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

Atlanta Georgian
July 22^nd, 1913

TALK OF POSTPONING FRANK TRIAL TILL FALL

Protest of Solicitor Dorsey Wins

Presents Evidence Showing Indictment of Negro Would Hinder Frank Prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Said To Be Willing.

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

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

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

“I am requested by the Grand Jury to say no action will be taken at this time on the James Conley matter, and that that body will not pay any[…]

SOLICITOR HALTS INDICTMENT OF JIM CONLEY

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

[…] attention whatever to anonymous communications.”

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

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

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

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

Delay in Trial Rumored.

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

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

Says Judge Favors Delay.

“I was talking with Judge Roan a short time ago,” said the Solicitor, “and from his conversation I gathered that he would rather the trial did not come up before fall, though he did not say so outright.”

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

Fighting Mincey.

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

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

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

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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, July 21, 1913

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

NO ANONYMOUS LETTERS WANTED BY THE JURORS

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

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

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

DORSEY MAKES STATEMENT.

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

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

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

A QUORUM PRESENT.

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

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

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

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

MADE LONG SPEECH.

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

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

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

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

DRAWING OF JURY

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

(Continued On Page 7, Col. 1.)

WILL NOT INDICT JIM CONLEY NOW, JURY’S DECISION

(Continued From Page 1.)

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

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

Conley Carried to Carter Street and Electric Ave.

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Protest of Solicitor Will Be Heeded

Foreman Declares Inquisitorial Body Will Not Ride “Roughshod” Over Dorsey.

With Solicitor Dorsey reaffirming his certainty that Jim Conley will not be indicted before the tral [sic] of Leo M. Frank and declaring that he will fight with all his vigor any movement in that direction, the Grand Jury members gathered in the Thrower Building Monday morning in response to the call of Foreman Beatie to decide whether they will reopen their investigation of the Phagan murder mystery.

A strong probability that no action would be taken during the day arose when it became known that there were only eighteen of the grand jurors in the city, a bare quorum. In the event that all of the eighteen did not appear, there still was the opportunity to go out and summon talesmen at random to serve on the Grand Jury, but no statement was made as to whether this legal privilege would be exercised.

No Witnesses Called.

Foreman Beatie announced that no witnesses had been summoned as yet, giving confirmation to the report that the meeting was called only for the purpose of passing on the petitions requesting the Grand Jury to reopen the murder investigation, and not for the purpose of proceeding at once to the definite consideration of Jim Conley’s indictment.

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

“I can not conceive that these men, when they are in possession of the facts of the case, seriously will consider bringing an indictment for murder against Conley,” said the Solicitor.

Foreman Beattie indicated that if a quorum were present and a decision were reached to go into the connection of Conley with the crime a number of witnesses would be served at once with subpenas and that an opportunity would be given for the presentation of all the important evidence against the negro.

He said, however, that the report that the meeting Monday was called for the definite and prearranged purpose of indicting Conley was utterly false.

Not to Ignore Dorsey.

“We have no intention of riding roughshod over the Solicitor,” he said. “The purpose of our meeting to-day merely is to become informed on the question and to determine if we are warranted in reopening the investigation with a view of bringing an indistment [sic] against Conley in case the evidence is sufficient.

“We propose only to discuss the matter informally and to have the Solicitor lay before us his reasons for desiring no action at this time. We have no desire to block the Solicitor in his prosecution of the case or to defeat the ends of justice in any manner. If we come to the conclusion that the investigation should be made, we have a list of witnesses we will ask to have called.”

William H. Mincey, author of the sensational affidavit which accused Conley of confessing to the killing of a girl on the afternoon that Mary Phagan was murdered, has returned to Atlanta, it was reported Monday, and is prepared to go before the Grand Jury to repeat his story, Min[…]

GRAND JPRY [sic] NOT TO HASTEN TO INDICT NEGRO

Foreman Declares Wishes of Solicitor Will Not Be Overridden Without Consideration.

