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

Atlanta Constitution
August 2^nd, 1913

Gay C. Febuary, secretary to Chief Newport A. Lanford, of the detective bureau, and recent figure in the sensational dictagraph episode, was called to the stand to testify to a statement made by Leo Frank on April 26 in Chief Lanford’s office.

It was during Febuary’s testimony that Frank’s statement was permitted to be produced before the jury. It was read by Attorney Stephens, an associate of Solicitor Dorsey.

Mr. Dorsey questioned Febuary:

“You were present at Lanford’s office when Frank and Luther Z. Rosser were there?”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember having made stenographic report of a statement made by Frank?”
“Yes.”
He was given the report for identification, which he established.

“What was Attorney Rosser doing during the time the statement was made?”
“Looking out of the window most of the time.”
Mr. Rosser began the interrogation at this point.

“You haven’t got a dictagraph with you,have you?” he asked sarcastically.

“No,” was the answer.

“Lanford sent for you to make this statement, didn’t he?”
“Yes.”
“You are Lanford’s private secretary?”
“Yes.”
“He has been chief of police for years?”
“He has been chief of detectives.”
“Chief of detectives, then, that’s just as bad.”

Here Rosser pointed to Lanford, sitting in a chair at the railing.

“That’s he—my handsome friend over there.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913, “Gay Febuary Tells Frank Jury About Statement Prisoner Made,” 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
August 2^nd, 1913

Physician Testifies at Frank Trial That Mary Phagan Met Death Half Hour After Lunch—Describes Wounds

Secretary of State Board of Health Compelled to Leave the Witness Stand on Account of Illness

In the midst of sensational testimony, Dr. H. F. Harris, secretary of the state board of health, collapsed Friday afternoon on the witness stand and was excused until Saturday. Dr. Harris and just testified that his examination of the contents of the stomach of little Mary Phagan showed that the dinner which she had eaten before leaving home was still undigested, and he therefore concluded that he little girl was killed within thirty minutes or three-quarters of an hour after she had eaten. Part of the undigested food taken from the stomach was exhibited in the court room. It had been preserved in alcohol.

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault but there were indications of some kind of violence having been committed. He thought this violence had preceded her death five or ten minutes.

Before he finished his testimony Dr. Harris became suddenly ill, his voice became faint and he begged to be excused. He promised to return Saturday, if possible. He said he had gotten up from a sick bed to come to court. He was assisted from the court room.

Also featuring the opening of the Phagan, was the testimony given by N. afternoon session of the trial of Leo M. Frank charged with the murder of Mary V. Darley under cross-examination of Attorney Reuben R. Arnold, for the defense.

Darley, according to this testimony, during his lunch hour Friday visited the factory, measured some distances and noted on his return to court many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had prepared for the guidance of the jury in following the testimony of the witnesses.

One of the most important inaccuracies in the chart, according to Darley, was that the drawing showed the safe in Frank’s outer office to be a great deal smaller than the door, when, according to the witness. It is about the same size and cuts off a view into Frank’s inner office when the door of the safe is open.

It is expected that the defense will use this one fact to refute one of the important points brought out by one of its principal witnesses that she, a girl employed in the factory, visited there Saturday afternoon at 12:10 o’clock to get her pay and upon entering the outer office saw no one in either of the offices. She testified that the safe door was open. This is the hour that Mary Phagan is supposed to have entered the factory and prosecution claims immediately thereafter Frank was missing from his office.

Another important development in the afternoon session was the indication from the prosecution, by holding two time slips, that it would claim the accused gave the officers a slip which was not the original taken from the clock Sunday morning.

When Attorney Reuben Arnold, attorney for the defense, was examining N. V. Darley, a state’s witness, concerning the diagram of the factory which Solicitor Dorsey had made for the guidance of the jurors, Mr. Arnold asked:

“Isn’t the toilet in the basement closer to the wall than this picture shows and closer to the boiler?”

“It sets against the wall, and it seems to me that it is closer to the boiler, too.”

“Isn’t the elevator shaft closer to the first floor wall than this picture shows?”

“My impression is that the side of the elevator shaft is a part of the wall.”

“This partition here on the first floor, and the door in it which opens into the woodenware company—the partition is closer to the elevator than is shown on the diagram, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, I think so.”

“There are double doors at the top of the stairs on the second floor, instead of a single door as shown on the diagram, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, is there anything at all right about this diagram, except that it is a gen[e]ral picture of the factory?”

“That’s the way it appears to me.”

“It shows no wardrobe in Frank’s office?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a wardrobe in there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“It shows Frank’s office larger than the outer office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Which office is the larger?”

“The outer office is several feet larger.”

“This picture doesn’t show a bookcase in the outer office, does it?”

“No, sir.”

“But there is a bookcase in the outer office, isn’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it half shuts off the view from Frank’s office into the outer hall, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The truth is, Mr. Darley, isn’t it, that this picture is drawn so adroitly as to open up a clear view from Frank’s office through the outer office into the factory?”

Before the witness could answer, Attorney Hooper announced that he objected to Mr. Arnold using the phrase “adroitly drawn.” The court sustained the objection.

“All right,” said Mr. Arnold, smiling. “It’s a fact, but I’ll withdraw it.”

“I object to that statement, too, your honor,” said Mr. Hooper.

“Well, I’ll withdraw it,” said Mr. Arnold. He addressed the witness again. “There’s no such wide space leading from Frank’s office to the outer office, is there?”

“No, sir; there’s a single small door.”

“Did you notice this safe over here, looking like a little B-B cap? As a matter of fact, this safe is wider than the door, is it not?”

“It’s about the same size.”

“Well, it doesn’t show up half as large as the door, does it, in the picture?”

“No, sir.”

“When the safe door is open, it shuts off the view from Frank’s office, does it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There are two cabinets in the outer office which are not shown in this picture, are there not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“To be exact, this is not a very accurate picture of the factory, is it?”

“No, sir.”

“It opens up Frank’s office a whole lot better than it is really opened up, doesn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Could you see the time clock from Frank’s desk?”

“Yes, sir, I could see just the outer edge of the dial.”

“Could you see the head of the stairs from his desk?”

“No, sir.”

In the redirect examination of Darley. Solicitor Dorsey found the witness refractory. Darley returned short answers to a number of the solicitor’s questions.

“Who were some of the people who were nervous, besides Frank?”

The witness at first said he didn’t know. Then he declared that Detective Starnes was nervous.

“How did Starnes show his nervousness?” asked the solicitor.

“The best way that I can describe it is that he looked worried.”

“Why do you recall Frank’s nervousness and not the nervousness of anybody else except possibly Starnes?”

“Because Mr. Frank was so much more nervous than the others.”

“Did you notice anybody else around there, nervous on Monday?”

“Holloway and Schiff were nervous. Their hands seemed to tremble.”

“Was Frank nervous Tuesday?”

“He became very nervous when he read an extra saying that he was going to be arrested. He was arrested about fifteen minutes later.”

“Don’t you know that Schiff furnishes to Frank all the data for the financial sheet?”

“I know very little about it.”

The solicitor showed two time clock slips to the witness. On one of them was written in typewriter print the ate “April 28.”

“Could this be the slip that you all took out Sunday morning?”

After some hesitation, the witness answered that the date on that slip should have been April 26. The other slip had a date written with a pen, and the solicitor asked the witness if that was Frank’s handwriting. The witness said he couldn’t identify either slip as the one taken out of the clock Sunday morning.

“Could there have been a duplicate made of the slip Newt Lee punched?”

The witness said he didn’t know.

“Isn’t there a bar across the door leading from the metal room to the third floor?”

The witness didn’t know. Despite a rigid examination by the solicitor, the witness maintained that what he told at the morning session, under cross-examination, about the tablets and order blanks being scattered throughout the building was true.

Darley said that he had known Frank since April, 1911.

“How often in that time have you seen him as nervous as he was on Sunday morning, April 27?”

“Twice—once after he saw the street car run over a little child, and again after his fuss with Mr. Montag.”

Attorley [sic] Arnold cross-examined the witness again.

“You say that Schiff and Holloway were nervous, Monday? Was anybody else?”

“Yes, the whole factory was ‘up in the air.’ Really, we did no work that week. Miss Eula Mae Flowers, one of the foreladies, became hysterical on Tuesday.”

“Since the tragedy, have you gotten any work at all out of Christopher Columbus Barrett?”

“A little,” answered Darley.

W. F. ANDERSON CALLED.

The witness left the stand, and Officer W. F. Anderson, police call man, was summoned.

Officer Anderson told of Newt Lee calling police headquarters on the telephone, on Sunday morning, April 27, and telling the police that a white girl’s body had been found in the basement. After he went to the pencil factory, about 3:30 or before 4 o’clock, while he had Newt Lee in custody, he tried to call Frank over the telephone. In answer to questions by Solicitor Dorsey, he said he heard the connection made, and heard the phone ringing at the other end for above five minutes. After waiting five minutes, he said, he gave up the attempt, and called police headquarters and Herbert Haas and Sig Montag, officials of the pencil company.

“How long did it take you to get them?” asked the solicitor.

“Just a few minutes.”

“Did you make any other effort to get Frank over the telephone, and if so, when?”

“I tried again after I got Montag and Haas, about 4 or 4:10 o’clock.”

“What success did you have this time?”

“Just the same as before.”

Attorney Rosser cross-examined the witness.

“You didn’t get Sig Montag when you called his house, did you?”

“I got a Montag—I don’t remember his initials.”
“Did you try to get Mr. Darley?”

“He didn’t have a telephone.”

SAW NOTES BY BODY

“You saw these notes found by Mary Phagan’s body, didn’t you?”

“I saw Sergeant Dobbs pick one up.”

“When you went to the factory, you shook the front door and old man Lee came down. He wasn’t standing at the door, was he?”

“He came down the stairs.”

“And Lee told you over the telephone that it was a white girl’s body?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What sort of a lamp did that negro have?”

“He had a lantern.”

“Smoky, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you stand at the same place Lee says he stood, and look, and see Mary Phagan’s body?”

“Not that day.”

“When Lee says he saw the body, he says the lantern was on the ground, doesn’t he?”

“That’s what he told me.”

“The little girl’s clothing was such a color that it wouldn’t show up in the dark?”

“I think it was lavender.”

“When the coroner’s jury was down there, you took the lantern and set it where Lee says he set it that night, didn’t you?”

“No, sir; not then.”

“Well, didn’t you testify before the coroner’s jury that you stood with the lantern on the ground and testify I should not think it would be possible to see a body?”

“I said you might see the bulk of it, but you couldn’t tell what it was.”

“Then this is wrong, is it?”

“I said you might not be able to tell what is [sic] was.”

“You say the body was lying east and west with its head against the partition?”

“Yes.”

“You said something about there being some tracks. Where were they?”

TRACKS AROUND BODY.

“On the left hand side of the body, leading from the body to the shavings room.”

“That’s not what you said before the coroner’s jury, is it? Didn’t you say there were tracks all around the left side of the body?”

“I said the tracks led into the shavings room. I went into the shavings room to see if I could any lady’s tracks there.”

“You called up Frank first?”

“Yes.”

“When did you call Mr. Haas and the others?”

“About 4 o’clock.”

“Do you remember their telephone numbers?”

“No, sir, I don’t keep telephone numbers in my mind. I get ’em out of the book.”

“Your testimony at the coroner’s inquest was taken down by the stenographer, wasn’t it?”

“I guess it was.”

“What side of the body did the police come up on?”

“The right side.”

“The tracks were on the left side?”

“Yes.”

“Which side did you come up on?”

“The right side.”

“You found a pencil down there, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How far was it away from the body?”

“About eight or ten feet.”

“There were a great many pencils in the basement, were there not?”

“Yes.”

“The basement is ragged and dirty, with cinders and all sorts of trash down there?”

“Yes, the basement’s dirty. There were some cinders and trash by the boiler.”

POLICE TEST.

Solicitor Dorsey took the witness again.

“Did you make any tests down in the basement on your own account?” inquired the solicitor.

“Yes. About 10 o’clock one night shortly after the murder we went down there with a lantern. We fixed up a box and threw some sacks over it in the place where the girl’s body was lying. Then we took the lantern and set it down where the negro said his lantern was sitting when he saw the body.”

“Could you see anything?”

“Yes, we could make out the bulk.”

Attorney Rosser questioned the witness.

“You made an investigation for the coroner, did you not?”

“Yes, but I didn’t have a lantern.”

“Well, what did you have?”

“This.” The witness produced one of the electric searchlights carried by policemen, and flashed it across the court room.

“You didn’t use the lantern?”

“No, there was a lantern along, but I didn’t use it. I knew I could see that far with a searchlight.”

“Did you see the place where they said the body was dragged?”

“No.”

STENOGRAPHER CALLED.

Anderson was excused, and Solicitor Dorsey requested H. L. Parry, the court stenographer, to take the stand. The solicitor inquired if he had reported the evidence at the inquest held by the coroner.

“Part of it,” replied the witness.

“Did you report the evidence given by Frank?”

“Some of it. I don’t know whether I reported all of it or not.”

“Well, examine the records here and tell us whether you did or not.”

The witness examined the record.

“Yes, I reported Frank’s testimony,” said Parry.

“Is it correctly reported?”

“To the best of my ability,” responded Parry.

“You are an expert stenographer?”

“I am considered such.”

“What has been your experience?”

“Between twenty-five and thirty years.”

“You are reporting this case?”

“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Rosser arose.

“I’ll get you to say whether or not you took the testimony of Officer Anderson, Mr. Parry?” asked Mr. Rosser.

The witness examined the record and replied that he did not.

“Did you take the negro Lee’s testimony?”

The witness examined the record again and answered, “Yes, sir.”

“Did you take it correctly?”

“To the best of my ability.”

“Well, it was correctly taken, was it not?”

“I can’t say that I’m infallible.”

“Then you are not prepared to say that any record you take is accurate?”

“I said I took them as nearly accurately as possible.”

“Well, are you prepared to say that this record you took of Newt Lee’s testimony is a correct one?”

“In the common acceptation of the term, yes.”

“I want to know, now, if you took Frank and Lee’s statements correctly.”

“I took down and wrote Lee’s and Frank’s words as I heard them. I may have misunderstood some few things, although I was in a good position to hear.”

