertons since the services of the agency were engaged, was subpenaed Saturday as a witness in behalf of Leo M. Frank by counsel for the factory superintendent. The detective previously had been served with a subpena from Solicitor Dorsey’s office.

Inasmuch as Scott’s attitude almost from the first has appeared to be distinctly unfavorable to Frank, this move on the part of the defense was generally unexpected and was the cause of considerable surprised comment. Scott, however, is known to be in possession of facts that seem on their face damaging to the negro Conley, as well as facts that are being used to bring about the conviction of Frank.

“I wish it understood that I am wholly neutral in this matter,” said Scott Saturday afternoon in remarking on the subpena he received from the defense. “The investigation was made by the Pinkertons without fear or favor. We uncovered a large amount of evidence. Some of it was valuable. Some of it was worthless in the light of present developments. Some of it pointed strongly toward the guilt of Frank. Other evidence could be interpreted as very damaging to the negro.

“Our function is to present all of […]

Lanford Scores New Chief of Pinkertons

Charges Breach of Faith With the Police and Questionable Procedure in Phagan Case.

[…] this evidence as it is called for in court, regardless of whom it may help or hurt. We may have our private opinion as to who is the guilty person, but this shall not be allowed to color the testimony as it is given in court. It is for the jury to make its interpretation of the evidence.”

Defense Gets Copies of Notes.

Request was made Saturday by Attorney Rosser for photographic copies of the notes found beside the body of Mary Phagan. The copies were in the possession of Solicitor Dorsey, who readily acceded to the request. The defense will seek to show that Frank could have had no part in their composition or dictation.

The State’s case is reported to be ready for immediate presentation. All of the witnesses have been summoned. All of the panel of 144 jurors, with the exception of six or seven who could not be found, have been notified to be on hand Monday.

Both Sides Getting Ready.

Prosecution and defense continued their preparations for the Frank trial, the last hour hurry of interviewing new witnesses and gathering up the stray ends of evidence, giving a fair promise that the trial will start as scheduled next Monday forenoon.

That Solicitor Dorsey has nearly a score of important witnesses whose testimony has been carefully guarded from the defense and the general public is well known. These witnesses have come to his office from time to time, and the Solicitor has refused to give out the vaguest intimation of the line of testimony they would give at the trial.

The prosecution has reserved their evidence to spring as a surprise during the trial. On these persons the State depends to clinch its case against the young factory superintendent. Some of them will be called to bear out different portions of the negro Conley’s affidavit, in which was told the story of the disposal of Mary Phagan’s body. The Solicitor is understood to have witnesses who will corroborate portions of Conley’s story which have been under severest fire.

Thinks Conley Story True.

The Solicitor several times has announced that he believes Conley is telling the truth in the essential statements of his affidavit. He has strengthened his belief by interviewing many people who were in a position to know of different circumstances mentioned in Conley’s story. The only possibility of an alteration in the State’s theory is that the time element may be modified in certain respects.

Similar surprises may be expected from the defense. Attorney Rosser has not been communicative with the newspaper men. The few bits of his evidence that have become known to the public were obtained in spite of him. Except for the Mincey affidavit, published in The Georgian, most of the important evidence of the defense has been so carefully guarded as to make it still a matter of conjecture. The general plan of Frank’s defense can be surmised, but the contents of the hundred or more affidavits in the possession of Attorney Rosser remain a deep mystery.

“Plant” Generally Suspected.

No one expects at this time that the pay envelope, the bloody club or the piece of rope found on the first floor will play any large part in the trial. Neither side is convinced of their genuineness. The suspicion of a “plant” has prevailed from the time of their discovery.

Two operatives who began turning up this sort of startling evidence the moment they were placed on the case soon were taken off the Phagan mystery by the Pinkerton agency.

Both sides announce themselves ready for the trial to proceed. It is regarded as doubtful that the defense will ask for another continuance, except on account of the absence of material witnesses or the illness of counsel. About 150 witnesses already have been summoned by the defense.