Continued From Page 1.

[…]cey has been in Rising Fawn, Ga., where he was located by The Georgian after the publication of his remarkable story. He maintains that every word of his accusation is true and that he is eager to take the stand and assist in the vindication of Frank.

Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, said Monday that no move would be made by the defense for a continuance of the case, which is set for trial a week from to-day. He asserted that the lawyers for Frank were prepared to go ahead with the trial at once.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Grand Jury Meets to Consider Conley Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Presents Evidence Showing Indictment of Negro Would Hinder Frank Prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Said To Be Willing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delay in Trial Rumored.

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

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

Says Judge Favors Delay.

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

SOLICITOR HALTS INDICTMENT OF JIM CONLEY

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

Continued From Page 1.

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

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

Fighting Mincey.

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, July 20, 1913

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

“SHUTTING EYES TO TRUTH, DORSEY PROTECTS NEGRO”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT IN FULL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

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

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

THE SOLICITOR’S POSITION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY SO MUCH FEAR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN REPLY TO MR. SMITH.

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

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

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

“LUTHER E. ROSSER.
“R.R. ARNOLD.”

New Witness Found Who Will Testify for Frank

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

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

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

Conley’s Attorney Does Not Believe He Will Be Indicted

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

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

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

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

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

DOESN’T FEAR JURY.

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

(Signed.) WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

Solicitor Is Bombarded With Letters to Proceed Against Negro as Slayer of Mary Phagan.

THE GRAND JURY IS CALLED

Hottest Battle of Famous Case To Be Waged Behind Closed Doors of Inquisitory Body.

Solicitor Dorsey is fighting vigorously the movement in the Grand Jury to indict Jim Conley Monday for the murder of Mary Phagan, despite the bambardment [sic] of letters from many citizens and by the sentiment of some of its own members.

It is for the consideration of these letters and petitions, asking the reopening of the Phagan matter, that the meeting has been called.

It was in the face of Solicitor Dorsey’s bitterest opposition that the meeting was called at all. Foreman Beattie issued his defi [sic] after a previous Grand Jury had been defeated in its efforts to reopen the case with a view of indicting Jim Conley and after Dorsey explicitly had expressed his strongest disapproval of such a move.

Crucial Battle Coming.

With the first skirmish won by those in favor of the indictment of Conley, the hottest battle is yet to be waged behind the closed doors of the jury room. The question first will be on whether the grand jurors consider it proper at this time to reopen the investigation whose first chapter resulted in the indictment of Leo M. Frank on the charge of slaying Mary Phagan. Solicitor Dorsey will lay before the body for the first time all of his reasons for desiring a postponement of all further investigation until after the trial of Frank.

Should the Solicitor be driven back from this position by the Grand Jury again disregarding his wishes and taking up the investigation, he will be forced to take refuge in the last ditch and make his fight against the indictment of Conley.

With all the weight of evidence which has piled up against the negro, it is regarded as beyond the realm of possibilities that he could persuade the jurors to return a “no bill” against Conley on the charge of murder. Dorsey’s one remaining hope at this time would be, it is said, to induce the Grand Jury to waive definite action until after the trial of Frank, when it will be in a position to say whether an indictment shall be drawn against Conley as an accessory after the fact, to which he has confessed, or as the actual murderer.

Dorsey Refuse sto [sic] Comply.

The Solicitor’s attitude in the matter plainly was shown by his statement when Foreman Beattie went to him Friday seeking to have him call the meeting. Dorsey flatly refused and said:

“The meeting’s only purpose will be to exploit the evidence and embarrass the State, and I hope the Grand Jury when it meets will decide to leave the matter alone.

“The indictment of Conley at this time will be a useless procedure that will not stop the trial of Frank. It will only have a mild but undesirable effect on the State’s case.

“Conley is in jail and is going to stay there for some time. He is where the authorities can put their hands on him, and he can be indicted much more properly after the Frank case has been disposed of than before, and by the delay there is no danger of a miscarriage of justice.”