“And you took down correctly what you did hear?”

“Yes.”

RECORD COMPARED.

Witness, who had been examining closely into the record which he held, looked up at this point and said: “It appears that Lee had been on the stand once before and that the testimony I took was on his recall. Frank’s testimony indicates that he had just been sworn. It begins with the question, ‘What’s your name?’ That of Lee’s which I took begins: ‘Now, Newt, state to the jury,’ indicating that he had been on the stand before.”

Mr. Rosser, referring to his own copy of the testimony given at the coroner’s inquest, walked over to where the witness sat and requested him to turn to that place in his record where certain questions were asked of Lee. Lee’s questions he read from his record, and asked the stenographer to compare them with the record which he held.

“This portion of Lee’s testimony concerned the length of time it required Frank to put a new slip in the time clock. It also quoted Lee as to the length of time it had taken Frank on a previous occasion to put in a slip. With but one or two minor discrepancies, the records, taken by different stenographers, corresponded.

After considerable discussion, Solicitor Dorsey stated that he would defer for a time any effort to put in evidence a portion of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury. He would take the matter up later, he said.

Mr. Dorsey started the discussion by offering in evidence all of Frank’s testimony before the coroner. The defense objected immediately. At first Attorney Arnold seemed to take the position that none of Frank’s statement before the coroner’s jury was admissible. Later, however, he said that if the solicitor wanted to put in evidence the whole of Frank’s testimony before the coroner’s jury, representing some four hours of examination, he would offer no objection. It would be manifestly unfair to put in evidence a part of anybody’s testimony.

The argument followed over whether Frank’s evidence was given with the consent of his counsel, the defense contending that the state had never proven that at that time Frank had any counsel employed, although Mr. Rossed [sic] admitted having sat in the room during the inquest.

Dr. H. F. Harris was called to the stand. He is secretary of the Georgia state board of health. He has been a practicing physician since 1889. He graduate then from the Jefferson medical college. He was a professor of chemistry in the Southern Medical college and also in the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons later. He mentioned other positions which he had filled. He resigned three years ago from the Atlanta College of Physicians and Surgeons. He had been connected with the state board of health since 1903.

Solicitor Dorsey’s first question was: “Did you make an examination of the body of Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, I made an examination. I think it was on May 5.”

“What wounds or marks did you find on her body?”

DESCRIBES WOUNDS.

“There were several abrasions. One or two were on her face, one on her forehead, one on her left arm, one on her left leg, one on her right leg at the ankle, and her right eye was discolored. On the back of her head, somewhat toward the left side, there was a wound one and half inches long. This looked as if it had been made by an upward blow. There was no actual break in the skull, but there was a small hemorrhage inside the skull and directly beneath the wound, showing that the blow that were marks of a cord on her neck which caused it must have been severe enough to make her unconscious for some time.”

“Could this have caused her death?”

“I think not. In fact I am sure not.”

“What did cause her death?”

“When I examined her body, there were marks of a cord an [sic] her neck which had cut into the flesh. I think beyond the question of a doubt that this cord around her neck caused her death.”

KILLED EARLY AFTER LUNCH.

“Were the injuries to her eye and scalp made before her death?”

“Unquestionably.”

“Did you make an examination of her stomach, doctor?”

“Yes.”

“What did you find in it?”

“Cabbage and biscuit—that is, I guess it was biscuit. It was wheaten bread, anyway.”

“How far had it progressed toward digestion?”

“Very slightly.”

At this time Dr. Harris took a bottle from the suitcase that he carried to the witness stand with him, and said, “I have a sample of the cabbage here, if I am permitted to show it.”

“Yes, you can show it to the jury,” said the solicitor.

“Was this the condition of the cabbage when it came from Mary Phagan’s stomach?”

“Yes.”

“How long would you say the cabbage had been in her stomach?”

THIRTY MINUTES AFTER LUNCH.

“It is impossible to say exactly. I am confident, however, that it could not have been there more than half an hour.”

Dr. Harris brought two more bottles from his suitcase. “I have two samples of cabbage taken from the stomach of normal persons after one hour.” He showed the bottles to the court and the jury. Their contents were pesty—in contrast with the other sample from Mary Phagan’s stomach, which could be recognized immediately as cabbage and was almost intact.

“Dr. Harris, did you ever examine the vital organs of her body?”

Dr. Harris testified that there was no evidence of an assault, but there were indications that violence of some sort had been done. He said that some of the blood vessels were dilated.

“What did the dilation of these blood vessels indicate?”
“It indicated that violence of some sort had been done a little time before death.”

“How long before death was this violence done?”

Possibly five or ten minutes, replied the witness. The blood vessels were dilated, and it takes an appreciable time for inflammation to begin. Judging from the character of the inflammation, said the witness, he did not think the interval between violence and death was more than five or ten minutes.

“Doctor, how long after death does rigor mortis begin?”

“It varies so much, that it is impossible to say. I don’t think that would be of importance, in determining the time of death, because as I say it varies in different cases.”

“Is there any standard with reference to strangulation cases?”

“No, sir. I have seen rigor mortis begin within a very few minutes after death.”

“Does it ever begin before death?”

“No, sir. It may be delayed for many hours. I have seen persons dead for hours in whom rigor mortis had not set in. It begins with the eyelids and goes down, and goes off in the same way.”

“Can you state how long Mary Phagan was dying?”

“No, I could not exactly.”

“How long after she had eaten the cabbage and bread was it before death occurred?”

“To the very best of my opinion, she must have lived between one-half and three-quarters of an hour after eating.”

At this point the witness stopped, and appeared to be very faint. In a weak voice: “I’ll have to ask you to excuse me. I cannot go on further. I am very weak.”

“Just one more question, doctor,” asked the solicitor.

“How much blood did Mary Phagan lose before she died?”

“I couldn’t tell that.”

“When can you come back, doctor?”

“I’ll try to come back tomorrow. I’ve been in bed three days and I got up to come down here. I am utterly exhausted.”

Dr. Harris was very pale and appeared quite. He was assisted from the stand and out of the court room by one of the deputy sheriffs. Early during his testimony he had paused and asked for a glass of water, and with it had taken a dose of some medicine.

FEBUARY CALLED.

G. C. Febuary, stenographer to Chief of Detectives Lanford, was called to the stand and identified a report of a conversation between Frank and Lanford on Monday, April 28, in Lanford’s office. The defense let it go in without objection, after some discussion. That report later on was read to the jury in its entirety, by Assistant Solicitor Stephens. It was a short statement of Frank’s movements from about 11 o’clock, April 26, till the next morning.

The part which it was assumed the state was most anxious to get in was Frank’s statement that Mary Phagan arrived at the factory between 12:05 o’clock and 12:10, perhaps about 12:07. The rest of the statement detailed in Frank’s language his movements during the rest of the day. The statement quoted Frank as saying that he took a bath Saturday night and was wearing then different under clothes than the ones he wore on the day of the tragedy. Attorney Rosser examined Febuary and convulsed the court by his opening question:

“Have you got a dictograph on you?”

Attorney Rosser questioned Febuary specificically [sic] about Frank allowing Lanford to examine his clothing. He has been chief of police for a number of years, hasn’t he?”

The witness answered, “I don’t know that he ever has been chief of police.”

“Well,” said Ros[s]er, “chief of detectives, then—that’s worse.”

Before the witness could answer, Mr. Rosser turned to Chief Lanford, sitting in court and pointed out “this handsome man here” as the one he meant.

SAW FRANK SATURDAY.

Albert McKnight, negro, husband of Minola McKnight (the woman being the cook at the Selig residence), was called to the stan[d].

“How long has your wife been employed by Mrs. Selig?”

“A year or two years—something like that.”

“Where were you between 1 and 2 o’clock on Saturday, April 26?”

“At Mr. Frank’s house.”

“Did you see Mr. Frank?”

“Yes, about 1:30 o’clock.”

“What did he do?”

“He went into the dining room and went to the sideboard.”

“How long did he stay in there?”

“About five or ten minutes.”

The solicitor turned the witness over to the defense.

“Who was there, besides you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Mr. and Mrs. Selig and Mr. Frank’s wife. I was sitting in the kitchen.”

“How do you know that Mr. Frank didn’t stop to eat? You can’t see through from the kitchen to the dining room, can you?”

“Yes, sir, you can see through.”

“Don’t you know it is impossible to see through the swinging doors?”

“The swinging door was open and you can look into a mirror in the corner of the dining room and see the room.”

“And Mr. Frank went to the sideboard? You don’t know what he did there.”

“No, sir.”

“Oh, you couldn’t see the sideboard from the mirror?”

“No, sir.”

“How big is the kitchen?”

“I don’t know.”

“Well, about how big?”

The negro couldn’t answer definitely, and the question was waived.

“How big is the dining room?”

The negro couldn’t describe that, either.

“Have you ever been in the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

“What kind of furniture is in there?”

“I don’t know.”

“What kind is in the kitchen?”

“Well, there’s a safe and a stove and a table.”

“Where did you sit in the kitchen?”

“At the side of the back door.”

“Were you sitting right in front of the little hall betwe[e]n the dining room and the kitchen?”

“No, sir, not exactly.”

“Wait a minute till I look at a diagram of the house I’ve got here,” said Mr. Rosser. Then he put this question:

Well, don’t you know it’s impossible to sit in the kitchen and look through this little hall into the dining room?”

“No, sir.”

Mr. Rosser called the negro from the stand to explain to the jury, on the diagram of the Selig-Frank home, how he could sit in the kitchen and see all over the dining room. The negro insisted merely that he could sit in the kitchen and see into the dining room, and that in a mirror there he could see a reflection of almost all parts of the dining room.

“You haven’t got a curve to your eyesight, have you?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“No, sir,” said the witness.

“You can’t look a curve, can you?”

“No, sir.”

“Where was Minola?”

“She was in the kitchen.”

“Didn’t she go into the dining room?”

“Yes, sir, she went in once.”

“How long did she stay?”

“About two minutes.”

“Do you know whether Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Selig ate anything?”

“No, sir; I didn’t see them eating.”

HEARD THEM TALKING.

“You never saw Mr. Selig at all?”

“No, sir.”

“Where did you go from to the Selig residence?”

“I went from home.”

“What time did you get there?”

“Some time after 1 o’clock.”

“You saw Mr. Frank come in and go to the sideboard?”

“Yes.”

“He walked up to the sideboard, walked out, and went to town?”

“He went back into the sitting room, where Mr. Selig was.”

“I thought you said you didn’t see Mr. Selig?”

“I didn’t, but I heard him talking back there.”

Mr. Rosser held up the diagram in front of the negro again. He asked the negro how it was he could sit back in the kitchen and hear them talking in the sitting room or the hall. The negro reiterated that he heard them.

“And you never moved away from the door until you left to go home?”

“No, sir.”

“Did Minola go with you?”

“No, sir.”

“When did you first tell this tale after the 26^th of April?”

“After I came back from Birmingham.”

“To whom did you first tell it?”

“Mr. Craven, the boss of the plow department at the Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.”

“Was that before or after they got Minola?”

“Two or three days before.”

“You never told any others?”

“Yes, sir, later I told Detective Starnes, Detective Campbell, Mr. Martin and Mr. Dorsey.”

“That’s the time Mr. Dorsey had Minola sent to jail, was it not?”

“I don’t know whether he did or not.”

“He said, ‘Take her on down,’ didn’t he?”

“I don’t know, sir. I guess so.”

Solicitor Dorsey entered an objection. “I did nothing of the kind,” said he.

SAW FRANK TAKE CAR.

“They brought Minola out of Mr. Dorsey’s office while you were there didn’t they?”

“No, sir.”

“You didn’t go to the jail with Minola?”

“No, sir.”

“Didn’t you go to see her when she was locked up down at police barracks?”

“I didn’t know she was locked up till I got home from work that night.”

“You say it was about 1:30 o’clock when Mr. Frank came home to lunch?”

“Yes, sir, it was about that time, but I can’t say for certain.”

“And you didn’t see Mr. and Mrs. Selig or Mrs. Frank?”

“No, sir.”
“What car did Mr. Frank catch to come back to town?”

“He caught the Georgia avenue car at Pulliam street.”

“How do you know? You were still sitting in the kitchen, weren’t you?”

“No, sir, I was on my way home and came up Georgia avenue behind him.”

Solicitor Dorsey took up the redirect examination of the witness. The solicitor caused the negro to repeat emphatically that from the point where he sat in the kitchen he could see Mr. Frank and did see him.

COURT ADJOURNS.

Judge Roan had the jury sent to its room, and stated that the jurors had expressed a request that some magazines be sent to them, that they be allowed to write notes to their wives, and that they be permitted to get fresh linen. Solicitor Dorsey said he had no objection if the magazines were censored properly by the sheriff and any notes received or sent by the jurors were censored also. The defense had no objection.

Judge Roan adjourned court at 5:02 until 9 o’clock Saturday morning.

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Wednesday, June 25, 1913

Date of Trial Changed From June 30 Until July 28 at Plea of Attorneys for Defense.

The first appearance in open court of the indictment against Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan came yesterday afternoon when Judge L. S. Roan, presiding over the criminal division of superior court, summoned attorneys for both sides, and after a hearing changed the date of trial from June 30, as set by Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, to July 28.

This and the legal move by the defense in serving upon Solicitor Dorsey, Police Chief James L. Beavers, Detective Chief Newport Lanford and other detectives and officials for the state, with formal subpoenas duces tecum, commanding them to bring to court all affidavits they may have which bear upon the state’s case against Frank, were the only changes in the present situation.

Judge Roan also decided that the trial of Frank would be held not in the regular room in which he holds his division of court, but in one of the rooms in which the civil division of the superior court sits.

Where Trial Will be Held.

This was done, the judge explained, because the ceiling is very low in the courtroom in the Thrower building, where his court regularly sits, and the room is ventilated by windows only on one side. The trial will be held, according to present plans, in one of the courtrooms in the old city hall, corner South Pryor and East Hunter streets, where the ceilings are higher and windows can be thrown open on both sides of the room to allow ventilation.

Solicitor Dorsey appeared very anxious to have the trial take place on June 30, the date he had in his official capacity as solicitor, named. He states that his only reason for this is that the state is ready, and he is anxious to dispose of the case as soon as possible.