According to Bernard Chappelle, counsel for Newt Lee, the night watchman in the pencil factory, the negro Saturday denied in the presence of Reuben R. Arnold, attorney for Frank, that he had broken down and admitted catching Jim Conley with the body of Mary Phagan.

Chapelle had heard that Frank’s counsel understood Lee had collapsed while being grilled with the sweeper and called up Mr. Arnold. At his suggestion, Arnold visited Lee at the jail and there Lee is said to have reaffirmed his previous statement that he did not see Conley the day of the murder.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
July 25^th, 1913

Negro Is Taken in Chief’s Auto to Sections He Claims to Have Visited on Murder Night.

Jim Conley, the negro sweeper and most important figure in the Phagan case, was taken from police headquarters in the automobile of Chief Beavers yesterday afternoon and carried over the ground on which he accounts for his whereabouts during the afternoon of the murder.

He was in charge of Chief Beavers and Detectives Pat Campbell and John Starnes, headquarters men who have been attached to the solicitor’s office throughout the investigation.

He was driven through the Peters street neighborhood in which he says he spent most of the time on the afternoon of April 26, and he pointed out to the detectives and police head familiar spots he visited on that date.

An effort was also made to determine definitely whether or not W. H. Mincey, the insurance agent who says Conley admitted having killed a girl when they met at Carter and Electric streets on the murder afternoon, could have seen the negro at the designated spot.

Story Corroborated?

A number of residents of sections through which Conley says he passed that afternoon were interviewed and examined in the prisoner’s presence. It is said some corroborated his story of his whereabouts.

Also, many persons who had seen negroes who resembled Conley that Saturday were confronted with him Thursday afternoon for identification. The result is not known, as neither Campbell, Starnes or their chief would talk of the excursion.

The negro was taken from headquarters late in the afternoon, place immediately into the chief’s auto and rushed uptown. Upon returning, the chief announced that he would have nothing whatever to say, and that he had instructed the detectives to keep similar silence. Neither would he even explain the nature of the trip.

Chief Lanford told reporters Thursday that Conley, of late, has insisted upon facing Frank, declaring that if he can confront the white man with his story, he will obtain admission. Regarding this attitude of the negro’s, the chief had to say:

“We can’t get to see Frank ourselves. None of our men can see him. It seems impossible to have Conley get to him.”

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Constitution
July 25^th, 1913

Negro Was Taken to Tower Without Knowledge of Beavers or Lanford.

Action is likely to be taken against Detective John Starnes and Pat Campbell, who Wednesday afternoon carried Jim Conley, the negro in the Phagan case, from police headquarters to the Tower without permission of either Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford.

When asked by a Constitution reporter Thursday afternoon what steps he would probably take against the detectives, Chief Beavers declined to talk. He inferred, however, that an investigation would likely result and that action would be taken.

Conley was taken from the station house prison shortly before noon Wednesday without the knowledge, it is said, of even Desk Sergeant Arch Holcombe. He was taken to the Tower for a four-hour examination in the cell of Newt Lee, which examination was promoted by Solicitor General Dorsey and his associate, Frank Hooper.

Neither Chief Knew.

Neither Chief Beavers nor Chief Lanford, it is stated, were aware of his absence from headquarters until informed by newspaper reporters who told the detective head. Lanford immediately conferred with Beavers with the result that the latter hurried to the jail, finding the prisoner with the detectives and attorneys.

Secrecy was thrown about the move, and, it is rumored, it was in an effort to prevent reporters from getting wind of the examination that Conley was spirited from the prison in such a mysterious manner. Starnes and Campbell say, however, that they did not inform their chiefs purely because neither happened to be at headquarters at the time.

If both Beavers and Lanford had been in the place, however, they state, they would have sought permission of each chief before removing the negro. Upon visiting the jail Wednesday afternoon, Beavers did not interfere in any manner with the examination.

Chief Lanford said to reporters Thursday that none of his men would ever again take such liberties, and Beavers declared that if Conley were to be removed in the future he would be fully aware of the move and would personally superintended it.

He was asked if action had been taken against either Starnes or Campbell or the turnkey, Tom Bayne, who was on duty at the time the negro was taken from his cell. His answer was:

No Action on Record.

