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

Atlanta Constitution
August 24th, 1913

“What I had to say yesterday,” began Mr. Dorsey at the opening of Saturday morning’s session, “with references to character, I think I have demonstrated by law to any fair-minded man that the defendant is not a man of good character.”

“In failing to cross-examine these twenty young ladies who claim his character was bad, is proof, of itself, that if he had character that was good, no power on earth would have kept him and his counsel from plying countless questions in his behalf.”

“That’s common-sense, gentlemen, a proposition that is as fair and a proposition which I have already shown you by law that they had a perfect right to delve into his character. Also, you have seen their failure to cross-question these witnesses.”

“Whenever any man has evidence in possession and fails to produce it, the strongest presumption arises that it would he hurtful if they did produce it. Failure to present such evidence is a glaring Indictment. You need no law book to tell you that.”

“You know the reason, his able counsel did not ask these ‘hare-brained fanatics’ questions of the evidence they had presented against their client. You know it too well, they know it—they know it better than you. That’s why they did not question.”

“You tell me those good people from Washington Street came and said they never heard anything against Frank. Many a man has gone through life, without even his wife knowing his misfortune. It takes the valley to know a man’s life.”

Bad Character Demonstrated.

“That man has a bad character and it has been ably demonstrated. Often a man uses charitable and religious organizations to cover up his misdealings —sometimes to cover up his conscience—as Leo M. Frank has done by the B’nai B’rith, of which he is president”.

“Many a man has walked high in society and outwardly has appeared spotless, but who was rotten, clean rotten, inside. He has no character, I submit—gentlemen, he has none. His reputation for good – is among the people who do not know his real self”.

“David, of old, was a great character, until he sent Uriah to the front of battle, so that Uriah might be killed and David take his wife. Judah Iscariot, until he planted the betraying kiss upon the lips of the Lord Jesus, was a good character.”

 “Benedict Arnold had the confidence of all the people, until he betrayed his nation. Since that day, his name has been a synonym of infamy and disgrace”.  

Cites Wilde Case.

“Oscar Wilde, literary, brilliant, author of works that will go down for ages, the profoundest of which he wrote while in jail, had the companionship of himself and the son of a Marquis, broken up for criminal practice in which he indulged.”

“Wherever the English language is read the coolness and affrontery of Wilde, while he underwent cross-examination, will be the subject of history and admiration. He was a man of Frank’s type. Wilde will remain forever the type of pervert as is this man, who stands with the murder of Mary Phagan.”

 “Not even Wilde’s wife suspected he was guilty of perversion. He was sent to prison for three long years. He was a scholar, cool, calm. and, collected and his cross-examination is a worthy part of history.”

“Good character! Why, he came to America and lectured throughout the country. It was he who raised this sunflower from a weed. A man of rain, knowledge and physique, courage and bravery, but a sexual pervert.”

“Abe Ruef, of San Francisco, a man of Frank’s race, boss of his town, respected, honored, admired. But he corrupted Schmidt and corrupted everything he put his hand to. He led a life of heinous sin, ruining and debauching girls without end. Eventually his case terminated in the penitentiary.”

“Crime, gentlemen, doesn’t go only with the ignorant and poor. The ignorant like Jim Conley, commit the smaller crimes. A man of high intellect and wonderful, endowments commits the worst of crimes. For instance, look’ at McKuhn, mayor of Charlottesville, who slew his wife in the bathtub because he had tired of her. A jury of Virginia gentlemen sent him to a felon’s grave, his just deserts.”

Richeson Sent to Choir.

“Then, there was Richeson, a Boston preacher, who was engaged to one of the wealthiest and most attractive girls of his city. But, entanglement with a poor little girl who had been weak and pliant in his driving and lust-ridden hands, caused him to so far forget himself, as to put her in a grave.”

“All these cases are of circumstantial evidence, and, after conviction, in hope he would obtain pardon, he confessed, while a Massachusetts governor and jury were brave and dauntless enough to send him to the electric chair. Then, there were others, including Henry Clay Beattie, of Richmond, scion of splendid family, who took his wife, the mother of a 12-month-old baby, to shoot her in the automobile in which they were riding.”

“Yet, that man, gazing upon the blood of his slain mate, was cool and calm enough to joke with the detectives. Slush funds were raised, every effort possible was made to free him, but a courageous and honest jury of Virginia gentlemen sent him to death, thus putting this old Virginia citizenship on a high plane.”

“Beattie never confessed, that is true, but he left a note to be read after his electrocution, which he admitted his guilt.”

“Dr. Crippen, of England, man of worthy standing, killed his wife because of his infatuation for another woman, and put her body away, like this man Leo Frank put away little Mary Phagan’s, hoping it never would be discovered.”

“You, gentlemen, have the opportunity that comes to but few men. Measure up to It. Will you do it?”

“If not, let your conscience say why! Tell me as an honest man, why not?”

Attacks Frank’s Alibi.

“They say Frank has an alibi. Let’s examine It. In section 101 of the Georgia code you’ll find just what is an alibi. It involves the impossibility of the prisoner’s presence at the scene during the time of the crime. The range of evidence must reasonably exclude possibility of his presence”.

“In short, gentlemen, they must show you it was absolutely impossible for Frank to have been on the scene at the time Mary Phagan was killed. The burden is upon them. An alibi, unless properly substantiated, is worthless. I am going to show you why that this alibi is worse than no defense at all”.

“I once read an old darkey’s description of an alibi, and it was this:”

“‘Rastus, what’s an alibi?”

“’An alibi is somethin’ that show you was at the prayer meetin’ where you wasn’t, and not at the crap game where you was.’”         

“Turn around this table a minute—this alleged chronological table of Frank’s actions that day, and then turn it back to the wall where I want it to stay—face against the wall.”

“At 1 p.m. Frank leaves the factory. That’s mighty nice. Now, turn it back to the wall. Let it stay. It’s not sustained by evidence. Not even sustained by the statement of the defendant, himself. His story at police headquarters says he locked the door of the pencil factory at 1:10 o’clock and left the building. There’s your alibi. Punctured by the defendant’s own statement made when he did not know the value of time element in his case.”

“He never realized its importance until he went on the stand, and then he swore it was 1 o’clock when he left the building.”

A Sad Spectacle.

“The little Kern girl–God help her! —swore she saw him at Alabama and Whitehall streets at 1:10 o’clock; yet here’s his own statement that he left the factory at 1:10 o’clock.”

“You talk of sad spectacles, the saddest I’ve ever seen was the bringing of this little Kern girl, the daughter of a man who works for Sig Montag, to help free this red-handed murderer.”

“The jurors have a right to take into consideration the reasonableness of what any witness swears. Any man who looked at that little girl could see the untruth stamped clearly in her story.”

“If Frank had locked the door at 1:10 o’clock, how did she ever see him at Alabama and Whitehall streets at that time of day?”

“Mind you, she had never seen him but once, this daughter of a Montag employee. Yet, she comes here and tells you the unreasonable story she has told.”

“On this time proposition, I want to read this; It’s a speech of a wonderful man, a man to whom even the great and brainy Arnold and the big powerful Rosser would have doffed their hats—Daniel Webster: “

“’Time’s subdivisions,’ he says, ‘are all alike. No man knows one day from another or an hour. Days and hours are not visible to the senses. He who speaks of date or minute or hour of occurrence with nothing to guide him speaks at random.”

Other Discrepancies.

“Now, what else about this alibi”. Old man Sig Montag twisted and warped his words so as to sustain this man. For instance, Frank got down to the building at 8:26 o’clock, according to Holloway and others. Frank says he got there at 8:30. He arrived with a rain coat. They tried to make it appear that he did not have one.”

“I’ll venture the reason he borrowed Ursenbach’s rain coat was because he forgot the coat Jim Conley saw him with.”

“Mattie Smith says he left the building at 9:10 o’clock. Frank says he left at 9:30 o’clock. At 11 o’clock Frank returns to office, says the chronological alibi chart. In his own statement he swears it was 11:05 o’clock.”

“Move it up or down—move it anyway—do anything with it. Gentlemen, we’ve got to have an alibi some way or other.”

“12:12 p.m., says the chart, the time Mary Phagan entered the plant. Frank says Mary came at 10 minutes after Miss Hattie Hall left and she left at 12 o’clock. If persons were as accurate as Frank is in regard to time on the day Mary Phagan was killed, wouldn’t this old world be a glorious one. No trains missed, no appointments missed—no nothing but an entire world accurate on time.”

“Lemmie Quinn arrives, says the chart, from 12:20 to 12:22 o’clock. But Lemmie conflicts with Mrs. Freeman and the other lady who saw him at 11:45 a.m.”

 Here the solicitor was interrupted by Mr. Arnold, who arose saying:

“There is no evidence to that effect, Mr. Dorsey. The girls didn’t see him at the factory.”

“I don’t doubt that anyone didn’t see him,” retorted the solicitor.

Crowd Rules Arnold.

The crowd in the courtroom broke into a laugh that was well-nigh an applause.

Mr. Arnold said to the judge:

“Your honor, we can do without this crowd. If there is another such outbreak, I’ll move to clear the courtroom.”

“Lemmie Quinn was blowing hot and blowing cold” continued Dorsey, “and he was too anxious. I never saw a more eager man in my life. Is Jim Conley telling the truth or a lie? Jim says he saw Lemmie Quinn go up the stairs before Mary Phagan got there.”

“If this be true, why did Frank want to consult with his lawyers before he spoke at police headquarters?”

“Lemmie Quinn is the hardest man to pin down on a proposition I have ever encountered. He is the most anxious man; the most eager I have ever seen, unless it be old man Holloway. Can you tell me that an honest innocent man would first want to consult his lawyers before making his statement?”

“Let me read you what a great judge said, Judge Lochraine:”  

“’I don’t take mere words, even of witnesses. I take their acts.’”

“This table that the defense produces is a fraud on its face. It puts Quinn there from 12:20 to 12:22 o’clock, just the time that will suit the defense and its notorious alibi. Men, they are straining at a gnat.”

The Charges of Perjury.

“Let’s consider for a moment Arnold’s flippant charges of perjury.”

“You saw the witnesses. You heard what they had to say. Do you remember one Iady, who, almost hysterical, wanted to die for Frank? When did you ever hear of an employee who would be enamored of her employer that that she would die for him if the friendship that existed was merely platonic? I know that back of that willingness to put her neck in the noose meant for Frank there was something stronger, something more powerful than platonic love, don’t you? It must be a passion born of something beyond mere friendship. But he is married, and she is single; he is the employer and she is the employee!”­

“Take the little Bauer boy. Before he took that ride in Sig Montag’s automobile to the offices of Arnold and Rosser, he could remember details, but after that he suffered a lapse of memory. Before that, he could remember just where he laid his watch, but after that his mind went blank.”

“It reminds me of the South Georgia instance where everybody was gathered in the church praying for rain. They prayed and prayed, and after a while, the Lord sent a regular trash-mover, a gulley-washer. Then the preacher rubbed his chin a little and said, ‘I guess we must have over done it, just a leetle!”

“Don’t you know that Sig Montag must whispered in that boy’s ear, ‘You’ve overdone it, just a leetle?’”

“Does that look like perjury? Oh, how foolish, foolish, foolish!”

“How about that machinist, Lee?”

“He said he had seen in the possession of Schiff papers that he had signed. Then they brought papers up here written on a typewriter, and his name was not even mentioned in them. That’s the stuff they’re unloading on you!”

Claims Women Were Subborned. 

“Perjury? Let’s go further.”

“I have never seen a case where women have been suborned as in this case.”

“Take the stenographer, Miss Fleming. They put her on the stand, and we took her up on a line she didn’t expect.”

“Oh, we don’t mean to say that Frank tried to seduce or ravish every woman who came to the pencil factory. All of them would not have submitted to it. He knew whom to approach and whom not, until he met Mary Phagan. And she ‘called’ him.”

“How about flirting? She said she never saw or heard of any orders against flirting.”

Dorsey then read Miss Fleming’s account of Frank’s work at the office on Saturday morning.

“Now,” he continued, “she says that she saw Frank working on the financial sheet. She said that this was Frank’s business in the forenoons of Saturdays. She was questioned on this point time and time again, and was positive that she saw Frank making out the financial sheet.”

“Then Arnold Interrupted her and said. He didn’t have time to make the financial sheet on  Saturday morning, did he?”

“And she caught Arnold. She answered, ‘No.’”

“And was so nervous that he couldn’t let me finish, but he interrupted the witness with a most unfair question, and she took the bait and went under the bank with it.”

“I have read to you how positive she was about having seen Frank working on the financial sheet. Now look. Afterwards when she was about it she said that she had never made any such statement. I asked her whether she had said these things I have read you from the record, she said, ‘No.’”

“I tell you if you are going to turn men loose on such evidence as that, it is time to quit drawing juries in Fulton county.”

Why Frank Was Indicted.

“Why didn’t Rosser, Pat Campbell and Starnes take Newt Lee, Jim Conley, or James Gantt instead of this man? Because the evidence against them was only a film of cobwebs, but about Frank the evidence is composed of cables, and they are bound about him and he can’t break them. The erudite Reuben Rose Arnold and the dynamic Luther Zeigler Rosser, can not break them!”

“Circumstantial evidence is as good as any if it is the right sort. This evidence draws tightly around him and there is not a break in it.”

“Herbert Schiff said that Frank, who was behind with his work, went home and slept instead of making out the financial sheet, because he (Schiff) had not given him the data (pronouncing it ‘dotter,’ as Schiff had pronounced it).”

“Do you think that Leo M. Frank, with such a charming wife as he has, with all his friends; Frank, head of the B’nai B’rith, lover of cards and pleasure; do you think that he would go back to the factory on Saturday afternoon to make out that financial sheet just because he did not have the data in the morning. He made out that financial sheet in the morning.”

“I submit that this man made out that financial sheet on Saturday morning. I give no reasons because I don’t believe them necessary. But even if he made out the sheet on Saturday afternoon, don’t come to that belief because the sheet shows no nervousness.”

Why Frank Was Calm.

“Why, after the crime, he went to his home and in the bosom of his family he showed composure. He read the joke about baseball and laughed about it. He made so merry over it that he disturbed the card game which was in progress.”

“He had been making out financial sheets for six years, and do you mean to tell me that he had to wait for Schiff to tell him what to do before he could make that sheet?”

“He didn’t betray nervousness when he wrote for the police, did he? And right here. His mother identified that writing as that of her son, and yet when they put an expert, who knew Frank’s writing, on the stand to identify it, he was so afraid that he might do something to hurt this man that he wouldn’t identify it. Is that perjury?”

“The frivolity that Frank showed at his home was just the sort of frivolity that Henry Clay Beattle showed beside the automobile in which was the blood of his wife!”

“I’ll tell you something this man did do on Saturday afternoon. You remember how Jim Conley told about Frank’s looking at the ceiling and saying, ‘I have rich relatives in Brooklyn. Why should I hang?’ he wrote that letter to his rich uncle and his people in Brooklyn that afternoon.”

“They say his people in Brooklyn were not rich. His uncle is rich, and he thought that he was in Brooklyn that afternoon when he wrote that letter and said what he did.”

