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 2^nd, 1913

Mrs. Maggie White, wife of John Arthur White, who was at work on the fourth floor of the National Pencil factory part of the day upon which Mary Phagan was killed, was the first witness the state called to the stand Thursday morning in the Frank trial.

The witness told of going to the factory twice on that day to see her husband, and of seeing Frank on both occasions, and also of seeing a negro lurking behind some boxes on the first floor.

“How long has your husband been working for the National Pencil factory?” Solicitor Hugh Dorsey asked after the usual questions as to her identity.

“About two years,” she replied.

“Does he still work there?”

“Yes.”
“Was he at the factory on April 26, and at what time?”

“Yes, he was there; I left home to go there about 7:30 in the morning. I saw him there when I first went there about 11:50, and when I came back at 12:30 he was still there.”

“Who else did you see there?”

“Miss Corinthia Hall, Mr. Frank, Miss Emma Freeman and two men whose names I do not know; all were in Mr. Frank’s office when I first saw them.”

“How long did you stay the first time?”

“About twenty minutes.”

“Did you talk to Frank?”

“Yes; I asked to see my husband.”

“What did he say?”

“He asked me if I were Mr. White’s wife.”
“What else did he say, if anything?”
“He said he thought as much, as I looked like the Campbells. My father, E. S. Campbell, and my brother, Wade Campbell, both worked there,” she explained.

“How long had they worked there?”

“About two years.”

“What did Frank say after that?”

Saw Her Husband.

“He told Miss Freeman to go after Mr. White, and my husband came down to see me.”

“Where did you see your husband?”
“On the second floor, near the foot of the stairs.”
“How long did you talk to him?”

“About fifteen minutes.”
“What did you do then?”
“I went out.”

“What time did you come back?”

“About 12:30.”

“Why do you use the word ‘about’?”

“Well, I looked at the clock and read the time as 12:30, but there might have been a minute’s difference.”

“Did you see Frank when you came back the second time?”

“Yes.”

“What then?”
“He jumped when I went into his office and spoke to him.”

“What did you do then?”

“I went upstairs to see my husband.”

“Who was with him?”

“Harry Denham.”

“Where were they?”

“On the fourth floor of the building, about middle way down.”

“What were they doing?”

“Hammering on one of the machines.”
“How many were using hammer?”
“One of them.”
“Did you hear the hammering?”

“Yes.”
“When?”

“As I got to the fourth floor.”

“How long was the noise?”

“Just like the sound of a hammer hitting a piece of iron.”
“What did you ask Frank after he jumped?”
“I just asked if my husband and Mr. Denham had gone back to work, and he said they had.”

Had to Repeat Question.

“How often did you ask him?”

“I asked him twice.”

“Why did you repeat the question?”

“Because he asked me to.”

“Did you see Frank again that day?”

“Yes, he came up to the fourth floor.”

“What did he come up there for?”

“He came up about 1 o’clock and told my husband that if I wanted to leave the building before 3 o’clock that I had better go then, as he was going out to lunch.”

“What time did you leave?”

“It was about 1 o’clock.”

“Do you think it was just before or just after one?”

“Just before one.”

“How do you know?”

“I stayed there about a half hour, and then I was somewhere else at 1 o’clock.”

“Where did you go?”

“I went to McDonald’s furniture store on West Mitchell street, four or five blocks away.”
“I got there a few minutes after 1.”

“How much before 1 was it when you left the factory?”

“It was about 10 minutes to 1.”

“Why did you leave?”

“Well, Mr. Frank said I’d better leave if I wanted to get out of the building before 3 o’clock.”

“Did you see him again?”

Saw Frank in Office.

“Yes, when I came down I saw him sitting at the table in his office.”

“Which office was he in?”
“The outer office.”

“Hadn’t he said he was going as soon as he got his hat and coat?”

“Yes.”
“Did you see anyone else?”

“Yes, I saw a negro behind some boxes as I came down the steps.”

“Where and at what time was that?”
“It was on the first floor, close to the stairway that goes up to the second floor, and at about 10 minutes to 1.”

Mrs. White when outlined, at the solicitor’s request, upon the cross-section drawing, her movements on that day in the factory, and in doing so declared that her husband and Denham were nearer the front of the building than she had first thought.

Rosser Cross-Examines.

Mr. Rosser then took up the cross-examination for the defense. By a series of questions he made the witness declare that she was rather indefinite about the time on the various occasions of which she testified.

“Did anyone come upstairs where you were talking to your husband besides Mr. Frank?”

“Yes, Mrs. May Barrett and her daughter and Miss Hall and Miss Freeman.”
“Who left first?”
“Mrs. Barrett and her daughter left and then the other two ladies.”
“You went to the factory about 12:30 the second time?”

“Yes.”
“Was Frank standing in front of the safe?”
“Yes.”
“Was the safe door open?”
“Yes.”

“How close were you when you spoke to him?”

“I came right into the office and spoke to him.”
“Didn’t you surprise him by speaking suddenly?”
“I don’t think so.”

“What happened then?”

“He told me to go up and see my husband.”

“Did Frank say when he came up there that if you wanted to get out before 3 that you had better go pretty soon, as he was going in a few minutes?”

“Yes, that’s about it.”
The attorney for the defense was evidently trying to convince the jury that Frank had not been especially anxious to get the woman out of the building right away.

“As you got down the steps you saw a darkey there?”

“Yes.”
“Between the foot of the stairway and the door?”

“Yes.”

On his own blue print of the factory the defending attorney then had the witness point out her various movements that day in the factory building, and she was allowed to come off the stand after having been testifying for about half an hour.

* * *

Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913, “Negro Lurking in Factory Seen by Wife of Employee,” 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 1^st, 1913

Will Testify She Saw Negro Idling in Shadows of Stairway.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of Arthur White, the witness who will testify that on Saturday morning when she appeared at the pencil factory to see her husband, she saw a negro idling in the shadows of the stairway on the first floor, will be the first called to the stand this morning.

A moment before adjournment yesterday afternoon she was summoned to testify, but Judge Roan ordered the session closed before she could reach the witness stand. Mrs. White, it is stated, has already declared that she is unable to identify Jim Conley as the negro she saw in the building that fatal Saturday.

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

Atlanta Journal
August 1^st, 1913

DARLEY’S ADMISSIONS ABOUT FRANK’S DEFENSE OFFSET BY HIS EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL

Having Admitted Frank Trembled, That He Was Pale and Seemed “Upset,” on Cross-Examination Mr. Darley Said Frank Was Naturally of a Nervous Temperament and Told of Tedious Work He Did on Saturday in Preparing Financial Sheet

JUDGE ROAN REVERSES HIS RULING IN REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER OTHERS WERE NERVOUS

Attorneys for Defense Had Intimated That His Refusal to Admit This Evidence Was Good Ground for Appeal—Mrs. White’s Testimony That She Saw Negro Lurking Near Stairway at 1 o’Clock Saturday a Feature of Morning Session

Little progress was made at the morning session Friday of the fifth day of the trial of Leo M. Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan. The state showed by one witness that a negro was sitting on a box on the main floor shortly before 1 o’clock at the point Jim Conley claims he was sitting when he says Frank called him.

The state also introduced its best testimony relative to the nervousness and general demeanor of the defendant on the morning that the crime was discovered.

The witness, who gave his testimony was N. V. Darley, who also materially aided the defense by a number of points brought out on his cross-examination by Attorney Reuben R. Arnold. Considered of special value to the defense was his statement that with the time clock in the condition that it was on Sunday anyone understanding its mechanism could have made the punches for twelve hours within five minutes. The defense, brought out by Darley a statement that it had been hammering home since the trial first started, namely that the elevator and its motor made much noise when running and that a saw on the fourth floor ran simultaneously with the elevator. The inference is that the defense will argue that if the elevator ran shortly after noon or even up to 3 o’clock that White and Denham, working on the fourth floor, would necessarily have heard it.

The same witness also asserted that a financial sheet gotten up Saturday afternoon was in Frank’s handwriting and that it takes three hours or more to do this work.

The defense made a timely rebuttal of Darley’s testimony that Frank displayed unusual nervousness following the discovery of the murder, and used Darley himself to refute, to a certain extent, his own testimony. Solicitor Dorsey, in his examination of the witness had drawn the statement from him that the accused was nervous, that his hand trembled when he went to run the elevator, and that he was pale and was trembling when he rode to the police station. When Attorney Arnold took the witness he drew from him the assertion that Mr. Frank was of a natural nervous temperament and that frequently he (Darley) had to take charge of affairs at the factory, prior to the murder, on account of the accused’s nervousness. Frank, declared Darley, often rubbed his hands together and was unable to do much work when he was in one of his nervous states.

Mrs. White was also an important witness in reference to Frank’s nervousness, declaring that when she went into the factory at about 12:30, just after the state claims the crime was committed, Frank jumped when she spoke to him.

When court convened after lunch, Judge Roan reversed himself on his ruling at the morning session. By reversing this ruling he holds now that the defense may introduce evidence to show that others besides the accused were nervous at the pencil factory following the discovery of the body of Mary Phagan. Attorney Rosser, for the defense, had indicated in a remark to the court at the morning session that the defense would likely appeal the case on this point if the jurist held to his ruling.

Judge Roan also announced his decision in the matter of Darley testifying relative to the contrast or comparison of handwriting on the financial sheet made out by Frank on the Saturday of the murder and others made out prior to that date. Judge Roan held that Darley would have to qualify as a handwriting expert to testify along these lines.

STATE INTRODUCES WITNESSES.

Mr. Arnold, in a discussion with attorneys for the state, made the remark that the prosecution need not fear that he would fail to introduce evidence. If the defense introduces any evidence at all, as the attorneys now think it will, it will probably introduce many witnesses and the trial will be prolonged a number of days.

At the close of the morning session Friday the indications were that the state would not close its case until Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Jim Conley, the state’s principal witness, has not been called yet, and probably will not be until Saturday. It will take a whole day if not longer for his examination.

COURT CONVENES.

At 8:40 o’clock the crowd was admitted to the court room, filling the seats immediately and leaving a number of disappointed people outside. A large part of the crowd had been waiting since 7 o’clock.

Leo M. Frank, the accused, arrived early, under custody of the sheriff. He entered the court room at 8:50 o’clock, with his wife and mother, smiling cheerfully, and responding to greetings of a number of friends.

Mrs. J. Arthur White was called to the stand as the first witness. Her husband has been employed by the National Pencil company for the past two years, she said.

On April 26, she testified, she went to the National Pencil factory twice. The first time she remained from 11:30 to 11:50 o’clock. She returned at 12:30 and left about 1. On the first visit she stated she saw Miss Hall, the stenographer, and Frank and two men in his office.

“I asked Mr. Frank if I could see Mr. White. Mr. Frank then was standing in the inside office. He asked me if I was Mr. White’s wife, and when I answered yes, he said I looked like a Campbell.”

The witness explained that her father and brother, named Campbell, had been working for two years in the National Pencil factory.

“Mr. Frank sent Miss Emma Freeman for Mr. White and he came down and talked to me at the foot of the steps on the second floor.”

Solicitor Dorsey questioned the witness about her second visit to the factory. Mrs. White said that she looked at the clock when she arrived on her second visit, and that the time was about 12:30, possibly one minute to or after that hour.

SAYS FRANK JUMPED.

“When I came up the steps,” she said, “I saw Mr. Frank standing by the safe in the outside office. His back was turned to me. I asked him if Mr. White and Mr. Denham had gone back to work.

“He jumped, as if surprised.”

“Is there any doubt about his jumping?” asked the solicitor.

“No.”

“What was he doing at the safe?”

“I didn’t see him doing anything.”

“What did you do?”