This date was stricken out by Judge Roan when Attorney Reuben Arnold, for the defense, came out with the statement that the trial would last two weeks. July 14, another date suggested, was left out upon the statement by Attorney Arnold and Attorney Luther Z. Rosser, both for the defense, that they would be engaged in the trial of Mrs. Mattie Flanders, in Swainsboro, Ga. At that time the two Atlanta attorneys who are working together in the Frank defense, will oppose each other. Attorney Rosser will represent the defense, while his colleague will aid the prosecution.

Judge Roan, in announcing his determination of the trial date, stated that he believed that it was necessary to set a definite date, formally agreed upon by both sides and thus eliminate a further delay. The judge took the position that the case, while before the law similar to any other, is really different, in that it will be one in which many veniremen and witnesses must be brought into court, and a postponement would cost the state a large sum of money.

Both sides announced in court that they would be ready when the time comes.

“I’m ready now to take up the trial,” said the solicitor, “and that’s why I am objecting to any postponement.”

“We are ready ourselves,” said both attorneys for the defense.

These public declarations make it appear that the trial will actually take place on the July date set, and that, unless something new should appear, there will be no further delay.

Solicitor Dorsey refused later to discuss the service of a duces tecum upon him. He declined to state what would be his action in regard to the matter, or what in his opinion was its legal bearing upon the case.

May Attack Conley Statement.

The subpoenas declare that the papers and affidavits are wanted as evidence for the defense of Frank, and leads to the belief that the defense will make an attack upon the various statements of James Conley, the negro sweeper, who had declared in an affidavit that he aided Frank in hiding the Phagan girl’s body. The several affidavits alleged to have been made by the Conley negro are demanded in the subpoenas, as are the affidavits credited to Miss Monteen Stover and Miss Grace Hix.

Another affidavit demanded from all of the parties subpoenaed is that of W. M. Mathews. The name of Mathews has not yet appeared publicly in the Phagan case, and his affidavit, if there is such a one, is believed to have been secured by Solicitor Dorsey and held in secret by him. Just how the defense succeeded in finding out that there is such an affidavit, or getting reasons for declaring that there is one, in their demand for it, is not explained. The solicitor refuses to discuss this affidavit, and the other officials deny all knowledge of it.

The others named in the subpoenas duces tecum besides those already mentioned are: Assistant Solicitor E. A. Stephens, Harry Scott, a Pinkerton detective, employed by the National Pencil company, but working with the city detectives on the case; City Detectives John Black, Pat Campbell and J. N. Starnes and G. C. Febuary, secretary to Chief Lanford.

Confers With Assistant.

Solicitor Dorsey is still taking up various points in the case and going over them with his assistant and with Attorney Frank Hooper, retained to aid the state. He spent several hours late Tuesday evening in conference with Detectives Campbell and Starnes. He has also planned several changes in an elaborate drawing of the National pencil factory, which he had specially drawn from measurements.

Bert Green, a newspaper artist, who made the drawing for the state, is the same man who, while employed in New York, made the diagrams of a New York roof garden in the famous case against Harry K. Thaw for the murder of Stanford White.

Conley is Grilled.

Jim Conley, the negro pencil factory sweeper, was subjected to a secret grilling at police headquarters yesterday shortly before noon. Detectives say it was in an effort to extract some new statement, but declare that the negro divulged nothing of fresh importance. Chief Lanford would not talk to reporters regarding the examination.

Conley was not taken to the chief’s office, as has heretofore been the custom. Detectives Campbell and Starnes and others took him to a vacant cell in the extreme rear of the prison, where he was questioned for an hour or more.

The negro’s counsel, Attorney William M. Smith, also was not aware of the examination. He says, however, that nothing new was gained from Conley, and that he was questioned only in regard to a probable desire to make additional statements.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 25th 1913, “Trial of Leo Frank Postponed by Judge,” 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

Tuesday, June 24, 1913

Dorsey, Beavers and Lanford Summoned to Appear June 30 With All Affidavits They Have Secured Relative to the Phagan Slaying Case.

Just before the conference with both sides in the Frank case started Judge Roan intimated strongly that he would set the case for July 14 or July 28 and hold it in some more commodious court room than the one in which he sits on the fourth floor of the Thrower building. Judge Roan’s personal inclination leans to a date in July, and it is not likely that the State or defense will object to acceding to his wishes.

The date was definitely fixed for July 28 at the conference.

The first important legal move by the defense in the battle for the life and freedom of Leo Frank, accused of the strangling of Mary Phagan, was made Tuesday in the issuance of subpenas duces tecum for the prime movers in the prosecution of the factory superintendent.

The following have been subpenaed to appear:

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, who will prosecute the prisoner.

Chief of Police James L. Beavers, who was the leader in obtaining incriminating affidavits.

Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott, to whom is generally given credit for the admissions gained from Conley.

All other city detectives who have worked on the case.

All of them are ordered to produce any affidavits they may have bearing on the case in court June 30, indicating that the defense will be prepared to go on with the trial at that time.

Judge Roan, however, had called a conference of the attorneys on both sides of the case for 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when he announced that he would set the date definitely after the attorneys had been given an opportunity to say whether or not their cases would be in shape to present if the trial were called the last of this month.

Plan to Use Same Evidence.

The startling move on the part of the defense was taken to mean that Frank’s lawyers propose to use to free their client the very evidence the detectives and Solicitor General have collected to send him to the gallows.

The most significant demand is made upon Chief Beavers, who is commanded to bring into court the famed series of affidavits made by the negro sweeper, Jim Conley. It is evident that Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, who are conducting the defense, intend to tear the contradictory stories of the negro to tatters and make his statements so utterly ridiculous and improbable that the jury not only will refuse to accept them, but will interpret them as an effort of Conley to get from under the blame for a crime that he committed himself.

Chief Beavers is asked to bring into court the written statement made by Conley May 18 in the presence of Detective John R. Black and Pinkerton Detective Harry Scott; also the affidavit sworn to by Conley before G. C. Febuary in the presence of Chief Lanford and Detectives Black and Scott May 24, the affidavit made by Conley May 28, the affidavit made by the negro May 29 in the presence of Lanford, Campbell and Scott and all other written statements of the negro in the possession or control of the Chief.

Girls Also Are Called.

Chief Beavers is asked, in addition, to bring all the statements of Newt Lee, the negro night watchman; Monteen Stover, the girl who testified that Frank was not in his office when she went for her money; W. M. Matthews, and Miss Grace Hicks, the girl who first identified the dead body as that of Mary Phagan.

The defense has persistently ridiculed the stories of Jim Conley and characterized them as cunning fabrications to shift the blame on Frank’s shoulders.

With the other affidavits, which for the most part are given credence by the defense, the attempt will be merely to show that the evidence which the prosecution holds to point toward the guilt of Frank only more firmly places it on the shoulders of the negro sweeper, and that the State from time to time has shifted the ground on which it based its theory that Frank was guilty.

Hooper Calls Move a Trick.

Frank A. Hooper, associated with Solicitor Dorsey in the prosecution, branded the move of the defense as a thinly veiled trick to impeach the testimony of the witnesses called by the State, and said that it was not at all unlikely that the subpenaes would be resisted.

He intimated his belief that it was the intention of the defense to use the affidavits as a comparison with the testimony of the affiants when […] took the stand in an effort to pick out every discrepancy and thus seek to discredit the witnesses.

Before the conference between Judge Roan and the attorneys on the opposing sides began in the afternoon, the judge announced that he would be the one who would set the date for the trial, after consulting the convenience of the attorneys.

He said that he desired to preclude the possibility that the case would be called for June 30 and the witnesses summoned and then one or another of the attorneys ask for a postponement. He expressed it as his purpose to carry the case through to its completion once it was started.

The judge said that he did not believe it right, in view of the warm weather, to call an umber of witnesses and then delay the case further. He said that after the attorneys on the two sides had been heard he would set the date himself.

Arnold Not Decided.

Reuben Arnold, one of the attorneys for the defense, said that he did not see how the defense could make any definite agreement on the date at this time, becaus [sic] of the possible contingencies that might arise before the trial. Solicitor Dorsey has announced that he was prepared to go ahead with the trial at any time.

That Leo M. Frank will go at once on trial for his life next Monday when he is brought before the court of the charge of strangling little Mary Phagan was the strong probability discussed in court circles Tuesday. The prosecution has announced that[…]

PHAGAN DEFENSE CALLS STATE’S LEADERS

Frank’s Counsel Subpenas Dorsey, Beavers and Lanford. “Trick,” Says Hooper.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]its case has been practically complete for days. The defense has said that all its vital witnesses have been found. There has been no intimation that a continuance will be asked unless it be for some contingency as the illness of Frank or of an important witness.

The defense has been non-committal. The attorneys have not said that they would ask for a postponement. They also have refused to say that they would not seek a delay.

Rosser Reticent.

Luther Z. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, has carefully avoided answering the direct question whether he would be ready for trial on that day. Reuben R. Arnold, associated with him, said the case was complete, but he, too, evaded a statement as to whether they would consent for the trial to begin next week.

Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey is making his preparations for the trial on the supposition that the defense will be ready, and he will urge before the court that the case be tried on the date set. He summoned the first witnesses Monday and Tuesday, and when court opens next Monday he will have the corridors filled with persons who will testify against Frank. His preparations could not be more complete if he had received an announcement from the defense that no continuance would be asked.

Both the prosecution and the defense will have at least twelve vital witnesses. The inability of one to attend the trial, unless by death or removal from the jurisdiction of the court, would necessitate a continuance until this witness could attend the trial.

Arnold’s Stand.

Attorney Arnold openly admitted that if one of his important witnesses was not able to appear in Frank’s behalf when the case was called, he would move for a continuance and would not consider going to trial on the chance of the witness appearing later.

J. M. Gantt, one of the first to be arrested as a suspect, will be one of the most important witnesses for the State.

Developments since he testified at the Coroner’s inquest, it is understood, have made his evidence of the utmost importance. He was one of the few witnesses to go before the Grand Jury when Frank was indicted, and he was closely questioned by the Solicitor Monday afternoon when he finished questioning Conley. It is said that evidence that could have been given by him in the examinations before the Conley affidavit was made, but was considered of no relative importance then, is now of vital interest to the State and he will be one of the star witnesses.

Jury Panel Drawn.

Here is the first panel of jurors drawn:

L. L. Knight, J. M. Clayton, C. G. Childs, J. S. Ball, Joseph H. Horacek, C. T. Nerl, T. J. Cheshire, C. L. Near, W. T. Meadors, T. L. Hindman, L. H. Walter, J. C. Roberts, L. P. Baker, H. D. Reiley, C. T. Bomar, J. D. Cloudman, G. H. Roalader, W. G. Griffin, W. T. Waddell, T. C. Bergren, W. S. Risor, W. F. Wesley, W. F. Stewart, W. R. Smith, H. S. Broadnax, D. A. White, J. A. Reid, J. R. Bailey, J. C. Clayton, H. C. Bentley, H. M. Robinson, E. M. Landrum, M. F. Rogers, Morris Frankel, W. W. Jones, R. S. Johnson, W. A. Wethington, A. R. Smith, Freeman Hiscox, John D. Wing, C. E. Long, W. T. McCullough, Leon McCandless, J. H. Rosy, E. L. Florence, G. H. Cathcart, L. H. Bartlett, P. P. Pound, S. W. Power, J. W. West, John C. Percy, J. C. McKenzie, J. T. Fehr, D. T. Burson, T. F. Conoly, C. C. Bowling, J. C. Ball, C. W. Heery, W. M. Morgan, W. H. Petree, D. P. Pace, C. W. Puckett, J. A. Bankston, Johnston Miller, C. B. Mitchell, J. W. Delbeck, P. L. Soudan, H. M. Christie, A. T. McNeely, John M. Green, W. W. Grabitt, J. H. Graham.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, June 24th 1913, “Both Sides Called in Conference by Judge; Trial Set for July 28,” 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

Tuesday, June 24, 1913

Judge Names Date After Statement From Reuben R. Arnold, In Which He Said Trial Would Last Two Weeks

DEFENSE TAKES STEPS TO GET STATE’S EVIDENCE

Subpenas Duces Tecum Issued, Demanding Production of Affidavits and Popers [sic] in Possession of Solicitor

Leo M. Frank, accused of the slaying of Mary Phagan, will not be tried before superior court Judge L. S. Roan next Monday. The judge in a conference with attorneys at 2 o’clock Tuesday afternoon formally set the trial for Monday, July 28, and no attempt to reopen the questions of arraignment will be made. Both the prosecution and the defense agreed to this date.

Any attempt made to put Frank on trial on next Monday was silenced when Reuben R. Arnold, speaking for the defense, said flatly that the trial would take at least two weeks. The assurance that the trial would last some time and the fact that it likely would be held in the stuffy little court room in the Thrower building, if scheduled Monday, practically caused the postponement.

Solicitor Dorsey, for the state, and Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, for the prosecution, were summoned to the court house by Judge Roan at 3 o’clock and a discussion of the matter was opened.

SOLICITOR ANNOUNCED READY.

Solicitor Dorsey announced that he was ready and made the declaration that his witnesses would not take more than two days at the outside. He said if the defense had any he didn’t think they would take any longer.

This remark brought a grunt from Luther Z. Rosser and the Arnold statement that the trial would take two weeks.

“We have the witnesses,” both of the lawyers for the defense asserted.

Both Attorneys Rosser and Arnold told the court that in the event of a postponement of the case for Monday that they desired it to go over until after the week of July 14, when both would be engaged in the trial of Mattie Flanders in Swainsboro. Mr. Rosser represents the defense of Mrs. Flanders and Mr. Arnold the prosecution.

This came when Solicitor Dorsey suggested that the case be tried on July 7.

Judge Roan, in fixing July 28 as a date suitable to all concerned, said that there would be no break in the week, as there would with July 4, that a good court room for the trial could be obtained about July 13, that the jail could be cleared of routine cases by that time and previously made engamenest [sic] would not be interrupted.

All lawyers concerned were in court and the judge asserted that lack of preparation could not be offered as an excuse when the case was called on July 28.