Dorsey picked up the letter.

“Listen to this. ‘How are the dear ones in Brooklyn?’ Does that sound like he thought his uncle was in Brooklyn, or not?”

A Betraying Line.

“Now, here’s a line that if you know anything about the conduct of a guilty conscience, you will know was written in the afternoon when Frank knew the body of Mary Phagan was lying in that basement where he had it put.”

“He wrote: ‘It has been too short a time since you left for anything startling to happen!’ ‘Too short! Too short! Startling!’”

“Do you tell me, honest men, that line did not come from a guilty conscience? What do you think of that, honest men?”

“Now, do you think the rich uncle cared any anything about this line? An eminent authority says that extravagant language is the earmark of fraud.”

“Today was Yondif—holiday— and the thin gray line of veterans is growing thinner each year.’”

“This from Leo M. Frank, the statistician, to a man who cared not for the thin gray, but for the dividends the factory was paying!”

“There’s nothing new in the factory to report,” he writes.

“Ah, but there was something new, but for the dividends the factory was paying!”

“There’s nothing new in the factory to report,” he writes.

“Ah, but there was something new, and there had been time enough for something startling, and there had been enough for something to happen! It had happened in the space of thirty minutes! Oh, me! The time was not too short!”

“Yes, his people lived in Brooklyn and Jim Conley would not have known they lived in Brooklyn unless he had heard Frank say so. They may not be rich, but they have a cold $20,000 lying away on interest! And they have no business worth I don’t know how much!”.

Frank’s Wire to Montag.

“Let’s read that wire Frank sent to Montag.”

“’You may have read,’ it says, ‘of a pencil factory girl found dead—Found dead—in factory? In factory? No! Where? ‘In cellar of factory!’ That’s what he says. Why? He knew where he had put the body of that girl and that picture was in his mind when he sent that wire.”

“He knew he would be arrested unless the police were corrupt, and he didn’t want Montag to be unprepared.”

 “But Pat Campbell was not corrupt! John Black was not corrupt! Rosser was not corrupt! Starnes was not corrupt! And he was arrested!”

“Listen to what Frank said when he wanted to put the rope around the neck of Newt Lee and James Gantt:”

“Police will eventually solve it!”

“Oh, they did solve it!”

“’Assure my uncle,’ he says. ‘I’m all right if he should inquire. Our company has the case well in hand.’”

“Maybe he did think that when he got this follow Scott. There’s an honest man for you! If there was a slush fund in this case—I don’t know that there was—but if there was one, Scott could have got it. But Scott said that he was going to work this case hand-in-hand with the police.” That’s what Frank wanted them. He wanted Scott to work hand-in-hand with the police. He wanted to know what the police wore doing.”

“Then came Herbert Haas—and he’s nobody’s fool—and suggested to Pinkerton detective Harry Scott that he let them have all the evidence he found before he let the police have it. If Harry Scott had fallen for that, things might have been different.”

Recognize Weakness of Case.

“Talk about your expert, Hunter? He’s not nearly so smart as Frank. Leo M. Frank is as smart as either of his lawyers. Frank realized that weakness of his case. He wrote that statement himself, I’ll bet.”

“Frank, in his statement, had to drag in a lot of stuff that was not evidence and he would have dragged in more if we had not stopped him.”

“And do you ‘remember about the blood? The machinist Lee said that Duffy held out his finger and let that blood spurt from it. Why should he have done that. Isn’t the first and most natural thing to grab that finger and tie it up?”

“Miss Rebecca Carson said that she saw Frank and Jim Conley on the fourth floor Tuesday morning before the arrest. That was the morning that Frank said to Jim, ‘Jim, you be a good boy.”

“According to their own witness, Jim and Frank were just where Jim said they were that morning.”

“Mrs. Carson, mother of Rebecca, when asked about seeing blood spots was very particular to ask what blood spots and where. Then she said that she never saw any blood spots on the second floor, because she didn’t want to see anything like that.”

“Miss Small corroborates Conley’s story. She said that she saw Frank and Jim on the fourth floor of the factory about 9 o’clock on that Tuesday morning.”

“Why was Frank there?”

“He wanted to see if Jim was keeping the secret. Arnold said that this is a dirty suggestion. It is dirty. It is more than that; it is infamous. Yet there sits today Leo M. Frank trying to put that rope around the neck of another.

Upholds Detective Department.

“The only thing in this entire case that is at all to the discredit of the police department,” continued Mr. Dorsey, “is that they were afraid on account of the influence and position of Leo Frank to put him in a cell like they did Lee and Gantt. That’s the only thing against them.” 

“If my friend, John Black, over there had gone after Leo Frank like he went after Newt Lee, there would probably, very probably, have been a confession and no necessity for this long and tedious trial.”

“You,” he continued, turning to Frank, “you called for Haas, and you called for Rosser and you called for Arnold, you had to have the very best legal talent that the state afforded, and it took their combined efforts to keep up your nerve.”

“You know I’m telling the truth,” continued Mr. Dorsey, again addressing himself to the jury.”

“There Is only one thing, I tell you, that is to the discredit of the police and that is they were swayed by learned counsel and the glamor of wealth, and treated with too much consideration this man who had snuffed out the life of the poor little girl.”

“I honor, although I had nothing to do with it, I honor the way they went after Minola McKnight and the way in which they got her affidavit. Gentlemen, the getting of evidence in a big murder case like this is no Job for a man with the manners of a dancing master. You’ve got to get on the job like a dog after a ‘possum and you’ve got to tree that ‘possum and keep on barking up that tree until you show he’s there.”

“You know that Albert McKnight, the woman’s husband, would not have told Craven and Pickett any such tale unless it was true.”

“So these detectives knew that, too, and they hung around and they barked up that tree until they got the evidence that was there. Talk about illegally holding that woman. Why they had the habeas corpus if they had wanted. To get her out. That’s what it was made for. I certainly had nothing and could have had nothing to do with freeing her.”

What He Would Have Told Haas.

“If Herbert Haas had come to me on the Tuesday after the murder and told me he wanted me to get Frank out, I would have told him that I was running my office and not the police department. I would have added that the habeas corpus was intended for is that; oh, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have insulted a lawyer like that. He would have known about the habeas corpus.”

“Well, they have taken me to task, too, for the way in which I went early into the case. Well, I mean the memory of the late Charlie Hill; I’m as proud of being his successor in the solicitor’s office as I am that the people elected me to that high office, but I tell you gentlemen, I’m going to pattern myself after no man; I’m going to pattern myself after the dictates of my own conscience.”

“If I’m proud of anything in this case, I’m proud that I went into this case with the detectives when I did and sought with them to find the real murderer of the little girl, and that, too, when your influence was pouring letters into the grand jury in an effort to try and hang an innocent man —negro, even though he was.”

“I’m glad I stuck it out and kept them from indicting that innocent man, and I’m going to stick it out as long as I’m in office and if you don’t like it, the only way to do is to remove me, because I’m doing what I think is right.”

No Evidence of Perjury.

“Now they have talked about perjury. Well, let’s not say that everybody in this case have been liars, when wo have no reason or evidence to accuse everybody of boring liars”.

“Was Jim Conley a liar?”

“Let’s look at some of the things he says and let’s look at the many times the little and apparently unimportant details of his statement are corroborated by other witnesses. Mrs.

Small, time and again, in her testimony, corroborates the things Jim told of as happening that Tuesday morning in the pencil factory. Well, now, let’s take one of their witnesses: Take Mrs. Carson, mother of Rebecca Carson, the forewoman, whom witnesses swear went into the women’s dressing rooms with Frank. Mrs. Carson swore on the stand that she did not go back and look at the spots of blood on the second floor. 

“You know why she swore that? Well, there had been too many of those employees admitting to going back there, and the defense did not want to make it appear that the spots caused any stir up there, so by the time Mrs. Carson came, employees began to say that they had paid no attention to the spots.”

“Well, we asked Mrs. Small If she went to look at them, and she said that she did, and we asked who went with her, and she did say that Mrs. Carson did, and we asked her how she knew, and she said she remembered because she and Mrs. Carson had gone back there after the others had left, and at a time when they could get plenty of time to look at the spots.”

“If this is founded on perjury, if the defense claims it is, then it’s simply a case of pot calling the kettle black, and I haven’t dealt in glittering generalities, either, in making my charges.”

“When evidence or testimony was wanted in any particular phase of this case, there has never been the time when some witnesses or witnesses did not come forward and testify to what was needed, and they’d have you believe those witnesses came willingly, and that there was no slush fund.”

Notes Fix Crime on Frank.

“Now, gentlemen, I want to discuss with you briefly these letters, he continued, taking up the two notes found near the dead girl’s body. If they are not the order of an overruling Providence, then I will agree with the defense that they are naught but folly. The pad and paper usually found in Frank’s office was used, and this man Frank, trying to fasten the crime on another, has indelibly fixed it upon himself.

“The pad, the paper, the fact that he wanted notes, all that goes to show Frank as the man. Tell me, if you can, that a negro over lived who, after killing and robbing or assaulting a girl, would take time before leaving to write these notes.”

“These notes wore folly! Yes, as Judge Bleckley once said, ‘All crime is a mistake and what proof have we that a man who has made a big mistake will not make little ones in trying to hide the first?’”

“Then, there’s another thing that makes against Frank. He said here that when the little girl asked him if the metal had come, that he told her no; and yet, when he had not had time to think about how it would sound, or when he first talked he said he told her that he did not know.”

“There’s a big difference there, gentlemen. For Frank to have told the little girl that he did not know would have sent her back to the metal room to see for herself, but to have told her no, that it had not come, would have sent her on out of the building. Frank did not want to give us here any reason to suspect that the child ever went back there to that metal room.”

Use of the Word “Chat.”

“Then, another thing: How could Starnes and Campbell, or even Chief Lanford, know that Conley, when he told them about Frank’s saying ‘chat,’ when he referred to taking girls and women to his office, was using the same word that Frank used here in his statement four times in the short period between the time he started speaking and the time the jury went out for a few minutes recreation? You noticed, too, that he didn’t use the word ‘chat’ when he started again.

“I tell you Mr. Arnold is a man of keen foresight, and he knows what a thing sounds like, and he sought to parry the blow before I even started talking that I am now trying to deliver.”

“Tell me, if you will, that Conley, when he finished his evil work on that little girl, would have dragged the body way back to that corner of the basement. It meant nothing to him whereabouts in the basement the body lay.”

“But it was the white man—the superintendent of the factory—who knew that it would never do for that body to be found in the metal room.”

“Again, in these murder notes you find the words, ‘The long, tall, black nigger did it.’ Well, when did Conley ever say ‘did.’ Old Jim was up here on the stand, and every time he used that verb at all he said, ‘I done it,’ or ‘he done it.’ It was never ‘I did it,’ with Conley, but always, ‘I done it.’

“Tell me, if you can, that these letters, which are a ‘plant’ as sure as was the club and the bloody shirt found at Newt Lee’s house, were ever thought out by an ignorant negro like Jim. Conley couldn’t have done it if he’d had Starnes, and Rosser, and Campbell and Black, and even Chief Lanford, to aid him. It was a smarter man than this negro, it was a smarter man than these detectives, who laid this plot which it appeared would free him, but which really inculpated him.”

“You tell me that Conley wrote those words; well, when this man was arrested and when he knew Conley was arrested and that Conley, infamously told to keep quiet, was not telling anything, did he even hint to the police that Jim Conley writes?”

“These notes were written to protect the white superintendent and they were dictated by the man who sent the telegram to Sig Montag in New York, asking him to tell his uncle that a girl had been killed in the factory cellar and that the police would eventually solve the mystery and that he was all right.”

The Statement of a Guilty Man.

“Now, I want to take up that statement of Frank’s, that statement that it was said was strong enough to carry him to acquittal, by proving his innocence. I tell you: that was the statement of a guilty man and a statement that was cunningly constructed to fit around the chain of circumstances that showed up.”

“You notice, Frank never admitted being anywhere except when It was proven on him, “There was nothing he admitted except what he knew could be proved.”

Mr. Dorsey then read a number of authorities on circumstantial evidence and showed where the comparison of circumstantial evidence to a chain, no stronger that the weakest link, had been rejected and the comparison of it to a rope where when all webs are twisted together it will hold and where a  few webs may be weak or break and not despoil the rope of its holding power, had been accepted.”

“Frank’s statement was a brilliant one,” he continued, “and if you believe it and follow it blindly, there is only one thing you can do and that is to turn Frank loose.”

 The solicitor then read the law upon the statements made by defendants In murder cases and made various comments and cited a number of author.

“This man (Frank) says” he continued, “that he sat in his office, checking off the money that was loft from the payroll; he was careful, mind you, not to say he was checking over the cash.”

“Out of the money left from that $1,100 payroll and the amount of cash that was kept for various incidentals, don’t you see there was enough money to make up the amount he offered Jim Conley when he asked him to burn the body and that he afterwards took back when Jim said he would not burn it unless Leo went with him.”

“Jim Conley refused to burn the body by himself. Had Jim Conley started to do that and the black smoke rolled out of that chimney, Leo Frank would have soon been down there with these same detectives and what chance would the negro, have had?”

Another False Statement.

“Old Conley took no chance, he was willing to write the notes to put by the side of the body, but drunk or sober, as you will, he was too wise to go down to the basement by himself and burn that body.”

 “Then again, in his statement, Frank says that no one came into his office that Friday before the murder and asked for their own or anyone else’s pay envelope. Well, here is this little Helen Ferguson, the friend and running mate of little Mary Phagan, who swears to us that she did go there and ask Frank for her own and Mary’s pay envelope and that she did it because she knew Mary did not intend to come down, the next day!”

“Oh, they’ve told about plots and conspiracies; I’ll tell you about one. I’ll show you that in this man’s lustful heart there was a plot to undo this little girl, not a plot to murder her; oh, no, he did not want to take her life, he wanted to use her to satisfy his passion.”

“In March, little Willie Turner, a plain country boy, tells us he saw Frank with his arm around Mary and that she was trying to escape and to leave him and go to work, but that he kept on talking to her and told her he was the superintendent In that factory, thus using his position to coerce her to his own ends.”

“You can’t tell me that a brilliant man like him could pass her machine every day and she as pretty and attractive a little girl as she was and as bright, and then he not learn to know who she was. You can’t tell me that this man with the brain he’s got could have helped make out the pay roll for fifty-two times in a year and then been so little familiar with the name as to have to look on the time book to find out If a girl by the name of Mary Phagan ever worked there. You can’t tell me Wille Turner lied when he said he saw Frank talking to the little girl, and you can’t tell me that little Dewey Hewell, the little girl brought here from the Home of the Good Shepherd in Ohio, who, despite her reputation, probably caused right there in that factory, is of tender years and would hardly make up a story like that, was Iying when she said she saw Frank talking to Mary Phagan.”

“You can’t tell me Gantt was lying when he said Frank knew Mary Phagan, and you want to remember another thing—Frank said to Gantt, ‘You seemed to know this girl pretty well.’ How did Frank know that Gantt knew her pretty well, if Frank did not know her himself?”