The Solicitor’s position is attacked as palpably unfair by those who have been working to bring about the indictment of the negro. Dorsey would have the testimony of the negro accredited as that of any free and trustworthy citizen, while those opposing him declare it should be taken in the light of that of a possible murderer who is endeavoring to shift the blame on another’s shoulders, they say.

Evidence More Direct.

They add that the evidence against Conley is far more direct and damning than any ever brought against Frank. They charge, on this account, that Conley has been protected and “coddled” when he should have been placed on the same basis as the other suspect in the case and should go before the jury in that aspect.

General denials were entered Saturday to the story published Friday that the Pinkertons had changed their attitude in the murder mystery and were convinced of the innocence of Frank. Chief of Detectives Lanford declared that Harry Scott had reaffirmed his belief in the guilt of Frank and the innocence of Conley, except as accessory after the fact.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Dorsey Fights Movement to Indict Conley,” 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

Sunday, July 20, 1913

“Not Necessary to Indict Negro to Close His Mouth,” Declares William Smith.

William M. Smith, attorney for Jim Conley, the negro now being held as a material witness in the Phagan murder case and whose indictment for complicity in the crime will be considered by the Grand Jury Monday, brought to the office of The Sunday American Saturday night a statement in behalf of his client.

In a letter accompanying the statement, Mr. Smith conveyed a doubt as to whether this newspaper would print what he had to say.

The attorney’s statement in full follows:

The Grand Jury list published showed the names of some men whom I know, and know they are on the square, and, if they once understand the real situation, there will be a bear fight before Jim Conley is indicted at this time.

Of course it would be great work, if the State could be forced to so indict Conley as to make his testimony legally inadmissible against Frank. What a beautiful technical advantage for the Grand Jury to work to close Conley’s mouth against Frank.

Code of Georgia, section 1035: “Confessions of conspirators. The confession of one joint offender or conspirator, made after the enterprise is ended, is admissible only against himself.”

How long would the good people of this county stand for such legal jugglery to save a brutal murderer from the gallows? It is right that both men shall talk. The Grand Jury can name Conley as a joint offender or conspirator, they can give him a “legal status,” which we have heard so much howl about for the last few days, and save Frank from the embarrassment of having to face Conley, even when he is tried. The Grand Jury may know more about what is legally proper to do in this matter than the men who have been playing this game for a living for years, but they had better move slow. We have been studying the principles underlying this fight for months, and they are fresh hands, just on the job for a few days.

It is not necessary to indict Conley to close his mouth. I can close it and help Frank to go free, and then Mr. Mincey and others of his type can be run off by the friends of Mr. Frank, and be inaccessible as witnesses when Conley is tried, and then Conley can go free. This could be done, but it won’t be. Unless they get me fired from my representation of Conley, and unless the Grand Jury fixes his “legal status” so he can’t swear, Conley will answer the roll call as a witness and tell the whole truth as he knows it. It is evident that a trade whereby Conley would close his mouth would be advantageous to both. With Mr. Mincey and others non est inventus, as I imagine they will be if they are not held after swearing, by some process, Conley could not possibly be convicted of murdering the girl himself, and with Frank free Conley could not even be indicted and punished as an accessory after the fact. Such a trade might even be made interesting to Conley’s lawyer, from a financial viewpoint. In fact, everybody but society and the administration of justice would be helped.

We are not looking for trades. Let everybody tell the whole truth, as they see it, and then let justice take its full course, unhampered by ringers or other influences, permeating either the grand or petit juries of this county. When this is done, the fiendish murder of Mary Phagan will be avenged and the civic conscience of our good people satisfied.

WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement,” 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

Sunday, July 20, 1913

By AN OLD POLICE REPORTER.

The most important and interesting development of the week in the Phagan case was the Mincey affidavit, directing suspicion more surely in the direction of James Conley than ever before, if the affidavit is that of a credible witness.