“I went upstairs to the fourth floor, where Harry Denham and my husband were working. They were working on a machine with a hammer. I heard the hammer distinctly when I reached the fourth floor. They quit work when I came up.”

“How many times did you have to ask Mr. Frank if White and Denham were at work?”

“I had to repeat my question.”

The witness testified that while she was upstairs, about 1 o’clock, Frank came up and told her that she would have to leave then if she expected to get out before 3 o’clock, because he was going out and intended to lock the doors behind him.

“What time did you leave?”

“Some time about 1 o’clock.”

“Was it before or after 1?”

“It was before 1.”

“How do you know it was before 1?”

“Because I was in McDonald’s furniture store at 1 o’clock.”

“And how far is that from the pencil factory?”

“Five or six blocks.”

“How much before 1 do you say it was?”

“About ten minutes.”

Mrs. White said that Frank preceded her down the stairs. She left the building.

SAW A NEGRO ALSO.

When she went by the office on her way out Frank was sitting by a table in the outer office, with his coat off.

“What was he doing at the table?”

“I suppose he was writing.”

“What led you to believe he was writing?”

“Well, he was sitting there.”

“As you came down the steps from the second floor did you see anybody?”

“Yes, a negro.”

“Where was he?”

“Sitting on a box to the bottom of the stairway leading from the second floor.”

“Did you see his coat?”

“No.”

“Did you see his hat?”

“No.”

Solicitor Dorsey walked up to the witness stand with Mary Phagan’s parasol and handing it to Mrs. White asked her to point out the spot on the diagram where the negro was sitting. She pointed to a place in the lower hallway, near the stairway. The solicitor also asked her to point out the place on the fourth floor where Denham and White were working. She put the end of the pointer on a place several feet toward the front of the building from the top of the stairway on the fourth floor.

“Could they see down the stairway from where they were working?”

“No, sir.”

ROSSER TAKES WITNESS.

Mr. Rosser took up the cross-examination of the witness.

“You left the factory about 1 o’clock, Mrs. White?”

“Yes.”

“You are not sure as to the exact time?”

“No, sir.”

“How long after 1 o’clock was it that you reached the furniture store?”

“I don’t know exactly.”

“You won’t say positively that it was ten minutes to 1 when they left the factory?”

“No, sir, not positively.”

“It was somewhere about 1 o’clock?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where is that furniture store, and how far from the factory?”

“It is on Mitchell street beyond the Terminal station.”

“Did you walk there directly from the factory?”

“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Rosser stopped to refer to a statement which the witness furnished to the defense some time ago.

“You say it was about 1 o’clock when you left the factory, but you didn’t look at the clock?”

“Yes, sir. It was about 1. I did not look at the clock.”

“You got to the factory the first time about 11:30 o’clock?”

“Yes.”

“And you say you found there two men whose names you didn’t know, Mr. Frank and the stenographer, Miss Hall?”

“Yes.”

“You didn’t see the office boy, Alonzo Mann?”

“No.”

“You went in and sat down in Frank’s office?”

“Yes.”

“He was talking to two men?”

“Yes.”

“After he had finished talking to the two men he came over to you, did he not?”

“Yes.”

“You told him you wanted to see Mr. White?”

“Yes.”
“Did you see your brother, Wade Campbell, or your father, there?”

FRANK SENT WORD.

“No, sir.”

“They both work there, do they not?”

“Yes.”

“Frank sent word up to White that you were downstairs and wanted to see him, did he not?”

“Yes.”

“By whom did he send this word?”

“By Mrs. Emma Freeman.”

The witness said that Mrs. Emma Freeman formerly was Miss Emma Clark, and had married just the day before.

“How long was it before White came down?”

“About five minutes.”

“Where was it you talked with him?”

“Outside of the office, near the time clock.”

“How long did you talk with him there?”

“About fifteen minutes.”

“Who came up while you were talking to your husband?”

“Cornelia Hall, Mrs. Freeman and Mrs. Mae Barrett.”

The witness added that these three came down the stairs. “Mrs. Barrett’s daughter also came in, coming upstairs,” she continued.

“Who left first?”

“Miss Hall and Mrs. Freeman.”
“Who next?”

“Mrs. Barrett and her daughter.”
“You left last?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What time was it when you left?”

“About 19 minutes to 12 o’clock.”

“You couldn’t say accurately as to the time you left?”

“No, sir.”

“You went somewhere up town—we don’t care where—did you not?”

‘Yes, sir.”

“How long did you stay?”

“About 40 minutes.”

“And you came back to the factory about 12:30?”

“Yes, sir it was 12:30.”

“How do you know?”

“I looked at the clock that time.”

“Where did you say Frank was when you came back?”

“He was standing in front of the safe in the outer office.”

WHAT WAS FRANK DOING?

“What was he doing? Did he look like he was taking something out of the safe, or putting something into the safe?”

“He didn’t appear to be doing anything.”

“Was the safe door open?”

“Yes.”

“When the safe door is open, it closes up against the inside office door, does it not?”

“Yes.”

“When you spoke to Frank, where were you?”

“I was inside the office door and just behind Mr. Frank.”

“And he appeared startled?”

“Yes sir.”

“Acted as a person does when some one comes up on them unexpectedly?”

“Yes, sir; that’s what I thought.”

“You asked Frank if White still was upstairs?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What did Frank say?”
“He told me that he was, and suggested that I go on upstairs, which I did.”

“After a while Frank came up and asked your husband and Harry Denham if they had finished their work?”

“I don’t know, sir. I didn’t hear him ask that.”

“You heard him say to your husband if your wife wants to get out before 3 o’clock she’d better go pretty soon?”

“I’m not sure as to the exact words he used.”

WHAT FRANK SAID.

Here Mr. Rosser read from the statement which had been furnished to him by the witness: “If you wife wants to get out before I go to lunch,” read Mr. Rosser, “she’d better get out in a few minutes, for I’m going as soon as I get my hat and coat.”

Mrs. White said that was about the language used by Frank.

“You remained a few minutes after Frank went down?”

“Yes.”

“And when you came down to the office floor, you saw Frank at a table in the outer office, writing?”

“Yes.”

“You then went on down the steps to the street floor?”

“Yes.”

“As you came down, just where did you see the negro?”

“Between the stairway and the door.”

“Just what do you mean by between the stairway and the door? Between the front of the stairway and the door?”

“Yes.”

“How far from the front of the stairs?”

“About five or six feet.”

Attorney Rosser asked the witness to point out, on a blue print of the plant which he produced, the spot where she saw the negro. He brought from the witness a statement that she had talked with Solicitor Dorsey about two weeks after the tragedy.

Attorney Frank Hooper took up the re-direct examination.

“The negro was not sitting against the wall, was he?”

“No.”

DARLEY TESTIFIES.

The witness was excused. Solicitor Dorsey called Arthur White, who did not answer. He called Arthur Denham, who did not answer. Then he called N. V. Darley, who took the stand.

Mr. Darley stated that he has charge of the employes at the National Pencil factory. His immediate superior is Sig Montag. Darley is a co-worker and rated equally with Frank. Mr. Darley stated that he was in the factory on Saturday, April 26; that he left there about 9:40 a. m., and that he returned there the following day at 8:18 or 8:20 o’clock in the morning, and as he came in Mr. Frank came up.

“Did you observe anything unusual about Frank?” asked the solicitor.

“Not at first, but when we got into the elevator and he reached for the rope, I noticed that his hands were trembling. His hands still were trembling when he started to nail up the door in the basement. I took the hammer from him because his hands were trembling and he was nervous, and also because I could handle the hammer better.”

The statement that he thought he could handle the hammer better was ruled out after some discussion.

Darley said that he could not remember very well the conversations that morning. Asked specifically if he remembered Frank saying anything about coffee, he said:

“Yes, as we were starting away from the factory, he said that he had been called from home without any breakfast or coffee, and that they had taken him straight down to the undertaker’s into a dark room where they suddenly flashed on a light and he instantly saw the corpse, and that he was nervous. He said that he wouldn’t have been nervous if he’d had a chance to get some breakfast.”
The witness continued that he remembered that at 10 o’clock Frank telephoned to his home about getting his breakfast ready.

Darley was asked about the elevator. The key of the lock to the power box was in place, but the box was not locked that morning. He didn’t know where the key was. He saw Newt Lee that morning, he said, in answer to a question, and Lee seemed to be composed.

“What did Frank say with reference to the staple and the hasp?” asked the solicitor.

“Frank referred to the easy manner in which they could be pulled out and seemed to think that the crime was committed in the basement.”

The witness’ statement that Frank “seemed to think” the crime was committed in the basement, was ruled out.

Darley said that the staple in the back door looked like it had been pulled out before. It was black, he said, and usually when a staple is pulled out the first time it looks rather red.

“You said Frank intimated that the murder occurred in the basement. What were his words?” inquired the solicitor.

“I don’t remember.”

FRANK TALKED OF NERVOUSNESS.

“The day after this talk about coffee, did you talk with Frank about coffee again or his condition on that day?”

“Yes.”

“What did he say?”

“About the same thing.”

“Did he say next day anything about being nervous?”

“Yes.”
“How many times did you hear him explain, or try to explain, his nervousness?”

“Numerous times. I don’t remember the exact number.”

Mr. Dorsey asked permission to read to the jury a statement that Darley previously had made to him. Attorney Rosser objected. The solicitor contented himself with showing the statement to Mr. Darley to refresh his memory. He asked Darley this question after the witness had scanned the paper.

“Now what was more on Frank’s mind—the murder of the explanation of his nervousness?”

Attorney Rosser jumped to his feet. “That’ wont’ do!” he exclaimed. Judge Roan sustained the objection.

“I think I should be permitted to read this statement to the jury, your honor,” said Mr. Dorsey, addressing the court. A heated colloquy between attorneys followed. Attorney Arnold, seated, said: “He hasn’t made his usual showing, your honor, that he has been entrapped.”

“I don’t hesitate to do it,” replied Mr. Dorsey.

“You don’t hesitate to do anything,” said Mr. Arnold.

It appeared that Judge Roan ruled against reading the statement.

“How much of his body shook?” the solicitor inquired.

Darley answered that he couldn’t remember.

“Tell the truth about this statement,” admonished the solicitor.

Darley replied: “My words there are that he shook all over.”

“Is that true or not?”

Mr. Rosser objected. The solicitor had no right to cross-question his own witness, said Mr. Rosser. Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

“When and where was it that you first saw Frank shaking all over?”

HAND WAS TREMBLING.

“When we were going down in the elevator. He reached up to pull the rope, and his hand was trembling. I can’t say positively about his body, though.”

“Could Frank or not have driven the nails in the back door?”

“I guess he could, but I thought I could do it better.”

The solicitor showed Mr. Darley his statement and asked “What do you say now?”

“Just the same,” was the reply.

“How did Frank look Sunday morning?”

“Pale.”

“Can you or not say that he was upset?”

Attorney Rosser objected. “The solicitor can’t say ‘upset,’ your honor.” “Oh, yes, I can,” retorted the solicitor. “I guess the jury knows that ‘upset’ means. I’ll cite you some authorities on that.”

Solicitor Dorsey read several authorities tending to show that his questions were proper. One of these set out that it could be shown that a person was nervous, worried, excited, preoccupied, pale and that it was proper to develop evidence as to his movements, appearance, behavior and bearing.

Judge Roan interrupted, declaring: “That doesn’t touch the point we have up here now, Mr. Dorsey. The witness says that the defendant was nervous. He must show how and why he was nervous.”

QUESTION IS ALLOWED.

“Why does your honor select the word ‘nervous’?” inquired the solicitor. “’Upset’ is a term which is well understood by the members of this jury and I dare say by every one in this court room.”

“Go ahead and ask him the question,” directed the court.