Proclaims Belief in Plot.

“I’m prepared, knowing that man’s character as I do, to believe that passion had seized him way back there in March and that he plotted to take advantage of this little factory girl. Mr. Rosser quoted from Burns in his speech, and I can quote from Burns, too, and it will show you something on the case.”

Here the solicitor quoted a passage from Burns, beginning, “There’s no telling what a man will do.”

“You can’t tell me that all these people have lied,” continued the solicitor.

“I would not be at all surprised if Frank did not begin to covet this girl back there in March when she first came to work on this floor. I would not be at all surprised if he did not get worried about this lanky Gantt, this man from the same country place where she had come from, this man who knew her people: and I would not be surprised If he did not discharge Gantt not for the $1 shortage, which Gantt said he would give up his job before he’d pay, but because he thought Gantt would be in the way of his vile purpose.”

“I would not be at all surprised if when Frank and Schiff checked up the pay roll that Friday afternoon and Frank saw that Mary Phagan had not got her money, that he did not slip out and make arrangements with Conley, knowing that the girl would have to come on Saturday morning to get her money.”

“I would not be surprised if he did not deliberately refuse the money to little Helen Ferguson, because he wanted to bring Mary Phagan there on Saturday.”

“Jim Conley tells us that Frank slipped up to where he was on Friday afternoon and told him to come back Saturday morning, and old Conley says, ‘I done it,’ not ‘I did it.’

Looked Far Into Future.

“This thing of passion,” continued the solicitor, “is a great deal like fraud, and libertines look far into the future. It’s probable that the man whose character was torn and whose attorneys feared to cross examine witnesses, who swore against his character, began in March to plot and plan to get this girl in his power, because he could not control the passion that consumed him.”

“You try to tell a jury compared of honest men that you didn’t know Mary Phagan,” continued the solicitor, turning towards Frank, “and do you expect them to believe that?”

“Tell me,” he continued, “that Helen Ferguson lied, that this little girl was suborned by the Atlanta detectives to come here and swear to a lie, and that’s the little girl they called a ‘hare-brained fanatic.’”

Mr. Dorsey then read from Frank’s statement to the jury where he had used the word “chat” in four different places.

“Mr. Arnold says,” he continued, “that negroes regularly pick up the words and phrases of their employers, and certainly Frank must have been associated with Jim Conley a great deal to get this word chat from him.”

“Well, Frank. also says that Miss Hall left when the whistle blew for 12 o’clock. Well, do whistles blow on holidays? I don’t know, I’ll leave that for the jury to decide.

“Then Mrs. White says that when she came up that Frank, who was in his office pulling up some pay envelopes, jumped when he saw her. Why, no wonder he jumped, for that little girl was lying back in the metal room then, and he hadn’t had a chance to dispose of the body. He found out that Mrs. White wanted to see her husband, and this time he did not call for the husband. He sent the woman up to the fourth floor. After a while he goes up there and makes out he’s in a big hurry to get away, and he gets her out. He knows that the men have had their lunch and will be working there the greater part of the afternoon”.

“Well, Mrs. White comes down the steps and passes the office. Is Frank ready to leave? Has he got on his hat and coat? No; he’s not in a hurry then, not at all. He’s got to wait there to get rid of that body.”

Addresses Himself to Frank.

Here, Mr. Hugh M. Dorsey gradually drifted in the use or the second person in his talk and seemed to be addressing himself to Leo M. Frank instead of to the jurors:

“You went tiptoeing right back to see if everything was all right, and then you signaled Conley,” he continued, “and you soon learned, by what Conley said about not seeing a certain girl go back down the steps, that you were given away, and so you sent him back to get the body. ‘There was no blood there where you hid the girl. The blow was not sufficient, and no blood was there until Conley dropped the body and caused, it to spatter out.

“No, you had struck the girl and gagged her and assaulted her and then you went back and got a cord and fixed the little girl, whom you had assaulted, when, thank God, she would not yield to your proposals.”

“You got that cord because you wanted to save your reputation—you had no-character—you wanted to save your reputation among the good people of Rabbi David Marx’s church and among those in the B’nai B’rith, and you wanted to save your reputation among the masses and the Montags.”

“Oh, you knew that dead men tell no tales, you knew it, but you forget that murder will out. Oh, had that little girl lived to tell the assault made on her in that factory, there would have been a thousand men in Atlanta who would have not have feared your wealth, and your power and relatives, rich and poor, but who would have stormed the jail and defied the law in taking vengeance on you. It is not right that it should be so, people ought to wait for fair courts and honest juries to decide these things, but they don’t and you knew it then.”

‘I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that if Frank hadn’t put Mary Phagan’s handbag in the safe it would have turned up just the same as the painted envelope and blood spots the Pinkertons found on the first floor.’

“This cloth that was found around her throat was torn from her own upscale clothing and placed over her mouth for a gag, while Frank tiptoed back to his office for the cord with which to strangle her.”

Describes Death of Girl.

“When she did not yield to his lust that was not like that of other men, he struck her. They scuffled. She fell against the machine. Her brain lapsed into unconsciousness.”

“They say he had no marks on his person—he did not give her time to inflict marks. Durrant had no marks.”

“There never was such a farce as this attempt by Frank’s able counsel to disprove the fact that  the spots found on the second floor were blood stains. They bring in this perjurer Lee. He says it wasn’t. Who is this Lee?”

“You know it was blood and that it was the blood of Mary Phagan, because its location corresponds with the spot where Jim Conley says he dropped the body.”

“Barrett discovered the blood and hair long before any reward was ever offered. The hair was identified by Magnolia Kennedy, their own witness.”

“When it became apparent that too many persons saw Frank go to the elevator box and get the key, old man Holloway, who lied and betrayed us, perjured himself in a story about having opened the box, himself.”

Says Holloway Perjured Himself.

“Holloway perjured himself either to obtain acquittal of his boss or to get the reward for the conviction of Jim Conley, ‘his nigger.’ I say that Barrett stands as an oasis in a mighty desert for truth and veracity, although, his own job be in jeopardy. Barrett told the truth. If there is a man in town who rightfully deserves a reward, it is that poor employee of the pencil factory who had courage to tell the truth.”

“Compare him with Holloway.”

“Neither did Barrett make his discoveries on May 16. His find has no resemblance whatever to a plant.”

“But you could wipe Barrett completely out of the case and have an abundance of ground on which to convict.”

“Mrs. Jefferson saw the blood and so did Mel Stanford. It was not there Friday, because Stanford swept the floor and is positive he did not see It.”

“Jim Conley saw Mary Phagan go up and never come down. She was killed where Jim Conley found her and her body was put where Frank wrote in his telegram: ‘In the cellar.’”

“Darley and Quinn saw the blood spots. Sometimes, you know, we have to go into the camp of the enemy for ammunition. The handsome Darley was tied up by an affidavit. It was a hard pill for him, but he had it to swallow, and he admitted having seen the blood that so glaringly accused his boss.”

“To cap it all, Dr. Claude Smith saw the blood, and, upon analyzing it, found there were blood corpuscles disporting the argument of the defense that it was paint.”

“Their own witnesses, Herbert Schiff, Magnolia Kennedy and Wade Campbell all saw this blood and admit having seen it.”

New Richmond in Field.

“Frank and his friends found that Harry Scott didn’t manipulate to suit them. They got some new Richmonds and put them in the field. Where are they now, these men who found the club and blood spots and planted envelope?”

“Where is Pierce, the Pinkerton head? Echo answers “Where?”

“Where is McWorth, who helped find them? Echo answers ‘Where?’”

“All detectives, Starnes, Black, Campbell, Rosser, Scott every one of whom searched in vicinity of the scuttle hole, say they could see no blood spots nor club nor envelope.”

“Don’t you know that if they had not been planted and had been there after the murder. Holloway and others of his ilk would have been only too glad to have reported It to their superintendent in prison.”

“Why, only a few days after the murder, a general clean-up was or ordered by insurance authorities. None of the cleaners found the blood nor the club nor the envelope on the first floor. Why? Because they weren’t there.”

Evidence All Planted.

“The club and spots and envelope are purely in keeping with the planting of Newt Lee’s bloody shirt.”

“Boots Rogers saw Frank take out the clock slip that morning and say that it was accurate. But, later, when the shirt was planted, this graduate of Cornell, this man so quick of figures, saw that Newt Lee wouldn’t have had time to go home and change his shirt, so he accordingly changed his figures and altered his statement.”

“But, the man who planted the shirt did his job too well—he got a shirt too clean and smeared blood on both sides.”

“And, more about this club—Dr. Harris and Dr. Hurt both say that the wound in Mary Phagan’s head could not have been inflicted by this planted club. It was too large, too round.”

“They harp on this Minola McKnight business. Isn’t it strange that Minola, herself, should tell such a story to her husband, then corroborate it in a sworn and written statement.”

“Are we going to swallow all this stuff of Mrs. Selig’s without knowledge of human nature?”

“Minola, in presence of her counsel, made that statement and swore to it. Gordon would not have been worthy of the name of lawyer had the story not been true and he had not said:”

“’Minola, don’t put your name to that story unless it be true.’”

“If the statement wasn’t true, Gordon, her lawyer, would not have sat there without raising a hand, knowing, well knowing, that his client could be sent to the penitentiary for false swearing.”

“The reason Minola made that affidavit was because it was the embodiment of the truth, the pure truth.”   

It was at this point that Judge Roan recessed until Monday, on account of the exhausted condition of Mr. Dorsey.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 24th 1913, “Solicitor Reasserts His Conviction of Bad Character and Guilt of Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

Atlanta Constitution
August 26th, 1913

As the big bell in the Catholic church tolled the hour of 12 o’clock Solicitor Dorsey concluded his remarkable plea for the conviction of Leo Frank with the dreadful words— “Guilty, guilty, guilty!”

It was just at this hour, more than four months ago that little Mary Phagan entered the pencil factory to draw her pittance of $1.20.

The tolling of the bell and the dread sound of the words cut like a chill to the hearts of many who shivered involuntarily.

It was the conclusion of the most remarkable speech which has ever been delivered in the Fulton County courthouse—a speech which will go down in history stamping Hugh Dorsey as one of the greatest prosecuting attorneys of this age.

Arnold Makes Protest.

Only after Attorney Reuben R. Arnold had registered a vigorous protest against the action of the spectators, who clapped their hands in tumultuous applause as Solicitor Hugh Dorsey entered the courtroom. Monday morning the solicitor was allowed to continue his speech, which was interrupted by adjournment Saturday.

When court convened at 9 o’clock, there were more people outside of the courthouse unable to gain admission, than there were inside, and about two minutes before the hour of opening court, a roar of cheers told the spectators inside that the solicitor general was coming. His entrance was the signal for the outbreak of approval of his wonderful effort Saturday.

Mr. Rube Arnold immediately protested and declared that “such outbreaks had no place in a court of justice. “

“Mr. Sheriff,” said Judge Roan from the bench when order had been restored, “I see that there is a large crowd in here and that many of them do not seem to understand what is required of them in a courtroom. If there Is the least disturbance after the jury comes in, I want you to clear the room of all but officials.”

“We don’t want to spoil the work of four weeks by any unseemly actions at this time and we are not going to allow such disturbance.”

The jury was then brought in and the solicitor took up his speech. Mr. Dorsey’s voice was hoarse when he started and it seemed as though he had received no refreshment from the rest over Sunday. Like a long distance runner who has kept a hard pace during the race and who at the finish, is staggering toward the goal line and “running on his nerve,” the solicitor renewed his attack on the defense.

As he went on his throat seemed to get better and his vocal cords appeared to loosen up. He was continually harassed during the morning, however, by Attorneys Arnold and Rosser, who declared he was making false statements and that parts of his speech were “improper and insulting”.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” began the solicitor, “I am even more exhausted this morning than I was Saturday. My throat is in such shape that I fear I cannot finish this case or do Justice to it.

“Had we, not an adjournment Saturday, I might have finished and his honor might have charged you, no that you might have brought In your verdict this morning and been free.”

Renews Attack on Statement.

“When I was compelled to stop Saturday, I was. in the midst of a brief analysis of the statement of this defendant. I am not going into an exhaustive analysis of that, because it is not necessary and It would inconvenience you uselessly, and two, I haven’t the strength to carry it out.”

“There are, however, certain parts of the defendant’s statement that merit consideration. He stated to you, after his honor had ruled out our evidence, that his wife visited him at police headquarters and that after he consulted with Rabbi Marx that he decided it would be best not to have his dear wife run the line of snapshooters, interviews of reporters and quizzing of detectives.”

“Well, Frank tells you his wife actually came there and that he would not let her come there again. He says she was brought by her two brothers-in-law and Rabbi Marx. Yet, Frank makes no attempt, to prove by them, that his wife was there. He wants you to believe it, from his own, unsupported statement.” 

“There is no evidence anywhere that she ever went to see her husband at the station house, and I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that a true wife ever lived who would refuse to go to see her husband when he was in such trouble as that, provided she believed him innocent. No wife, believing her husband innocent, would hesitate to face snapshotters, interviewers, or detectives to get to see her husband.”

Defense Attorneys Object.

“Your honor,” interrupted Mr. Arnold, “we have sat here and listened to one of the most unfair speeches I have ever heard and we have kept silent, but we do object to this unwarranted attack on the defendant’s wife.”

“Solicitor Dorsey submitted that part of Frank’s statement to the jury where he claimed that his wife did visit him at the police station, then he submitted that the defense had not tried to prove it by other witnesses, and declared that he was making no attack on the wife, but merely stating why she had not visited her husband,” Judge Roan allowed him to go on.

“Let the galled jade wince, we-—” began the solicitor in a powerful voice, which he apparently did not have when he began his argument.”

“Now, your honor, I do object to that,” interrupted Mr. Arnold, “when we make a legal objection to the solicitor’s statements, he has no right to say, ‘Let the galled jade wince.’”

Attorney Rosser also registered an objection.

The solicitor was allowed to go on with his speech and the defense made a formal objection to the court against that part of it.

Mr. Dorsey then took up another feature of Frank’s statement.

“Frank said that Conley could write and he adds, ‘I have received too many notes from him asking to borrow money for me not to know that.’ Frank also corroborates Conley’s statement in regard to the watch which Conley was buying on the installment plan and Frank says he gave the information to the police that Conley could write and the police and detectives have told you that he did not and Harry Scott, Mr. Franks’ own detective, has told you that Frank never gave him this Information.”

“If Frank knew, as he says he did, that Conley could write, why didn’t he tell the police that? Scott declares to you that Frank never mentioned the subject.”

“Gentlemen, it was only when the detectives, after laborious effort and despite Frank’s silence, found out that the negro, who was denying he could write, could really do so, that they obtained from him his first affidavit in which he told part of the things that happened that day.”

“Frank says to you that he knew Conley could write. Then why did he not tell the police of that fact, when he knew that the murder notes were believed to be the key that would unlock this mystery?”

Dorsey Turns to Frank.