“I can’t talk. No action, however, is on record.”

When asked if action would be taken, he said:

“I can’t help what you infer. I’m only stating facts.”

He would not state whether or not the detectives were guilty of insubordination in assuming authority which should rest only in the hands of department heads.

“I’d rather not talk,” was all he would say.

It is rumored around headquarters that a thorough investigation is being made, and that Starnes and Campbell will be compelled to make a report of their action.

No Action by Lanford.

Chief Lanford stated to a reporter last night that there probably would be no action taken against either Campbell or Starnes, as Conley is as much in charge of his attorney, William M. Smith, as of police headquarters.

Smith’s consent had been obtained for the removal to the jail, Lanford said, and the attorney had made an effort to communicate with both the detective head and Chief Beavers before carrying out the move. Inasmuch as Conley is held only as witness, and is in charge of his attorney, Starnes and Campbell, the chief declared, did nothing wrong in their act.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

Atlanta Georgian
July 23^rd, 1913

Scouts New ‘Proof’ of Defense

Detective Chief Scoffs at Claim of Evidence That Club Used by Negro Was Found.

Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford Wednesday morning ridiculed the story that the defense of Leo M. Frank has in its possession a bloody club, alleged to have been found by two Pinkerton detectives on May 10 in the National Pencil Factory, and with which, it is reported, the defense will contend Mary Phagan was slain by James Conley, the negro sweeper.

Asserting that he knows nothing whatever of the alleged bloody club, Chief Lanford declared that, if Pinkerton detectives found such a weapon on May 10, or any other date, they had failed to report the fact to him. Failure to officially report such a find would be regarded as a breach of the pact between the city detectives and the Pinkertons, as the latter officers, while employed by the pencil factory, have been working hand in hand with city detectives, with the understanding that any evidence they unearthed would be communicated to detective headquarters.

Has Received No Report.

“If Pinkerton detectives found a bloody club in the pencil factory they certainly should have reported that fact to me at once—I have received no such report,” said Chief Lanford.

The police regard as significant the attitude of Harry Scott, who is managing the Pinkerton investigation, and who, subsequent to May 10, has continued to assert his belief in the guilt of Frank.

Chief Lanford characterized the alleged finding of the club as an “absurdity,” and scouted the idea of it having any bearing on the case. He is satisfied, he said, that it will never figure as evidence.

The chief said the only club found in the pencil factory of which he had any knowledge, was a small section of broom handle, about a foot in length, which hung by a cord beside the desk of Leo M. Frank in the latter’s private office.

Broom Handle Was Found.

This “club” bore no blood stains, he said, and showed no evidence of having ever been used as a weapon in any way. It was too light to have done any damage had a blow been struck with it, he said.

Chief Lanford treated the bloody club story in the manner of a joke.

“Do you see a club there?” remarked the Chief, pointing to a perfectly clear spot on his office floor, when asked as to the reported find by the Pinkertons.

“Well, that’s the answer,” he continued. “There is just as much of a bloody club lying there on that floor as there was on the floor of the pencil factory, where it is said the Pinkertons found their bloody club. The whole thing is absurd and will have no bearing whatever on the case of Frank. I’m satisfied this mysterious club will never be introduced in evidence.

No Weapon Was Found.

“When it is recalled that the very spot that yielded up this bloody club was searched thoroughly more than a dozen times by numerous officers prior to May 10 and no club nor other weapon was found, the ridiculousness of this story is apparent. We searched that factory from top to bottom and bottom to top, closely investigating every conceivable place for weapons or any other bit of evidence that might throw light on the mystery, and yet no club was found.

“There’s absolutely nothing to it.

“In Frank’s private office we found a small piece of broomstick, hanging by a cord beside his desk. There were no blood stains on it, and it showed no evidence of having been used as a weapon. In the first place, it was too light to serve as a weapon. This was the only club found in the factory at the time any possible weapons should have been found and would have been found.”

Date Still in Doubt.