The attorneys for Leo M. Frank Tuesday afternoon secured subpoenas duces tecum to be served on Chief James L. Beavers, Chief N. A. Lanford, Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, Assistant Solicitor E. A. Stevens, Hary [sic] Scott, of the Pinkertons; City Detectives John Black, Pat Campbell and J. N. tSarnes [sic], and Secretary of Chief Lanford, G. C. Febuary, calling upon them to produce in court Monday June 30, or any other day that the Frank case might be on trial, all affidavits or statements secured from Jim Conley, the negro sweeper; Monteen Stover and Grace Hix.

Subpoenas declared that the papers are wanted as evidence by the defense in the case of Leo M. Frank.

ALL PAPERS DEMANDED.

The subpoenas duces tecum order those upon whom they are served to produce a certain affidavit or statement sworn to by James Conley in the presence of Detective John Black and Harry Scott, on May 18; also affidavits or statements made by Conley on May 24; also a certain written affida-[…]

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

JULY 28 IS DATE AGREED UPON FOR TRIAL OF FRANK

(Continued from Page 1.)

[…]vit or statement made and signed by Conley on May 28 in the presence of Chief Lanford and Detectives Black and Scott; also an affidavit made by Conley on May 28 in the presence of Lanford and Scott; also an affidavit or statement made by Conley on May 29 in the presence of Chief Lanford and Detectives Campbell and Scott; also “all other statements or affidavits made by James Conley in your power, custody or control, in reference to the murder of Mary Phagan.”

The subpoenas further demand the production of all statements or affidavits made by Newt Lee in reference to the case; also all affidavits or statements made by Monteen Stover; also all statements made by W. M. Mathews; and finally all statements or affidavits made by Grace Hix.

The subpoenas provide that the papers named shall be produced in court on Monday, June 30, or on any other day that the case of the State vs. Leo M. Frank might be on trial.

It is evident by this move of the part of the defense that Mr. Frank’s attorneys propose to lay great stress upon the conflicting statements and affidavits made by the negro Conley as the real murderer of Mary Phagan, and his numerous statements in reference to the case will doubtless be used to show the unreliability of his evidence against Frank.

POINT TO BE CONTESTED.

While Solicitor Dorsey absolutely declined to discuss the demands of the defense for the production of the papers and affidavits secured by the state in its investigation of the Phagan tragedy, it is evident that the papers will not be turned over to the defense without a bitter fight. The papers unquestionably will be brought to court by those who not have them in custody, but before the defense is permitted access to them it is believed that the state will contest the point before the judge. Just how this will be done is not known.

Frank H. Hooper, the attorney who will be associated with the solicitor in the porsecution [sic], was in conference with Solicitor Dorsey and Detectives Starnes, Campbell and Harry Scott for several hours Tuesday morning. The nature of this conference was not known but it is believed that they were going over the evidence in the Phagan case, getting ready for the trial.

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE?

There is considerable speculation as to the nature of the statement or affidavit made by W. M. Mathews, which is among the papers demanded by the defense. Both Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford declare that they never heard of Mathews in connection with the Phagan case before. It seems probable, therefore, that Mathews’ statement is part of the evidence secured by Solicitor Dorsey. The only W. M. Mathews whose name is in the city director is a street car motorman living at 449 Lee street.

CONFER WITH RELATIVES.

Detectives working on the Phagan case Monday afternoon held a conference at Chief Lanford’s office with J. W. Coleman, step-father of the slain girl, and W. J. Phagan, the aged grandfather, of Marietta.

The two men visited police headquarters at the request of the detectives and discussed every feature of the case to be brought out at the trial of Leo M. Frank.

It is said the two men went to headquarters for conference following the last attempt on the part of Solicitor Dorsey to gain new information from Jim Conley, the negro witness. Conley, it is said, was quizzed again Monday, but the examination, so officials assert, developed nothing new.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 24th 1913, “July 27 Is Date Agreed Upon for Trial of Frank,” 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, June 15, 1913

“Upon Reading My Notes Before the Court It Will Be Proven That There Is Enough of It There to Justify What Was Written and Sworn to be Me as Being Practically the Gist of What Was Said,” Says Young Stenographer of Dictograph Records Transcribed by Him

“I WAS ALLOWED TO READ PROOF OF WHAT WAS PUBLISHED ABOUT FELDER CONFERENCE,” HE SAYS

“As Far as What The Journal Published, Will Say, as Far as I Can Remember, What They Printed Were the Facts In a General Way, and the Changes Were Immaterial.” Located by The Jounaal’s [sic] Washington Correspondent, Gentry Talks Freely.

By Ralph Smith

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 14.—Living under an assumed name and holding a lucrative position as an expert stenographer, George M. Gentry, of Atlanta, who made the famous dictograph notes, was located in Washington today by the Journal correspondent. He has been here since May 27. He left Atlanta via the Southern railway on the evening of May 26, following the Felder exposure. He claims to have seen no one from Atlanta other than E. O. Miles, and The Journal correspondent, though he is in communication with the members of his immediate family.

Gentry’s real identity is unknown to his employers, and at his request his present address and the place of his employment are withheld by the correspondent. Their publication, he believes, might cause him unnecessary annoyance.

“I left Atlanta because I feared that I might be arrested for perjury,” he said.

Gentry today voluntarily made an affidavit, elaborating and elucidating the statements contained in the affidavit he recently gave to E. O. Miles. This affidavit, made today, was sworn to and subscribed before Isaac Heidenheimer, of 1226 Pennsylvania avenue, notary public, for the District of Columbia. It was witnessed by Senator William Hughes, of New Jersey and Congressman Frank Doremus, of Michigan.

The original and a carbon copy are in the possession of The Journal correspondent, and Gentry himself has a copy. The affidavit was written by Gentry, without suggestion or dictation from anyone.

“Unfortunately I did not go into enough detail in my previous affidavit, hence the necessity of making a further one,” swore Gentry today.

Continuing the affidavit says, “I neglected to mention in same (the Miles affidavit) that I was allowed to read a proof of what The Journal published, in connection with the Felder conference. This conference was transcribed first and printed in Friday’s issue of the Journal. The other conferences, all of which were held Wednesday afternoon and evening, preceding the date of publication, were not published until after the Felder conference was published. I made one or two changes in the proof of the Felder conference, this being the only proof I was allowed to see. As I remember in one instance, I had written the word “intrude” any my notes contained the word “intruding.”

“Further than this I do not remember of any change that I made in same, with the exception of ordinary corrections, such as marking misspelled words, adding periods and commas, and striking them out.”

Gentry swore today that he received absolutely nothing for writing his previous affidavit and that he did not receive one penny for writing the affidavit today.

WHY HE GOT FRIGHTENED.

“I allowed myself to become so frightened because I thought that according to law, if one change was made by me, from what I had in my notes, I had committed perjury and was liable, and as I had myself made several changes during the transcribing of the notes. I felt rather guilty. However, Mr. Febuary assured me that I was writing what had been said as so I accordingly swore that what I had written was what I had heard. I discovered later that I had sworn that what I had written was a true and correct transcription of my notes. I did not realize at the time of signing the affidavit that I had sworn any such thing or I would have not signed the affidavit. The affidavit that I signed in connection with the transcription of my notes, was dictated to me and I signed it before a notary public without reading same in detail. I simply glanced over same to ascertain as to the correctness of the typewriting.

THE JOURNAL’S STORY CORRECT.

“As far as what The Journal published not being correct, will say with the exception cited, as far as I can remember, what they printed were the facts in a general way, and the changes were immaterial with the exception of how they might be considered in law, about which I know very little.

“I have already stated under oath that I did not hear the names of Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford mentioned in the Woodward conference. I desire to modify this to the extent that I did not hear their names mentioned by Mayor Woodward. They may have been mentioned by other parties in the room. In fact, as I remember it, they were:

“In conclusion will say upon the reading of my notes before the court it will be proven that there is enough of it there to justify what was written and sworn to by me as being practically the gist of what was said.

“The Journal’s position in the matter as far as I know is fair, and I believe, although I do not make the positive assertion, that what they published was given to them by Colyar, Febuary and myself.

Gentry declared in his affidavit that when it was found necessary or advisable for him to return to Atlanta he will return, and will read his original notes before the court. He says that they will not be read before any private individuals, and he desires that what he reads shall be taken down and compared with what he wrote.

TELLS WHERE HE HAS BEEN.

In reference to leaving Atlanta, Gentry says in his affidavit:

“I will start by giving an account of my actions since the memorable dictograph affairs. I have already set fourth [sic] my reason for leaving Atlanta, in my affidavit published on June 11, 1913, as aforesaid. My original intention was to go to Baltimore, but upon my arrival at Washington, I did not go any farther, feeling that this city was large enough to get lost in. The day after my arrival here, Wednesday, I went to work as a stenographer, but not under the name of Gentry. My reason for assuming another name was to avoid the attendant annoyance that would follow the knowledge that I was in Washington. I can be reached through Mr. Ralph Smith, The Journal’s correspondent here, whenever it is necessary, who knows my place of employment, and who has further agreed not to divulge it, at my earnest request. Mr. E. O. Miles is also acquainted with both my business and residence address.”

While Gentry makes no reference to the matter in his affidavit, the original note book is now in the possession of a well known Atlanta attorney, whose name is known to The Journal correspondent.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, June 15th 1913, “Gentry, Found by Journal, Says Notes Will Show Enough to Justify What Was Sworn To,” 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 Constitution

June 12, 1913

Investigation of Charges and Counter Charges Will Begin at Early Date and Will Be Exhaustive One.

LANFORD SAYS GENTRY WILL DENY AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit Is Made Declaring Dictagraph Instrument Was Secured by Chief Lanford For Use in Phagan Case.

Following close on the heels of the publication of the George M. Gentry affidavit, in which the young stenographer states that his typewritten report of the dictagraph conversation was padded, and says that he left town after he had discovered that he had fallen in with a “crowd of crooks,” comes the assurance that the grand jury will at once make a searching probe of the detective department in an effort to establish the truth regarding the many charges and counter charges that have been afloat since the dictagraph sensation was sprung.

Members of the grand jury take the position that if the Gentry affidavit is true, it constitutes a stinging indictment of the detective department—an indictment which should not be allowed to stand longer than it will take to uncover the facts.

Records True, Says Lanford.

Chief of Detectives Lanford defends his department and his own personal connection with the sensation with the declaration that the dictagraph reports, as published, were absolutely correct, and that reports to the contrary are not only false, but will be proved untrue.

Impeiled by public sentiment the dictagraph incident created, it is authentically stated that the grand jury probe will be made at a very early date, and will be an exhaustive one.

While contradicted by Gentry’s affidavit and statements from the trio of dictagraph “victims”—Mayor Woodward, Colonel Felder and Charles Jones. G. C. Febuary, secretary to Chief Lanford, stoutly maintas that the dictagraph notes were accurate and that there were no discrepancies whatever in the published copies.

Probing Gentry’s Departure.

Developments were many Wednesday as a result of the stenographer’s testimony. Chief Lanford declared to reporters that he was investigating Gentry’s departure from the city with a view to substantiating his theory that the youth was lured to Washington by Ed Miles, acting for people “higher up.”

An affidavit setting forth the statement that Lanford obtained the dictagraph instrument on the pretense of using it only to corroborate evidence in the Mary Phagan mystery, has been attested to by L. O. Suries, who is attached to the Southern Bell Telephone company, and who is local representative of the dictagraph concern.

L. O. Series Makes Affidavit.

It follows:

Georgia, Fulton County—Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer authorized by Surles, who, first being duly and legally sworn, deposeth and saith: That he is an employee of the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, and heretofore represented, as agent, the General Acoustics company.

Deponent further says on oath that on Wednesday, the 31st day of May, 1913, Newport Lanford, chief of detectives, called him over the phone, requesting that he install a dictagraph in an important case, and that it must be done by 10:30 on the same morning Deponent thereupon at the office of Chief Lanford, who stated that he desired the dictagraph to corroborate important evidence in the Phagan murder mystery, whereupon deponent consented to install the dictagraph, upon the understanding that his name would not be used in connection with said installation. Chief Lanford assured deponent that he would comply with said request. Deponent was directed to certain rooms in the Williams house, where the dictagraph was installed under direction of one Febuary and one Colyar, who were understood by deponent to be representatives of Chief Lanford’s office, the installation being completed about 1 p.m. on Wednesday, the 21st day of May, 1913. After the installation deponent left the premises, and was called to remove the instrument on the following day. The removal was made about 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, the 22nd day of May, 1913.

Deponent further states on oath that at no time during the interview with Chief Lanford, during the installation of said dictagraph or thereafter, was there any intimation that the instrument was to be used for corroborating evidence in the Phagan murder mystery.

Deponent further states on oath that this affidavit was dictated by him personally and voluntarily, in order to clearly state his position in any controversy arising over his connection with said installation.

L. O. Surles

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 9th day of June, 1913.

D. O. Chestnut

Notary public, Fulton County, Georgia.

Felder Parallels Statements.

This affidavit has inspired Colonel Felder to draw a parallel of extracts from one of his statements recently published and from a reply made by Chief Lanford. He accuses the detectives of having lied regarding the negotiations with Surles prior to the installation of the dictagraph.

The first extract is from a card addressed by Colonel Felder to Chief Lanford. It follows:

“You lied to Surles, of the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph company, to induce him to install the so-called dictagraph; you lied to turn him in promising him not to use his name—you disclosed it in an effort to give respectability to the conspiracy by publishing: ‘The instrument used in dictagraphing Felder was installed by Surles, electrician of the Southern Bell Telephone company.'”

The extract from Lanford’s answer is:

“He says I promised Surles that I would not use his name. Here, again, he lies. All I said to Surles while negotiating with him to install the dictagraph was that I intended to use it in the interest of justice.”

Detectives Want Gentry.

That every effort will be made by the detective department to return Gentry to Atlanta, was a statement made by Lanford. If any legal means can be found, he said, and the stenographer refuses to come back to Georgia, he will be brought back under charges of perjury.

Chief Beavers, who is in Washington attending the annual convention of national police heads, has been wired by the detective chief to find Gentry and investigate his affidavit. No reply was received from him up to late last night. He was also asked to persuade Gentry to return with him to Atlanta.