“By your own statement,” continued the solicitor, addressing, Frank, “you saw the notes at the station house that Sunday morning, April 27, when the body was found, and you said not a word about knowing that Conley could write; you never said it then and you never did tell it to the police authorities, and yet you knew that the notes tried to place the blame on a negro.”

“Well, I won’t discuss that further, it’s not necessary,” continued the solicitor. He then took up another phase of the statement made by the defendant.”

“Frank tells you in regard to that visit Conley made to the jail with the police, when Conley wanted to confront him that he did not see Conley because he wanted first to get permission of his attorney, Mr. Luther Z. Rosser, who was trying a case at Tallulah Falls that day, and he says that if he could have got Mr. Rosser’s permission, that he would have seen Conley or anybody else that day, but I tell you, gentlemen, that Mr. Rosser got back from Tallulah in a few hours, and yet Frank never did see Conley.”

“I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you have got sense enough to get out of a shower of rain, you know that never in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race and never in the history of the African race in this country, did a negro accuse a white man and that white man, with Anglo-Saxon blood in his veins and claiming innocence, refuse to confront him.”

“I’ll tell you something else, no lawyer, astute as is Mr. Rosser, would refuse to let his client confront an accuser like that if he knew in his heart that his client was innocent.”

“WINS BIG CASE – SOLICITOR HUGH M. DORSEY”

“If a negro ever accuses me, I tell you that I will confront him and there’s no lawyer who can stop me, and even if I would wait for my lawyer’s return, I would confront my accused, as soon as he did get back.”

Rosser Again Interrupts.

“You say you never knew until you came to court, what Conley had sworn against you,” continued the solicitor, turning to Frank, “but you could have known if you had wanted to confront your accuser.”

Mr. Rosser entered an objection here, making the statement that Conley had made so many affidavits that Frank would not have known what he would swear to the courtroom, even if he had talked to him.

“Oh, well,” retorted Mr. Dorsey, “you can object all you want to, but I am going to put it up to the jury and they can decide about It. You can object all you want to.”

“He’s outside the rule, your honor,” shouted Mr. Rosser.

“I’m not outside the rule and they (the defense) see the force they think they can make by such objections.”

“Well, that’s out of order,” retorted, Mr. Rosser.

“Well, if they (pointing to the defense) don’t see the force of it all, they (pointing to the jury) do.”

“Well, now, your honor, I submit he’s out of order and he ought to be ruled out,” said Mr. Rosser.

Judge Roan allowed the solicitor to go on.

“This man, Frank, a white man, a graduate of Cornell, a man of a brilliant mind and of refined feeling, on the flimsy pretext that his counsel was out of town, refused to meet Conley and when his counsel came back he would not allow it.”

“Would you tell me, gentlemen of the jury, that you would let a man of black skin accuse you and yet were Innocent, that you would let Rosser or anybody else keep you from confronting him and nailing the lie?”

“No lawyer ever lived who would keep me, if I were wrongfully accused, from confronting my accuser, be he black or white!”

Again Turns On Frank.

“Then you,” (he pointed to Frank) “went and interviewed Newt Lee at 12 o’clock that April 29 and what did you do? Did you act like a man who did not know the truth and who wanted to learn it? Did you go into the room and take up the questioning of the negro in a way to get something out of him, out of him, the man you would have hung in order to save your reputation on Washington Street and in the B’nai B’rith?”

“According to Lee, you never questioned him, but you hung your head and told him that if he kept telling the story that he told then, and later told on the stand, that he and you would both go to hell. Now, you try to fix that up by saying that your detective Harry Scott and old John Black told you to do that and concocted against you and lied on you that Tuesday night.”

Adding to His Crime.

“The reason Frank never questioned Newt Lee, continued the solicitor, turning to the jury, “was because Frank knew who was guilty and he knew that he was already adding to the infamous assault and murder of the girl, an attempt to send this negro to the gallows in order to save his own neck.”

“Listen to this and note how smoothly that statement of Frank’s was fixed up, so that when we came back to rebut it that the technical laws would stop us. Frank told you that the detectives stressed the point that couples must have been allowed to go into the building by Newt Lee at night.”

“Now, Newt Lee was only there three weeks before the murder and the detectives really stressed the point that couples might have been let in there at night and they did not confine the time to the short time Lee was there as nightwatchman, as Frank said they did, and thus saved himself from impeachment.”

Mr. Dorsey then read Frank’s statement in regard to the spots found on the second floor by Christopher Columbus Barrett and said to have been blood spots, and the solicitor stressed that part, where Frank said that accidents were frequent there and that many of them were never even reported, and that the girls often carried buckets of red varnish by that place and that it frequently applied there.

No Chemists Introduced.

“If you claim that the spots were not of blood, in the name of fair play and decency, why didn’t you bring one chemist here to sustain your claim?” 

“’That was blood and the white haskoline substance had been smeared over it!’

“Important! There is no more important thing in this case to you, than to show that there was no blood on the second floor, but that the spots were only of red varnish, with haskoline over them.”

“The Gentlemen of the jury, are you going to believe this one statement when they could get no chemist to come here and stultify himself and when Dr. Claude Smith, city bacteriologist, tells you from his chemical analysis that it was blood and when scores of employees say that it was.

“This defense has no defense,” shouted the solicitor, “they have resorted to abuse, and they have fluttered around, but never alighted anywhere!”

“In this particular instance, they grab at varnish, they grab at cat’s blood, rat’s blood and mouse blood, and at blood from finger cuts.”

The solicitor then took up Frank’s statement about the possibility of the girl having been pushed down the chute in the rear of the building or thrown down the scuttle hole in the part formerly occupied by the Clarke Wooden Ware company.

Some Improbable Things.

“Why would that negro Conley, even if he had murdered the girl with that bloody club they claim to have found there, why would he have tied the cord around her neck and why would he have tied the clothing around her neck?”

“Why did old man Holloway say, ‘That’s my nigger,’ when he saw Conley ‘washing a shirt, and why was it that after fifteen days when the second squad of Pinkertons were searching the factory, that blood was found near the elevator shaft, more blood than it has been shown the girl lost?”

“Why was it that when Frank read in the morning paper that Barrett had discovered the blood spots on the second floor, that he, the superintendent, who had been anxious to solve the mystery had telephoned three times for Schiff to hire the Pinkertons, did not go back to see those spots until Lemmie Quinn came after him.

“That was a strange way for an innocent superintendent to do. And there is no evidence to show that Frank ever did go back there and look at those spots. Why? I’ll tell you why; if there was any spot on earth where this man did not want it to be known that blood had been found, it was on the second floor, where, according to his own statement, he was working at the time the girl was killed.”

“Frank also tells us that he visited the morgue twice on the day the body was found and if he went there and saw the body that morning and it tore him up as he says it did, why, except for the answer I’m going to give you, did he go back that afternoon and look at the body.”

“He didn’t see the body the first time.”

“That statement is a misstatement of facts. All the witnesses said they did not know whether or not Frank saw the body,” interrupted Reuben Arnold.

“Well, I’ll not quibble over the matter, retorted the solicitor. “If Frank did look at the body, and there’s no evidence to show he did, he gave it just a glance as the light was flashed on and then he turned and went into another room.”

Reference to Record.

“He never went into another room: the evidence don’t show that,” objected Mr. Rosser.

“It certainly does” replied the solicitor, “you look and see if it don’t”.

“Well, gentlemen,” said Judge Roan, “look the matter up and decide it.”

The defense made no motion to do so in order to sustain their claim and the solicitor, took advantage of that at once.

“Look it up: I challenge you to look it up!” Dorsey shouted.

“Well, we don’t have to look It up, even if he does challenge us to,” said Mr. Arnold in a quiet tone.

“Gentlemen, I’ll look It up myself, said Judge Roan who then turned and requested Leonard Haas, partner of one of Frank’s lawyers, to favor him by looking the matter up.”

“I tell you that there is no evidence that Frank ever looked at the girl that morning and that if he did look at her, as the defense claims, it was just a glance, and not sufficient to allow him to identity her as the girl he had paid off the day before,” Mr. Dorsey continued.

“The real reason why Frank went back to the morgue that Sunday afternoon was because he wanted to put his ear to the ground and learn if there was a whisper of his guilt going around.”

“The witnesses say Frank was nervous that morning and Frank says so, too, and declares that the auto ride and the sight of the dead girl caused it, and yet he goes back like a hog to his wallow. I tell you, and you know it, that Frank went back there that Sunday afternoon to learn if there was a hint anywhere of his guilt.”

At this point, Attorney Rosser interrupted and declared that on cross-examination “Boots” Rogers had testified that Frank went towards the curtains across the hall, but that he only surmised that he went into the room beyond them.

“Well, the proposition is,” replied Mr. Dorsey, “that Frank gave a glance at the girl’s body and turned away. He wanted to get out of the sight of the officers.”

“The evidence does not show that,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“Well, I won’t quibble with you; I’ll throw you that sop,” flung back the solicitor, and turned to discuss another part of Frank’s statement.

The Actions of a Guilty Man.

“Gentlemen,’” he said, “I tell you that on that Saturday night, after he had murdered the little girl, Frank’s actions in trying to break up the card party, were the actions of a guilty man. That laughter when he went into the room and showed the guests a funny story was the laughter of a guilty man.”

“If Frank, too, was so quiet and composed in the Selig home where the murder was a matter of indifference, why was he so nervous before the officers? Why was he so nervous when he tried to run the elevator that Sunday morning?”

“Frank says,” continued Mr. Dorsey, “’ I went to the office and looked on the payroll and saw that a girl named Mary Phagan really did work there and that she was due to have been paid $1.20,’ and Frank might have added, ‘I followed her back into the metal room when she came for that money and when she refused my proposals, I struck her and then I choked her with that cord to save my reputation.’”

Mr. Dorsey then gave a minute description of the blackened and dirt-covered condition of the girl’s face and body and declared that Frank in the casual glance he gave her that Sunday morning could never have identified her as the girl he had paid off the day before.

Did Detectives Lie?

“Do you believe that Rogers and Black, who have no interest in this case, other than to see justice done, would have perjured themselves in order to hang this man?” he asked the jury.

“Do you believe that Starnes has perjured himself, too? Well, Starnes tells you that when he called up Frank and told him he was sending an auto for him that Frank asked if there had been a fire, or if Newt Lee had reported anything wrong, but that nothing was about a tragedy. When Black and Rogers met Frank at his house they tell us he asked right away if there had been a tragedy, and we know that later he tried to claim that Starnes had mentioned this in the talk over the telephone. It was merely Frank’s guilty knowledge that made him mention tragedy.”

“Then Lee says that when Frank called him up that Saturday night, a thing he had never done before, Frank did not ask if Gantt had gone and did not mention Gantt’s name, but asked if anything had happened at the factory—if anything had happened.”

“Frank tells us that he asked about Gantt’s being there.”

“You can’t tell me, gentlemen of the jury, that with all these things piled up against this man, that there is nothing but prejudice and perjury in this case.”

“You remember that Frank made Lee go upstairs with Gantt that Saturday afternoon, and even Lee would not let Gantt into the factory, until Frank consented. Lee was true to his orders.”

“Now, why did Frank want to keep Gantt out of that factory, unless it was that he did not want Gantt around where he might talk to Mary Phagan at the time when he was plotting her downfall?”

“Would you convict this man on this and on that? No, but you can weave a rope out of all these strands that will send him to the gallows. No one of these strands would do that, but all together they make such a strong case that there is no room for reasonable doubt; no room for any doubt.”

“Frank says in his first affidavit that he stayed in his office during certain hours that Saturday. He did not know the time that his own detective, Harry Scott, had found little Monteen Stover and been told by the girl that she had gone into the office at 12:05, and found no one there.”

“Then Frank, seeing the importance, declared that he might have stepped out of the office for some little errand and then forgotten about it.”

Pays Tribute to Scott.

Mr. Dorsey turned aside here to pay a tribute to Harry Scott, and in it, he was careful to pay no tribute to the other Pinkertons. A moment later he accused the others of “running with the hare instead of the hounds.”

“Scott asked Frank if he was in his office from the time he came back until Mary Phagan came, and he said yes, and then Scott asked if he was there from 12 o’clock until Mary Phagan came, and he  declared he was, and then Scott asked him if he was in his office all the time from the occasion when he went upstairs after Mrs. White, until he left for lunch, and again he answered yes.”

“It was only when Frank realized that the little Stover girl had come up there and he was not there, that he tried to hedge by declaring that he might have gone out for a moment and not remembered it afterward.”

“Not until be recognized the wonderful truth and ability in Scott and his adherence to duty did Frank shut him out from his councils.”

“Gentlemen, you have the power to find a guilty man, innocent or guilty. No potentate is more powerful than the American jury. In the secrecy of the jury room, you can write a verdict that outrages humanity, but your consciences will control you, and only by doing your duty can you ever afterward have your own self-respect.”

The Testimony of Kelley.

 “The defense has already talked about the time element and tried to break down little George Epps because he did not have a watch, and they tried to impeach George Kenley, the motorman, because he knew the little girl, and felt down in his heart that he knew who killed her.”

“There is one state’s witness, however, against whom there has been no breath of suspicion, and he is Mr. Kelly, a street car man, who rode with Mathews that day, and who knows him, and knew the girl, and he declares that she never rode around to Hunter street as Mathews claims.”

“Mr. Rosser says he doesn’t care about the cabbage and the statements made about it. I tell you, and I don’t go back on my raising when I do, that cabbage is good food and that there is no better food than cabbage, cornbread and buttermilk.”

“It would not surprise me” he added, “if these astute gentlemen on the defense did not go out and bring in all these general practitioners they used, solely because they happened to be the family physicians of some of the jurors, and for the effect they thought it would have on you.”

Defense Makes Objection.

“That’s grossly unfair and improper,” interrupted Mr. Arnold in an appeal to Judge Roan.“

“And it’s insulting,” added Mr. Rosser; “insulting to us and to the jury.”

“I want your honor to rule that out and to reprimand the solicitor,” continued Mr. Arnold.“

“I did not say that it was a fact, but I said that it might be so and would not surprise me if it was and I’ve got a right to say that,” answered Mr. Dorsey. “The fact that they went out and got general practitioners instead of getting experts goes to show that.”

“You may state that you think such was the case, Mr. Dorsey, but not that it is,” ruled Judge Roan.

“I thought so!” shouted Solicitor Dorsey to the jury.

“Now, your honor, he’s got no right to shout, ‘I thought so.’” Mr. Arnold declared heatedly.

Judge Roan upheld the solicitor; however, ruling that he had a right to say that he had thought that he would be upheld in the former argument.

“I can’t see any other reason in the world,” continued the solicitor, “for their going out and dragging in a lot of general practitioners and surgeons instead of experts competent to testify, unless they were seeking for the effect that the testimony of their family physicians might have on some of the jurors”.

Mr. Arnold here had the court stenographer enter on the record his formal objection to the statement and the solicitor went on.

“You can’t tell me that Childs, a general practitioner, this man from Michigan, with only seven years’ experience, can put his opinion up against that of Dr. Harris, the eminent secretary of the state board of health.”