Reuben Arnold said Wednesday that the defense would ask for no continuance of the Frank case except for such imperative reasons as the absence of material witnesses or the illness of counsel. Luther Rosser, chief of counsel, also has indicated that no move will be made by the defense for further delay in the trial unless an emergency arises of the sort described by Attorney Arnold.

Informal conferences between the counsel in the Crawford will case and those in the Frank case, in both of which Rosser and Arnold appear as attorneys, have resulted in the announcement that the persons interested in the Crawford hearing are willing to waive the priority of their case and permit the Frank trial to go on Monday.

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, July 21, 1913

Solicitor Dorsey Makes Brief Announcement to This Effect After Grand Jury Session Lasting Over an Hour

NO ANONYMOUS LETTERS WANTED BY THE JURORS

Solicitor Dorsey Will Now Concentrate Efforts Against Having Frank Jury Drawing From Grand Jury List

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey has for a second time blocked an attempt by members of the grand jury to indict James Conley, the negro sweeper, who confessed complicity in the Mary Phagan murder.

The grand jurymen who had called a meeting over the protest of the solicitor to consider taking up a bill against the negro listened to the prosecuting official for more than an hour Monday morning, and then authorized him to announce that the matter will not be taken up at this time.

DORSEY MAKES STATEMENT.

The solicitor wrote out his statement, which is as follows:

“I am authorized by the grand jury to say, first that no action will be taken at this time on the James Conley matter; second, that the grand jury will not pay any attention whatever to anonymous communications.”

The solicitor would not explain or amplify the statement in any way, but it is naturally supposed that the grand jury has decided not to take up the Conley matter until after the trial of Leo M. Frank, giving the solicitor a clear victory.

A QUORUM PRESENT.

There were eighteen members of the grand jury, a quorum, present when the meeting was called to order by Foreman W.D. Beatie. The solicitor was asked to remain in the room, when the meeting opened, and he did not leave it until the meeting adjourned more than one hour later, and the presumption is natural that he took part in the discussion of the case.

The solicitor had previously announced his position in the matter, declaring that the indictment of Conley at this time would be a serious mistake, and saying that it would have “a mild but undesirable” effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.

Just why the solicitor should have seen fit to add to his announcement the statement about anonymous communications also remains unexplained. It has been known that the Phagan mystery from the first has called forth many anonymous letters. The city detectives, the counsel for the defense, the solicitor, the past and the present grand juries have been flooded with them.

The solicitor’s statement might lead to the inference that the “public sentiment” which worked on the grand jurors until they called the meeting, was of the anonyous [sic] communication sort.

MADE LONG SPEECH.

From the length of time during which the solicitor was before the grand jury it is apparent that it was not without difficulty that he persuaded the members of the body to let the Conley matter alone until after the Frank trial.

It is reported that the solicitor quoted many laws to the grand jury to strengthen his position in the matter, and an interesting decision on the point involved which appears in the 102 Georgia reports, page 271, was quoted in full.

Dealing with the case of Hix against Brantley, the supreme court in the decision says: “He (the solicitor general) is to determine whether or not to commence a particular prosecution or to discontinue one already begun. The solicitor general draws the bill of indictment, and examines the witnesses, not with a view to the interest of any client, but alone to subserve the public justice. The whole proceeding from the time the case is laid before him, is under his direction, supervision and control.”

No other meeting of the grand jury has been called and it is probable that none will be until after July 28, when the case against Frank is set for trial.

DRAWING OF JURY

The solicitor general’s next fight is the famous murder case will come next Thursday, when he will oppose the motion of counsel for the defense of Frank[…]

(Continued On Page 7, Col. 1.)

WILL NOT INDICT JIM CONLEY NOW, JURY’S DECISION

(Continued From Page 1.)

[…]that the veniremen, from whom the twelve jurors to try Frank will be chosen, he [sic] drawn from the grand jury list instead of the petit jury list. The Fulton county grand jury list contains approximately 1,000 names, while the petit jury list has more than 6,000 names on it.