“If Gentry had made this affidavit in Atlanta,” Chief Lanford said, “I would take instant action against him for perjury. We can do nothing with him as long as the deed was committed in Washington. He had better be glad, however, that he was that far away. That is, considering, of course, that he attested to the paper. I doubt its genuineness myself. I think it’s a forgery.”

“If Gentry comes back, he’ll tell the truth, and prove our assertions that the affidavit is false and that the dictagraph records were absolutely correct. He will come shortly. I have detailed men to investigate the cause of his departure, and it is my theory that he was got out of the city by this Miles, who was acting under instructions of influence ‘higher up.'”

Believes in Gentry.

“I do not believe Gentry is the kind of man to swear to one affidavit and then make another contradicting his first. He impresses me as being a clean-cut, honest youth, who will act according to the dictates of his conscience, matter not what be the circumstances.”

Febuary stated to a reporter that he will swear to the accuracy of the published dictagraph reports, and that if Gentry persists in his purported story, he will personally take action against the stenographer for alleged perjury. He says the affidavit is the result of a frame-up of the ‘ring,’ who were affected by the dictagraph incident.

“Gentry’s affidavit bears out my contention that the entire matter was a frame-up on the part of Lanford and his hirelings,” said Colonel Felder. “It is complete vindication. Everyone now agrees with me that I was the innocent victim of a conspiracy.”

“As far as I personally am concerned, the incident is closed, Gentry will return to Atlanta within the next ten days and will something additional to say. It is reported that I possess the key to vault in which are contained Gentry’s original notes. This is erroneous. They are safe in the hands of a responsible attorney.”

Grand Jury Probe Needed.

“The grand jury will do Atlanta a real service by investigating this vile dictagraph business.” Mayor Woodward declared Wednesday afternoon. “The sooner it is taken up and the deeper the grand jury goes into it, the better pleased I’ll be.”

“The whole business, on its face, looks like a plot against me. If I am guilty of anything, I want the grand jury to expose me. If I have been victimized I feel that it is the duty of the grand jury to vindicate me, and if those who tried to frame up on me are guilty of unbecoming conduct I think it is the duty of the grand jury to say so.”

“I am satisfied that the people of Atlanta now know the truth. Gentry’s affidavit has vindicated me. But it has placed the police department in a bad light in the eyes of the people of Atlanta. If the mayor of the city is not safe from underhand attacks such as this dictagraph plot has been shown to be, God help our citizens.”

“And right here let me say that the police commission can do a whole lot to restore public confidence by making an investigation of its own accord.”

George Gentry’s mother, when seen by a Constitution reporter at her home last night, would not discuss the report that she had sworn to an affidavit, which stated that her son, shortly before his departure from the city, had told her of the dictagraph ‘padding,’ and had given as the reason for his flight the fear of being arrested on a rumored warrant.

Mrs. Gentry said that she did not care to tell the date on which she expected the stenographer’s return. She explained that it was his affair, not his family’s, and that this was the reason why they were maintaining silence.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, June 12th, 1913, “Grand Jury Will Probe Affidavits About Dictagraph,” 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 Constitution

June 11, 1913

NOTEBOOK WILL PROVE REPORTS WERE ‘PADDED,’ HE SAYS IN AFFIDAVIT

Young Stenographer, Who Made the Report of the Conversation in Room No. 31 Williams House, Voluntarily Makes Statement Before a Notary Public in the City of Washington D. C., Where He Is Employed.

ASSERTS THAT HE LEFT ATLANTA WHEN INFORMED OVER TELEPHONE HE MIGHT BE PUT UNDER ARREST

Swears That A. S. Colyar Has Made Effort to Purchase His Original Notes, Which Are Now in Possession of His Brotheró”Grand Jury Should Make an Investigation” Declares Mayor James G. Woodward.

The sworn charge that the dictagraph statements, alleged to have been made by Colonel Thomas B. Felder, Mayor James G. Woodward and Charles C. Jones, in Room No 31, Williams house, were “padded” was brought back to Atlanta last night by Ed O. Miles, a private detective, and turned over to Mayor Woodward.

The affidavit was composed and sworn to by George M. Gentry, the stenographer who took the dictagraph conversations. Detective Miles located Gentry in Washington, D. C., where he has been employed during the past two weeks. The affidavit was sworn to before Jeannette Henning, a notary public.

GENTRY WILLING TO RETURN WHENEVER HE IS NEEDED HERE.

“Gentry was willing to come back to Atlanta with me,” Detective Miles said last night. “He has promised to work out the remainder of the month, and has assured me that he will return at the end of that time, or earlier if he is wanted.”

Aside from the charge that his stenographic notes were “padded” by A. S. Colyar, and that he was paid $50 for the part he played in the dictagraph drama, Gentry says that he left Atlanta because he could not bear the humiliation which he knew he would suffer after he learned that his notes had been altered.

His affidavit bears out the statement made by Mayor Woodward, immediately after the publication of the dictagraph scandal, to the effect that he did not mention the names of Chief of Police James L. Beavers or Detective Chief Newport Lanford. Gentry also swears that a reporter called at his home after the publication of the dictagraph statements and informed him that warrants had been issued for the arrest of Colyar, Gay C. Febuary and himself (Gentry), and that he left the city upon being informed that he would not be allowed to give bond.

BROTHER HAS ORIGINAL NOTES; “COLYAR TRIED TO BUY THEM.”

According to the affidavit, the original notes taken by Gentry are in the possession of his brother. He charges that an effort was made to purchase them. He mentions Colyar as the man who tried to secure his notes.

Mayor Woodward, Colonel Thomas B. Felder and Charles C. Jones, the victims of the dictagraph scandal, would not comment on the Gentry
affidavit.

“I think it is up to the grand jury to look into the matter and see if there hasn’t been forgery committed,” Mayor Woodward said. “The affidavit bears out all that I have said. The whole thing was a frame-up. Now, let the public see who has done the framing.”

“I knew that there was something wrong the minute I read the statement, alleged to have been made by me,” said Charles C. Jones, after he was shown the Gentry afffdavit. “I didn’t have very much to say, and I don’t remember mentioning the names of Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford as often as I was quoted. I knew that something was wrong the minute I entered the room, and was on my guard.”

Lanford Doesn’t Believe Gentry Signed Affidavit.

“I do not believe Gentry signed this affidavit. I think it is a forgery, pure and simple. If he did, then he liedólied straight out, lied maliciously. It is absolutely false that the dictagraph record was padded. There’s not a word of truth in it. I can prove it. Others can prove it. This is all a scheme to clear the skirts of a lot of dirty politicians.”

Thus did Chief Lanford caustically arraign the affidavit from Washington when he was informed of its receipt. He says that not until he has seen and talked with the young stenographer will he believe that Gentry attested to the document, and, that if Gentry does admit its authorship, he will brand that youth a liar.

“I never saw ‘Gentry but once in my life,” the chief declared, “and that was the day of the dictagraph conversations. He came to my office. My secretary, G. C. Febuary, recommended him as a rapid and efficient[…]

[…]even knew of his existence. I know little about the young man, but what I do leads me to believe that he never attested to any such affidavit. And, besides. I do not believe he is in Washington. I think he is still right here in Atlanta. Anyway, you’ll have to show me before I believe otherwise.”

Here Is Gentry’s Affidavit, Sworn to in Washington

Mr. Gentry’s Affidavit in full is as follows.

District of Columbia, City of WashingtonóPersonally appeared before me, the undersigned a notary public of the District of Columbia, George M. Gentry, who on oath states that:

On Wednesday, May 21, 1913, at or about 10 o’clock in the morning, Mr. Gay C. Febuary called me over the telephone and desired to know if I would do some stenographic work for him. I told him I would but that I couldn’t get off until noon. He said that they were in a hurry for it and he would like for me to come at once, so I arranged to get off and went down to his office. He took me into the chief’s office and the chief told me he wanted me to take down some testimony and he asked me if I could write very fast. Mr. Febuary assured Chief Lanford that I was a good stenographer and I could do the work all right. The chief then told me that the work he wanted done required somebody that could be trusted all right and I assured him that I always treated all stenographical work I had as confidential. Chief Lanford told me then that what he wanted me to do was to take down a conversation that would take place in a hotel and he asked me if I thought I could take it over a dictagraph. Mr. Surles coming in at that time with a satchel which he opened and which contained wires and and other paraphernalia in connection with a dictograph outfit.)

Went to Williams House

“After a few minutes, during which time Mr. Febuary was absent, we went over to the Williams house No. 2, on North Forsyth street, Atlanta, Fulton county, Georgia (Mr. Febuary and I), and I was instructed to go into Room No. 21 of this hotel. Mr. Surles and Mr. Colyar were there, and they probably had to make arrangements for adjoining rooms, as Mr. Surles commented to me that they hadn’t decided just what to do with the dictographs. After a time Colyar came in and instructed Surles to follow him, and gave me instructions to await his wishes. Later on Mr. Febuary came in, and I told him that if I had to wait much longer by myself I was going back to the office.

“I was then allowed to come into the room, where they were installing the dictographs (one on each end of the bottom board of the bureau just under the bottom drawer on the back of the board), and the wires being run through the keyhole of the door between Room 31 and Room 32. The bureau was then screwed against the door facing. At about 12:30 I started getting accustomed to Febuary’s and Colyar’s voices.

Could Distinguish Voices

“At first I could not hear at all, but gradual[l]y I was able to hear more distinctly and after an hour or two of diligent practices I was able to use the dictograph and to distinguish voices very clearly. Right at the beginning I found that I would not be able to hear anything with the windows up. When they were closed it became rather stuffy and this, coupled with the strain I was under, added to the distraction. I stopped particing [sic] at 2:45 that afternoon and went downstairs to the office of the hotel, where I awaited Mr. Felder’s arrival.

“I saw him cross Forsyth street, and after he, Febuary and Colyar went upstairs, or were just about at the top of the stairs, I started up and saw the three enter Room 31 of the Williams house, located as mentioned previously. I then immediately went into room 32 and closed the door, partly, but did not lock it. The windows were down and so I went directly to the table and placed the receiver over my head and started writing what I heard. I took down all the conferences that took place. At somewhere around 5 that afternoon I left the hotel and went to Mr. R. B. Bliss’ house and took some dictation. From there I went home and changed my collar. I returned to the office of the General Fire Extinguisher company, 376 Marietta street, where I wrote the dictation he had given me, signed his letters and then met Mr. Febuary there at the office. We went to the Candler restaurant to supper and from there we returned to the Williams house to keep an appointment with Colyar at about 7:30. At about 8 o’clock Mr. Miles and Mr. C. C. Jones and Colyar went up to the ‘conference room’ and Mr. Febuary and I to the ‘information reception room.’

Preparing for the Trap

“I placed the retriever over my head, and in order to be sure that I would hear everything, Mr. Febuary stood behind me and held them pressed tightly to my ears. This conference lasted about thirty minutes. Between 8:30 and 9:15 Wednesday night Mr. Febuary loafed about town, as we had an appointment with Mr. Branch and Mr. Paschal at 9:30 at the Williams house, and as they were not in The Journal office, we had to kill time until they showed up. I left Mr. Febuary and Mr. Colyar at The Journal office at 9:15 and went over to the Williams house to wait for the arrival of The Journal reporters mentioned above. They came in shortly and we went over to The Journal office and all of us (Colyar, Febuary, Branch, Paschal and myself) went up to the editorial department, where a machine was selected and I then went to work transcribing what I had heard.

“Right at the start I made Colyar angry because when I did not hear what was said I put dashes and so I allowed him to dictate several answers and questions, which do not appear in my notebook and which I am not positive that I heard. I did not hear Mayor Woodward mention Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford during the whole conversation, nor did I write it in the transcription of my notes, these names being evidently added by other parties. At 4:30 Thursday morning, May 22, I finished transcribing my notes and turned the papers over to Mr. Febuary. Later on during the morning he came down to the office, bringing an affidavit which I had written for me to sign before a notary public. He told me that they had made only a few minor changes in the transcription, and that all I had to do was to sign the affidavit which I did. However, I noticed that some interlineations had been made in my copy, or rather in Chief Lanford’s copy, as I had no copy.

Notes Altered, Says Gentry

Colyar and the reporters, just before I started to transcribe my notes, argued as to the number of copies that should be made. They agreed that one copy should be made for the chief, one for Colyar and one for The Journal, and that no more should be made. This kept me from having a copy. I had my notebook, however, and it was the comparison on my notes with the published articles that lead to my discovery that in addition to the several answers and questions which Colyar had personally dictated, other changes had been made, namely that insertion of the names of Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford, in the conference with Mayor Woodward, also many other variations occurred, changing the sense of the statement, and since they had my affidavit attached to the papers I felt that I had been duped.

“As to the remuneration of my services, will say that The Journal reporters, Branch and Paschal, agreed to pay me $5 to get the work written Wednesday night, so it could be published in Thursday’s paper. Saturday morning, after the appearance of the article in Friday’s Journal, The Georgian’s reporter came to the office and offered me either $25 or $45, I do not recollect which, for a copy of the conference with Mayor Woodward, February, Miles and Colyar, and Miles, Jones and Colyar’s conference. I declined the offer. I then went to see The Journal’s reporters and told them that The Georgian had offered me money for a copy of the conference, and they agreed to pay me $50 to hold my notebook from Saturday until Monday. I turned my notebook over to Mr. Brice, who gave it to his stenographer to keep until Monday. Later during the day the reporters told me that The Georgian had gotten a copy, and so I was too late.

“I then went down to Mr. Brice’s office and asked Miss M.—, Mr. Brice’s stenographer, for my notebook, and I took it home and locked it up. Monday, when I went up to see Major Cohen about the $50 he went down to look for Mr. Brice, whom he was unable to find. Later we went back upstairs together and Branch and Paschal explained to him their promise to pay me $50 for allowing The Journal to retain my notebook. However some argument arose over the fact that I took my notebook out of The Journal’s office Saturday night. I told them that they had agreed to give me $50 not to make a copy for The Georgian, and that I had not made the copy for The Georgian, and had, therefore, carried out my part of the compact. They then told be to come back later on and see Mr. Brice about it. I returned after awhile, I believe it was around 1 o’clock, and Mr. Brice paid me the amount in currency and took my receipt.