“Before you or anybody can set aside the evidence of this man, Dr. Harris, and take the opinion of the man from Michigan, or of the pathologist from Alsace-Lorraine, who did not know the name of the first step in the digestive process, you’ve got to have better evidence than was shown here.”

Attack on Hancock.

“You can’t tell me that Dr. Hancock, who saws bones for the Georgia Railway and Power company, knows more than Dr. Harris does.”  

“You can’t tell me that Olmstead, a general practitioner, knows more than does this expert in the service of the state.”

“You can’t tell me that Dr. Kendrick, popular as he is, and who tells you he has not opened a book on the subject in ten years, should be taken in preference to Dr. Harris.”

 “You can’t tell me that these men can stand up before Dr. Harris, or before Dr. Clarence Johnson, the eminent stomach specialist, who backs him up; or before Dr. George M. Niles, another stomach specialist, who also agrees with him. They can’t stand against Dr. John Funke, expert pathologist, who agrees with Dr. Harris.”

“Why, gentlemen of the jury, Hancock Is so gangrened with prejudice that when I showed him this book (The American Medical Journal) he declared it a book made up by quacks.”

“Why, Dr. Willis Westmoreland was so bitter and so prejudiced against Dr. Harris that he told us that the board of health had found him guilty of scientific dishonesty, and the records showed that they had not done any such thing, and that Dr. Westmoreland had got mad because he could not run the board and had resigned.

Nervousness Not Natural.

“Well, I want to take up the question of Frank’s nervousness again. You remember that on that afternoon of Memorial Day that Newt Lee, who had been told to come early, came back like the dutiful darky he was, and found Leo Frank washing his hands. Frank was waiting there then for Jim Conley to come and burn the body and Frank did not want Newt around, so he made Newt go out into town, and that when Newt told him he was sleepy and wanted to find a comfortable corner anywhere in the building.”

“Frank wanted to get Lee away so that when Conley came back, as he had promised he would do, they could burn the body and the police might never solve that Phagan mystery; and might never know that the girl had ever entered the factory that day.”

“You remember, too, that when Frank was going out later that he almost ran into Gantt at the door and that Lee says Frank jumped and Gantt says he was nervous. Gantt said he wanted to go up and get a pair of shoes that he had left there and Frank told him that he had seen a boy sweeping out a pair and Gantt had replied that he had left two pair and would go up and see if he could not get the other pair. You remember also that Gantt went up there and found both pair of shoes and that this very fact showed that Frank was merely making up something to keep the man from going Into the building if possible.”

“And, when Frank sent for Attorney Rosser, he wanted him because his conscience needed somebody to sustain it. He got Haas and Darley for the same reason.”

“Now, we went into the camp of the enemy to get Darley, who has told openly of Frank’s nervousness. Darley says Frank trembled like an aspen leaf. He told me when he made his affidavit that Frank was completely unstrung, but, when he got on the witness stand, he changed It to ‘almost.’”

“Frank’s nervousness was produced by one cause only, the consciousness of his infamous crime. Old man Newt Lee says that when he went back that afternoon, he found the inside door locked, something he had never found before. Newt also says that night when he went down into the basement, he found the light flickering low. Do you think for a minute that Jim Conley would have turned down that light? No. But, I tell you that Frank did it when he found Conley was not coming back to burn the body.”

“He didn’t want anyone to discover the body until he found time to dispose of It.”

“It was fear pulling at his heartstrings, fear and remorse. Spectral shadows flitted before him—shades of the body, the prison, this trial, the gallows, a murderer’s grave.”

Leaving Conley Out.

“You may leave Jim Conley entirely out of this case and you still have a course of conduct that shows this man’s guilt.” 

“Is Dalton a low-down character? If so, isn’t he then just the kind of man a person like Frank would consort with when his dual character was predominant.”

“I tell you that today he is a man of utter integrity, although he may, at times, be tempted to step aside with a woman who has fallen as low as Daisy Hopkins.”

“We sustained him by scores of witnesses, good and substantial men. We corroborated the statement that he had been seen to go into the factory with women. We corroborated Dalton almost in whole.”

“Lawyer Rosser says he would give so much to know who dressed up Jim Conley. If you, Mr. Rosser, had wanted to know half so much about Jim Conley being dressed up as you did to find faults with Dalton’s past, you could have learned very easily.”

Why Conley Was in Jail.

“Let’s see something about what William Smith, Jim Conley’s attorney, has set up about the rule which Judge Roan gave in regard to Conley’s imprisonment. The police, be it understood, may be no better than the sheriff of our county, but they are just as good.”

“Smith says that Conley, in the police station, is perfectly safe from a standpoint of physical welfare, and that, under such imprisonment, is far safer. No one has been allowed to see him. He has been protected from physical harm and false claims. He says that plans have been laid detrimental to the carrying out of justice so far as Conley is concerned.”

“Sufficient inside guards were not provided in the Tower. Only one man was paid to guard the entire five stories which contain twenty cell blocks. Friends of Frank were allowed to pour into the jail in a steady stream, many of whom were admitted indiscriminately into Conley’s cell. Newspaper men and others say, Smith, was admitted constantly in Conley’s cell. One man offered sandwiches and liquor to the negro.”

“Our proof of general bad character sustains Jim Conley. Our proof of general bad character as to lasciviousness sustains Jim Conley.”

“Their failure to cross-examine our character witnesses sustains him. Frank’s relations with Rebecca Carson sustains him. Your own witness, Miss Jackson, sustains him. Miss Kitchens, of the fourth floor, sustains him.”

“Lemmie Quinn, their dear Lemmie, sustains him. Daisy Hopkins and Dalton sustain him. The blood spots, the statement of Holloway and Boots Rogers relative to the open elevator box sustain him. Albert McKnight and Minola McKnight’s repudiated affidavit sustain him.”

“The existence of the notes sustains him. No negro in history of the negro race ever wrote a note or letter to cover up his crime.”

“The diction of the notes in ‘did’ and ‘done’ sustain him.”

Attorney Rosser entered an objection to this statement, arguing that in many places Conley had used the word ‘did’ in his statement.

“I have heard Conley’s whole statement and I say the jury has heard that every time it was put to him, he used the word ‘done’ instead of ‘did.’ I want to see the physiognomy of the man who took these notes. I also want his original notes.”

Judge Harvey J. Parry, the expert stenographer who had taken most of Conley’s statement, stated that the character for “did” is so different from that “done.” That it would have been impossible for the stenographer to have made a mistake.

“Very well, then,” said the solicitor, “you have said in your own argument Mr. Rosser that one thing a negro would do under any circumstances would be to absorb the words and expressions of a white man.”

“Jim Conley is sustained by Frank’s statement relating to his relatives in Brooklyn.”

“When Jim was on the stand, Rosser questioned him about Mincey. Where is this Mincey?  Echo answers: ‘Where?’ These men knew his perjuring, trying was so diabolical. It would have sickened the jury’s mind. The absence of Mincey is a powerful support of Jim Conley’s story.”

“Every circumstance in this case that this man killed this girl! Extraordinary? Yes! But as true as the fact that Mary Phagan is dead.”

“She died a noble death. Without a splotch or blemish upon her, a martyr to the virtue she protected the extent of death in saving it from her employer.”

“Your honor, I have done my duty — I have no apologies to make. There will be but one verdict, guilty, guilty, guilty.”

There was a melodious blast of noon whistles. The courtroom was still. The whistles rang out over a working city at the exact. hour Mary Phagan several weeks ago stepped into the pencil factory to her death. The solicitor’s speech was done.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 26th 1913, “As Bells Tolled, Dorsey Closed Magnificent Argument Which Fastened Crime on Frank,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 27th, 1913

By Sidney Ormond

The Frank trial is a matter of history. Solicitor General Hugh Manson Dorsey and his wonderful speech, which brought the case to a close, form the subject matter for countless discussions among all classes of folk in all sorts of places—on the street corners, in clubs, newspaper offices, at the courthouse and wherever two lawyers chance to get together for an exchange of words.

Beyond all doubt, Hugh Dorsey is the most talked-of man in the state of Georgia today. The widespread interest in the Frank case caused all eyes from Rabun Gap to Tybee Light to be centered on this young man, who, up to a few months ago, was little heard of outside of the county of Fulton.

The Frank case has been to Atlanta and the state—in fact, several adjacent states—what the Becker case was to New York and the country at large.

Made Thorough Probe.

When Herman Rosenthal was killed by a gang of gunmen at the Hotel Metropole, District Attorney Whitman was unheard of outside of New York. Today he is a national figure. The same thing holds true of Solicitor Hugh Dorsey, in a lesser degree.

Incidentally, there is another point of comparison. When Rosenthal was murdered, Whitman plunged into the case and personally directed the investigation which led up to the arrest and subsequent conviction of the murderers. No one criticized him for his activity in the case. Hugh Dorsey did the same thing. The Frank case was one of far too much importance to be bungled. It was worthy of the best efforts of every court official sworn to uphold the enforcement of the law.

The city was in a state of mental stress. Lines were closely drawn. It was no time for mistakes of judgment. Dorsey knew this. He felt the responsibility of his position and he entered into the work of clearing up the awful mystery with but one end in view—that justice should prevail.  Unlike Whitman, he met criticism in some quarters—a criticism which was unmerited. He did what he felt to be his duty, that and nothing more; and it is certain that, had he felt Frank innocent, he never would have sought his indictment by the grand jury.

During the progress of the Frank trial, a close friend of the unfortunate young man said, in a tone that expressed some surprise:

“I actually believe Hugh Dorsey thinks Frank guilty.”

Thought Him Guilty.

And he was right. Anyone who knows Hugh Dorsey has never for one instant doubted that all along he has been firmly convinced of Frank’s guilt. Hugh Dorsey is no head-hunter—no savage thirsting for the blood of innocent men. He is human, with human sympathies—tender as a woman at times, but stern as a Spartan when duty calls.

It was the call of duty that caused him to probe the murder of little Mary Phagan; it was the same call which caused him to prosecute the man he thought guilty of the murder.

Don’t think for one instant that Hugh Dorsey did not suffer during the progress of the trial. He suffered as seldom a man is called upon to suffer. It is hard enough to call upon a jury to convict a man of murder; it is doubly hard to do so in the presence of the man’s wife and mother. During the last half hour of his speech it was nothing short of torture for him to face these faithful, devoted women and ask that the law which condemns men to death, be invoked.  

When he said afterward that he felt for the wife and mother, he meant every word. He is not a man given to the parody of emotion—men who feel deeply seldom are.

But back to the trial of the case. If it is given to one, to view the case without prejudice—and there are many such in Atlanta—the heroic task which Hugh Dorsey had before him is apparent.

First, Luther Rosser was employed. Then Rube Arnold entered the lists for the defense. No more formidable array of legal counsel could have been found in the south. Extremes in method, manner and temperament, equally well versed in the law and experienced in its practice, they formed a bulwark that few men would care to attack.

The knowing ones said:

“Well, Hugh Dorsey will get his. They’ll chew him up and spit him out!”

Did they? Not so you could notice it. For once Luther Zeigler Rosser met his match. For once Reuben Rose Arnold crossed swords with a man who caused him to break ground.

Fought Them Every Step.

They tried all sorts of tactics. They used sarcasm; they interrupted, they hammered and they hauled, but it was to no purpose. Dorsey met them at every turn, countering here, slamming heads there. He fought them any fashion they pleased to try but his speech was the thing that proved him master. It was a masterpiece. No such speech has ever been heard in the Fulton County courthouse, and the words are measured, as they are written. It was, as Burton Smith expressed it, worthy of Bob Toombs in the first-flush of vigorous manhood. It was clean-cut, convincing, forceful. It carried conviction with every sentence. It proved, if proof were needed, that Hugh Dorsey is a lawyer of whom any man need have fear. The speech will live long in the memory of those who heard it, no matter what opinion may be entertained of the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 27th 1913, “Hugh Dorsey’s Great Speech Feature of the Trial,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 23rd, 1913

Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey began at 3:30 o’clock Friday afternoon, August 22, 1913, the final argument in the Leo Frank case, and he told the jurors as he started that they would not respect him if he slurred things over in order to please even them.

“Your honor,” he began, “I want to thank you for the many courtesies you have extended me and for the unlimited time you have given me in this argument, and, gentlemen of the Jury, I want to commiserate with you on your situation, but as his honor has told you, this is an important case.”

“It is important to society, to each and every one of you and of us, and do not feel like slurring over any point of it. Although it would be convenient for you, I know you would not have me do it, and would not respect me If I did.”

“A case that has consumed all this time and that is of this magnitude and importance can’t be argued in a short time. The case is an important one, too, as the crime is hideous, the crime of a demoniac, and a crime that has demanded the vigorous, honest, earn at and conscientious efforts of these detectives and of myself, must demand the same vigorous, honest and earnest and conscientious effort of the jurors.

“The case is extraordinary because of the learned counsel pitted against me, Arnold and Rosser and Herbert Haas. It is extraordinary because of the defendant, it is extraordinary because of the manner in which it has been argued and the means and methods purged by the defense.”

“They have had two of the ablest Iawyers in the country on this case, Luther Zeigler Rosser and Reuben Rose Arnold, and I know, too, that Herbert Haas is an able lawyer, “

“They have had Rosser, the rider of the winds and the stirrer of the storm, and Arnold, (who I can say it, because I love him), is as mild a man, as ever cut a throat or scuttled a ship.”

Abuse Plentiful.

“They have abused me, they have abused the detective department; they have heaped so much calumny on me that the mother of the defendant was constrained to arise In their presence and denounce me as a dog.”

“Well, there’s an old adage, and it’s true; that says, ‘When did any thief ever feel the halter draw with any good opinion of the law?’” and, continued the solicitor, looking at the defendant, “I don’t want your approval. I don’t seek it; I don’t want you to put the stamp of your approval on me.”

“Oh, prejudice and perjury. They say that is what this case is built on and they use that stereotyped phrase until it fatigues the mind to think about It. Don’t let this purchased indignation disturb you. Oh, they ought to have been indignant; they were told to play the part.”

“Gentlemen, do you think that these detectives and I were controlled by prejudice in this case. Would we, the sworn officers of the law, have sought to hang this man on account of his race and passed over the negro, Jim Conley.”

“Was it prejudice when we arrested Gantt, when we arrested Leo? When we arrested others? No, the prejudice came when we arrested this man and never until he was arrested was there a cry of prejudice.”

“These gentlemen over there were disappointed when we did not pitch our case along that line, but not a word emanated from this side, showing any prejudice on our part, showing any feeling against Jew or Gentile”.

“We would not have dared to come into this presence and ask the conviction of a man because he was a Gentile, a Jew or a negro. Oh, no, two men ever had any greater pleasure shown on their faces than Mr. Arnold and Mr. Rosser when they started to question Kenley and began to get before the court something about prejudice against the Jews. They seized with avidity the suggestion that Leo Frank was a Jew.”

The Defense Responsible.

“Remember, they put it before this court and we did not. The word Jew never escaped our lips. I say that the race this man comes from is as good as ours; his forefathers were civilized and living in cities and following laws when ours were roaming at large in the forest and eating human flesh. I say his race is just as good as ours, but no better.”