The solicitor has made it known that he will vigorously oppose the motion. The drawing of the veniremen from the grand jury list would be unusual and there is no instance of it ever having been done in this country, it is said. As yet, however, no law against the move has been advanced.

Conley Carried to Carter Street and Electric Ave.

Jim Conley was carried away from police headquarters in Chief Beavers’ automobile about 11:30 o’clock Monday morning by Detectives Starnes and Campbell, who are working directly under the solicitor general.

The negro was returned to his cell within half an hour.

The explanation of the trip given by Chief of Detectives Newport A. Lanford was that Conley was carried to the corner of Electric avenue and Carter street in order that all of the residents there might see him, and, if possible, identify him as a man seen in dispute with a white man about the day of the Phagan murder. He was not identified.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 21st 1913, “Will Not Indict Jim Conley Now, Jury’s Decision,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Presents Evidence Showing Indictment of Negro Would Hinder Frank Prosecution.

Here are the important developments of Monday in the Phagan case:

The decision of the Grand Jury of Fulton County not to bring at this time an indictment against James Conley.

The information that there is a strong probability of another postponement of the trial of Leo M. Frank.

The Grand Jury’s refusal to reopen its investigation of the Phagan murder mystery was a decided victory for the Solicitor after that body had overridden his request that no session be called to take up the matter in any of its aspects.

A report that Judge L.S. Roan, who will preside at the Frank trial, had signified his desire that the case be put off until fall, gave rise to the expectation that another postponement will take place, and that the date probably will be set for some week in September.

Defense Said To Be Willing.

The defense also is said to be in favor of a continuence [sic]. Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, said Monday that he did not contemplate asking for further delay, but thought that it would be a hardship on the jurors to hear the case at this time of the year. He made it plain that he would not oppose any move for a continuance.

The Grand Jury Monday decided to take no action at this time looking to the indictment of James Conley, accuser of Leo M. Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan.

The Grand Jury came to its decision after Solicitor General Dorsey had presented a mass of evidence to show why the indictment of the negro would hamper the prosecution of Frank. After more than an hour’s conference the Solicitor issued this statement.

“I am requested by the Grand Jury to say no action will be taken at this time on the James Conley matter, and that that body will not pay any attention whatever to anonymous communications.”

It is known that the Grand Jury has been flooded with letters on the Phagan case, many of them urging action on Conley, and many unsigned.

A recent Supreme Court decision was cited by Solicitor Dorsey to the Grand Jury when he demanded “hands off” on the Conley indictment. The decision says of the Solicitor:

“He is to determine whether or not to commence a particular prosecution, or to discontinue one already begun. The Solicitor General draws the bill of indictment and examines the witnesses, not with a view to the interest of any client, but alone to subserve public justice.

“The whole prosecution from the time the case is laid before him is under his direction, supervision and control.—102 Georgia, page 271.”

Delay in Trial Rumored.

The impression gained ground Monday that a postponement of the trial of Frank was probable. It was reported that the defense would make a move to effect this before the case comes up on June 28.

According to Solicitor Dorsey, Judge L.S. Roan, who will try the case, is not particularly anxious that it will come up at this time.

Says Judge Favors Delay.

“I was talking with Judge Roan a short time ago,” said the Solicitor, “and from his conversation I gathered[…]

SOLICITOR HALTS INDICTMENT OF JIM CONLEY

Grand Jury Defers Action After Dorsey Shows It Will Hamper Frank Prosecution.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]that he would rather the trial did not come up before fall, though he did not say so outright.”

Shortly before noon Jim Conley was taken from his cell at police headquarters and spirited off in an automobile by Detectives Starnes and Campbell, the officers who have had complete charge of the negro for several weeks. Inquiry failed to reveal the destination or purpose of this action. The negro was out of his cell less than an hour and on his return the same strict secrecy was maintained.

Fighting Mincey.

According to Chief of Detectives Lanford, the mysterious trip of Conley from police headquarters with Detectives Starnes and Campbell ended at the corner of Electric avenue and Carter street, where W.H. Mincey, the insurance agent, declared in an affidavit the negro was sitting on the curb intoxicated the afternoon of the Phagan murder, and confessed that he had killed a girl that day.