If what Mincey says is true—if his evidence can be made to “stand up” in court—then he is far and away not only the most important witness yet discovered, but his testimony will serve to clear up the mysterious Phagan case in its most obscure phases.

Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey has attacked Mincey’s credibility. Naturally, he would do that.

If Mincey is worthy of belief and is speaking the truth, he has dealt the State’s case against Frank a deadly blow, from which it can not hope to recover.

If he does not speak the truth, and that can be established, it will redound fo [sic] the hurt of the defense, for it will have a bracing-up effect upon Conley’s other story.

But Who Is Mincey?

Who is Mincey? Nobody knows much about him.

Dorsey says he is not to be credited, but he fails to say in detail why.

Mincey’s card in The Georgian, certainly had the ring of straightforwardness.

So, however, had Dr. Cook’s story of his discovery (?) of the North Pole.

Cook’s story was by all odds the best story ever told of the Far Frozen North—but it exploded when it was put to the test. Nine men in ten preferred to believe Cook rather than Perry—but nowadays everybody believes Perry, despite his “bad manners,” and so forth, when he was speaking the truth.

If James Conley did say to Mincey, Conley being apparently half-drunk at the time, “I have killed one girl to-day, and I don’t want to kill anybody else!” and if that fact can be established categorically, it will clear Leo Frank beyond the shadow of a doubt!

If that fact can not be established, however, after the Mincey affidavit has been exploited, it will tend to strengthen the State, and to that extent must damage Frank most seriously.

Detective Lanford says Mincey stated at police headquarters that Conley was not the man he had met—”that it clearly was some other negro.”

Visit to Factory Recalled.

Mincey denies that he said that, but he admits he did not immediately identify Conley, because he was not sure of his company at the minute and kept his own counsel.

The factory people say Mincey did come to the factory, as he says, and make inquiry as to the negroes there, and that he was, perhaps, as he says, rather brusquely treated.

At that time James Conley had not been remotely connected with the Phagan case, and the factory people did not know what Mincey was driving at exactly. Mincey at that time did not even know Conley’s name.

If, however, it be shown that Conley DID say to Mincey what Mincey says he said, it still will be contended, though I think with small hope of success, that it is not conclusive evidence that Conley killed Mary Phagan.

Undoubtedly it would not be that as an isolated proposition, but taken in connection with other things attaching to Conley as a suspect, it would be a smashing piece of evidence against the negro.

To be sure, negroes, half drunk especially, are apt, as a rule, to brag about things that they HAVEN’T done rather than things they HAVE—and to that extent the contention that Mincey’s affidavit, at best, is weak would hold good.

But Conley’s own admission of his presence in the factory on the day of the homicide, his series of lies after suspicion began falling in his direction, his amazing affidavits and counter-affidavits, and the discrepancies in his last affidavit—these, in connection with the Mincey affidavit, make a strong case against him.

Interest Centers in Mincey.

The more spectacular interest in the Phagan case now undoubtedly centers in Mincey.

The Grand Jury will meet tomorrow to consider the indictment of Conley.

It would be unusual for the Grand Jury to indict Conley, with an indictment already standing against Frank for the same offense. It would not be an unheard of thing, however.

Grand Juries are laws unto themselves. They may indict whom they please and when they please.

Indeed, the law and their oaths make it imperative that a Grand Jury indict ALL persons they believe deserving of indictment, regardless of whether that indictment effects pending cases advantageously or disadvantageously.

If the present Grand Jury, upon a one-sided hearing, believes Mincey is speaking the truth in his remarkable affidavit, it will indict Conley, I think.

If it does not believe the Mincey affidavit—if it can be made NOT to believe it, to put it the other way—it will not, of course, indict Conley.

Which will it do?

That is the pretty puzzle in the Phagan case to-day!

Of Far-Reaching Import.