“Mr. Darley,” commanded the solicitor, “just state to this jury whether or not Leo M. Frank appeared upset on that Monday morning, and if so why and how.”

The witness replied that he wouldn’t say as to that.

“Now, look here,” shouted the solicitor, as he advanced toward the witness with the latter’s written statement.

Attorney Rosser, jumping to his feet, declared “Your honor, he can’t do that. He can’t snarl at this witness. He mustn’t talk to this witness in that manner. This is his own witness, and he can’t dispute him.”

“Your honor,” answered the solicitor, “I’ve got a right to show by this witness Frank’s conduct and manner. I want to read you another decision, to show you that I’ve got that right.”

The solicitor then read a decision which was to the effect that it could be shown whether a person accused had appeared wild, whether he had shown satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and several other specific terms of conduct.

“Let him get the law!” shouted Mr. Rosser.

Before Solicitor Dorsey could send for the laws, Judge Roan addressing the solicitor said: “I don’t need the laws. I understand perfectly what can be done. You can’t ‘wild’ and stop there without explaining how and why.”

Addressing the witness, Solicitor Dorsey asked:

“Say whether or not on Sunday morning, April 27, Leo M. Frank looked upset. If so, why. State the reasons to the jury.”

Darley answered that Frank did appear upset. Solicitor Dorsey submitted the witness’ previous statement to him, and after he had read a paragraph indicated by the solicitor, the solicitor asked:

“Have you answered those questions now as you did before?”

“I object, your honor,” said Mr. Rosser. “He can’t ask the witness that question.”

Judge Roan sustained Mr. Rosser.

FRANK “DONE UP.”

The solicitor then put his question to the witness:

“Do you state whether or not Leo M. Frank was or was not completely done up? Whichever way you state, give your reasons.”

“Wait a minute!” spoke up Mr. Arnold. “’Done up’ might mean that he was dead. It might mean anything else. We object to that.”

“I’ll risk the jury on the meaning of that,” said the solicitor.

Attorney Rosser interrupted.

“Your honor,” said he, “will decide on risking the jury—not my friend Dorsey.”

The court permitted the solicitor to ask the question.

Darley replied, “He was partially done up. That’s as far as I can state now.”

“Why do you say ‘partially’?” asked the solicitor.

“Well, Mr. Frank was able to attend to some business around the factory, and if he had been completely done up he couldn’t have done that.”

“Did you take an automobile ride with Frank Sunday morning?”

“Yes. I went in an automobile with him to the station house.”

“Where did you sit in the automobile?”

“On the front seat besides Rogers, the driver.”

“Where did Frank sit?”

“He sat on my left knee.”

“Well, what was his condition then?”

“He was trembling and shaking.”

“Was Newt Lee in the automobile?”

“Yes.”

“Well, was Newt Lee composed or nervous?”

LEE’S TESTIMONY VALUELESS?

Attorney Rosser objected. The court previously had ruled out such a question. Judge Roan asked the solicitor if he insisted upon putting the question. Both Solicitor Dorsey and Attorney Hooper addressed the court, declaring the state’s willingness for everything to go out of the record about Newt Lee.

Attorney Rosser insisted that whatever was to be withdrawn from the record must be stated specifically. Jduge Roan directed the solicitor to sit down and draw up what he wished withdrawn from the record. The solicitor declared it would be impossible. It would be an interminable job, said he.

Attorney Rosser sought to explain to the court what questions with reference to Lee had been ruled out previously, stating that they applied to the negro’s condition—whether he was nervous or not. Solicitor Dorsey remarked that the state was perfectly willing for all reference to Lee being nervous to be stricken from the record.

“Your honor,” said Mr. Rosser, “It’s not a favor that they are conferring up on me, but it has at last dawned upon them that it is illegal.”

LEE’S TESTIMONY STANDS.

Attorney Hooper replied, addressing the court, “I don’t want it to go down in records, your honor, what my friend Rosser has just said in regard to it taking a long time for anything to dawn upon us. Mr. Rosser’s statement was one of criticism, and I don’t care for him to pass upon how long it takes anything to soak into my head.”

Mr. Hooper’s remarks were in the nature of a rebuke to Mr. Rosser. Nothing was done, however, by the court, and the trial proceeded. Mr. Dorsey seemed oblivious of Mr. Rosser’s criticism.

Judge Roan ruled out all references to Newt Lee’s demeanor during the trial of the case. This was done at the solicitor’s instance, by agreement of both sides. All questions brought answers regarding Newt Lee’s demeanor, and all answers to that effect, were ordered stricken from the records. The trial went on.

“Did you see the financial sheet Monday morning?”

“Yes. Frank picked it up and said something about it.”
“After Gantt was discharged, did he come to the factory?”

“Yes, once or twice.”

“Did you see Frank examine the financial sheet Sunday?”

“I think so. I know I looked at it.”

“When did Mr. Haas, the agent for the insurance company, come down to the factory?”

“About May 1.”

“When was the factory cleaned up after that?”

“May 3.”

The solicitor pointed to the spot on the diagram where the bloody stick is supposed to have been found, and asked if that area was cleaned up. Orders for a general cleaning had been given, answered the witness. He didn’t know anything about that particular area.

ARNOLD QUESTIONS DARLEY.

Attorney Arnold took up the cross-examination, asking who called Darley’s attention to the blood spots which Barrett claimed to have found.

“Lemmie Quinn.”

The state objected to Attorney Arnold’s use of the phrase “claimed to have been found.” Judge Roan sustained the objection.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness about the hair on the lathe. Darley said that he was shown six or eight hairs on a lathe which is about twenty feet from Mary’s machine. It was difficult to tell the color of the hair, he said.

“Barrett had be[e]n doing most of the discovering around the factory, hadn’t he?” asked Mr. Arnold.

The state objected. Attorney Arnold said: “We want to show that Barrett is a monomaniac on this subject; that he buys all the extras, and is working for a reward.” After some discussion, the state’s objection was sustained and the question ruled out.

“Who showed you the hair, then?” asked Mr. Arnold.

“Quinn, Barrett and The Journal reporter,” answered the witness.

Mr. Arnold asked about the blood spots.

The witness described them as looking to him like blood spots, with a white smear over them.

“Did Barrett say he was working for a reward?” asked Arnold.

The state objected and Attorney Arnold said: “We simply want to show, your honor, that Christopher Columbus wasn’t in it with this Barrett.” The state’s objection was sustained by Judge Roan.

“Were you there when Barrett said he found a piece of pay envelope under Mary Phagan’s machine?” asked Mr. Arnold.

PAY ENVELOPES COMMON.

The witness said he was not there. The pay envelope was shown to the witness, who in answer to questions said that about 175 similar envelopes were used in the factory every week. Most of them were thrown around. It was a rule that if an inaccuracy was found by an employe in his pay envelope after he left the factory, he could not recover anything.

Pay envelopes generally were thrown away on the second floor, he said. Attorney Arnold asked the witness if he remembered seeing Frank take out the slip from the time clock Sunday morning. Yes, he did, said the witness.

He looked over Frank’s shoulder at the slip, and then thought himself that it was incorrect. The time slip was exhibited to him, and he showed how Frank ran his finger down the side on which the numbers were.

The witness stated that there were no breaks although there were lapses of time, and that because there were no breaks he at first glance thought that the clock had been punched regularly and correctly.

EXPLAINS TIME SLIP.

At this point Juror Johenning said that he wanted to ask a question. The juror asked the witness to go further into his explanation about the time slip. Standing by the jury box with the slip in his hand, Darley went over the matter again, detailing how the lapses in time occurred without a break in the space.

Attorney Arnold asked the witness if the financial sheet for that week had been made out in Frank’s own writing. The witness said yes.

Attorney Hooper objected to any questions about the financial sheet, saying that it would be the best evidence about itself.

Attorney Arnold retorted: “You needn’t be afraid we won’t introduce evidence.”

This was the first intimation from the defense as to whether it would introduce evidence.

Attorney Arnold had the witness go into the different details covered by the financial sheet, his purpose being to show the amount of work, expert work, to make out the sheet. Darley said that it required such expert work that there hadn’t been a financial sheet made out since Frank left the factory, although it was custom to have them made every week.

Darley continued that Frank usually started on the financial sheet about 2:30 o’clock on Saturday and finished it about 5:30 or later. When shown the sheet, he declared that it was all in Frank’s handwriting. No work had been done on it when he left the factory about 9:40 o’clock.

Mr. Arnold asked the witness how the handwriting by Frank on the financial sheet in evidence, compared with Frank’s handwriting on previous financial sheets.

WANTED COMPARISON.

Solicitor Dorsey objected on the ground that the previous sheets themselves were the best possible evidence, and that Darley was no handwriting expert and therefore was not competent.

The solicitor read a section of the Georgia code to support that view.

There followed a twenty-minute argument on this question, in which all four of the principal attorneys at various times took the floor. Attorney Hooper, in one of his arguments, said that the defense had no right to show this sheet to the jury without showing previous sheets so that the jury itself could compare them. “You need have no fear, Mr. Hooper,” said Mr. Arnold. “They’ll be introduced at the proper time.”

At the conclusion of this questioning, Judge Roan withheld his decision until he could look up authorities in the matter.

Attorney Arnold questioned the witness on the various items in the financial sheet and the calculations. Darley said that it was necessary in computing the sheet to go into each individual item on the sheeet.

At the conclusion of this questioning, the solicitor asked, “Are you through with him, Mr. Arnold?”

“Oh, no, no,” replied Mr. Arnold. “We haven’t got a good start with him yet.”

“On Sunday you were in the pencil factory, were you not?” continued Mr. Arnold, addressing the witness.

“Yes.”

“Detective Starnes was there, wasn’t

“Yes.”

“He went through the factory with you, didn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“Forty or fifty people were in that building on Sunday, were there not?”

“Not Sunday. My recollection is that there were six or eight there.”

“Did you go down into the basement?”

“Yes.”

“There was a great deal of excitement, wasn’t there?”

“Yes.”

“You were excited, weren’t you?”

EVERYBODY EXCITED.

“Yes.”

“Everybody was excited.”

Solicitor Dorsey objected. Attorney Arnold argued the point. The defense had the right to show the state of mind of everybody else in the factory, in order to compare it with Frank’s conduct. He spoke of Frank’s having missed his breakfast and his coffee that morning, and remarked, “Everybody that drinks coffee knows that when an habitual user misses his usual drink he is unnerved.” The policemen were excited, said he. “I think I have the right to show that Frank manifested merely natural excitement. This young man was superintendent of the factory, and a little girl had been murdered there. It was no more than natural to assume that he had been perturbed. The state seems to be basing its whole prosecution on whether or not Frank was excited on the morning the body was discovered. This is a question which never should have been admitted to the case.”

Attorney Rosser followed Mr. Arnold with argument upon the point. “Let me tell you what I saw once,” said he. “We had a riot here some years ago. I saw 200 men and they were all excited. Now suppose they tried me for lunacy and told of my excitement—said that I made a fool of myself. Would you hold that I couldn’t say that anybody else around me was excited?”

Solicitor Dorsey argued the point from the state’s standpoint. “They’ve gone on record that you couldn’t take up the deportment of Lee and compare it with that of Frank,” said he. “They objected to our doing that, and they got it into the records. I want to know how far this is going to continue. Are you going to open the flood gates and show the deportment of every man who went into the factory, when the only question at issue is the deportment of Frank?”

Attorney Arnold asked Darley what was the condition of the other people around the factory that morning.

Solicitor Dorsey immediately renewed the objection.

Attorney Rosser declared: “This jury won’t know but that Frank was the sole man who was nervous that morning. The jury wont’ know that my friend Starnes, sleuth that he is, and that son of the Emerald Isle, Pat Campbell, were excited when they looked on that girl’s body. Are you going to take this young man and show how it affected him, and close the mouths of all these other witnesses?”