“I honor the race that produced Benjamin Disraeli, the greatest of British statesmen; that produced Judah P. Benjamin, as great a lawyer as England or America ever saw; I honor the Strauss brothers, I roomed with one of his race at college (H. Alexander), one of my partners is of his race, I served on the board of trustees of Grady hospital with Mr. Hirsch, and I know others, too many to count, but when Lieutenant Becker wished to make way with his enemies, he sought men of this man’s race.”

“Then you, will recall Abe Hummell, the rascal lawyer, and Reuff, another scoundrel, and Schwartz, who killed a little girl in New York, and scores of others, and you will find that this great race is as amenable to the same laws as any others of the white race or as the black race is.”

“They rise to heights sublime, but they also sink to the lowest depths of degradation!”

The Matter of “Reasonable Doubt”

“I want to read you something further on what my friend, Arnold, read you about a ‘reasonable  doubt’ and show you a little more than he would consent to show you,” continued the solicitor, leaving  the question of Frank’s race.”

“I want to tell you about this reasonable doubt, the thing that has caused text-book writers and judges to hem and haw when they tried to define it, and that made one text-writer say that a man trying to define it, would be guilty of tautology, despite himself,’ that he would go round and around in a circle and use the same words in trying to define it.”

“This reasonable doubt proposition is as plain as the nose on your face and there is no use to get mixed up on it, you can just use plain common sense and find out what is a reason doubt.”

Defines an Honest Doubt.

“You are not to doubt as jurors if you believe as men. There is the whole proposition. Such a doubt as would control your conduct in the highest duties of life, is the sort of doubt I refer to.”

“It is not such a doubt as would show that the defendant might possibly be innocent, but it must be a genuine doubt. It Is not such a doubt as might release a friend. It must he an honest doubt. It must not be a fanciful doubt, not a doubt of a fanatic, or a super-sensitive person, but a common-sense doubt.”

All the while Dorsey was busy turning the pages of many ponderous volumes, showing the authority upon which he made his definition of a reasonable doubt. 

“Furthermore,” he said, “a doubt need not always result in an acquittal. In that case all cases would result in acquittal. It must be such a doubt as to create a grave uncertainty. It is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt.”

“This is the effective standard, because this reasonable doubt phrase is indefinable in mere words. It is incapable of definition, but a comprehension of it comes instantaneously upon hearing the words.”

“Conviction can be established as well upon circumstantial evidence, as upon direct evidence. Eminent authority shows that in many cases circumstantial evidence is more certain than direct evidence.”

“Conviction can be established better by a large number of witnesses giving circumstantial evidence and incidents pointing to guilt than by the testimony of a few witnesses who may have been eyewitnesses to the actual deed.”

Both Kinds of Evidence.

“In this case we have both circumstantial evidence and admission. Hence, with reasonable doubt as a basis, the evidence shows such a consistency that a reasonable conclusion is all that is needed.”

“This thing of reasonable doubt originated long ago when the accused was not allowed to be represented by counsel to defend him. In time the reasonable doubt will drop out. Our people are getting better and better about this all the time. The state is handicapped in all sorts of ways by this reasonable doubt proposition, and has to more than prove a man’s guilt often before a conviction can result.”

“Let this fact take lodgment with you,” said Dorsey, earnestly, as he leaned toward the jury and held aloft a convincing finger. “As jurors, you are yet but men. Circumstantial evidence is not the mysterious thing that it appears on the surface. It simply means this, that when you’ve got a thing, you’ve got it. Get a fact as a man and you have it as a juror. That’s all.”

No Fanciful Doubt.

“I know that you can get up an excuse of any kind which can be used as a doubt. But that must be outside the jury box. You must not acquit this man upon any fanciful or fanatical doubt. Your oath will not permit you to do it, and I know you will not go back on your oath.”

“You can’t get at a verdict by mathematics, but you can get at it by a moral certainty”.

“People sometimes say that they will not convict on circumstantial evidence. That is the merest bosh. Authorities show that circumstantial evidence is the evidence. People are improving about this. Yet juries are often reluctant upon this point. But juries should not hesitate at lack of positive evidence. The almost unerring evidence. The almost unerring indication of circumstantial evidence should control. Otherwise, society is exposed to freedom in the commission of all sorts of the most horrible crimes. Circumstances which would warrant a mere conjecture of guilt are not warranted as the basis for a conviction, but when the evidence is consistent with all the facts in the crime, only a conviction can result.”

At this point Mr. Dorsey took up the Durrant case, relating to the murder of two girls in a church in San Francisco, which Arnold had referred to previously. Arnold at once scented the scathing attack which Dorsey intended to make upon his manner of presenting the detail of the Durrant case to the jury, and registered strenuous objection to certain correspondence which Dorsey proposed to make reference to. This correspondence consisted of a telegram received Thursday from a person in San Francisco and a letter received some four months ago. 

Judge Roan would not permit the use of these documents.

Dorsey Ignores Arnold.

Arnold was lounging in the witness chair, and arose to his feet.

“I ask,” he said, “why Dorsey wrote to San Francisco four months age to find out about this case?”

“Dorsey’s reply was fiery and dramatic. He ignored Arnold, and waiting in a crouching position In front of the jury box, addressed himself to the Jurors.”

 “Because,” I anticipated the use the defense would probably try to put this case to, and informed myself so that you might not be misinformed.”

Dorsey intimated that Arnold had misrepresented the facts in the case to the jury. The moment was tense Immediately afterwards there was a general hub-bub of excitement in the courtroom and Deputy Minor rapped for order. Dorsey called hoarsely for water.

Dorsey then read of the jury the entire case to show them where Arnold had, as he alleged, gone wrong on the facts.

Jurors Show Interest.

The similarity in detail between the Durrant case and the Frank case was striking. When Dorsey began the tedious reading of the legal record the jury became listless and paid small attention to it, but when he had read a few paragraphs each juror was leaning over in his seat and taking in every detail of the case.

Dorsey read the graphic 1895 story of how, William Henry Theodore Durrant, upon circumstantial evidence was convicted of the murder of (Minnie Williams and) Blanche Lamont in the Emmanuel Baptist church of San Francisco, California.

The facts in the Frank case were vividly recalled to mind as Dorsey read of how the girl had been missing and was found Iying dead in the church tower, of how the friends of Durrant, who was an ardent church worker, flocked to testify that his character was unreproachable, and how the defendant had sought to establish his innocence by an alibi.

Alibi the Final Resort.

Upon the last point Dorsey made the comment that “an alibi is the last resort of a guilty man.” At the same time Dorsey emphasized the statement that the defendant was “interested in religious work.”

He stressed the part, telling of the nervousness of the defendant. He thought it a striking coincidence that Durrant should have called for bromo seltzer, while Frank wanted coffee. He dwelt upon the planted evidence of the girl’s returned jewelry in a newspaper with two names written upon it to divert suspicion.

Dorsey stated that Durrant’s previous character, as shown by the testimony introduced, was even better than that of Leo M. Frank.

He pointed out that while Durrant committed the crime in 1895, he did not go to the gallows until 1898.

He also proceeded to show that contrary to being dissatisfied with the jury’s decision. In that case, the people of San Francisco were entirely satisfied. He also said that instead of the body being refused burial by all the churches, as Arnold had said, it was cremated by the boy’s mother to keep it from being turned over to the surgical department of a medical college. Dorsey declared that, contrary to Arnold’s statement, no minister dying later ever confessed to the crime of which Durrant was convicted.

Durrant a Guilty Man.

“That is all poppycock he’s telling you,” said Dorsey. “There was never a guiltier man than Durrant and never a more satisfied community than that where the verdict of guilty was rendered.”

“Arnold wouldn’t mislead you, though,” said Dorsey. “He was inaccurate in his statements. He is an honorable man.”

“His honor was instructed,” continued Dorsey, “but first I want to say a few things. I would not mislead you. If you think this man is innocent, acquit him. If you think he is guilty, put a rope around his neck. If he is guilty say so. I know that you will if you think so.”

“Now the evidence about his good character is all right, but first let’s prove that his character is good. The defense offered the witnesses testifying to his good character. We took the challenge. We believe we proved his character bad.”

“But the law says that the proof of previous good character’ will not stand in the way of conviction if the evidence indicates guilt.”

Is This Greatness?

“Mr. Arnold, in his threats of asking for a mistrial, stood up—this may be an attribute of a great lawyer, but I don’t want to be great if this is what it takes——and said before he ever heard the testimony of our witnesses that the testimony was a pack of lies of cracked-brain fanatics. We put up about twenty good honest girls. The defense called them cracked-brain fanatics. If those are the words of greatness, I don’t want greatness.”

“I know this case. And I know the conscience that beats in the breasts of honest men, I submit that character or no character, this evidence demands conviction. I am not so low that I would ask you to break this man’s neck if I thought Jim Conley was guilty.”

“I want to talk about these notes to the grand jury. The grand jury received notes from the outside trying to influence them in coming to their decision in the indictment of Conley. Owens said that Fleming wrote the notes.”

Rosser objected to this, Judge Roan ruled for Rosser.

Will Never Indict Conley.

“I’ll make it that Owens tried to instruct the grand jury, then,” said Dorsey.

“Arnold also said,” so continued Dorsey, “that Jim Conley had never been Indicted, No! And, what’s more, he never will be! He is admitted accessory after the fact. You’ve got another solicitor general to get before you get an accusation against Jim Conley! I have my own conscience to keep, and I would not rest so well if I put a rope around the neck of Conley for the crime that Frank committed.”

“Now, the law Is that evidence rules in spite of good character. But we hold that his character isn’t even good.”

“In showing this, we exercised the right of citing specific instances of bad character once, but on other occasions we saved Frank’s wife and mother from the embarrassment. We simply put up witnesses showing that his character was bad.”

“They could have asked specific questions on cross-examination if they didn’t believe that these witnesses were telling the truth. They could have brought out whether or not his character was good by specific instances from the witnesses, but mark you this—they didn’t dare to do it! They dared not to do it!”

Do They Know His as Well.

“You tell me of the testimony of the good people down on Washington Street and at the orphan’s home and Dr. Marx! Do they know his character like the little girls who have worked at the pencil factory, but are no longer connected with the national pencil company and under his influence?”

“The trouble has been too much shenanigan and not enough honest dealing. Do you believe that Starnes and Rosser, in whose veins flows the same blood as that of the attorney, could get little girls to come up here and testify through prejudice? I tell you it is impossible.”

“Jim Conley shot into that covey. If he didn’t get ‘em all, he flushed out Daisy Hopkins and C.B. Dalton, at least!”

“Now, gentlemen, if you are of good character and twenty witnesses were brought to testify that your character is bad, would you let your attorneys sit without asking for specific instances? No, I know you wouldn’t. Yet three able counsel let twenty girls tell you that Frank’s character was bad and that his character for lasciviousness, which, uncontrolled and uncontrollable, led him to kill Mary Phagan, was bad, and never asked them how they knew.”

“Even among their own witnesses there was a leak. Do you remember Miss Jackson? What business did this man, the head of the pencil factory, have gazing in at the girls? Do you mean to tell me that that’s a part of his business? He had the foreladies and Darley who could do this for him, didn’t he?”

What Was He Looking For.

“You heard the testimony of his going into the room with the girl. It may have been that he was looking to see if the coast was clear for this very purpose when he looked upon the girls dressing.”

“Oh, me! In the room with Miss Carson! The judge wouldn’t let me say how long they stayed in there, but he did let me show that they went in and came out. What the judge says is law, although I do not always understand!”

“Would you say that Frank was looking for flirters then?”

“Or, maybe this witness was just another one of Arnold’s crack-brains!”

“Arnold said that he was going to ask a question of every girl who worked on the fourth floor. He didn’t ask Miss Kitchens and there were others he didn’t ask.”

At this point the Judge asked Dorsey if he had nearly completed his speech.

“Your honor, my time is unlimited,” said Dorsey, “and as yet I have not touched the case.”

The afternoon session was then adjourned.

* * *

Appendix

The Durrant case was a highly publicized murder trial that took place in San Francisco, California, in 1895. William Henry Theodore Durrant was accused of the murders of two young women, Minnie Williams and Blanche Lamont. The bodies of the two women were found in the Emanuel Baptist Church, where Durrant was a choirmaster.

Durrant was convicted of the murders and sentenced to death. He was executed by hanging on December 16, 1895. The Durrant case was a cause célèbre, and there was much public debate about Durrant’s guilt or innocence. Some people believed that he was guilty, while others believed that he was innocent and had been framed.

The Durrant case remains a controversial one to this day. There is still no consensus on whether or not Durrant was guilty, and the case has been the subject of several books and articles.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 23rd 1913, “Dorsey’s Brilliant Address Attacking Leo Frank is Stopped by Adjournment of Court Friday,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 14^th, 1913

Bending his efforts to break down the testimony of Lemmie Quinn, foreman of the metal room, Solicitor Dorsey subjected the witness to a severe grilling when court reconvened at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon.

When Quinn resumed the stand he was still under direct examination by the defense. In answer to Attorney Arnold he declared that he was still an employee of the National Pencil factory.

Solicitor Dorsey began cross-examination.

“When was it these men bled on the floor of the metal room?”

“About a year ago,” Quinn replied.

“What were their names?”

“I remember that C. P. Gilbert, who lives on Jones street, was one. I don’t remember the name of the other.”

“You noticed the spots on the floor of the dressing room on Monday after the murder?”
“Yes, it looked like blood.”

“What is the difference between those spots and the spots made by Gilbert’s bleeding?”
“The spots by the dressing room were darker.”

“Could gasoline have caused that.”

“I don’t know.”

“Where were you at noon on April 26?”
“At the factory.”

“Didn’t you tell Officer Payne that you were not at the factory, and that you were glad you were not there?”
“No.”

“Didn’t you tell Detective Starnes that you were not at the factory?”
“No, sir.”

Reminded Frank of Visit.

“Didn’t you tell Frank and didn’t he tell you not to say anything about it until he told his lawyer?”
“No, sir.”

“Tell us how you reminded Frank of your visit to the factory?”
“I told him that I had been to the factory on Saturday and he replied that he knew that I had.”

“What did he say?”

“He said he would tell his lawyer.”
“Didn’t you go to see Frank and didn’t you say, ‘Why Mister Frank, I was there Saturday,’ and didn’t he say, ‘That’s right, you were there?’”

“The first time I mentioned it to Frank he said that he would tell his lawyer and the next time I mentioned it to him he said that he had told his lawyer.”

“Didn’t you say to him, ‘I don’t want to be mixed up in this thing but if it will help you, Mister Frank, I’ll do whatever you say for me to do?’”

“I think it was like that.”

“What was it you said to Officer Payne?”
“I don’t remember saying anything to him.”

Tells of Conversation.

“Didn’t you testify at the inquest that you walked into a Greek stand Sunday and that Payne and the Greek were talking about the murder, and you said, ‘What? Another Jack-the-Ripper?’ And didn’t Payne say, ‘No, a white girl has been murdered at the pencil factory,’ and didn’t you say, ‘Who was it?’ And didn’t Payne say she worked next to Boot Roger’s sister in law? And didn’t you say, ‘Why it must be Helen Ferguson?’ And didn’t the Greek say, ‘No, it was Mary Phagan?’”