Nothing that has happened, in many aspects of the matter, since the beginning of the Phagan investigation, is so important or possible of such far-reaching results as the Mincey statement.

And that statement, primarily, looks dangerous to the State in the Frank case, and very helpful to it in the case against Conley, when it gets there, if it ever does.

Upon the State in the trial of Frank will fall the burden of breaking it down. Can the State do it?

That is what the State unquestionably is asking itself to-day. That is the thing that plainly is making the State most uneasy, in so far as the case against Frank is concerned.

About it will center the question of Conley’s future status—whether he will continue as an admitted accessory after the fact or become a principal to the murder of Mary Phagan.

That is the thing the Grand Jury will thrash out with itself this week.

It may be said positively that not since the Phagan case first came into public notice has any development been watched with that degree of interest the public generally feels now in the outcome of the Grand Jury’s anticipated meeting to-morrow.

Curiously enough, too, if the State goes TOO FAR in breaking down Mincey in the Frank case, it will hurt itself immeasurably in the trial of Conley later on, in the event of Frank’s acquittal and Conley’s subsequent indictment.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Mincey Story Declared Vital To Both Sides in Frank Case,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

Attorneys Rosser and Arnold, in a Statement to the Press, Make Bitter Attack on Solicitor for His Conduct of Phagan Case.

Call Attention to Secrecy Maintained by Prosecution, and Declare Action of State’s Attorney Has Inflamed Public Opinion.

Luther Z. Rosser and Reuben R. Arnold, attorneys for Leo M. Frank, who will be tried July 29 on the charge of killing Mary Phagan, joined Saturday in a bitter attack upon the policy of Solicitor Hugh M. Dorsey, whose procedure in the case, they said, had inflamed public opinion and had placed the Solicitor far below the dignity of his office.

In a formal statement, they charged that Dorsey had ignored his constitutional and legal functions and had sought to usurp those of the Grand Jury by his attempt to block the indictment of Jim Conley by that body.

They described his action as unprecedented and dangerous in the extreme, and represented Dorsey and Conley as partners in “a harmonious concert.”

The document, which is one of the few public statements issued by the defense, is bristling with criticism of the Solicitor’s conduct throughout the investigation of the murder mystery, and charges that Dorsey has maintained his belief in Frank’s guilt apparently for no other purpose than to convict Frank.

Call Attention to Secrecy.

Attention is called to the secrecy with which evidence is being gathered by the prosecution “in manufacturing its case against Frank,” as though an innocent man—as the law contemplates Frank until he is proved guilty—should not be given the advantage of a knowledge of every shred of evidence which may be found for or against him, so that it may be presented, if favorable, and that it may be met and disproved if false.

Disclaiming any intention of criticising the previous Grand Jury, Attorneys Rosser and Arnold cite the circumstance of Conley’s first confession, into which he was forced by the discovery that he could write after he steadfastly had denied he could, and asserted that the Solicitor had been asked to bring this incident to the attention of the Grand Jury, but that he, if report were true, actually directed that it be not done.

Another indication of the Solicitor’s alleged domination over the Grand Jury was contained, said the attorneys for the defense, in his reported action in insisting that the jurors pledge themselves not to act in any way on the suggested Conley indictment during his absence on a vacation.

Statement of Defense.

The statement, in full, follows:

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

The Grand Jury is an independent body; it is under the control of no one.

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

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

Reply to Solicitor.

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

It is rather remarkable that the Solicitor General and a person admitting complicity in a grave crime should get together in such harmonious concert of action as these two interviews show.

Mr. Dorsey admits that the indictment of Conley will have only a “mild but undesirable effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.”

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

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

The position of the solicitor general in this case has from the beginning been most remarkable. It has been heretofore understood that the solicitor was to try cases sent to him by the grand jury, but in this case, detective-like, the solicitor is seeking to determine who shall be indicted.

Dorsey Sharply Criticized.

Forgetting his legal and constitutional functions, he is undertaking to control the action of the grand jury.