Chief Lanford stated that an effort had been made by the detectives to have persons residing in that vicinity identify Conley as having seen him there at the time Mincey stated. However, no one had been able to do so. It was also declared that Conley had been taken around to a Butler street address where it is declared the negro was at the time Mincey swears the conversation on the curbing took place.

Solicitor Dorsey was the only person asked to appear before the jurors. Before they assembled he asserted that he was entirely confident that no indictment would be returned against the negro.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Protest of Solicitor Dorsey Wins,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Another in our series of new transcriptions of contemporary articles on the Leo Frank case.

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, July 20, 1913

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

Rosser and Arnold Charge Dorsey Seeks to Convict Frank, Guilty or Innocent, Out of Professional Pride

“SHUTTING EYES TO TRUTH, DORSEY PROTECTS NEGRO”

Attorneys Intimate That Dorsey Fears to Let Truth Be Known – Attitude Throughout Case Is Criticised

The attitude of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey throughout the Phagan investigation, and especially in his attempt to block a grand jury indictment of Jim Conley, is scored in an interview made public by Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, counsel for Leo M. Frank.

“The solicitor is seeking to convict Frank innocent or guilty, in order to gratify his professional pride,” Frank’s attorneys say.

In the course of the intetrview [sic] the two famous attorneys, who have been engaged to defend the man accused of the murder of Mary Phagan, charge that the solicitor is protecting the negro Conley.

Mr. Dorsey is severely criticised not only for his avowed intention of trying to block the indictment of Conley by the grand jury Monday, but because he prevented the last grand jury, the one, which indicted Frank, from acting on Conley’s case, and because he did not place before the last grand jury any of Conley[‘s] confessions.

Solicitor Dorsey is geeting [sic] his legal and constitutional functions in seeking to control the action of the grand judy [sic],” Attorneys Rosser and Arnold declare.

Despite the criticism of his attitude, there is little doubt that Solicitor Dorsey will be present Monday, when the grand jury takes up the consideration of the Conley case. In fact the solicitor’s presence has been requested by W.D. Beattie, the foreman of the grand jury, who called the meeting.

Solicitor Dorsey is still confident that the grand jury will not indict Conley.

There is little doubt that there will be a quorum present, when the grand jury meeting is called Monday, for Deputy Sheriff Plennie Minor has found that  19 of the 20 grand jurors empanneled [sic] are in the city, and they have promised to be present Monday. It takes 18 grand jurors to act on a bill of indictment. The statement of Mr. Rosser and Mr. Arnold, scoring the solicitor is as follows:

STATEMENT IN FULL.

“Counsel for Leo M. Frank have refrained from making a statement for the papers except under strong provocation. Clearly counsel on both sides should refrain from any comment of or criticism on any action of the grand jury to be taken at its meeting next Monday, which might tend to hamper or limit the grand jury in their action upon the Conley case.

“The grand jury is an independent body; it is under the control of no one.

“A solicitor general is the adviser of that body as to legal principles merely, but he has no right to exercise any sort of control in determining who shall or shall not be indicted.

“To permit a solicitor general to use the position intrusted to him by the people, to decide for himself who shall and who shall not be indicted, is a danger too great to be contemplated.

“With this preliminary statement, we reluctantly make a reply to Solicitor Dorsey’s interview in this morning’s paper.

“It is rather remarkable that the solicitor general and a person admitting complicity in a grave crime should[…]

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

[…]get together in such harmonious concert of action as these two interviews show. Mr. Dorsey admits that the indictment of Conley will have only a mild but undesirable effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.”

“Ought the solicitor general for one moment to be influenced in his advice to the grand jury by any consideration of the effect upon anybody’s case?

“It is not our understanding that the grand jury is organised to aid the solicitor general in his management of cases in court; their function is a higher one. They investigate every case of probable guilt and return an indictment. It could just as well be argued that the indictment of Frank might have a mild but undesirable effect on Conley’s case in case Conley had been first indicted.

THE SOLICITOR’S POSITION.