“Lanford Has Not Paid”

“Chief Lanford has not as yet paid me for my services, from the fact that I have not rendered a bill.

“Saturday morning, before the publication of the Woodward conference, held at 4 o’clock Wednesday, May 21, as previously mentioned, and the Jones conference, held at 8 o’clock the same night, I went to the editorial department of The Journal and requested a proof of what they were going to print. Colyar, who had one reading it, declined to allow me to have a proof, and so I left The Journal building, suspicious.

“Saturday afternoon I went down to the office, carrying with me my original notebook, and a copy of Friday’s and Saturday’s Journal. I compared them all the way through and upon seeing the many variations in what was printed and what I had in my notes, I realized that my transcriptions had been tampered with, and that I had just cause for the suspicions which were aroused by their refusal to allow me to read the proofs Saturday morning.

“Having signed the affidavits, at Mr. Febuary’s request, in which I swore to what I had heard, and seeing something entirely different published, I became very nervous and uneasy. Saturday night when I went home, a reporter called up and said he was one of The Journal reporters and wanted to see me a few minutes. I told him to come over. He came in and introduced himself to me as Mr. Starr, The Journal. My other and aunt recognized his voice as that of a reporter who had called shortly before I came home, and said he was from The Georgian. They both rushed into the sitting room and told me that he was not with The Journal, but was the same fellow that came a few minutes ago, and said he was from The Georgian. He denied that he had said he was from The Journal, although he had told both myself and my grandfather, who went to answer the door bell, that he was from The Journal. Just before he left he informed me that a warrant had been sworn out for Febuary’s, Colyar’s and my arrest, and upon my directing him as to where the door out could be found, he departed, saying that he had got the information he wanted.

Told Me I Would Be Arrested

“Sunday afternoon, at the office, someone called me up and informed me that I would probably be arrested Monday, I did not recognize the voice, and so am unable to say who it was. They also informed me that I would have to make bond in order to be released. I asked who it was, and they hung up or were cut off.

“Monday morning Colyar requested that I turn my notebook over to The Journal and said he would give me $5 if I would show him a receipt from The Journal for the notebook. I came near allowing The Journal to have the notebook, but instead gave it to my brother to take home and instructed him to allow no one to have it.

“Developments later showed me the character of some of the people connected with this transaction and it made me so ashamed of my connection with it that I was afraid I could not face the humiliation that I thought would naturally onsite, and also the fact that they had changed my transcription showed to me very clearly that I was mixed up with a bunch of crooks.

“I am prepared to read my notes whenever it becomes necessary. These notes will show exactly what I heard.

“The foregoing affidavit is made by me voluntarily, unsolicited, and no money or the promise of any remuneration whatever was offered to me for making it, my sole motive being to give the straight history of my connection with the now ‘infamous’ dictograph affair.

“GEORGE M. GENTRY.

“JEANNETTE HENNING, Notary Public, District of Columbia.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, June 11 1913, “Dictograph Records Crooked, Says Gentry,” 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

Wednesday, June 11th, 1913

Detective E. O. Miles Gives Out Affidavit From Young Stenographer Repudiating Transcript He Swore to

AFFIDAVIT OBTAINED IN WASHINGTON D. C.

G. C. Febuary Gives Out a Statement, Telling How Notes Were Transcribed and Affidavits Made

The accuracy of the now famous pictograph records of alleged conversations between Thomas B. Felder, Mayor Woodward, C. C. Jones, E. O. Miles, G. C. Febuary and A. S. Colyar is attacked in an affidavit which E. O. Miles has turned over to Mayor Woodward and which he says he obtained from George M. Gentry, the young stenographer who took down the dictograph conversations.

This affidavit was made in Washington D. C., where Miles, one of the dictographed parties, who is a private detective, says he found Gentry. According to this affidavit, Gentry swears that a number of changes were made in the pictograph records after they were transcribed by him. The only specific change set out in the affdavit, however, is that the names of Police Chief Beavers and Detective Chief N. A. Lanford were written into the record of Mayor Woodward’s conversation by some one other than the stenographer.

In this affidavit Gentry explains his disappearance from the city by declaring that when he compared the published records with his stenographic notes he realized that he had been duped and did not care to face the humiliation which he anticipated would follow.

These dictographed records, duly sworn to by young Gentry and others, were published in The Journal, which declined to print these documents unless they were attested before a notary public. These records and affidavits are still in the possession of The Journal, and this paper has no knowledge concerning the alleged changes.

GENTRY READ PROOFS.

Young Gentry was permitted to use one of The Journal’s typewriters to transcribe his pictograph notes. He and Febuary were left alone in the news department Wednesday night, May 21, to do this work. They left a copy of the records in a desk drawer for The Journal. Early on the morning of May 23 Gentry furnished The Journal with an affidavit attesting the correctness of the records. Later he came to The Journal office with his notebook and read the proofs which compared with this shorthand notes, and in one or two places he made minor changes, as he said, to better conform to the original notes.

He was advised to preserve his notes so that in the event any question was raised as to their accuracy, he would have the stenographic record from which to make answer.

The Journal does not undertake to say whether there are or are not discrepancies in the transcribed records compared to the shorthand notes. It has simply relied upon the sworn records and statements furnished by Gentry and others, which records and statements, as stated above, are still in the possession of The Journal and in exactly the same condition as they were when turned over to this paper by Gentry, February and others.

FEBUARY MAKES STAETMENT [sic].

G. C. Febuary, secretary to Detective Chief N. A. Lanford, who was a party to some of the dictographed conversations and who was with Gentry, the stenographer, when some of the pictograph notes were transcribed, has furnished The Journal with the following statement:

“The dictograph conversations between A. S. Colyar, T. B. Felder and myself were transcribed on a typewriter in the news department of The Atlanta Journal by George M. Gentry, the stenographer who took the conversations down in a shorthand as he heard them through a dictograph.

“John Paschall and Harllee Branch, of The Atlanta Journal, were present for about an hour and a half and A. S. Colyar was present for about half an hour. Gentry began transcribing the dictographed record about 10 p. m., Wednesday, May 21. When Mr. Paschall and Mr. Branch found Gentry would not be able to complete the work as soon as expected they left and directed that the copy intended for The Journal be left in a designated desk drawer. Colyar had been gone for about an hour when they left.

“The record was completed about 4 o’clock the next morning, and a copy was left in the desk drawer for The Journal. Neither Mr. Paschall nor Mr. Branch made any suggestions as to the contents of the record. They were only waiting for get a copy for The Journal.

“Both of these gentleman advised Gentry that if there was anything in his notes which he could not read he should indicate this fact in the record, and not to put anything in the record not contained in his notes. He was informde [sic] repeatedly that he would be expected to swear to the accuracy of the record.

HOW AFFIDAVIT WAS MADE.

“After leaving The Journal office Gentry and I spent the balance of the night together. We ate breakfast together, after which Gentry went to his work at the General Fire Extinguisher company, and later in the morning I went to The Journal office and got the copy of the record that had been left there. I took this copy down to Gentry and he went before Charles H. Tranaou, a notary public, and made an affidavit attesting the accuracy of the contents of the record, no one being present but Gentry, Mr. Transou and myself.

“A short time later I took the record and accompanied by A. S. Colyar went before W. W. Brown, a notary public. Both Colyar and myself made affidavit as to the correctness of the record.

“The record covering the conversations between Mayor James G. Woodward, E. O. Miles, A. S. Colyar and myself was transcribed by Gentry at his office and on his own typewriter. I was present but a part of the time while he was doing this work. This record, like that between T. B. Felder, A. S. Colyar and myself, was sworn to by Gentry before Charles S. Transou and Colyar and I attested it before W. W. Brown.

“To the best of my recollection and knowledge Gentry transcribed the record covering the conversation between C. C. Jones, E. O. Miles and A. S. Colyar on the day he transcribed the record of the conversation between Mayor Woodward, E. O. Miles, A. S. Colyar and myself.

“The records are published in The Atlanta Journal, so the best of my knowledge and beliefs were identical trans- of the records Gentry himself transcribed, swore to and turned over to me.”

GENTRY’S LATEST AFFIDAVIT.

Following is a copy of the Gentry affidavit furnished Mayor Woodward by E. O. Miles:

“District of Columbia, City of Washington—Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a notary public of the District of Columbia, George M. Gentry, who, on oath, states that:

“On Wednesday, May 21, 1913, at or about 10 o’clock in the morning, Mr. Gay C. February called me over the telephtone [sic] and desired to know if I would do some stenographic work for him. I told him I would, but that I couldn’t get off until noon. He said that they were in a hurry for it and he would like for me to come at once, so I arranged to get off and went down to his office, and the chief told me he wanted me to take down some testimony, and he asked me if I could write very fast. Mr. Febuary asslred [sic] Chief Lanford that I was a good stenographer and could do the work all right. The chief then told me that the work he wanted done required somebody that could be trusted all right, and I assured him that I always treated all stenographic work I did as confidential. Chief Lanford told me then that what he wanted me to do was to take down a conversation that would take place in a hotel, and he asked me if I thought I could take it over a dictophone. (Mr. Surles coming in at that time with a satchel, which he opened and which contained wires and other paraphernalia in connection with a dictograph outfit.)

“After a few minutes, during which time Mr. Febuary was absent, we went over to the Williams house No. 2, on North Forsyth street, Atlanta, Fulton county, Georgia (Mr. Febuary and I), and I was instructed to go into Room No. 21 of this hotel. Mr. Surles and Mr. Colyar were there, and they probably had to make arrangements for adjoining rooms, as Mr. Surles commented to me that they hadn’t decided just what to do with the dictographs. After a time Colyar came in and instructed Surles to follow him, and gave me instructions to await his wishes. Later on Mr. Febuary came in, and I told him that if I had to wait much longer by myself I was going back to the office.

SAW DICTOGRAPHS INSTALLED.

“I was then allowed to come into the room, where they were installing the dictographs (one on each end of the bottom board of the bureau just under the bottom drawer on the back of the board), and the wires being run through the keyhole of the door between Room 31 and Room 32. The bureau was then screwed against the door facing. At about 12:30 I started getting accustomed to Febuary’s and Colyar’s voices.

“At first I could not hear at all, but gradual[l]y I was able to hear more distinctly and after an hour or two of diligent practices I was able to use the dictograph and to distinguish voices very clearly. Right at the beginning I found that I would not be able to hear anything with the windows up. When they were closed it became rather stuffy and this, coupled with the strain I was under, added to the distraction. I stopped particing [sic] at 2:45 that afternoon and went downstairs to the office of the hotel, where I awaited Mr. Felder’s arrival.

SAW FELDER ARRIVE.

“I saw him cross Forsyth street, and after he, Febuary and Colyar went upstairs, or were just about at the top of the stairs, I started up and saw the three enter Room 31 of the Williams house, located as mentioned previously. I then immediately went into room 32 and closed the door, partly, but did not lock it. The windows were down and so I went directly to the table and placed the receiver over my head and started writing what I heard. I took down all the conferences that took place. At somewhere around 5 that afternoon I left the hotel and went to Mr. R. B. Bliss’ house and took some dictation. From there I went home and changed my collar. I returned to the office of the General Fire Extinguisher company, 376 Marietta street, where I wrote the dictation he had given me, signed his letters and then met Mr. Febuary there at the office. We went to the Candler restaurant to supper and from there we returned to the Williams house to keep an appointment with Colyar at about 7:30. At about 8 o’clock Mr. Miles and Mr. C. C. Jones and Colyar went up to the ‘conference room’ and Mr. Febuary and I to the ‘information reception room.’

“I placed the retriever over my head, and in order to be sure that I would hear everything, Mr. Febuary stood behind me and held them pressed tightly to my ears. This conference lasted about thirty minutes. Between 8:30 and 9:15 Wednesday night Mr. Febuary loafed about town, as we had an appointment with Mr. Branch and Mr. Paschal at 9:30 at the Williams house, and as they were not in The Journal office, we had to kill time until they showed up. I left Mr. Febuary and Mr. Colyar at The Journal office at 9:15 and went over to the Williams house to wait for the arrival of The Journal reporters mentioned above. They came in shortly and we went over to The Journal office and all of us (Colyar, Febuary, Branch, Paschal and myself) went up to the editorial department, where a machine was selected and I then went to work transcribing what I had heard.

SAYS CHANGES WERE MADE.

“Right at the start I made Colyar angry because when I did not hear what was said I put dashes and so I allowed him to dictate several answers and questions, which do not appear in my notebook and which I am not positive that I heard. I did not hear Mayor Woodward mention Chief Beavers or Chief Lanford during the whole conversation, nor did I write it in the transcription of my notes, these names being evidently added by other parties. At 4:30 Thursday morning, May 22, I finished transcribing my notes and turned the papers over to Mr. Febuary. Later on during the morning he came down to the office, bringing an affidavit which I had written for me to sign before a notary public. He told me that they had made only a few minor changes in the transcription, and that all I had to do was to sign the affidavit which I did. However, I noticed that some interlineations had been made in my copy, or rather in Chief Lanford’s copy, as I had no copy.

Colyar and the reporters, just before I started to transcribe my notes, argued as to the number of copies that should be made. They agreed that one copy should be made for the chief, one for Colyar and one for The Journal, and that no more should be made. This kept me from having a copy. I had my notebook, however, and it was the comparison on my notes with the published articles that lead to my discovery that in addition to the several answers and questions which Colyar had personally dictated, other changes had been made, namely that insertion of the names of Chief Beavers and Chief Lanford, in the conference with Mayor Woodward, also many other variations occurred, changing the sense of the statement, and since they had my affidavit attached to the papers I felt that I had been duped.

“As to the remuneration of my services, will say that The Journal reporters, Branch and Paschal, agreed to pay me $5 to get the work written Wednesday night, so it could be published in Thursday’s paper. Saturday morning, after the appearance of the article in Friday’s Journal, The Georgian’s reporter came to the office and offered me either $25 or $45, I do not recollect which, for a copy of the conference with Mayor Woodward, February, Miles and Colyar, and Miles, Jones and Colyar’s conference. I declined the offer. I then went to see The Journal’s reporters and told them that The Georgian had offered me money for a copy of the conference, and they agreed to pay me $50 to hold my notebook from Saturday until Monday. I turned my notebook over to Mr. Brice, who gave it to his stenographer to keep until Monday. Later during the day the reporters told me that The Georgian had gotten a copy, and so I was too late.