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

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

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

So far has the state’s counsel forgotten the function of a prosecutor, which is only to ascertain the truth and convict the guilty, that Mr. Dorsey’s detective assistant Chief Lanford in an interview in this morning’s paper, uses the following language as to the Pinkerton Detective Scott and Lanford’s refusal to allow him to see Conley.

Score State’s Secrecy.

“We did not want to embarrass Scott by requesting him to keep silent and did not risk the probability of letting new developments reach Frank’s attorneys, therefore we were forced to prevent him from seeing the negro.”

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

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

Solicitor’s Action Attacked.

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

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

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

One other thing is almost incredible. According to the public prints, when the solicitor wanted a vacation, he was so afraid that the grand jury might act in his absence that he sought to extract a promise from these sworn servants of the State not to indict in his absence.

Question Precedent.

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

Little need be said in reply to lawyer W.M. Smith’s interview given in support of the solicitor’s petition.

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

We are publishing this interview neither in an effort to have Conley indicted nor in an effort to have him not indicted. That is a matter solely for the grand jury. We are not making any appeal to them or to anybody else as to the effect Conley’s indictment would have on the Frank case.

So far as we are concerned we feel that the failure of the Solicitor General to secure an indictment against a confessed accessory to the crime of murder would make far more capital in favor of Frank upon his trial than if he were indicted. We think any jury, and we think any community, would resent the rank favoritism shown this confessed criminal.

LUTHER Z. ROSSER,
R. R. ARNOLD.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Counsel of Frank Says Dorsey Has Sought to Hide Facts,” 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

Sunday, July 20, 1913

Luther Rosser and Reuben Arnold Declare He Is Going Out of His Way to Dictate to the Grand Jury.

EXCEEDS PROVINCE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

Grand Jury Will Meet at 10 O’Clock Monday Morning to Take Up Conley Case. Call Is Sent Out.

In reply to Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey’s statements in regard to the proposed indictment by the grand jury of James Conley, the negro who has confessed complicity in the murder of Mary Phagan, Attorneys Reuben R. Arnold and Luther Z. Rosser issued a statement Saturday afternoon in which they openly attacked the stand taken by the solicitor in protesting against the indictment of the negro.

That the solicitor is exceeding his legal functions as a state officer is one point that the lawyers defending Leo M. Frank make in their statement, and they also severely criticise the solicitor for his detective work in the Phagan murder.

The card also contains a reference to the statement made in The Constitution Saturday morning by Attorney William M. Smith, representing the negro Conley. The card of the Frank defense takes Attorney Smith to task for rushing to the aid of the solicitor.

Solicitor General Dorsey also issued a statement in which he declared that he no more believed that the grand jury, when it meets Monday, would indict James Conley than he believes that Judge J.T. Pendleton will accede to the request of Frank attorneys to draw the venire for the trial jury from the box containing names of grand jury veniremen.

Roan Out of City.

Judge L.S. Roan, who is to preside at the trial of Frank, which takes place next Monday, a week from tomorrow, will be out of the city during the greater part of this week and has requested Judge Pendleton to draw the veniremen for the trial.

It became known that Judge Pendleton had been requested by the defense to select the veniremen from the grand jury box instead of from the regular petit jury box, and Solicitor Dorsey immediately protested to both Judge Pendleton and Judge Roan.

There are something like 500 names on the grand jury list, and these men are presumably of a decidedly higher class of citizenship than the average among the list of those to be used on trial juries. The Frank defense, in taking that these men be the ones from whom the jurors would be selected, are said to have been working on the theory that a higher class and more intelligent set of men would thus be scored.

Solicitor Dorsey stated, however, that such action would be irregular, and that he was opposed to it. He declared that so far everything connected with the case had been done in the regular way, and that he wished no departure from this, or for Frank to be treated differently from scores of others who have gone on trial for their lives.