“Yes, that was about the way of it.”

“It was 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the Saturday following the murder that you told Chief Lanford or any of the officers about being in the factory Saturday, April 26, wasn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“What time was it you spoke to Frank about your being in the factory?”
“I think it was Tuesday. It was about 2 o’clock Tuesday.”

Witness Makes Denial.

“Didn’t you make the statement before the coroner’s jury that Frank said that he was going to mention the fact that you were in the factory to his lawyers and if favorable he would call you?”
“I did not make the statement that Frank said he would see his lawyer and find out whether or not is [sic] was favorable.”

“What has come into your mind to make you say at the coroner’s inquest that you went to the factory between 12 and 12:20 and now you state that it was between 12:20 and 12:25?”
“I have given the matter more careful study since that time.”

Not After 12 O’clock.

“You are positive that it was not after 12 when you left home?”
“No, sir.”

“How long does it take you to walk from home to the factory?”

“From ten to fifteen minutes.”

On redirect examination by Attorney Arnold, Quinn explained that at the time he made the statements to Solicitor Dorsey and before the inquest he had not remembered that he had been to Wolfsheimer’s meat market.

“I mentioned the matter to my father and my wife and my wife reminded me that I had been to the meat market.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 14th 1913, “Lemmie Quinn is Severely Grilled by Solicitor Dorsey,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 8^th, 1913

Dr. R. T. Dorsey Also Comes to Assistance of Solicitor in the Frank Case

Dr. Frank L. Eskridge, a well-known physician, is assisting Solicitor General Dorsey in the solicitor’s examination of expert chemists and medical men and in cross-examinations of experts presented by the defense.

Dr. Eskridge is widely versed in various branches of medicine, chemistry and surgery, and has proved an invaluable aid to the solicitor, especially in the examination of Dr. Roy Harris.

In the cross-examination of Dr. Leroy Childs, in the afternoon session Thursday, the solicitor was valuably assisted by his brother, Dr. R. T. Dorsey, a prominent figure in local medical circles. Dr. Dorsey’s assistance proved decisively effective in rebutting the expert’s testimony.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Dr. Frank Eskridge Aiding Prosecution,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 8, 1913

Dr. LeRoy W. Childs who was the first witness placed on the stand by the defense underwent a rigorous cross examination by Solicitor Dorsey.

The solicitor showed a keen knowledge of medicine and chemistry in the volley of questions he fired at the medical expert, and, upon one occasion elicited the admission from the witness that he was not informed of a certain phase of laboratory work on which great stress had been laid by Dr. Roy Harris who preceded Dr. Childs to the stand.

In concluding his testimony Dr. Childs when asked by the solicitor who explained the condition in which Mary Phagan’s body had been discovered declared that it was his opinion death did not result from the blow upon the head.

Dr. Childs was on the stand at the opening of the afternoon session under direct examination of Attorney Arnold.

“State whether or not doctor a bruise upon an eye can be inflicted after death?”

“Such a bruise could be produced before the body is cold. Some bodies retain heat longer than others.”

“Can a blow on the back of the head cause a black eye?”

“Such a blow could blacken both eyes.”

Mr. Arnold then asked the witness a series of questions as to the effect of death on the organs of the body with the purpose of indication that the signs of violence referred to by Dr. Harris might have been from natural causes.

“Would strangulation case congestion of blood vessels?”

“Yes.”

“Is there any possible way for an expert examiner to determine at what time violence was committed?”

“I don’t think so.”

“Would you hazard an opinion of what time death had ensued say 15 minutes?”

“No.”

“Within two days?’

“No.”

Dorsey Cross-Examines

At this point Solicitor Dorsey began the cross examination.

“What kind of practitioner are you doctor? he asked.
“Surgery and general medicine.”

“You have been speaking from a purely scientific standpoint, haven’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Do you mean to say that digestion begins in the mouth?”

“Yes.”

“That is mastication, isn’t it?”

“Yes.”
“From a strictly scientific standpoint as you say you speak digestion begins in the mouth?”

“No, not exactly.”

“Well, isn’t it correct-you have just stated so?”

“Mastication is an essentially important part of digestion, but it is not literally a process of digestion. That was what I meant.”

“What part do the salivary glands play in mastication?”

“I said that digestion begins in the mouth – or that digestive process begins there. That latter question I cannot answer.”

“Do you dispute the eminent authority of Dr. Crittenton/”

“I don’t think Dr. Crittenton would be in issue with other authorities.”

Differs with Authorities

“Then he is in issue with you?”

“Yes, on the point.”

“Who is your authority?”

“Dr. Peterson.”

“Dr. Peterson is a nerve specialist, isn’t he?”

“Yes, and gyni[e]ecologist.”

“You say that every man’s stomach is a study in itself?”

“Yes.”

“But you do mean to say there are not certain fundamental laws that control every normal stomach?”

“Yes, there are certain laws.”

“You say you find free hydrochloric acid in the stomach without the presence of food?”

“Yes.”

“Is that your theory?”

“Yes, it all depends upon the glands?”

“But I am talking of the ordinarily normal stomach.”

“Yes, I know that.”

“Do you know the Elhwald test breakfast?”

“Yes.”

“Of what does it consist?”

“A sliced of apple, a slice of bread and six ounces of water.”

“After this breakfast has been given can any hydrochloric acid be found in the stomach?”

“It depends entirely upon the glands.”

“I am not talking of the glands. I am talking of a perfectly normal stomach.”

“The acidity would be about two tenths of a drachm.”

Not Familiar With Chemistry

“Give me the total acidity in degrees doctor.”

“You are getting out of my line and into the realm of chemistry or laboratory work. I am not familiar with the degrees.”

“Then give to the jury the total acidity after this test breakfast.”

“I prefer not to answer that question.”

‘Don’t you know that any ordinary doctor knows how much hydrochloric acid could be found in a normal stomach after this breakfast.”

“Not necessarily so.”

“Can you tell the jury the functions of hydrochloric acid?”

“Yes. The two prime principles of the stomach are hydrochloric acid and pepsin. They act in cooperation in the digestion of foo. They also are the two active principles of gastric juice.”

“Suppose doctor that this cabbage I have here in this vial was taken from a normal stomach with no part of the cabbage in the smaller intestine and upon removal of the stomach it was found that combined hydrochloric acid was present in 32 degrees, what would you as to how long the substance had been in the stomach before death?”

Could Not Tell Time

“I couldn’t tell within an hour and a half of the time.”

“Why couldn’t you tell?”

“I recall an instance where I forced emesis on a patient when cabbage had caused indigestion and it was in state similar to this cabbage removed from Mary Phagan’s stomach.”

“But that stomach was diseased, wasn’t it?”

“To a certain extent.”

“The structure of the stomach might have been normal but how about the gastric juices?”

“Any normal stomach might suffer irritation.”

Laughter Riles Arnold

Here a ripple of laughter would cover the corridor. Rueben Arnold jumped to his feet protesting to the demonstration and charging those who had laughed at the expert statement with being a bunch of hoodlums who had no business in a trial room.”

“What is a normal stomach doctor?” Mr. Dorsey asked.

“One which will digest food in an expected length of time.”

“Have you any more experience with cabbage tests run in some instance in which you made the man vomit the food?”

“No. My experience was gained from that and casual observations.”

“If I find a victim eighteen hours after death with a small hole in back of her head tongue protruding eyes hair and face livid and with purple fingers and nails with a deep indentation along the throat caused from a cord noose how would you say she came to her death?”

“I would say not by the blow on the head.”

“All right you may come down.”

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 8th 1913, “Dorsey Forces Childs to Admit Certain Portions of His Testimony Could Not Be Considered Expert,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 7^th, 1913

By Sidney Ormond

When the spectators at the Frank trial Wednesday broke into a ripple of applause, after Judge Roan had announced his decision that the damaging evidence of Jim Conley that he had “watched out for Frank on several occasions prior to the murder and had encountered him in an attitude which set him apart from normal men would remain in the records—when this applause came—it was not that any man contributing to it necessarily thought Frank guilty. It was simply a spontaneous tribute to Solicitor Hugh Dorsey who has fought so doggedly against such enormous odds to get before the jury a mass of evidence which, woven together, forms the whole fabric of the state’s case. The applause was a recognition of the ability of a young man who, say what you will of the guilt or the innocence of Leo M. Frank, has demonstrated that he is an an agonist of whom any man need feel fear.

The applause was simply an expression of the desire of the average person for fair play. Feeling for or against Frank seemed to be suspended. It was, more than anything else, an expression of approval for work well done by a young man who was passing through a strenuous ordeal. Interest in the actual evidence in question and its possible effect on the fate of the defendant seemed to be set aside for just the brief interval that it took for the clapping of hands.

The moment this applause was over the fact that it was unseemly and might prove prejudicial to the continuance of the case was apparent to every man who had participated in it. Each felt abashed that he should have allowed an expression of his feelings which might be misconstrued.

Dorsey Wins His Spurs.

Whatever may be the outcome of the trial—whether Frank be believed guilty or innocent or the jury fail to agree—one thing stands out crystal clear—Hugh Dorsey has won his spurs. He has proved himself capable of coping with the foremost criminal lawyers of this or any other state.

It is no small undertaking for a man of Hugh Dorsey’s years to find himself pitted against such able counsel as Luther Rosser and Rebuen Arnold, men the very mention of whose names causes witnesses to tremble and get stage fright.

Luther Rosser is an old hand at the game of badgering and buffeting the attorney who is pitted against him. He is a past master in the gentle art of goat getting, and what he doesn’t know about ruffling up a fellow’s feelings wouldn’t add materially to the repertoire of a nagging mother in law. When he goes out to get a lawyer he discards all rules laid down by polite society and the result is interesting as well as exciting.

Reuben Arnold’s Sting

The sting of Reuben Arnold is as sharp as an adder. He is mighty polite about it—injects the poison skillfully without mussing up the patient’s clothing or causing him any unnecessary loss of blood but the poison works just as surely. He is also some goat getter—a sort of polite purloiner of goats is Reuben!

Hugh Dorsey found himself opposed to these two men whose reputation alone is enough to awe the average man. He was opposed to them in a case which for many reasons was a difficult one to handle. It was his to piece together scores of bits of evidence in itself of no apparent consequence, but the whole forming a strong fabric. It was his to set the stage to project not only the possible but the probable. He had to gather together from a hundred different sources a large amount of material to test it, to accept this and to discard that.

The central figure—Conley—was an unknown quantity. Many doubted his story. He had lied repeatedly. In order to pave the way for Conley’s appearance on the scene, Mr. Dorsey had to work like an artist in mosaic. Corners had to fit and angles had to be true. It would never do to dump the mass before the jury and say,

“Here it is—now fit it together for yourself.”

Getting the evidence was but the first stage. Getting it by Rosser and Arnold was the real fight. And fight it has been at every stage of the proceedings. Either Rosser or Arnold was on his feet at every turn.

Frequently, Rosser would say in that goat getting tone of his,

“Sit down—sit down, little Hugh, you don’t know enough law to discuss it.”

But Dorsey has taken it all in good spirit. He has been the personification of patience.

Master of Himself

He has at all times been master of himself, certain of his rights and willing to fight for them.

Hugh Dorsey simply doesn’t know when he is beaten. He refuses to give up. He refuses to lose his temper. He refuses to lose faith in himself.

That’s why the crowd applauded Wednesday. They recognized a game fighter and they expressed recognition in the only way they could.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Hugh Dorsey Wins His Spurs; Crowd Recognizes Gameness,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 7^th, 1913

Following Conley’s departure from the stand the jury was allowed a five minute recess and on their return Solicitor Dorsey tendered in evidence a picture of the pencil factory basement which was taken by Francis B. Price, The Constitution staff photographer on the morning that the body was found a [1 word illegible] of which appeared in The Constitution. He also tendered a scratch pad sample of one of those around the factory the murder notes and the pad found near the body.

There were no objections from the defense.

“Bring in C. B. Dalton,” called out the solicitor. Dalton is the man named by Conley as having gone into the factory with Frank when the latter chatted with women and had Conley act as lookout. Dalton took his place on the stand but was excused because the judge had not made his final decision with reference to the protested Conley testimony and Mrs. John Arthur White was called in.

Conley was brought back and Mrs. White was asked if he was the negro she claimed to have seen on April 26 concealed behind some boxes on the first floor of the factory.

She could not say that he was or was not but declared that he looked more like the man than anyone else she had seen and that he was about the same statue. The defense entered frequent objections while this was being brought out.

“Mrs. White,” the solicitor then asked, “on April 28 didn’t you tell your brother Wade Campbell, an employee of the pencil company that you had seen a negro there on the previous Saturday?”

Mr. Rosser objected.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey, “I’m going to show that this woman, wife of one employee of the National Pencil company and sister and daughter of two others, did tell that to her brother but on the same day concealed it from detectives working for the state. We can show that although Frank knew this and told Scott of the Pinkertons employed by the National Pencil company about it that he concealed it from the detectives working for the state when he was telling what he knew about the people there that day and at other times too.

Record Proves Dorsey Correct.

“How can you prove that Frank knew it or that he told Scott?” thundered Attorney Rosser.

“It’s in the record as part of Scott’s testimony,” said the solicitor.

“It is not,” replied Rosser.

On Mr. Dorsey’s motion the court stenographer produced his official record of Scott’s testimony. Mr. Rosser took it from him and began to search through it for the statement. It had already been transcribed to typewritten form and while Mr. Dorsey entered objection after objection of Mr. Rosser’s keeping it while the latter calmly searched for it while his colleague, Mr. Arnold, stated in answer to Mr. Dorsey that they would give it to the state in a few minutes.

“Well, Mr. Dorsey’s right for one,” Mr. Rosser then said quietly.

The record showed that Harry Scott of the Pinkertons had sworn to being told by Frank on April 28 of what Mrs. White had disclosed about the presence of a negro.

Applause Sweeps Courtroom.

It was at this moment that some thing occurred that had never occurred before during the progress of the trial. A burst of applause swept through the courtroom and several people clapped their hands loudly as though applauding at the theater something that met their approval. The deputies immediately began rapping for order and Judge Roan announced from the bench that such actions would not be tolerated. When order was restored Mr. Rosser objected to another phase of the subject.

“Now Mr. Dorsey wants to show that this didn’t get to the police authorities until May 27 and I claim this part is immaterial.”

“We’ve shown that Frank knew of this disclosure on April 28 and now we expect to show that although Detective Bass Rosser questioned this woman here on that same day that she refused to disclose this information to him or to any detective working for the state,” said Mr. Dorsey, “and that the state never knew of it until May 2.”

“Scott had been told by Frank,” snapped Mr. Rosser, “and he had declared that he was working in conjunction with the police.”

“I want to show that this woman closoly [sic] connected with employees of the National Pencil factory concealed this important evidence from the detectives representing the state,” answered the solicitor. By this time Mrs. White was swelling up and almost crying as she sat on the witness stand and listened to implications that she had tried to conceal evidence from the state and had not told the whole truth to the authorities.