“The position of the solicitor general in this case from the beginning has been most remarkable. It has been heretofore understood that the solicitor was to try cases sent to him by the grand jury, but in this case, detective like, the solicitor is seeking to determine who shall be indicted. Forgetting his legal and constitutional functions, he is undertaking to control the action of the grand jury.

“The citizens of this county elected in Mr. Dorsey as solicitor general, but Mr. Dorsey has mistaken the purpose of his election. Evidently he believes that he was elected to be also the grand jury.

“The solicitor general does his duty when he tries to the best of his ability cases sent him by the grand jury. The solicitor falls far below the dignity of his office when he inflames public opinion, thereby inducing a conviction, innocent or guilty.

“The solicitor has closed his eyes to these plain truths and has rushed into print day by day proclaiming the guilt of Frank and the innocence of the negro, apparently for no purpose but to convict Frank, innocent or guilty, for the gratification of his professional pride.

“So far has the state’s counsel forgotten the function of a prosecution, which is only to ascertain the truth and convict the guilty, that Mr. Dorsey’s detective asssitant [sic], Chief Lanford, in an interview in this morning’s paper, use the following language as to the Pinkerton detective, Scott, and Lanford’s refusal to allow him to see Conley: ‘We did not want to embarrass Scott by requesting him to keep silent and did not want to risk the probability of letting new developments reach Frank’s attorneys, therefore we were forced to prevent him from seeing the negro.’

“It seems, therefore, a matter for great endeavor on the part of the state, as the solicitor and his associate detectives see it, to keep whatever facts they rely upon to convict Frank from the defendant and his attorneys and the public.

WHY SO MUCH FEAR?

“If the facts in the solicitor’s possesion [sic] were the truth, why so much fear as to letting them out? Is it possible that the effort is to ambush the defendant by the proof of circumstance on the trial which he has no opportunity to meet or explain? Is it possible that the state’s object is to keep the defendant in the dark as to the state’s eveidence [sic] and to so conduct its case that he will have no opportunity to know the facts relied upon to convict him and no opportunity to clearly meet them and disprove them, if they be raise [sic]?

The solictor [sic] has undertaken in this case to hold certain witnesses in custody. He undertook to do this in the case of the negro Conley; but so fearful was he that the negro might dare tell all he knew, that he went through the farce of requesting the superior court to no longer incarcerate Conley and to discharge him, and immediately upon obtaining this order of discharge, he went through the greater farce of having him loosed upon the streets and then immediately and illegally returning him to the city station house, where he now is carefully watched, counseled and interviewed by the solictor [sic], his assistant Mr. Hooper and his detective assistants.

“We have no criticism of the former grand jury, but some things happened before it, as reported, that tend at least to provoke serious inquiry.

“When Leo M. Frank’s case was before the grand judy [sic] and in the midst of it, Conley made his first confession, forced thereto by the discovery that he could write. It suggested to the solictor [sic] that this confession be brought to the grand judy’s [sic] attention. That would have been a fair thing to do. It was not done, and rumor has it that Mr. Dorsey directed that it be not done.

“One other thing is almost incredible: according to the public prints, when the solicitor wanted a vacation he was so afraid that the grand judy [sic] might act in his absence that he sought to extract a promise from the sworn servants of the state not to indict in his absence.

“When before was it ever suggested to a grand jury that they must await the termination of a pleasure trip before they should indict in any case where indictment was necessary?

IN REPLY TO MR. SMITH.

“Little need be said in reply to lawyer W.M. Smith’s interview given in support of the solictor’s [sic] position.

“It is remarkable that the solictor [sic] has to rely for support upon an argument made by Conley’s counsel. It is, however, appropriate that he should bolster up the solictor as he depends mightily upon the solictor to protect his negro Conley. Conley’s counsel realizes who is Conley’s friend and rushes in print to his rescue.