ROSSER’S WARNING.

“Your honor, I want to impress on you that a misstep here would vitiate this whole trial.”

A moment later Mr. Rosser repeated this statement—taken to mean conclusively that the defense is laying its foundations for an appeal.

Solicitor Dorsey arose.

“If there is any doubt in your honor’s mind,” said the solicitor, “about this matter. I have here a number of decisions. This question they are seeking to put is simply a dragnet proposition. They want to run them all in on it.” The solicitor read two or three decisions to sustain his contention.

“Wouldn’t it be monstrous, your honor, to go outside of this trial and this evidence, and run in everybody and anybody to show that they may or may not have been nervous. The one point to be made before this jury is as to whether or not the defendant was nervous. At the insistence of the defense, the state already has agreed and your honor has ruled that a similar question applying to Newt Lee should be withdrawn from the record.”

“I adhere to my former ruling,” said Judge Roan.

Attorney Arnold arose.

“I purpose to prove by this witness, your honor, that he himself was excited and nervous, and that the others present were nervous and excited.”

“Perhaps that’s a different question,” said the Judge. “I thought you wanted to go out and bring in others who were not present. If you want to show that he and others were excited from the same cause that might be a different proposition.”

Judge Roan asked the solicitor if he renewed his objection.

“I most certainly do, your honor,” answered the solicitor.

Judge Roan announced that he would hold to his former ruling.

Resuming his cross-examination of the witness, Attorney Arnold asked:

“Isn’t it a fact that there are a good many spots on the metal room floor, and that you have seen spots there from time to time.?”

“Yes, I’ve seen spots all over the factory.”

“Red spots and dark spots?”

“Yes.”

ABOUT RED SPOTS.

“How long have you worked in factories?”

“Twenty-four years.”

“Large numbers of women worked in these factories?”

“Yes.”
“Isn’t it a usual and frequent fact that blood spots are found around the women’s dressing rooms and closets?”

“This is a well known fact?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve seen such spots at this factory?”

“Yes.”

“You nailed up the back door. Why did you do that?”

“Because the staple had been pulled out.”

“You did so because you had had more experience in that line than Frank, did you not?”

“Yes, that was one reason, and Frank was nervous, too.”

“Frank wore a brown suit on Saturday?”

“Yes.”

“And on Monday he wore the same brown suit?”

“Yes.”

“Were you accustomed to see him on Sundays?”

“No.”

“Then you couldn’t tell what kind of clothes he wore usually on Sundays?”

“No.”

“He wore a different one the Sunday you saw him at the factory?”

“Yes.”

“But you don’t know about his Sunday clothes?”

“No.”

“Well, on Monday did you observe any spots on the brown suit worn by Frank then and on Saturday?”

“No, sir.”

FRANK NOT SCRATCHED.

“Did you observe any scratches or bruises on his face or hands?”

“I didn’t see any.”

“Saturday morning when you came to the factory, Frank was there, was he not?”

“Yes.”

“Whom else did you find there?”

“Mattie Smith, one of the employes, was in the office. She came for her own and her sister-in-law’s pay. She found that her sister-in-law’s time was wrong. Frank told her to wait a little while and he would straighten it out, that he didn’t want to get his cash out of balance. The girl gave me back the money when she found it was wrong. The mistake was made on account of the similarity of the two girls’ names. Mattie Smith’s sister-in-law was named Mamie Smith, and Mamie’s pay had been put in Mattie’s envelope. Frank corrected this mistake. Then the girl called my attention to the fact that we had promised to raise Mamie’s pay, but hadn’t done it. I told her we would straighten this out next week.”

WHY MATTIE SMITH CRIED.

“I asked her how her father was. She replied that ‘He is dying, I think.’ I assisted her from the office down the stairs to the street door. She was crying. She asked me if the office would aid her in the matter of funeral expenses for her father. I sought to console and [1 word illegible] her. I told her we would do whatever we could for her, and advised her not to worry about her sister-in-law’s time.”

Attorney Arnold inquired, “What time was it when Mattie Smith left the factory?”

“About 9:20 o’clock,” the witness answered.

“Then you went back upstairs to the office?”

“Yes.

“What time was it Frank went to Montag Brothers?”

“About 9:40 o’clock. We went out together. We stopped at a soda fountain a short distance up the street, and got a drink. Afterward Frank went on to Montag’s and I didn’t see him again until next morning.”

“Was the elevator locked or unlocked on Sunday morning?”

“It was unlocked, but the lock was in place.”

“Could anybody have started the elevator?”

“Yes.”

“Does the same motor that drives the elevator drive the saw?”

“Yes.”

“Do both the elevator and the saw run at the same time?”

“Yes, unless the belt to the saw is thrown off.”

“When the elevator is running, it makes a great deal of noise, does it not?”

ELEVATOR’S NOISE.

“Yes, it makes a great deal of noise, but not as loud when it starts as when it stops at the bottom.”

“About these cords, Mr. Darley—they can be found all over the factory, can’t they, from the basement to the top?”

“Yes, sir.”

“They frequently are swept up into the trash, are they not?”

“Yes, sir. I often make complaints about that.”

“A great deal of waste is gathered up in the factory, is it not?”

“Yes, sir, several truck loads every day.”

“When was it you say the factory was cleaned up?”

“It was given a special cleaning on May 3, but it was given a general cleaning on the Tuesday after the murder.”

“There are many crevices and corners that haven’t been cleaned yet, aren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How long is the factory building?”

“Between 150 and 200 feet, I should say.”

“And it’s about 70 to 100 feet wide?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The factory is an extremely dirty place, is it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“In some places the gum and dirt is about an inch thick, is it not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And it’s about one-eighth of an inch thick in some places on the metal room floor?”

“Yes.”

“Isn’t it dark on the first floor and in the basement?”

“It is very dark in the basement, and quite dark on the first floor when the front doors are closed?”

“Is it dark around the wall on the first floor near the radiator?”

“Yes, sir; especially so on cloudy days.”

“What kind of a day was it on April 26?”

“It was very dark and misty all day.”

“What was on the first floor on that day?”

“A dozen or more large empty boxes were piled there.”

“There were plenty of places for a man to hide in those boxes, weren’t there?”

“Yes, sir.”

“There’s not so much light on the second floor, between the time clocks and the metal room doors, is there?”

“No, sir.”

“Well, how is it in the little walkway off to the left from the metal room?”

“It is very dark.”

“From Frank’s private office at the desk, you can’t see the steps, can you?”

“No.”

“How far is it from his office to the metal room?”

“About 100 feet.”

“Can the doors to the metal room be locked?”

“No.”

“Behind this dressing room, what is there?”

“It’s used as a storeroom for worthless stock, and also there are three or four vats in there.”

In answer to questions, the witness said that a person practically could have the run of the factory without being seen from Frank’s office.

“How did you happen to go to Solicitor Dorsey’s office?”

“Twice I was served with subpoenas and once he phoned for me.”

“Did you know that he had no right to subpoena you?”

“Not then.”

“Did you know that those subpoenas were not worth the paper they were written on?”

“I since have heard so.”

“The first time you went to his office, who was there?”

“Chief Lanford, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dorsey and the stenographer.”

“Did they all ask you questions?”

“All but the stenographer. One of them would ask a question sometimes before I could finish my answer to another’s question.”

“Who was there the second time?”

“Mr. Dorsey, Detectives Starnes and Campbell and a stenographer. Then I was questioned only by Mr. Dorsey.”

“Is Frank a man of a nervous temperament?”

FRANK’S NERVOUS TEMPERAMENT.

“Yes, whenever the smallest thing went wrong at the factory he would get very nervous and upset, and would go about rubbing his hands. I’ve seen him do it a thousand times.”

The witness said that he considers his own nerves good; that he would take charge when Frank became nervous. Darley was shown the notes found by Mary Phagan’s body. Scratch paper like that on which one of the notes was written was to be found generally through the factory, said he, as many of the tablets were used.

Order blank paper like that on which the second note was written often was thrown on the floor and swept up in the rubbish, he said. The witness said that despite orders, the time clock door was unlocked on Saturday, and that anyone who understood the clock could have made regular punches for a whole night within five minutes. Darley said that he had seen Wade Campbell, a man named Lynes, and a man Irby, at the factory on Saturday.

At this point, at 12:20 o’clock, Judge Roan announced recess of the court until 2 o’clock.

ROAN REVERSES RULING.

Immediately after convening court Friday afternoon Judge L. S. Roan announced that during the noon recess he had given due consideration to two points raised during the morning, on one of which he had ruled and on the other of which he had reversed his ruling.

At the morning session Solicitor Dorsey objected to a question put by the defense to Darley, saying that Darley could not testify as to whether or not the handwriting by Frank on the financial sheet produced in evidence was like that on previous financial sheets drawn by Frank; that the other sheets themselves were the best evidence.

On that point, said Judge Roan, he ruled that Darley could not testify unless he qualified as a handwriting expert; that the defense would have to introduce the other writings and allow those writings to speak for themselves to the jury.

On the second point, Judge Roan said, he reversed his ruling. That point was on an objection by the state that the defense should not be allowed to show the mental condition of others than Frank in the factory on Sunday morning, April 27. Judge Roan ruled with the solicitor at the morning session. This was the ruling which he reversed, giving his decision instead to the contention of the defense.

N. V. Darley, general manager at the National Pencil factory, resumed the stand at the afternoon session, the defense resuming its cross-questioning of him.

“At my request, did you look over the pencil factory during the noon hour?” began Mr. Arnold.

“Yes, sir.”

DIAGRAM INACCURATE.

“I want you to state whether or not there are any inaccuracies in this drawing. If so, tell me what they are.”

Darley took Mary Phagan’s parasol as a pointer and pointed to the stairway at the rear of the basement leading to the first floor, and said: “These steps are too short. The incline is seventeen feet. Apparently this isn’t the correct proportion.”

“What is the space between the wall of the elevator shaft and Frank’s office?”

“It’s five feet.”

“How wide is the elevator shaft?”

“About ten feet.”

“Well, isn’t the space on this diagram between the walls of the elevator shaft and Frank’s office almost as wide as the elevator shaft itself?”

“Yes.”

“Then the drawing is out of proportion, is it?”

“Yes.”

“Anybody coming down the steps between the second floor and the third floor of the building has a full view of the time clock?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Anybody coming down these stairs could see anybody in the metal room, couldn’t he?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you ever see Frank as nervous as previously as on the morning of the murder?”

FRANK USUALLY NERVOUS.

“Yes, sir. One day he saw a little girl run down by a street car, and he was so nervous that he couldn’t work on his books.”

“Frank is of an extremely nervous temperament, isn’t he?”

“Hardly a day goes by that he does not become nervous.”

“Was everybody nervous around the pencil factory Sunday morning?”

“Yes.”

“Were you nervous?”

“Yes. I didn’t tremble though.”

“Mr. Darley, I want to call your attention to another mistake in this picture. Isn’t the bottom of the ladder leading from the first floor into the basement closer to the elevator than this diagram shows?”

“The distance between the bottom of the ladder and the elevator shaft is six feet.”

“Doesn’t it appear to be more in this drawing? Doesn’t it look as if it was as far as the width of the elevator shaft?”

“Almost as far.”

Atlanta Georgian
August 1^st, 1913

Lawyers Wrangle Over Frank’s Nervousness

DORSEY WINS POINT AS ROSSER BATTLES TO DEFEND ACCUSED

Jim Conley, accuser of Leo Frank, will take the stand Saturday morning, according to all indications Friday, to repeat the remarkable story he told concerning his part in the disposition of the body of Mary Phagan and undergo the merciless grilling of the defense.