“Did you ever try to conceal anything, Mrs. White?” Mr. Rosser inquired of her.

“No, sir, I never did,” she replied. She was then allowed to leave the stand.

Sheriff Mangum on Stand.

Sheriff G. Wheeler Mangum was then sworn in and put upon the stand by the solicitor.

“Were you at the jail when Conley went there and asked to see Frank?” the solicitor asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you talk to Frank about his seeing Conley?”

“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser then objected declaring that it was inadmissible to show whether or not Frank wanted to see anyone.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey, “I want to show that for the first time in the history of the white race, a white man claiming innocence, refused to confront his accuser and particularly that this accuser was only an ignorant negro.”

Judge Roan sustained the state.

“I told Mr. Frank that Chief Beavers and Detectives Lanford, Scott and Black were out there with Conley and wanted to know if he would talk to the negro,” said the sheriff.

“What did he say?”
“He said he did not, that none of his lawyers were there and no one to defend—“ Here the sheriff paused.

“Did you say he said he had no one there to defend him?” Mr. Dorsey asked quickly.

Sheriff Mangum paused and then said, “He said he had none of his lawyers there to listen to what might be said.”

“Did he use the word ‘defend’?” questioned the solicitor.

“No, he said he didn’t want anybody to see him unless his lawyers were there.”

The name of Mrs. J. W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan, and of George Epps, the little newsie with whom she is said to have ridden to town that day were then called but neither answered.

Jury Sent Out of Courtroom.

“Your Honor,” Mr. Dorsey then announced, “we want to put these witnesses up and they are practically all with the exception of Dr. Roy Harris, whom I can’t reach until 2 o’clock. I want to ask that the jury be sent out as I have something to say to the court which might better be said in their absence.”

When the jury retired the solicitor announced that he wanted to make three points.

“First, we want to protest against ruling out that part of Conley’s testimony which refers to Frank’s previous misconduct at the times the negro acted as his lookout.

“Second, we want to introduce witnesses to sustain what Conley said about this.

“And third, we want to put George Epps back on the stand to let him testify that Mary Phagan told him that morning on the car as she was on her way to the factory that Frank had punched her and made eyes at her and that she was afraid of him.”

“As to the boy’s testimony,” said Mr. Arnold, “we would have to hear him testify before we could talk about that; we don’t know that he would say exactly what our friend Dorsey, has just stated.”

Mr. Arnold then entered into his reasons for holding that that part of Conley’s testimony about Frank’s alleged misconduct on previous occasions was not admissible.

The matter was argued by both sides. Mr Arnold claiming that in no English speaking countries was a man’s past conduct ever put up against him and Mr. Dorsey declaring that such evidence in this case was admissible to show his tendency to this particular crime.

It was not 12:45 o’clock and Mr. Arnold stated that he was so weak and hot that he could go no further. He was given a glass of water and allowed to remain seated while he addressed the judge and went on.

A few minutes later court adjourned.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Applause Sweeps Courtroom When Dorsey Scores a Point,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Constitution
August 7^th, 1913

On the opening of court Wednesday morning when Judge L. S. Roan announced that he would postpone his final decision in regard to the admissibility of Jim Conley’s evidence in regard to Leo Frank’s alleged misconduct and also to the negro’s acting on previous occasions as his “lookout,” Luther Rosser began his final effort to break the negro down.

Conley stayed on the stand until 10 o’clock and was then excused. He had been testifying for fifteen hours in all and of this thirteen hours had been under the merciless grilling of Attorney Rosser.

The negro stuck to the last to the main points of his story, and, while admitting that he had lied on previous occasions, swore that he had only tried to save himself and that about the murder he was telling the whole truth. No amount of effort could break him from this declaration.

Conley also added a new point to his story when under additional questioning from Solicitor Hugh Dorsey he swore that he had seen Frank hide Mary Phagan’s meshbag in his safe. Before that both sides had declared that they could not account for the disappearance of the pocketbook or bag in which the girl had carried her money.

Reads Black Affidavit.

Mr. Rosser opened the morning cross-examination by reading to the negro the second affidavit he made to Detective John R. Black and Harry Scott. It was in this that the darkey swore he had left home at about 9 o’clock and after visiting several saloons and poolrooms, among which was one bearing the name of the “Butt-In” saloon, he had won 90 cents at dice and then gone to the factory at about 1 o’clock. In it he had admitted to writing the murder notes, but made no mention of helping Frank dispose of the body.

Then the lawyer read the next affidavit in which the negro declared he had aided Frank in taking the dead girl’s body to the cellar in which, despite the fact that he had put into it the claim that he was telling the whole truth, he had not told certain things which he waited until he got on the stand to tell.

Mr. Rosser made Conley acknowledge to having made these affidavits and with particular emphasis called his attention to the various discrepancies between them and also between the final one and his sworn testimony.

Then the lawyer asked the witness about several conversations he is alleged by the defense to have had with various factory employees after the murder was discovered and before he was arrested.

“Jim,” began Mr. Rosser, “soon after the murder weren’t you working near where Miss Rebecca Carson was and did she say to you, ‘Jim, they ain’t got you yet for this,’ and didn’t you say, ‘No, and they ain’t goin’ to, ‘cause I ain’t done nothin’?’”

“No, sir,” replied Conley: “dat lady ain’t never said nothing like dat to me and I ain’t never said nothing like dat to her.”

“Didn’t she say, ‘Well, they’ve got Mr. Frank and he ain’t done nothing,’ and didn’t you then say, ‘Mr. Frank is ez innocent as you is and de Lord knows you ain’t guilty’?”

“No, sir,” replied Jim positively: “no, sir, Mr. Rosser, wasn’t nothing lak dat passed ‘tween us.”

Denies That He Hid.

“Jim,” Mr. Rosser next asked, “weren’t you talking to one of the ladies there right after the murder and she said, ‘Jim, you did this,’ and didn’t you lay down your broom and go off to another part of the building?”

“Nothing lak dat ever happened,” asserted the witness.

“Well, Jim, one day just before you were arrested, weren’t you hiding yourself on the second floor, afraid to go downstairs, and didn’t you say in the presence of Mr. Herbert Schiff that you’d give a million dollars to be a white man, and that if you were a white man you’d go on down the steps?”
“No, sir,” replied Jim, “I did say I wished I was a white man and dat if I was I’d go on down.”

“Didn’t you ask Mrs. Dora Small to read an extra to youa bout that same day, and then tell her Mr. Frank was innocent?”
“No, sir,” replied Jim, “I never had no talk like dat with her.”

“Didn’t you tell Miss Julia Foss that Mr. Frank was as innocent as an angel in heaven?”
“No, sir, I never said nothing like dat to dat lady, either.”

Dorsey Takes Witness.

It was then 10 o’clock and Mr. Rosser suddenly announced that he was through with his cross examination. Solicitor Dorsey declared that he wished to ask a few more questions before Conley was excused.

“Jim,” he said, “when you told Mr. Rosser about being in jail where did you mean you were kept?”
“I meant at police station,” replied Jim.

“What did they put you in jail for, Jim?”
Mr. Rosser objected strenuously, declaring that every negro when asked that question answers “for nothin’ boss; I hadn’t done nothin.’”

After some argument on both sides Judge Roan held that the question might be asked and answered.

Conley then swore that the first time he was put in jail was when a boy and [w]as arrested for throwing rocks, and that the other times had been for fighting with other negros and for being drunk and disorderly. He declared that he had never been in the county jail until after he was placed there following the murder, and that he had never been arrested for a serious offense.

“Did you ever see Frank down there in the jail?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“No, sir.”

“Why didn’t you?”
Mr. Rosser succeeded in having this ruled out.

“From the time you were arrested, did you see Frank until the day you came into this courtroom?” asked Dorsey.

“Yes, sir, I seed him at the coroner’s court down there at headquarters, and he went by me and bowed his head and smiled.”

“Was that before you had told on him?”

Says Frank Dictated Notes.

“Tell the jury what, if anything, Frank did with your pencil while you were writing the murder notes.”

“He tuck de pencil outer my hand and rubbed out the letter ‘s’ I had put at the end of negro,’” said Jim.

“Did you ever see the pocketbook, purse or meshbag of Miss Mary Phagan?”

“Yes, sir, I saw it on Mr. Frank’s desk after we came back from putting the body in the basement, and he tuck it and put it in his safe,” said Jim.

Mr. Dorsey then asked the negro to describe the scream he claims to have heard, but Mr. Rosser succeeded in leaving that ruled out, claiming that it had been gone into before.

“Jim,” Mr. Dorsey then asked, “who has asked you the most questions and talked to you the longest, Mr. Black, Mr. Scott, Mr. Starnes, Mr. Campbell, myself or Mr. Rosser?”
Rosser got this question declared illegal.

“Well, what was the longest time any of these detectives talked to you?”

Conley Causes Laughter.

“You means Mr. Rosser dere, don’t you,” said Jim, and the courtroom forgot itself for the moment until the vigorous rapping of deputies restored order.

Conley finally was made to understand that Mr. Rosser, although he had grilled him for about two days, did not wear a star and rubber-heeled shoes, and he then stated that Scott and Black had talked to him more than any of the other detectives, and had kept him on one occasion from about 11 o’clock until dark, but he declared that they had given him several rests between talks, and that they actually talked to him about three and a half hours.

“Well, how long did Mr. Rosser talk to you?”
Mr. Rosser had this question ruled out, the solicitor making a vigorous but vain plea, that it should ge on record how long the negro had been under the cross-fire of questions on the stand.

“Was there any cloth around the place where you got the gunny sack?”
“There was some near there.”

“Was moving the body a pretty hard job?”

“Yes, sir.”

Attorney Rosser’s objections to this were overruled.

Upon the request of the solicitor the negro then lay down on the floor and illustrated how he had placed the girl’s body in the basement, and he also took The Constitution’s flashlight picture of the basement and showed exactly where he had placed the body.

“Tell the jury everything you did after you looked at the clock, and saw it was four minutes to one,” said Mr. Dorsey.

“Where did Mr. Frank wash his hands?”
Conley indicated on the diagram a spot near the office.

“What was said about your going to Brooklyn?”
“Mr. Frank never said nothing about my going to Brooklyn; he said he would send me away,” replied Jim.

Denies Seeing Mincey.

“Did you ever have a talk with W. H. Mincey?”
“Never except that day at the station house when he come there.”

On Mr. Rosser’s objection to this, Judge Roan ruled that the state could not go into Mincey’s talk at the station.

“Jim, on the night you were put in jail and the newspaper men came, what did they do to you?” asked Mr. Dorsey.

“They jes’ talked to me, an’ one of them offered me a paper,” said Jim.

At this juncture Mr. Dorsey requested that Harllee Branch and Harold W. Ross, two reporters at the press table, leave the courtroom. When they left he continued:

“What did you say to Mr. Schiff?”
“Mr. Schiff asked me if I saw the crowd out there.”

“How long have you known Mr. N. V. Darley?”
“Ever since he come to the factory.”

“Did Mr. Schiff and Mr. Darley know you could write?”
Mr. Rosser entered an objection to this and in reply Mr. Dorsey said: “Your honor, while this negro was in jail and the National Pencil factory had employed detectives to find the murderer, and while he was claiming he could not write, these men knew that he could and yet did not tell the detectives.”

“It’s not in evidence that these men knew the detectives wanted Conley to write,” replied Mr. Rosser.

“I can prove it by those two newspaper men I asked to leave the room,” replied Mr. Dorsey, “and yet these two men connected with the pencil factory concealed the fact that this negro could write.”

Evidence Ruled Out.

Judge Roan ruled that Mr. Dorsey could not introduce the evidence to show that Schiff and Darley knew Jim could write, and that he could not introduce his evidence to show that the two factory employees knew the detectives desired him to write. The two newspaper men were then allowed to re-enter the room.

“Jim, can you write ‘luxury?’”

“Yes, sir,” replied Jim, “they had boxes with that on ‘em at the factory and when they gave out I had to write it down and give it to Mr. Frank so he would know to order some more.”

“Did he furnish the paper for you to write on?”
“Yes, sir.”

It was now 10:50 o’clock and Mr. Rosser again took up the cross-examination for a few questions.

“Did Mr. Frank have the dead girl’s meshbag on the desk when you came back from the basement Jim?”
“Yes, sir.”

“He put it in his safe and locked the door, did he?”
“He put it in the safe,” said Jim, “but I dunno whether he locked the door or not.”

Mr. Rosser then went into much detail about the various times that detectives and the state’s lawyers had talked to Conley about the crime. He had to explain to Jim what was meant by the state’s lawyers.

“Jim,” he next asked, “how long had you been caring for the boxes?”

“’Bout a year,” said Jim.

“So Mr. Frank knew for over a year that you could write?”
“I reckon he did,” said Conley; “I’d been writing down the things about the boxes and givin’ ‘em to him that long.”

A New, Simplified Method.

It was at this juncture that Conley, prompted by Attorney Rosser, introduced to the world an absolutely new method of spelling, and one that would put A. Carnegie and T. Roosevelt to shame should they ever learn that a man with no education had introduced it.

The exemplification of the new method began with “Uncle Remus,” a word known and loved by Carnegie himself. It happened that Jim said that the National Pencil company used this as a trade name for one of their brands of pencils.

“How do you spell ‘Uncle Remus,’ Jim?” Mr. Rosser asked.

“Well, I kin spell it,” replied Jim.

“Go ahead,” he was urged.

“O-n,” said Jim.

“Well, does that spell Uncle?” asked Mr. Rosser.

“Yes, sir.”

“Well, spell ‘Remus.’”

“R-i-m-e-s-s-,” said Jim proudly.

“That’s fine, Jim. Now, spell ‘luxury.’”

It was here that the new system reached its climax.

“L-u-s-t-r-i-s,” Jim replied.

“All right, Jim. Now, spell “Thomas Jefferson,’” urged Mr. Rosser, that being also a trade name of the pencils.

“T-o-m-a-i-s, Thomas,” said Jim.

“Go ahead.”

“J-a-s-s,” finished Jim.

Leo Frank was laughing by this time and deputies were frowning and threatening to eject certain spectators from the courtroom.

Conley wound up the spelling bee by declaring that “Joe Wishton” was the othrodox [sic] way of spelling the name of the man who made the cherry tree famous.

“Jim,” next asked Mr. Rosser, “wouldn’t you sometimes write Mr. Frank a note in order to draw on your wages?”
“Yes, sir; I’d write out, ‘Please let me have 50 cents,” replied the negro.

“And you’d say, ‘An’ take it out of my wages,’ wouldn’t you?” the questioner asked.

“No, sir; I couldn’t write out all dat last part. Mr. Frank he’d know where to take hit from.”

Mr. Dorsey then put a few minor question and after these Mr. Rosser asked the negro if Schiff did not have charge of the boxes instead of Frank. Conley declared that Frank had charge of them.

It was 11:14 o’clock when the negro finally left the stand.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 7th 1913, “Unable to Shake Conley’s Story Rosser Ends Cross-Examination,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)