LOCKED UP NOTEBOOK.

“I then went down to Mr. Brice’s office and asked Miss M.—, Mr. Brice’s stenographer, for my notebook, and I took it home and locked it up. Monday, when I went up to see Major Cohen about the $50 he went down to look for Mr. Brice, whom he was unable to find. Later we went back upstairs together and Branch and Paschal explained to him their promise to pay me $50 for allowing The Journal to retain my notebook. However some argument arose over the fact that I took my notebook out of The Journal’s office Saturday night. I told them that they had agreed to give me $50 not to make a copy for The Georgian, and that I had not made the copy for The Georgian, and had, therefore, carried out my part of the compact. They then told be to come back later on and see Mr. Brice about it. I returned after awhile, I believe it was around 1 o’clock, and Mr. Brice paid me the amount in currency and took my receipt.

“Chief Lanford has not as yet paid me for my services, from the fact that I have not rendered a bill.

“Saturday morning, before the publication of the Woodward conference, held at 4 o’clock Wednesday, May 21, as previously mentioned, and the Jones conference, held at 8 o’clock the same night, I went to the editorial department of The Journal and requested a proof of what they were going to print. Colyar, who had one reading it, declined to allow me to have a proof, and so I left The Journal building, suspicious.

“Saturday afternoon I went down to the office, carrying with me my original notebook, and a copy of Friday’s and Saturday’s Journal. I compared them all the way through and upon seeing the many variations in what was printed and what I had in my notes, I realized that my transcriptions had been tampered with, and that I had just cause for the suspicions which were aroused by their refusal to allow me to read the proofs Saturday morning.

BECOMES VERY NERVOUS.

“Having signed the affidavits, at Mr. Febuary’s request, in which I swore to what I had heard, and seeing something entirely different published, I became very nervous and uneasy. Saturday night when I went home, a reporter called up and said he was one of The Journal reporters and wanted to see me a few minutes. I told him to come over. He came in and introduced himself to me as Mr. Starr, The Journal. My other and aunt recognized his voice as that of a reporter who had called shortly before I came home, and said he was from The Georgian. They both rushed into the sitting room and told me that he was not with The Journal, but was the same fellow that came a few minutes ago, and said he was from The Georgian. He denied that he had said he was from The Journal, although he had told both myself and my grandfather, who went to answer the door bell, that he was from The Journal. Just before he left he informed me that a warrant had been sworn out for Febuary’s, Colyar’s and my arrest, and upon my directing him as to where the door out could be found, he departed, saying that he had got the information he wanted.

“Sunday afternoon, at the office, someone called me up and informed me that I would probably be arrested Monday, I did not recognize the voice, and so am unable to say who it was. They also informed me that I would have to make bond in order to be released. I asked who it was, and they hung up or were cut off.

BROTHER HAS NOTEBOOK.

“Monday morning Colyar requested that I turn my notebook over to The Journal and said he would give me $5 if I would show him a receipt from The Journal for the notebook. I came near allowing The Journal to have the notebook, but instead gave it to my brother to take home and instructed him to allow no one to have it.

“Developments later showed me the character of some of the people connected with this transaction and it made me so ashamed of my connection with it that I was afraid I could not face the humiliation that I thought would naturally onsite, and also the fact that they had changed my transcription showed to me very clearly that I was mixed up with a bunch of crooks.

“I am prepared to read my notes whenever it becomes necessary. These notes will show exactly what I heard.

“The foregoing affidavit is made by me voluntarily, unsolicited, and no money or the promise of any remuneration whatever was offered to me for making it, my sole motive being to give the straight history of my connection with the now ‘infamous’ dictograph affair.

“GEORGE M. GENTRY.

“JEANNETTE HENNING, Notary Public, District of Columbia.”

Lanford Declares He Does Not Know About Any Changes

Detective Chief N. A. Lanford Wednesday morning declared that he knew absolutely nothing concerning the alleged tampering with the dictograph records.

“The records were typewritten and sworn to when they were brought to me,” said the chief, “I still have them in my possession and no changes have been made in them since they were turned over to me. Personally, I do not believe that they were ever tampered with or doctored. According to Gentry’s latest affidavit he still has his notes. It would be quite a simple matter for him to take these notes and point out the alleged changes. All I want is the truth about the affair.

Chief Lanford, upon reading the alleged affidavit, sent the following telegram to police Chief James L. Beavers, who is in Washington attending the convention of the National Police Chiefs association:

“Atlanta, Ga., June 11, 1913,

“J. L. Beavers,

“Care Convention Chiefs Police.

“Washington, D. C.

“I understand that George M. Gentry is in Washington and that he made affidavit before Jeannette Henning, notary public, District of Columbia, to the effect that his notes made in dictograph of Colyar and Felder matter were padded. Please have him located and ascertain if this is true and if so under what conditions this affidavit was made, and advise.

“N. A. LANFORD,

“Chief of Detectives.”

“My Vindication Complete,” Declares Thomas B. Felder

Thomas B. Felder, commenting upon the affidavit of George M. Gentry, says:

“Gentry’s affidavit is a complete vindication. It bears out my statement that the whole thing was a frame-up on the part of Newport Lanford and his hirelings. Everyone agrees with me now that I was the innocent victim of a dirty, contemptible plot.

“The notebook is not in the hands of Gentry’s brother. It was at the time he left Atlanta, but it is now in a safe deposit vault and I have the key.

“I have given Mayor Woodward a copy of the affidavit, and I expect he will ask the grand jury to look into the matter.

“So far as I am personally concerned, the incident is closed with this vindication. Gentry will return to Atlanta within the next week or ten days, and he may have something additional to say.”

Says Police Board Ought to Investigate

Other than to say the police board ought to make a thorough investigation of the detective department. Mayor Woodward Wednesday morning made no statement in reference to the Gentry affidavit.

“This young man’s affidavit certainly is enough to convince me that Lanford and his aggregation of so-called detectives are not very careful as to the methods they employ, to say the least of it,” said the mayor. “It is time for the police board to give the detective department a thorough airing, and I’m not so sure but what the city would be better off if the whole detective crew were kicked out and new ones elected. We certainly couldn’t get much worse than we’ve got now.”

It was the mayor’s first intention Wednesday to give out a written statement in reference to the Gentry affidavit, but later he changed his mind. In this connection he said:

“There was nothing in the dictograph record, even as the detectives gave it out, that worried me. There was nothing in it that I was ashamed of, or cared to explain.

“The Gentry affidavit was not gotten at my instigation. I cared nothing about the dictograph. I knew nothing about the Gentry affidavit until it was handed to me by Ed Miles about 9 o’clock Tuesday night.”

Miles Will Not Divulge Young Gentry’s Address

E. O. Miles, the private detective who figured in the dictograph conversations and who brought back from Washington the alleged affidavit from Gentry charging that the dictograph records had been padded, refuses to tell whether Gentry can be found. He will not say whether he is withholding this information at Gentry’s request.

Mr. Miles says he went to Washington after the affidavit in the interest of those who had been dictographed. Further than this he would not talk.

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 11th 1913, “Gentry Now Says Dictograph Record Was Tampered With,” 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

Sunday, June 8th, 1913

Colyar Addresses Felder as “Dictograph Tommy” and “My Dear Co-conspirator in Crime”

SEND HIM TO CREMATORY, SAYS DETECTIVE CHIEF

J. R. Gray Said: “I Have No Comment to Make—Mr. Felder’s Controversy Is With A. S. Colyar”

Replying to the open letters of Thomas B. Felder, attacking them, A. S. Colyar and Chief of Detectives N. A. Lanford last night gave to The Journal statements, denouncing Mr. Felder in unmeasured terms. Chief of Police James L. Beavers, who was also the subject of attack, was out of the city and, therefore, could not be given the opportunity to reply.

James R. Gray, when shown Mr. Felder’s communication, addressed to him, said:

“I have no comment to make on Mr. Felder’s letter. His controversy is with A. S. Colyar. I suppose Mr. Colyar will wish to reply.”

The statements of A. S. Colyar and Chief Lanford follow below in full:

COLYAR’S REPLY.

T. B. Felder Esq., alias Dictograph Tommy.

Sir: As you let last Sunday go by without attempting to prostitute the Sunday press with some more of your hot air and denials, I had thought that perhaps some good friend of yours had given you a hint that even a braying ass can sometimes kill himself and that you had probably decided to withdraw from it newspaper controversy. In my last letter that I wrote to you I offered you what I have been told by many good citizens was a fair proposition, viz: To let fiver honorable gentlemen decide who had lied in the controversy at issue, and you declined to accept the proposition. I will make you a second proposition: I do not know a single member of the honorable supreme court of Georgia, but I am willing to let the chief justice of that honorable court appoint a committee of five honorable citizens, non-residents of the city of Atlanta, and let this committee decide whether you are guilty of unprofessional conduct and a violator of the criminal laws of Georgia, by offering a bribe of $1,000 to G. C. Febuary to steal the papers for you out of the safe, in the Phagan case, and I will only have one request to make of the honorable chief justice when he appoints the committee, and that is that he appoint men in no way connected with the whisky interests and the immoral classes, among whom you have so many clients. I was satisfied when I made you the last proposition that you would not accept it, although I made it in good faith, and I repeat, that you may eliminate me entirely as a witness before the committee, and I have the witnesses of unimpeachable character that will brand you before this committee as a bribe giver, a lobbyist and a grafter. I believe that the people of this fair city are familiar with your record, as it was exposed from the pulpit by the Rev. Len G. Broughton in the Baptist Tabernacle in this city, who publicly denounced you as a lobbyist and a grafter. I have read your letter written this afternoon and addressed to the Hon. James R. Gray, editor and proprietor of The Journal. The clear purpose of that letter is a scurrilous attack upon me, although you have addressed Mr. Gray. I am no saint as I have told you before; I have done wrong in my youth had strayed far away from the teachings and training of a Christian mother and a refined home, and when I first met you I was trying to lead an honorable life, although I was down, and had you had as tenth of the instinct of the gentleman in you that James R. Gray has, you would have tried to help me along life’s pathway in an honorable way and not heed me to go to South Carolina to help you and your co-conspirators frame up against Governor Blease.

HAS THE RECORDS.

I have records in my possession that will show that a certain stool pigeon of yours furnished the money that you sent to me in South Carolina, because you did not have the moral courage to do it yourself. Even though you have stated in me of your first articles that knowing my character that you refused to hire me to go to South Carolina for you—to refresh your memory didn’t you and one of your detectives to Charleston, S. C., with a letter of introduction to me, signed by you, written on the letter head of your then law firm, “Anderson, Felder, Rountree & Wilson?” And furthermore, when I left South Carolina on the 5th day of July, 1911, I drew a draft on your friend for $30, which was endorsed by Rev. B. Lacy Hoge, pastor of the First Baptist church of Charleston, S. C., and after you were through with me, your friend protested this draft and sent it back with the statement that I had no authority to draw the same, although I had drawn, by authority, several hundred dollars’ worth of similar drafts, which Dr. Hoge had cashed, and is it not a matter of fact, that several weeks later the Rev. Dr. Hoge visited Atlanta from South Carolina and threatened to expose you and your friend if you didn’t pay this draft and didn’t you have it paid?

In your first statement of May 23d, the day that the Atlanta Journal published the famous dictograph story, you began to whine like a miserable oar, “I don’t believe they had any dictograph, for the company does not rent their machines to blackmailers, and crooks to be used against gentlemen.” Please tell the people of this city how you succeeded in getting one to dictograph Governor Blease with?

In your letter to Mr. Gray you laid great stress upon the fact that he published the dictograph story, which was “the uncorroborated vaporings of the diseased mind of this mental hunchback and moral pervert, especially when the mass of putrid matter furnished you by him bore all the earmarks of a willful and deliberate forgery. And in view of the further fact that at least one other paper to which it was tendered, rejected it.” This is another one of your frame-ups and willful and deliberate and false statements, for the article in question was tendered no paper except the one that published it.

I defy you to publish any contract, if you ever had one, with the Columns, or any of their neighbors, to prosecute the Phagan case, and I made the assertion here that if you ever had any real desire to prosecute the murderers of this innocent child, your desire was choked with the dollar mark in the interest of you and your friend “Affidavit Tobie.”

A WILLFUL LIE.

You charge that Newport Lanford and I have been friends for three years, and intimate that we have been in the blackmailing business against the citizens of Atlanta during that time. Mr. Lanford is fully capable of answering you and taking care of himself in any controversy that he may have with you, but for myself I denounce your statement a a willful, malicious, infamous lie.

You further charge that Mr. Febuary and myself were the ones that told you that Chief Beavers was corrupt and was visiting a woman on Garnett street and that if the mayor would give us some special officers we would have him arrested. I denounce this statement as a willful, deliberate and infamous lie, and that you knew you were lying at the time you made it. I am sorry that my poverty forbids me from hiring a public hall in this city, where I would take great pleasure in meeting you face to face before the good people of this city and exposing you from the platform as you should be exposed. I could tell some things that I wouldn’t even ask a respectable journal to publish and you know what they are. I am surprised that a man of your alleged intelligence would make an attack that you have made upon a man with the diseased brain you say I have. You laid great stress in your letter this afternoon on the fact that I was arrested for forgery by Chief Beavers, on a telegram from Knoxville. Now why don’t you go on and state that after Beavers held me under bond for six days that you and one of your henchmen that you have publicly claimed that you owned, framed up a second arrest in the court house, to intimidate me from going before the Fulton county grand jury, and wasn’t it done because you believed that the sheriff of this county in order to cater to your malice and spleen, would send me to jail without bond, and didn’t you get made because you got sadly left?

In your letter to Mr. Gray this afternoon you charge that he paid me $500 for an alleged dictograph report, and that after inspecting the same he reached the conclusion that it was faked and that under his direction some one or more of his employees proceeded to edit out of the manuscript the most glaring evidence of forgery, and then published the same.

No one who has sense enough to stay out of the lunatic asylum, will believe your assertion. It is false from beginning to end.