Solicitor General Dorsey said that he expected to have his case completed by Saturday night and police, believing he will call the negro to-morrow, had him shaved and cleaned up and in readiness for his appearance.

Regardless of statements by defense and State, it is generally conceded that the Frank trial will reach its crux in Conley’s appearance, and that on his story and whether it stands up or not under the first of the defense, will rest the outcome of the trial.

Objections by Attorney Hooper, assistant to Solicitor Dorsey, to questions put to N. V. Darley by Attorney Arnold about the contents of the financial sheet made out by Leo Frank developed the fact that the defense would introduce evidence in rebuttal.

Defense to Introduce Evidence.

“We will introduce this sheet and plenty of other evidence,” said Mr. Arnold. “You need not worry about that.”

“That is just what I was after,” remarked Mr. Hooper, aside. “I wanted to find out whether the defense intended to introduce evidence.”

It had been rumored around the courthouse that the defense might rest its case at the completion of the submission of evidence by the State. Mr. Arnold’s statement is taken to mean that Leo Frank himself will be placed on the stand.

Luther Z. Rosser, chief of counsel for Frank, declared Friday that the ruling of Judge Roan against the admissibility of the evidence that persons other than Frank were nervous and excited the Sunday morning after the crime might vitiate the entire trial.

He intimated strongly after Judge Roan refused to change his ruling that a new trial would be asked on a writ of error in the event of Frank’s conviction.

Arnold, in arguing for the admission of Darley’s testimony that other persons at the factory, as well as Frank, were nervous and distrait, got before the jury that it was hardly to be wondered at that Frank, aroused from his bed and told of a shocking crime at his factory, should be agitated, pale and nervous.

Calls Barrett Monomaniac.

Referring to the discoveries of R. P. Barrett, Arnold came out boldly and declared that it was his purpose to show Barrett a monomaniac who continually was turning up evidence, and who very likely was hunting for the rewards offered.

Darley testified that scores of pay envelopes like the one found by Mary Phagan’s machine were scattered about the factory every week, and that it was most common to find them in any part of the factory. He said that he looked over the time tape with Leo Frank Sunday morning and made the same error that Frank did, believing at the time that the punches had been made correctly. The tape was shown to the jury to prove how the mistake might have been made.

Judge Roan ruled out testimony as to the conduct and appearance of other persons than Frank at the factory Sunday morning.

The defense played one of its strong cards in behalf of Leo M. Frank when it secured from Darley, manufacturing head of the plant and State’s witness, evidence that the prisoner performed three hours of the most intricate mathematical work just after the time the prosecution claims Mary Phagan was slain.

This, the defense brought out, required an exceedingly clear mind.

Frank Nervous After Crime.

Darley also gave startling testimony as to Frank’s nervous and upset condition on the two days following the murder of Mary Phagan.

The statements of Darley came as a complete surprise. The nature of the testimony had been carefully guarded by the Solicitor.

Darley declared that he and Frank arrived at the factory at about the same time Sunday morning, April 27, and that at first noticed Frank’s nervousness when he saw the factory superintendent’s hand tremble violently when he grasped the elevator rope to run the elevator down into the basement.

“When we got down to the basement,” continued Darley, “and Frank started to nail up the back door, I saw that his hands were trembling and I took the hammer and nailed up the door myself, because I thought I could do it better than he could.”

Darley also told that when he rode with Frank to the police station Monday, Frank sat on his knee.

“I could perceive that his whole body was trembling and shaking,” said Darley. “I noticed it all of the way to the station house.”

Club Not Found in Clean-Up.

Solicitor Dorsey asked Darley about a general clean-up ordered by a general insurance inspector who visited the factory April 28. Darley replied that the factory had been cleaned on the first and second floors on or before May 3.

Dorsey then called for the bloody club that was said to have been found on the first floor May 15 near where Jim Conley was sitting. Dorsey threw it down with a clatter by the chair of the witness.

“Was any club of this sort turned up during the cleaning process?” shouted Dorsey.

“No,” the witness replied.

“And was not this a thorough cleaning?” the Solicitor asked.

“It was a general cleaning,” replied Darley.

Frank Explains Nervousness.

Darley said that Frank later explained his nervousness of Sunday by saying that he had not had any breakfast and that he had just looked upon the body of the dead girl at the morgue. The witness added that Frank did not appear completely upset Monday, as he was able to transact a number of business affairs.

Darley, in spite of his testimony, which will be interpreted by the State as incriminating against Frank, probably was as valuable a witness for the defense as he was for the prosecution. It was under the skillful questioning of Attorney Reuben Arnold, who had begun to take a more active part in the cross-examinations than he had at first, that Darley told of the intricate work that Frank did on the afternoon of April 26 after the time the State claims that Frank murdered the Phagan girl.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of one of the employees of the National Pencil Factory, who declared she saw a negro hiding behind some boxes on the first floor of the plant on the day Mary Phagan was killed, was the first witness called Friday.

The State with her testimony began […]

CONLEY, SWEEPER, LIKELY TO BE LAST WITNESS FOR STATE

Frank Startled When Woman Came Upon Him Suddenly in His Office

BARRING OF TESTIMONY ON NERVOUSNESS OF FACTORY EMPLOYEES HIT BY ROSSER

[…] to pave the way for the appearance of Conley, who, it is believed, would be the last witness to be called by Solicitor Dorsey, as he would be the most spectacular.

The first witness said her husband had been working at the National Pencil plant about two years.

Tells of Going to Factory.

Q. What is your husband’s name?—A. John Arthur White.

Q. Where does he work?—A. At the National Pencil Factory. He has worked there about two years.

Q. Where was he April 26?—A. At the pencil factory.

Q. Did you go to the pencil factory that day?—A. Yes; about 11 o’clock.

Q. Did you see Frank?—A. Yes; he was in his outside office.

Q. What did you say to him?—A. I told him I wanted to see Mr. White.

Q. What did he say?—A. He asked me if I was his wife. He said he thought so, as I looked like the Campbells.

Q. Did you see your husband?—A. Yes; he sent for him.

Q. Did you go upstairs at 11:30 a. m.?—A. No.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About ten minutes to 12.

Says Frank Jumped.

Q. What time did you come back?—A. About 12:30.

Q. Whom did you see?—A. I saw Mr. Frank standing at the safe in his office.

Q. What happened then?—A. I asked him if I could see Mr. White. As I spoke to him he jumped.

Q. What did you do then?—A. I went upstairs to see Mr. White.

Q. Did you see anybody else in the office except Denham, White and Mr. Frank?—A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see anyone else as you came down?—A. I saw a negro.

Q. Where?—A. He was sitting on a box near the stairway that leads up to the second floor.

Q. Where did you see Frank the last time?—A. In his outside office.

Q. Where was your husband and Denham at work?—A. On the fourth floor.

Said She Had Better Go.

Q. What were they doing?—A. Working on a machine with a hammer.

Q. When did you first hear the hammer?—A. When I got on the fourth floor.

Q. Did you see Frank again before you left?—A. He came up on the fourth floor.

Q. Did anybody say anything about your going up to the fourth floor?—A. Yes; Frank told me to go up there.

Q. What time did Frank come to the fourth floor?—A. Some time before 1 o’clock.

Q. Where were you at 1 o’clock?—A. At McDonald’s furniture store.

Q. Why did you leave before 1 o’clock?—A. Mr. Frank said, “Arthur, if your wife wants to get out before 3 o’clock she had better leave now. I will go as soon as I get my hat and coat.”

Frank in Office as She Left.

Q. When you came down, did you see Mr. Frank?—A. Yes; when I went down he was sitting in his office.

Q. Did he have on his hat and coat as if he were going out?—A. No.

Q. What was he doing?—A. Writing.

Q. Could your husband and Denham see the stairway from upstairs where they were working?—A. No.

Rosser took the witness on cross-examination.

Mrs. White, you talked about this matter to Mr. Arnold and myself, didn’t you? You told us you left the factory about 1 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. You don’t mean to change your statement by saying it was ten minutes to 1 when you left, do you?—A. I can’t say exactly what time it was, but I know it was about 1 o’clock.

Q. You left there the first time about 11:30 o’clock?—A. Yes.

Q. Who were there?—A. Two men, Mr. Frank and a stenographer.

Q. Your father and your brother are old employees there, aren’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. By whom did he send word to your husband that you were there?—A. Miss Emma Freeman.

Q. How long was it before your husband came?—A. About five minutes.

Q. Who else was there?—A. Miss Hall, Miss Freeman, Mrs. May Barrett and her daughter.

Q. You came back to the factory about 12:30, didn’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. How accurate are you about that?—A. I looked at the clock.

Q. How close were you to Mr. Frank before you spoke?—A. I was in the office door just behind him.

Q. He jumped and you thought he was surprised?—A. Yes, that’s what I thought then.

Q. When he told your husband he was going to leave, he said you had better go pretty soon?—A. He said I had better go now.

Q. You did wait a few minutes?—A. Yes.

Q. Just where did you see the darky as you went out?—A. Between the stairway?—A. Five or six feet.

Q. What do you mean—between the foot of the stairway and the door?—A. Yes.

Q. How far from the foot of the stairway?—A. Five or six feet.

Mr. Rosser took a blueprint to explain the position in which she saw the negro.

Q. How long after this was it that you talked with Mr. Dorsey about seeing this negro? Wasn’t it four or five days?—A. No, sir; about two weeks.

Mrs. White left the stand. Arthur White, her husband, was called, but failed to answer his name. M. V. Darley, assistant superintendent at the National Pencil Factory, was called.

Darley on Stand.

Q. What is your business?—A. Assistant superintendent at the National Pencil Factory. I have charge of the manufacturing plant.

Q. Who is your superior?—A. I considered Sig Montag.

Q. You and Frank worked together, didn’t you?—A. Yes.

Q. Were you at the factory Saturday, April 26?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you leave?—A. About 9:40.

Q. When were you there again?—A. Sunday morning about 8:10 or 8:20.

Q. Why did you go there?—A. Mrs. Frank called me.

Rosser objected.

“I object to anything Mrs. Frank said. She can’t be used as a witness,” he said.

“Your honor, we have already shown that Frank told his wife to call this man,” said Solicitor Dorsey.

“If that’s all you want to show, I withdraw my objection,” said Rosser.

Q. What time did Frank call at the factory?—A. Shortly after I did.

Q. Did you notice anything unusual about Frank?—A. When he reached out his hand to start the elevator, it was trembling. And again when he went to nail up the back door, he was so nervous he couldn’t do it, and I did it for him.

Said Body Made Him Nervous.

Q. What, if anything, did Frank say?—A. I don’t remember. He said something about having on a new suit of clothes, or something.

Q. Did he say anything about not having breakfast?—A. He said he hadn’t had his breakfast and wanted a cup of coffee.

Q. Did he say anything about being nervous?—A. Yes; he said they took him by Bloomfield’s and into a dark room, where they turned on the light suddenly and he saw the girl. He said it made him nervous.

Q. Were you there when Newt Lee was?—A. Yes.

Q. Was Lee nervous?—A. No; he was composed.

Q. Did Frank say anything about the murder?—A. He was under the impression the murder occurred in the basement.

Q. Did he say anything about the lock and staple?—A. Yes; he said it looked like it was mighty easily pulled.

Staple Easily Pulled.

Q. Did you observe anything about the staple?—A. Yes; it looked as if it had been taken out easily.

Q. Did you see Frank again?—A. Yes, the following day.

Q. Did he say anything about his nervousness of the day before?—A. Yes; he said something, but I have forgotten.

“Your honor,” said Dorsey, “I would like to refresh the witness’ memory by reading his previous statement.”

“You can only show it to him,” answered Judge Roan.

Dorsey showed Darley the affidavit.

Q. Just tell everything you heard Frank say about the murder.—A. I don’t remember.

“Your honor, I would like to read this,” said Dorsey.