“We are publishing this interview neither in an effort to have Conley indicted nor in an effort to have him not indicted. That is a matter solely for the grand jury. We are not making any appeal to them or to anybody else as to the effect Conley’s indictment would have on the Frank case. So far as we are concerned we feel that the failure of the solicitor general to secure an indictment against a confessed accessory to the crime of murder would make far more capital in favor of Frank upon his trial, than if he were indicted. We thing [sic] any jury, and we [think] any community would resent the rank favoritism shown this confessed criminal.

“LUTHER E. ROSSER.
“R.R. ARNOLD.”

New Witness Found Who Will Testify for Frank

Both the state and the defense continue with preparations for the great legal battle, which is expected to be staged Monday week. It is said that nearly a hundred witnesses will be subpoenaed for both sides and it is not improbable that this number will be augmented if the defense, as it probably will, decides to put Frank’s character in issue.

Dozens of prominent citizens who know him, then will be called.

The defense is preparing to prove every statement made by Frank at the inquest about his movements on the day of the tragedy, by numerous witnesses. One of these witnesses, who has not previously been known to the case, is Harry J. Hinchley, district manager of the South Atlanta Blow Pipe company, who resides at the Peachtree Inn. Mr. Hinchley states that he saw Frank on April 26, between 1:50 o’clock and 2:05 o’clock on a Washington street car, near the corner of Washington and Hunter streets. Mr. Hinchley was in an automobile which was stopped along side the car. He was out of the city at the time of the inquest, but has recently been located by the defense, and has agreed to give his testimony on the stand. His statement conforms with the statement of Frank as given during his long examination at the inquest.

Conley’s Attorney Does Not Believe He Will Be Indicted

Attorney William M. Smith, counsel for James Conley, has furnished The Journal the following statement for publication:

“One of the least of the evil results of the indictment of Conley, would be to force Conley back to the county jail. He would be immediately arrested, after indictment, under a bench warrant and lodged in the county jail, as a prisoner.

“Of course, it is pretty hard that Conley is now protected from fellows of the Mincey type. You see, since Conley has been held at the station house, it has been impossible to pull off a confession stunt. No one could get to him, so no one could qualify as having had the opportunity to talk with him. Consequently the alleged confession must be dated back prior to Conley’s arrest. You can see a possible reason for the delayed report of Mr. Mincey.

“I smelt this Mincey stunt way back yonder when I was fighting to hold Conley at the station house. The physical construction of the county jail and the inadequacy of guards, owing to lack of public funds for this purpose, renders it an impossibility to protect Conley against such fellows as Mincey. If the grand jury indicts Conley, thereby forcing Conley back to the tower, I know Sheriff Mangum and his men will do the best possible under all the circumstances, but there will be more Mincey patriots, bearing the Conley confession than can possibly be harmonized in the short time between now and the trial. There will be so many hands in the Conley confession pot, until it will spoil the pie.

“Another thing. It must be embarrassing and really alarming to Mr. Frank, in his defense, not to be posted to date on what Jim Conley might be telling. It is easy to win a game, as a rule, if you know the other fellow’s signals. Conley must be made more accessible to interviews, at any cost, is a theory that no doubt appeals strongly. It is difficult for outsiders at the station house to get wise to the whole truth as Conley tells it. It will be comparatively much easier to reach Conley at the county jail. As soon as the grand jury are assembled as soon as they indict Conley, as soon as he is lodged in the county jail, interviewers for information purposes will be Mincey thick.

DOESN’T FEAR JURY.

“The grand jury can mess this up if they want to, in a dozen different ways. I read a list of their names today, and after seeing who they are, I do not believe they will do it. All of them that I know are high-toned, honorable men, in my judgment; and, while they may meet, I have enough confidence in those I know to believe that they will first sift the influences that have been pressing them to act and not be misled by them. I believe a most thorough and painstaking investigation should be made by the grand jury into these influences, if they exist, and that rigorous measures should be adopted, even though it should strike members of the grand jury. If any members of the grand jury have been unduly active in this matter, they should not be spared. Any one who seeks improperly to embarrass the state,  in avenging the murder of this little girl, should be summarily dealt with.”

(Signed.) WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 20th 1913, “Dorsey Is Seeking to Be Grand Jury And Solicitor Too, Say Frank’s Counsel,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)