When Solicitor Dorsey was pressed for his reasons for stating that he did not believe that Conley would ever be indicted by the grand jury, he declined to enter into an explanation of this.

“Under the situation and considering the circumstances,” he said, “I do not believe that this grand jury or any other would indict the negro.”

Does Not Expect Indictment.

“Do you mean to indicate that the grand jury may return a ‘no’ bill against the negro?” he was asked.

“Well, I’m not discussing that any[…]

Continued on Page Two.

FRANK’S LAWYERS SCORE DORSEY

Continued From Page One.

[…]farther,” he replied, “but I don’t expect Conley’s indictment to result from the meeting.”

The grand jury will meet at 10 o’clock Monday morning to take up the investigation of Conley’s connection with the case. A call was sent out Friday afternoon by the foreman who gave the directions after the solicitor had flatly refused to issue the call.

W.D. Beatie, a real estate operator, who is foreman of the grand jury, also stated to the solicitor that the grand jury wished him to be on hand Monday.

That the solicitor will make every effort to have the grand jurors reconsider their action in investigating Conley’s connection with the case is not denied by the solicitor himself and it is expected that the warmest fight that ever occurred in a grand jury room in Georgia will take place Monday when the question comes up.

It is said that several of the members are desirous of following the wishes of the solicitor and letting Conley’s case alone until the disposition of the indictment against Frank whom he accuses and the struggle between the two factions of the grand jury is expected to be a long and hot one before a decision is made.

The statement issued by the attorneys for Frank’s defense is in full as follows:

Statement of Attorneys.

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

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

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

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

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

It is rather remarkable that the solicitor general and a person admitting complicity in a grave crime should get together in such harmonious concert of action as these two interviews show Mr. Dorsey admits that the indictment of Conley will have only a mild but undesirable effect on the state’s case against Leo M. Frank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why So Much Fear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little need be said in reply to lawyer W.M. Smith’s interview given in support of the solicitor’s petition.

Relies on Smith.

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

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

LUTHER Z. ROSSER,
LUTHER Z. ROSSER,

Statement by Conley’s Lawyer.

“This Phagan case certainly has its surprises,” said Attorney William M. Smith, Conley’s lawyer. “The grand jury breaking all known precedents, setting a new pace in Georgia criminal procedure, and now comes the remarkable proposition to disqualify five thousand good honest citizens of this county from service upon the jury in this case. It is said there are six thousand citizens of this county who are considered by our jury commissioners to the sufficiently ‘honest, and upright’ to serve upon our juries and pass upon the question of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Frank.

“Mr. Frank, in his defense, proposes, according to the papers, to have his jury selected from the grand jury list alone. It seems he is getting some sympathy from that direction at this time. There are only about 1,000 on the grand jury list. This seems to mean that the other 5,000 who do not happen to be in the grand jury list are, therefore, considered by Mr. Frank, in his decision, to be ‘undesirable jurors.’

“It is rumored that friends of Mr. Frank are busily circulating among our people, with a view to obtaining from each possible juror, an expression as to the personal opinion each man has as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Frank. This would be much easier if the list was only 1,000 instead of 6,000 to work up. This is strange news, that in a county such as ours of more than 200,000 population, only 1,000, composed mainly of our wealthier class, are considered sufficiently ‘honest and upright,’ by this man, to try his case.

“Conley is not begging to be shielded. All he asks is a square deal, and he ought to have it. Let them both render account for their part in this brutal murder before juries selected regularly from the 6,000 honest jurors of this county and not from any ‘select’ juror class. It took twelve Virginia farmers to give a rich white man named Beattie justice in Virginia, and I doubt if any one of them was in the grand jury box of their county.

“As to indicting Conley at this time, I have looked over the list today, and I know too many honest men on the grand jury to believe that it will be done without some fight. Frank may have sufficient friends and influence to put it over, but we will wait and watch the line-up.”

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 20th 1913, “Frank’s Lawyers Score Dorsey for His Stand,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)