Forgets Vital Evidence.

Rosser and Arnold objected.

“He will have to make the usual showing that he was entrapped your honor,” said Arnold.

“He is trying ot [sic] bring in evidence from the outside,” said Rosser.

“You can’t read it, Mr. Dorsey,” said Judge Roan.

“My friend Dorsey would show anything, your honor,” said Rosser. “Nothing’s too good for him.”

Q. State to the jury how much of Frank’s body was nervous?—A. That is a pretty hard question.

“Look at this,” said Dorsey, showing him an affidavit.

“I said there he was shaking all over,” said the witness.

Rosser objected.

Judge Roan asked the witness if he was making that statement now.

Darley’s Replies Guarded.

“Judge, that’s a very hard question for me,” answered Darley. “He reached up to get the ropes, and his hands were shaking very much.”

Darley appeared very reluctant to answer any question that might incriminate Frank.

Q. Who nailed up the back door of the basement?—A. I did.

Q. Was Frank able to do it?—A. He was able to do it, I think, but he was nervous.

Q. How did Frank’s face appear on the second floor?—A. It was very pale.

Q. Was he upset when you got to the factory?

Rosser objected, but was overruled.

A. I can’t say he was completely upset.

“Now, look here,” said Dorsey, walking toward the witness with his affidavit.

“Your honor,” interrupted Rosser, “he can’t speak to the witness in that nasal tone. It is his witness. He can’t cross-question him.”

“That’s right,” ruled the judge.

“But,” said Mr. Rosser, “your Honor has not been enforcing that ruling.”

“I am going to enforce it,” replied Judge Roan.

“That’s [several words illegible] you to do now,” returned Mr. Rosser.

Mr. Dorsey put his question again.

A. He was somewhat upset, but did some things around the factory that he could not have done if he had been completely upset.

State Wins Clash.

Q. Was he done up?

“I object,” broke in Mr. Arnold. “He may mean that he was dead by ‘done up’.”

“Leave it to the jury to decide what is meant by ‘done up’.” said Dorsey.

“It isn’t for you to decide what is to go before the jury,” retorted Rosser. “That is for the judge.”

Judge Roan ruled the question was admissible.

A. He was partially done up but not completely.

Q. Why do you say that?—A. He did some things he could not have done if he had been wholly done up.”

Q. Who was with yo on the way to the police station?—A. I got in an automobile. I afterward learned that it was run by “Boots” Rogers. Mr. Frank sat on my knee.

Q. What was his condition?—A. He was trembling all over.

Q. To what extent?—A. He was sitting on my knee and I could feel his body shaking.

Q. What was the condition of Newt Lee?

“I object,” said Rosser. “I have been objecting to this line of testimony all along. If your Honor permits this question to be asked, I want to be recorded as protesting.”

“Do you insist on the question?” asked Judge Roan of Solicitor Dorsey.

Dorsey and Hooper conferred.

“I am willing to strike out all reference, to Newt Lee’s condition,” said Dorsey.

Attorneys Exchange Courtesies.

“I am glad it has finally dawned on my brothers that these questions are illegal,” said Rosser. “I have been trying to get them to see and I am glad to say the light finally has dawned upon them.”

“Your Honor,” interrupted Hooper, “I object to Mr. Rosser’s statement, about how long it takes anything to soak into my head. A reference to Newt Lee’s attitude was made the other day. We see the object of these objections is to lead into a large field of investigation. We want to strike it all out.”

Dorsey continued questioning the witness.

Q. Did you attend to any business Monday?—A. There wasn’t much work to do.

Q. Did you see the financial sheet Monday?—A. Yes.

Q. Did Frank say anything about the financial sheet Monday?—A. Yes, Mr. Frank called my attention to it.

Q. What did he say, and at what time?—A. I don’t recall the conversation, but it was about 9 o’clock.

Q. Did Gantt ever come to the factory after he was discharged?—A. Yes.

Ordered Factory Clean.

Q. Did Frank say anything about it?—A. I don’t recall.

Q. Did Mr. Haas, the insurance man, come to the factory Monday or Tuesday?—A. He did.

Q. What did he do?—A. He ordered us to clean up the factory in a general way.

Q. What time did you clean up the main floor?—A. May 3.

Q. Did you know anything about the finding of this club? (The witness was handed a heavy stick.)—A. No.

Q. Do you know whether it was found before or after the cleaning up?—A. Afterward—about May 15.

Arnold here took up the cross-examination.

Q. Did you see any spots on the floor?—A. Yes, in the dressing room.

Q. Who showed them to you?—A. Quinn.

Calls Barrett a “Columbus.”

Q. Where was the hair found?—A. On the handle of the lathe.

Q. How was it?—A. Wound around the lathe.

Q. Did Mr. Barrett find it?—A. Yes.

Q. How many strands of hair were there?—A. Not over six.

Q. Barrett has been doing most of the discovering around there, hasn’t he?

“I object,” said Dorsey. “The question is immaterial.”
“I want to show that this man Barrett was a monomaniac,” said Arnold.

Judge Roan ruled: “You can show that this man was more than ordinarily interested.”

Q. Do you recall Barrett stating he was working for a reward?—A. I don’t recall.

Dorsey: “I object.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I have ruled that he can show that to prove interest.”

“I want to show that his man was a regular Christopher Columbus.”

Q. Do you know who Barrett made this statement to?—A. No.

Q. Is this a pay envelope?—A. Yes.

Pay Envelopes Common.

Q. Are they thrown all over the factory?—A. Yes. We have a rule that if there is any mistake in the pay roll it had to be reported before the employee left.

Q. They are very common in the metal room?—Yes.

Q. Were you present Sunday morning when Frank took out the time slip?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you see him run his finger down the time slip?—A. Yes. He ran his finger down the number side. I was looking over his shoulder.

Q. Is there a row of figures down the number side?—A. Yes.

Q. Did Frank say anything?—A. Yes. He said they were all punched and I verified it.

Q. How did you do it?—A. Just lo[o]king at the numbers. We would have noticed a skip in the time.

Juror Asks Question.

Attorney Arnold addressed the court:

“Your honor, a juror wants to ask a question, but Mr. Hooper objects.”

“I don’t object to his asking the question, but I do object to Mr. Arnold giving the answer,” said Mr. Hooper.

Juror Marcellus Johemming asked Darley to explain the time clock system, which Darley did.

Arnold took up the financial sheet.

Q. What did Frank say about the financial sheet?

“I object,” said Hooper. “He can ask him about the sheet, provided it is later put in evidence.”

“We will put it in all right,” said Arnold, “and plenty of other evidence. You need not worry about that.”

Q. When was the financial sheet made up?—A. Saturday afternoon.

Q. You were interested?—A. Yes, it was my duty to see it. It dealt with the cost of production.

Q. What time was it made up—that is, what day of the week did it show last?—A. Thursday.

Financial Sheet Introduced.

Q. Who makes it up now?—A. One has not been made out since Mr. Frank left?

Q. How long did it usually take him to make it out?—A. Always from about 2:30 or 3 until 5 o’clock.

Q. Look at this and tell me if this is the sheet you found on his desk Sunday morning?—A. Yes.

Q. How does it compare with his regular handwriting?

Dorsey objected.

“I object, your honor,” he said. “The writing is the best evidence.”

Q. I want to ask you are you familiar with Mr. Frank’s writing?—A. Yes, I have been seeing it about five years.

Q. Now, I want to ask you one question, but don’t answer until we get a ruling. Does this compare favorably with all of Mr. Frank’s writing?

Dorsey objected.

Ruling on Handwriting Reserved.

“The code says, your Honor, that we are entitled to the very best evidence,” the Solicitor said. “This section holds that in any question of handwriting that an expert must testify, and the papers or specimen of handwriting on the day in question and on other days should be introduced. The jury might not agree with the witness that the sheet in question and other sheets […]

COST SHEET TESTIMONY OF STATE AIDS DEFENSE OF ACCUSED

Exceptionally Clear Brain Required on Such Figures, Rosser Shows

DORSEY SHAPES HIS CASE FOR CONLEY

Builds Up Preliminary to Introduction of Sweeper as Climax of Prosecution.

[..] are similar. They can be produced, and they should be.”

“I will withhold my ruling until I look up some authorities,” replied Judge Roan.

“I will ask the witness something else,” said Arnold.

Q. What process did Frank have to go into to get at these results?—A. He had to get reports from every department, figure averages, costs, sales, profits, expense.

Figures Required Clear Head.

Q. It took a man with a good clear head to figure it?—A. Yes.

Q. What calculation was necessary to arrive at the net result?—A. The amount of rubber tips, labels, and every other little detail must be calculated.

Q. It required a large amount of calculation?—A. Yes.

Q. Sunday, were you in the factory with Frank and Detective Starnes?—A. Yes.

Q. There were forty or fifty people in the factory Sunday, were there not?—A. No, not over six or eight.

Q. Did you go into the cellar?—A. Yes.

Q. What time did you get to the factory?—A. 8:20.

Q. There was a great deal of excitement there?

Dorsey objected. “I think your Honor has already ruled on this question,” said he.

Calls Nervousness Natural.

Arnold interrupted.

“Your honor, it is eminently unfair,” he said. “I want to show that this young man was whisked from his home before he had his coffee, and it was nothing unusual if he was excited. Why, I lived at a boarding house with some old bachelors, and they wouldn’t even talk before breakfast. When Newt Lee first saw this girl in the basement he ran like a turkey. That was one way of showing his excitement. Some men are naturally nervous; some show nervousness in reading a paper or making a speech; some men go into battle without even flinching.”

Judge Roan ruled: “I think you can show the occasion.”

Rosser interrupted. “Let me give you a little illustration, your honor,” he said. “I was on the streets during the time of the Atlanta riots. Crowds were everywhere and everyone was excited.”

Dorsey then spoke: “Only a few minutes ago, your honor, you ruled out, or we considered that you ruled out, the question of Newt Lee being nervous or composed. The only question before this jury is: Was Leo M. Frank nervous?”

Dorsey Wins Ruling.

“You can’t show that anyone else was nervous,” said Judge Roan.

Rosser: “If you have ruled that way, it will vitiate this trial. This jury will never know that that crowd was nervous and excited. It will never know that Starnes, sleuth that he is, trembled and was excited when he saw that lifeless corpse. That Pat Campbell, son of the Emerald Isle, started back against when he touched that icy chest. And if there is one mistake at this time it will vitiate this trial.”

“If there is any doubt on your honor’s mind, I want to refer you to the 81 and 85 Georgia,” said Dorsey. “This proposition is simply a dragnet to go out and bring in everyone when Leo Frank is the only one we are concerned with here.”

The objection was sustained.

Attorney Arnold declared that he only wanted those around Frank in the factory described. Dorsey objected, and the objection was sustained.

Attorney Arnold then asked that the objection of the defense be recorded.

Blood Spots Common.

Q. How long have you been working at the factory where there were women…Mr. Darley?—A. 24 years.

Q. Isn’t it a common thing to find bloodspots around the women’s dressing room?—A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see any blood spots around the dressing room in this factory?—A. (Darley hesitated). Yes, sir, I have.

Q. What color was the suit Mr. Frank had on Saturday?—A. Brown.

Q. What color suit did he wear on Sunday?—A. Blue.

Q. What color on Monday?—A. The same one he wore on Saturday.

Q. Did you see any splotches on it?—A. No.

Q. Did you see any scratches on Frank’s face or hands when he came to the factory Sunday?—A. No, I did not.

Q. What time did Frank leave the factory Saturday morning?—A. About 9:40 o’clock. He started toward Montag’s.

Q. You never saw him any more until Sunday?—A. No.

Elevator Found Unlocked.