“A SCANDAL MONGER.”

You charge further, that when your dear friend of twenty-five years standing discovered the evidence of this record being faked, that he summoned me to a hurried conference, and that it was decided that Mr. Gentry must be hurried from the scene of action, and that his note book must be obtained and the name destroyed, and you charge him with actually paying young Gentry $100 to become a criminal and a fugitive from justice.

This assertion is too absurd and ridiculous to emanate from any brain except that of the scandal monger that you are.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

and it would seem that the gods are determined to destroy you, and you have no one to blame but yourself. You have been given every chance to explain and to be allowed to prove the dictograph charges before five honorable citizens, but you preferred to go to your friend, Hugh M. Dorsey, whom you have publicly proclaimed that you own, and tried to muddy the stream so that no investigation of your conduct could be successfully carried out. Were I the miserable villain and unfortunate outcast, that you have described me and you and your friends have painted me in this city, guilty of the crimes that you have committed in the last thirty days, not only in the dictograph record, but where you have attempted to say while under oath, as I have been informed, that I showed you an affidavit from one James Conley claiming that he had murdered this poor girl, I would have been disbarred as a lawyer and put in the chaingang; and if I had attempted to put my hand in my hip pocket as you did in the court house last Thursday. I wouldn’t have been allowed to go to the lavatory before I was searched. You know why you wept. You say that I called Gentry’s mother up on Monday night after your card was published on Sunday and tried to get her to get possession of the note book. I was informed that the lady was sick in bed, and I am surprised that she would have anything to do with you after you have charged that her son helped frame up a forged and perjured dictograph record on you. Evidently she don’t know you. You charge further in your letter that I went to your office after I was negotiating with Mr. Gray for the sale of the dictograph manuscript, and stated to you that I would call you over the phone and ask you if you would give one thousand dollars if I would deliver the goods, and you were to reply yes, and that I told you that this was a frame up to get $500 out of Mr. Gray, and that he fell like a sucker. You further charge that Mr. Gray and Major Jack Cohen were on the line at the time listening to my conversation with you.

For the benefit of the public, I wish to state that I had not seen Mr. Gray in two years until the day before The Atlanta Journal published the story that T. B. Felder had been dictographed and caught in the act of trying to steal the papers in the Phagan case, and that there was no understanding with Mr. James R. Gray, Major Cohen, or any one connected with or representing The Atlanta Journal, to pay me any sum for this story. If I had expected or wanted any money for this story I think I am too good a student of human nature to insult Mr. James R. Gray by offering to sell him a framed up and forged dictograph record. I note in your letter that you try to be serious and state that you are utterly indifferent to sensational and damaging publications reflecting upon your integrity of character.

SUCH AUDACITY!

“Ye Gods!” Have you got the audacity to claim that you have any character in this community after being caught in the act of trying to bribe a poor young boy, who was struggling to make an honest  livelihood, to commit the crime of larceny for you, in order that you might feast and fatten on the money that you could filch out of the citizens of Atlanta, while the blood of that poor murdered girl lies in a Cobb county tomb crying for vengeance, and you were posing here as an employed prosecuting attorney, when a majority of the people of this city believed that you were working in the interest of the man accused of the crime? Do you remember a conversation that you had with Mr. Febuary and me in your office on Monday night, May 19, in which you laid great stress upon the fact that Chief Lanford had violated his oath of office by holding without warrant of law Jim Conley, a poor innocent negro? Did you not know at that time what Conley knew? And why were you so anxious to have Conley released and cared nothing for the other two negroes who were held without warrant of law? Why has the public heard no more of your “patriotic” intentions to prosecute Leo M. Frank since The Atlanta Journal published the dictograph story and the public got wise and the money stopped coming into your coffers? Now, my co-conspirator in crime, if you really and truly wanted to prosecute the murderer of Mary Phagan, why didn’t you volunteer to do it like any honorable attorney would, and not have one of your pikers try to palm you off on J. W. Coleman, as he swore that you did?

My dear dictograph friend, I love a fight that is an honorable one, but I hate to fight a poor weak miserable thing like you that will hide behind governors, mayors, and solicitors general that you claim to own. No one believes half of your gas about owning governors, but it does look strange that the solicitor general would not allow a full searchlight to be turned upon your acts in this community since the dictograph exposure came out. If I were you before I paraded to the world about graft and corruption in others, I would stop and think how many people you had grafted in state legislatures and federal prisons, as you did your poor dying friend, Chas. W. Morse, recently elected president of a steamship line. You talk about justice. Poor justice! It is asleep. If you had justice you would now be a guest of Warden Tom Lanford in the city stockade. I know that it is sad to think that you and your friend of twenty-five years standing will not be able to celebrate that silver anniversary.

“Alas they have been friends in youth. But whispering tongues can poison truth. And constancy only lives in realms above

And life is thorny and youth is vain

And to be wroth with one we love

Doth work like madness in the brain.”

WILL WRITE HIM A LETTER

Now in conclusion permit me to say a few things to you, as this will probably be the last letter that I will ever have the pleasure of writing you, with one exception. I am going to visit my native land, my beloved Tennessee, within whose sacred soil sleeps all that is mortal of a sweet sainted mother, a noble father and brothers and sisters. While in this land of my nativity that such heroes as John Sevier, Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson and last but not least, the great “Apostle of Sunshine,” Robert Love Taylor, made immortal, I intend to visit Knoxville, the city that you claim I am a fugitive of justice from and I shall write you a letter from that city, “but I will not write it from the Knox county jail,” and I would indeed take great pleasure in receiving a reply from you dated “Columbia, S. C.,” though it would give me pain to know that my former co-conspirator in crime against Governor Cole L. Blease was languishing in a South Carolina jail, as I know you would be if you were in the Palmetto State. You only escaped going there through the mercy of an all wise Providence and the misplaced charity of His Excellency Jos. M. Brown, governor of Georgia.

FELDER AS A LAWYER.

You talk about your great and unblemished character as a lawyer at the Atlanta bar, when, if the truth were known, when God Almighty created you, Tommy. He hadn’t dreamed of a lawyer in six months; He was thinking of a pea in a pod, rusting away in the ante-room of some legislative hall seeking some poor hillbilly senator that you might flatter or bribe into voting on some pet scheme of some corporation that has heretofore hired you as one of their lobbyists to hang around legislative halls. I am indeed sorry that I, the poor moral pervert and degenerate, irresponsible creature that you claim me to be, have to write you thus, because I know that you imagine that every one must bow at your sweet will and that no one must attack your motives or answer any of your villainous inclinations. Poor moral degenerate that I am, I wish to say to you that my forefathers shed blood at King’s mountain and some of them died upon the fields of Shiloh, and I would be unworthy of the blood that courses through my veins if I would let you, the miserable bribe giver, lobbyist and grafter that you are known to be, drive me out of the state of Georgia, that has been made famous by such sons as Alexander Stephens, John B. Gordon, Robert Toombs and Benjamin H. Hill. No doubt you have discovered by now that even with your two frame-ups to land me in jail I am still at Williams House No. 2, city of Atlanta, made famous by the dictograph, which you stated at the Transportation club, after you had dictographed Governor Blease, would not lie. When it caught you in the act of trying to steal the papers in the Mary Phagan murder case, you denounced in unmeasured terms your dictograph friend which had been so faithful to you in days gone by. As I told the grand jury of Fulton county, you were a framer from Framerville, but your frames are too shallow to stand the storms that follow, as you evidently have found out.

Farewell, Dictograph Tommy. If we never meet again on life’s scene of action and I should be so unfortunate as not to reach the city of heavenly rest, please by charitable enough in Hades not to tell his satanic majesty that I was one of your co-conspirators in South Carolina, for, if you do, he will make life in the lower regions very uncomfortable for me.

A. S. COLYAR.

Atlanta, Ga., June 7, 1913.

“Unprincipled Prevaricator,” Says Chief Lanford

When acquainted with the contents of Felder’s open letter of attack upon him Detective Chief N. A. Lanford gave out the following statement:

“I regret exceedingly the necessity which forces me into a controversy with an irresponsible, unprincipled prevaricator like Felder. He is a stranger to truth and his chief claim to notoriety is based upon the reckless slanders which he periodically vomits forth upon his betters.

“His entire attack on me is woven with a warp of lies and a woof of hypocrisy. It is fortunate for me and the other objects of his venom that he has by his questionable performances of the past made himself sufficiently well known to the general public for it to know with what credence to receive his vicious but silly onslaughts.

“At frequent intervals for many years I have read of Felder’s controversies, in each of them he has always assumed a bombastic attitude and has rushed into print with all the abandon of a fool hurling unsupported charges here and slinging lies yonder. And to save my life I can not recall that he ever made good in a single one of his many wrangles.

“Felder says that I have known Colyar for three years and that I have been conniving with him for that period. This is a lie. The first time I ever saw or heard of Colyar was about a week or ten days after the Phagan murder and I have never met him more than a dozen times since. When he says that I have been conspring with Colyar to frame up on citizens of this community he tells a black and contemptible lie—a lie uttered by a craven coward of the blackest type. There is no spark of manhood left in him or he would not give utterance to such unfounded statements.

“HE LIES AGAIN.”

“He says I promised Surles that I would not use his name. Here again he lies. All I said to Surles, while negotiating with him to install the dictograph, was that I intended to use it in the interest of justice.

“He says I mislead and duped young Gentry, the stenographer who took down the dictograph conversations. Again he lies. I have never seen Gentry but once in my life and that was in my office on the morning of the day Felder walked into the dictograph trap.

“I was seeking to obtain services of an accurate and reliable stenographer and had my secretary call up Edward Crusselle, an expert court stenographer. Mr. Crusselle stated that he was just about to leave the city and furnished my secretary with the names of one or two other stenographers. They were called up but were out. Then my secretary suggested Gentry, whom, he said, was a clean, reliable young man and rapid shorthand writer.

“I had Gentry called up and requested him to come to my office. In acquainting him with the work which I desired him to do I sought to impress upon him that all I wanted was a true and correct record of what came to him over the wires of the dictograph. I told him that I would expect him to swear to the accuracy of the record he made and inquired his age. He told me that he had passed his twenty-first birthday about a week before.

“Felder says I had Colyar call up Gentry’s home and say that unless the young man furnished me his note book I would be in a hell of a fix. This, too, is a lie. I never had Colyar call up Gentry or anybody else.

“He says I sent Gentry out of town and furnished him the money to go on. Another lie. On the Saturday morning after the dictograph incident Gentry talked to me over the telephone. He said that he had been advised that there was a warrant out for him charging him with conspiracy. I told him that was all bosh and suggested to him that if he was annoyed by any one to let me know and I would attend to them. He thanked me and that was the last I’ve heard of him.

HASN’T PAID HIM YET.

“I not only did not furnish Gentry with money to leave town, but the young man has never yet called upon me for pay for his services, which I contracted for in good faith and for which I expect to pay.

“Felder lies again when he says I stood over Gentry and compelled him to doctor the dictograph records. As I said above I never saw Gentry but once, and that was for but a few minutes in my office before the dictograph was even installed. When the dictograph records were brought to me they had been typewritten and duly sworn to by Gentry.

“Felder lies when he says that I have stated that I know Gentry’s whereabouts. At the request of his relatives I did make efforts to locate him. Later these relatives got into communication with him and notified my secretary that he would be on hadn’t when he was wanted.

“I sincerely hope he does return to the city. I will welcome a statement from him giving all the facts about the dictograph matter.

“Fedler says that I conspired with Colyar to frame up affidavits to the effect that he (Felder) had run Gentry out of town to keep him away from the grand jury. This is another of his multitude of lies. He is so accustomed to lying that he just cannot tell the truth. I have never heard of any such affidavit.

“The most amusing of all Felder’s lies is that I am in a conspiracy with Governor Blease of South Carolina to get him into that state, and that I plan to kidnap him, put him into an automobile and rush him over the border.

“Now, of all the absurd propositions that is the limit. Felder evidently suffers many and varied hallucinations. I cannot conceive how it is possible for a man of sound mentality to conjure up such a ridiculous idea. And to think he actually offers it to the public as a fact.

“I have known for a long time that whenever Felder heard the name of Blease mentioned cold chills chased up and down his quavering spine, and he invariably looked about him for assassins, kidnappers and spooks.

SEND HIM TO CREMATORY.

“I don’t know of an automobile sorry enough to use in transporting Felder, but it would be a God-send to the community if one of the garbage carts would get him and carry him to the crematory. I would dislike very much indeed to impose such a carcass on the good old state of South Carolina.

“I have never had any direct or indirect communication with Governor Blease, and the only time that I remember mentioning him was when I suggested that I would take A. S. Colyar to Knoxville, Tenn., without extradition papers if he (Felder) would waive legal formalities and go with one of my men to Columbia where Governor Blease could press his charges against him.

“Having disposed of Felder’s lies I wish to ask him the following questions.

Where is the money you grafted from the public through the plea that you wished to bring detectives here to find evidence to convict the murderer of Mary Phagan?

“Failing to get the Colemans to employ you why did you go to New York, and then come back here with the statement that you were employed by friends of the slain girl to assist the prosecution?

“If you were acting in good faith why did you attack Chief Beavers and myself for keeping Jim Conley, the only witness who knows anything about the murder of the Phagan girl, in jail?

“If you were acting in good faith why did you not also criticise us for holding Newt Lee, the negro night watchman, and Gordon Bailey, the negro elevator boy, who have both been held just as long as Jim Conley?

“YOU BUTTED IN.”

“I have been forced to doubt your good faith in this case. I didn’t drag you into it. You butted in. You are sure because I exposed you by allowing the publication of the Coleman affidavit, showing that the dead girl’s parents had refused to employ you. This publication also exposed your scheme to graft on the public through a subscription.

“As I have said before you butted in to the Phagan case where you were not wanted and as a public official it became my duty to allow the publication of the Coleman affidavit, made without my knowledge, in order that the good people of this and other cities may not be imposed upon any further by such a grafter.

“Having exposed some of your numerous lies and your thorough unreliability I now leave you to your hallucinations.”

“N. A. LANFORD.”

* * *

Atlanta Journal, June 8th 1913, “Scathing Replies to Letters Attacking Them,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)