Q. In what condition did you find the elevator Sunday?—A. The lock was in place but it was unlocked.

Q. Could anybody else have gone in and run it?—A. Anybody who knows how.

Q. That elevator and motor made a good deal of noise when in operation, didn’t it?—A. The saw made more noise than the motor and the elevator. When the elevator was running, the saw also was running.

Q. These cords that have been referred to; they were scattered all over the building, were they not?—A. Yes, sir. Scattered all around.

Q. Mr. Dorsey asked you something about this building being cleaned?—A. Yes, after the girl was killed.

Q. It was very dirty on the floor of the metal room, wasn’t it, the dirt being about an inch thick?—A. I don’t know whether it would average that thick or not, but it was very dirty.

Q. The building also was very dark, especially on dark days, wasn’t it?—A. Yes.

Q. What sort of a day was it on which the little girl was killed?—A. Drizzling rain.

Q. Is anybody supposed to be in the factory on Sunday?—A. No, sir. It is supposed to locked up on Sunday.

Q. The rope on the elevator has some slack in it, hasn’t it?—A. A little.

Q. Did Frank catch it with both hands, or with one hand?—A. With both hands.

Q. Frank only weighs about 125 or 130 pounds, doesn’t he? He is what you would call a little fellow isn’t he?—A. Yes.

Q. Is he fatter now than he was then?—A. He is about the same.

Q. How did you happen to go to Mr. Dorsey’s office?—A. He ‘phoned for me.

Q. He served a subpena on you, didn’t he?

Dorsey objected, but Judge Roan overruled the objection.

A. He served two subpenas on me and phoned me once.

Frank Nervous Every Day.

Q. Didn’t you know those subpenas were not worth the paper they were written on?—A. I didn’t then. I have heard so since.

Q. Who was at Dorsey’s office?—A. Dorsey, Chief Lanford, Detectives Starnes and Campbell and a stenographer.

Q. They asked you questions, except the stenographer?—A. Yes, sometimes. One would interrupt before I could answer the question of the other.

Q. They asked you whether Mr. Frank was a nervous man, didn’t they?—A. Yes.

Q. Wasn’t he a hard working man who easily got nervous when things went wrong?—A. Yes, sir. If your honor will allow me, I will say that there never was a day passed that Mr. Frank didn’t get nervous over something. I have seen him run his hands through his hair in an agitated way a thousand times.

Q. Mr. Frank didn’t know many of the help, did he?

“I object,” said Dorsey. Arnold withdrew the question.

“Did he know Mary Phagan?”

“I object to that,” continued Dorsey still on his feet.

Objection was overruled.

A. Not to my knowledge, he didn’t.

Q. Did you know her?—A. If I had seen her on the street I would have known she was a factory girl; but I didn’t know her name.

Q. I believe you said all sorts of papers get down into that boiler room, don’t they?—A. Yes.

“Give me those notes and that pay envelope,” said Arnold.

Q. It was nothing unusual to find papers like these in the basement, was it?—A. I have seen such papers there.

Q. Any man who had the run of the factory, would have no trouble in getting hold of them, would he?—A. No.

Q. Was the watchman accustomed to locking the clock door?—A. Yes, but at that time the key was lost.

Q. Frank didn’t unlock it Sunday morning, did he?—A. He couldn’t have. The key was gone.

Q. You say you and Frank both made the mistake of thinking all the punches had been made?—A. Yes.

At this point, which was 12:15, the court adjourned until 2 o’clock.

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

Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, May 28^th, 1913

Police Secure Admission From Negro Sweeper During Examination for Phagan Clews.

Admission that he was in the National Pencil factory on the day of the murder of Mary Phagan was gained from James Conley, the negro sweeper on whom suspicion has turned, after cross-examination by detectives at police headquarters.

The negro, who became the center of attention with his amazing story that Leo Frank had told him to write the death notes, changed his narrative again to-day. Confronted by E. F. Holloway, a foreman in the plant, he admitted having been in the factory after having steadily maintained that he was on Peters Street between 10 and 2 o’clock that fatal Saturday and at home all other hours of the day.

Says Confession Is Near.

Holloway, after leaving the secret grilling at which the admission was obtained, declared he was sure it was only a matter of hours before Conley would confess. He asserted that if he had been allowed to put questions to Conley he could have gotten important information.

The police questions were, of course, all put with the idea of gaining information against Frank.

Chief Lanford had announced that he would go before Judge Roan with a request for an order allowing him to confront Frank with the negro, so that Conley’s statement would be admissible in court. Lanford, however, failed to carry out his plans, although he would not admit they had been abandoned.

Found Negro Falsified.

Conley told the officers when he was first arrested that he could not write. Later they found releases that he had written for watches, and he admitted he had been lying. He gave them an address on Tattnall Street when they took him in custody. It later was found that he had not lived there for six months or a year.

In his affidavit of last Saturday he swore that he wrote the notes found by the body of the dead girl at the dictation of Leo Frank the day before the crime. Tuesday night he repudiated this affidavit and said that it was on Saturday that he wrote them.

The result of this series of lies and misstatements was that suspicion was gradually shifting from Leo Frank to Conley in spite of the attitude of the police. The culminating action that pointed the accusing finger in his direction was his new statement of Tuesday night, which was utterly at variance with his affidavit in its most essential point—the date.

With his first affidavit repudiated and worthless, it will be practically impossible to get any court to accept a second one. If a second one is offered action will be taken at once to impeach it and it is regarded as most unlikely that it would be accepted in the circumstances.

Now Changes Date.

In his original affidavit Conley swore that he wrote on Friday, April 25—the day before the murder—the notes which he believes were found by the body of Mary Phagan. He swore that he wrote them at Frank’s dictation. In the revised statement that he made to the police Tuesday night. Conley declared that instead of writing the notes on Friday, he wrote them Saturday about four minutes before 1 o’clock.

His second statement is impeached by the fact that the negro has repudiated his first affidavit. It may be impeached further by the development that at the time he says Frank was dictating the notes to him Frank, as a matter of fact, was on another floor talking to Harry Denham, Arthur White and Mrs. White.

Frank and the other three persons all have testified that it was within a few minutes of 1 o’clock that Frank came upstairs and said that he was going to leave the building and that if the three did not wish to be locked in the building they would have to leave also. Mrs. White left at 1 o’clock. Frank and Denham and White remained in the building.

The negro in making the second statement described exactly who was in the building at the time, on what floors they were and waat [sic] they were doing, indicating that he must actually have been there or else has read the papers very carefully. Until his second statement he had denied repeatedly that he was in the factory on the day of the crime, and had told the detectives of his whereabouts at various times of the day.

Unable to Prove Whereabouts.

He was unable, however, to corroborate his declaration that he was on Peters Street between 10 o’clock in the forenoon and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. He could name no one he had seen between those hours.

Despite the new developments, the detectives, of course, stand firmly by their theory of Frank’s guilt. They assert that they have the testimony of four handwriting experts that the writing on the notes found by the body of Mary Phagan positively as that of Frank. This evidence is lessened in importance by the fact that three other handwriting experts have declared positively that the writing is that of Newt Lee, the negro night watchman in the pencil factory.

So far as is known no expert comparison has been made between the notes and the handwriting of Conley. If such a comparison has been made the results have not been announced.

The detectives are placed in a peculiar position by the new statement of Conley. If they are to believe a word of his statement that he wrote the notes at Frank’s dictation they are forced to discredit absolutely the testimony of their four handwriting experts that the notes are those of Frank. If they accept the testimony of the experts, on the other hand, they must take the position that both the first and second statements of the negro are worthless and have no bearing on the mystery.

Contradicted by Wife.

Maggie Conley, wife of James Conley, whose confession that he wrote the mysterious notes found at the side of murdered Mary Phagan at the dictation of Leo M. Frank, has developed into one of the most puzzling incidents of the case, made a statement to a Georgian reporter on Wednesday morning bearing on the whereabouts of her husband on the afternoon of the murder that is utterly at variance with statements made by Conley.

Conley has repeatedly told detectives that on the evening of April 26, the night Mary Phagan was murdered, he left his home at 172 Rhodes Street at 6 o’clock and went downtown, remaining there until 8, when he returned home.

The woman who says she is his wife told a Georgian reporter that Conley came home at 2 o’clock in the afternoon of April 26, and REMAINED AT HOME UNTIL MONDAY MORNING AT 8 O’CLOCK. APRIL 28, when he went to work at the pencil factory. He returned home about an hour later, she said, and told her he didn’t have to work that day, because a white girl had been murdered.

Her Story of His Actions.

The woman told the following story of her husband’s action on the day of the murder.

“Jim left home about 9 or 10 o’clock Saturday morning and said he was going downtown. He came back somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 o’clock, and told me he had been at the near-beer saloons on Peters Street with a gang of niggers. I was in the kitchen when Jim came in the front door, and I heard him moving around in the front room several minutes before I called him. Then he began joking me and fooling like he always does. We sat in the front room and talked a little while and then I went back in the kitchen.

“I heard Jim moving around after I went into the kitchen, and I thought he was going out again. I went into the front room and couldn’t see Jim. I reached over to pick up a shawl that had fallen to the floor and Jim poked his head over the top of the dresser. He had been hiding behind it, just to see what I would say. We sat around all afternoon and talked, and Jim didn’t leave the house any more until Monday morning, when he went to work.”

Not Seen by Neighbors.

The woman said her husband did not appear nervous or excited when he came home on the Saturday afternoon of the murder. She said he is always fooling and joking, and was even a little more playful than usual. She said also that he said nothing to her about having written any notes for Mr. Frank, and said she had never heard him speak of his employer.

No negro could be found in the neighborhood where Conley lives who had seen him at home Saturday afternoon.

Hattie Crawford, a negress who lives at 170 Rhodes Street, next door to Conley, declared that she was at home all Saturday afternoon and Saturday night and that she did not see Conley. The first time she saw him was Sunday morning, when he was sitting on stump in his back yard, she says.

Accuse Negro Conley.

In an effort to discover how the negro Jim Conley, now the center of attention in the Phagan mystery, was regarded at the National Pencil factory by the girls employed in the trimming and finishing departments where Conley worked as a sweeper, two Georgian reporters late Tuesday afternoon interviewed six foreladies and some 50-odd girls at the factory, 37-39 South Forsyth Street.

Without exception, the ordinary workers said that they had no opportunity to ever judge Conley’s character as they were too busy and there were foreladies there to protect them.

Mrs. G. W. Small, a forelady of 37 West Fair Street; said that before the murder of Mary Phagan the negro Jim Conley was slow moving and negligent of his duties; taking his time about performing any task he was asked to do.

“After the Phagan murder,” said Mrs. Small, “I noticed a great change in the negro. He did the things I told him to do with much more promptness. His whole demeanor changed.

“I never did trust him,” declared Mrs. Small, “and he knew it. I certainly believe that if anyone working in this factory did that terrible deed it was the negro Conley. I said from the first that it was no white man’s job, and I have always believed that Mr. Frank was innocent.”

Several of the young women, however, defended the negro as a fairly good workman.

All Think Frank Innocent.

Every employee of the National Pencil factory, without exception, scouts the idea that Leo Frank had anything to do with the fate of Mary Phagan. Each one is loyal and is yet to be convinced that he had any part in the crime of which he now stands accused.

One woman who is employed in the finishing department asserted that the negro Conley was impudent several time[s].

A number of the girls stated that they had smelled whisky on the negro. Miss Eulah May Flowers told of her experience when she went to the storage room one evening and there stumbled over Conley, who was dead drunk, stretched on the floor.

E. F. Holloway, the timekeeper and foreman of the pencil factory, says he had just about made up his mind to discharge Conley when the crime was committed, but Conley showed improvement and that he kept him on, until he caught him washing the shirt which caused his arrest.

Deductions Damaging.

Making deductions from Conley’s first affidavit, here are a few facts which tend to throw suspicion on the negro:

Conley says that Frank, after dictating the notes, said to him: “Why should I hang?” If Frank intended committing a deed which would warrant hanging, it is preposterous to hold that he would so commit himself to as unreliable a person as a negro.

Conley did not say he had written the notes until after he had lain in jail for weeks. Yet, his confession was not in the least incriminating to himself.

Conley made his statement not until Frank’s case was under investigation by the Grand Jury. He made it voluntarily then.

Frequently Intoxicated.

Conley, the negro, was brought into close association with the factory girl employees. As sweeper he brushed the refuse from beneath the chairs in which they sat. As elevator conductor he operated the cage, crowded with girls, up and down the shaft.

Conley frequently was intoxicated while on duty.

On the afternoon of the murder Conley’s story as to his whereabouts lack corroboration. The negro states that he was on Peters Street for at least two hours, yet he can give the name of no one whom he saw there during that time to bear out his statement.

At the first address Conley gave as his home it was found he had not lived there for a year.

Mrs. Arthur White, wife of a machinist at the factory, declares she saw a negro sitting by the elevator shaft (which Conley operated) as she left the factory at 1 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 28th 1913, “Conley Was in Factory on Day of Slaying,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, May 28^th, 1913

Negro Sweeper in New Affidavit Denies His Former Testimony and Makes Startling Assertions; Now Declares He Wrote Notes Saturday.

James Conley, negro sweeper, in an affidavit made Wednesday, said that he was lying when he said he went to the National Pencil Factory on Friday. He said that he made the statement that it was Friday when Frank (as he says) told him to write the death notes, because he was afraid he would be accused of the murder of Mary Phagan if he told the truth.

He said he felt that if he said he was there Saturday the police would connect him with the murder. Conley said he got up between 9 and 9:30 o’clock Saturday morning, he knew the time because he looked at the clock on the Atlanta University from his front door. He returned indoors and had breakfast.

He got three silver dollars from his wife to exchange for paper money so that she would not lose it. He continued:

“I told my wife I was going to Peters Street. I went to Peters Street and stopped at a beer saloon at Peters and Haynes Streets. I bought two beers in there, drank one myself and gave another to a man named Bob. I stayed in the barroom three or four minutes and then walked back to the pool table and shot dice with four men. One of them was named Joe Bobs and one Bob Williams. I won 90 cents.

Drank Some Whisky.

“I don’t know how long we had been shooting, but I think it was about fifteen minutes. I left there then went to Erier saloon on Peters Street. I bought a glass of beer there. I walked back to the rear of the place, rolled a cigarette, came back and bought a half pint of whisky. I drank part of the whisky. I started from there to the Capital City Laundry to see my mother.

“I met Mr. Frank at the corner of Forsyth and Nelson Streets. He stopped me and asked me where I was going. I told him I was going to the Capital City Laundry to see my mother. He said, ‘Wait ‘till I come back.’

“He said he was going to see Mr. Montague. He was gone about 20 minutes. He came back and told me to come to the factory, that he wanted to see me. I went with him, walking behind him. He stopped at the Curtis drug store at Mitchell and Forsyth and got a drink. I waited for him outside. Frank had a bundle in his hand.

“After we got to the factory he put the bundle in the trash barrel right near the steps. He put a box there for me to sit on and other boxes back further in the factory. He told me to sit there until he whistled. He told me not to let Darley see me.

Tells of Seeing Darley.

“Along came a woman down stairs, Miss Mattie, I think her name was. She had on a dark suit and a raincoat. She carried a parasol. (This was Miss Mattie Smith). Then Darley came down stairs. He wore a grey suit and had no hat. He stopped Miss Mattie at the front door. She was wiping her eyes like she was crying. I heard him say, ‘Don’t worry, I will see that you get that next week.’

“She went out and he went back up the steps. In a few minutes he came back down and left. Then came Holloway down stairs about five minutes after Darley left. Holloway stood on the sidewalk five or six minutes and then came back.

“Then a negro drove up to the factory in a wagon. He went upstairs. He had some bills in his hand. Holloway came back with the negro, who was pegleg. The negro drove away and Holloway went back upstairs.

“In a few minutes he came down and left the building for good. Then came another lady. She works on the fourth floor for Arthur White. She was upstairs six or seven minutes. Then she came back down with her money. She stood by me and tore open the envelop and counted the money. Then she left the building and for about fifteen minutes there was no one passing me.

Heard Frank Whistle.

“I sat down on the box and put my head against the trash barrel and stretched my feet out with my hat in my lap. I don’t know whether I went to sleep or not. The next thing I knew I heard Frank’s whistle twice. Just like this (imitating whistle). I went upstairs. The double doors were closed. Frank was standing at the top of the steps. He said, ‘I see you heard me all right,’ and I said, ‘Yes.’

“Frank grabbed me by the arm very tight and his hand was trembling. It was just like he was walking down the street with a lady. He carried me through the first office into his private office, came back and shut the door into the outer office. Then he came back to where I was. He didn’t say anything but grabbed up a box of sulphur matches and went into the outer office. When he came back he pulled out a round chair.

“He brought the chair for me to sit in. Then he closed the door and asked me to address a letter ‘Dear Brother.’ Then he asked me to write some things for him. I don’t remember all of it, but I remember one of them was this: ‘That long tall black negro did it by hisself.’ I wrote these things at his dictation. Then Mr. Frank patted me on the back and said that I was a good boy. Then he handed me a box of cigarettes and I took them.”

Vital Evidence Kept Secret.

From this point the negro’s statement was similar to the affidavit published a few days ago. The negro said that he left the factory between five and ten minutes after 1 o’clock, went back to Peters Street and then went home.

Chief Lanford read the above which he said was about half of the affidavit. The chief said that he had only given out the unimportant details, leaving it to be inferred that Conley had given vital evidence.

Harry Scott intimated that the negro’s affidavit Wednesday morning had practically cleared the mystery and was the most important bit of evidence in the hands of the State.

At 2:45 o’clock the negro was taken into the chief’s office for another sweating.

Admission that he was in the National Pencil factory on the day of the murder of Mary Phagan was gained from Conley, after cross-examination by detectives at police headquarters.

The negro, who became the center of attention with his amazing story that Leo Frank had told him to write the death notes, changed his narrative again to-day. Confronted by E. F. Holloway, a foreman in the plant, he admitted having been in the factory after having steadily maintained that he was on Peters Street between 10 and 2 o’clock that fatal Saturday and at home all other hours of the day.

Says Confession Is Near.

Holloway, after leaving the secret grilling at which the admission was obtained, declared he was sure it was only a matter of hours before Conley would confess. He asserted that if he had been allowed to put questions to Conley he could have gotten important information.

The police questions were, of course, all put with the idea of gaining information against Frank.

Chief Lanford had announced that he would go before Judge Roan with a request for an order allowing him to confront Frank with the negro, so that Conley’s statement would be admissible in court. Lanford, however, failed to carry out his plans, although he would not admit they had been abandoned.

Later Chief Beavers said that the plan to confront Frank with Conley would not be carried out to-day and that its wisdom was doubtful, as, of course, Frank could not be compelled to answer any questions.

Refuse to Admit Suspicion.

The police refused to admit that suspicion was turning or should turned to Conley, who has told one falsehood after another since his arrest. They tried resolutely to construe every one of his statements as against Frank and would not admit that the continued contradictions of the negro made his value as a witness next to nothing.

The police declared that Conley had been asked to write the contents of the death notes and had spelled “night watch” as it was in the note, “night witch,” and “self” with the “l” and “e” transposed as in the notes. That all this shows, in view of the fact that the same officials had announced that they had conclusive evidence by “experts” and that Frank wrote the notes is not plain.

Conley was also confronted by General Foreman N. V. Darley in the presence of Detectives Black, Scott and Lanford and the negro made important admissions that will no doubt force him to admit his guilt.

Conley admitted that he sat at the elevator shaft on the first floor at 12:30 on the afternoon of the murder and saw Darley in company with Miss Smith descent the stairs. Conley described Miss Smith as wearing a raincoat and Darley with his coat on with no hat. Darley stated that both descriptions were absolutely correct in every particular. Strange to say, neither Darley nor Miss Smith saw the negro, for he was seated in the shadow of the steps and never made a sound.

Conley said that after Darley came down stairs with Miss Smith he walked to the door with her and then returned and ascended the stairs. This Darley says is true.

Shortly after this Mrs. Albert [sic] White went into the factory to see her husband and get some money to buy a dress. Her husband, Albert White, was at work on the fourth floor with the assistant foreman and machinist Harry Denham. Mrs. White says that she saw a negro who sat immovable at the foot of the elevator shaft as she entered the factory. She could not identify him because of the indistinct light. But as Conley admitted he was there five minutes before it is reasonable to believe that it was Conley that Mrs. White passed.

According to the statement of E. F. Holloway Conley had no business in the factory on the day of the murder, which was a holiday. Holloway says that the negro denied being there when questioned by him. Now Conley admits that he was there.

Holloway believes that had not Darley escorted Miss Mattie Smith down stairs that she and not Mary Phagan would have been the victim.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 28th 1913, “Conley Says Frank Took Him to Plant on Day of Slaying,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

Atlanta Georgian

Tuesday, May 27^th, 1913

Negro, Whose Story That He Wrote Notes at Frank’s Dictation Is Generally Disbelieved, Was Often Drunk. Mrs. White Can Not Identify Him.

Suspicion in the Phagan case was Tuesday morning turned full-flare upon James Conley, the negro whose unexpected assertion last week that he had written the notes found beside the body of Mary Phagan, at the dictation of Leo M. Frank, was followed by a speedy indictment of the pencil factory superintendent.

In the opinion of E. F. Holloway, timekeeper and foreman in the factory, Conley is the guilty man.

Careful study of the negro’s story has revealed many absurdities in its structure, wherein evidences of childish cunning are rife in an effort to throw the blame onto Frank. It is this which has served to bring the deed to Conley’s door.

However, Mrs. Arthur White, wife of a machinist at the factory, who testified that she saw a negro lurking in the building between 12 noon and 2 o’clock on the afternoon of the murder, denied the published report in an afternoon paper that she had identified Conley as the one. Mrs. White stated Tuesday morning that she had secured only a glimpse of the man. It may have been Conley, or another negro. Mrs. White was asked to pick Conley out of a crowd of twelve negroes some time ago, but her identification was a second choice.

The police, in spite of bending every effort to show that Frank is guilty, therefore, have resorted to a dissection of Conley’s story. One of its weakest links, they believe, is the negro’s quotation of Frank’s statement to him, “Why should I hang?” That the superintendent should place this confidence in the negro sweeper appears absurd.

Another damaging point against Conley lies in the declaration of Holloway, timekeeper of the factory, that the negro had appeared for duty intoxicated on several occasions; that his duties as sweeper brought him in contact with the girls, who feared him.

Where Was Conley?

According to Conley’s story, he was on Peters Street from 19 o’clock until 2 in the afternoon of the murder. Police investigation of this has failed to prove the statement. Conley admits that he can not remember anyone whom he saw during that time to bear up his statement. From 2 o’clock until 6 Conley was at his home. This has been proven. Conley declares that from 6 until 8 o’ clock that night he was down town; this also has not been established. Conley states he stayed there the remainder of the night.

According to the new theory of Conley’s implication, the negro wrote the notes on Saturday instead of Friday, as he claims, and not on anybody’s dictation. It is further argued that, in order to ingratiate himself with the law, the made his confession when he thought that the case against Frank was clinched—that his story was the product of his own imagination.

Conley’s delay in making this confession until Frank’s indictment seemed likely is another link against him.

His detailed account of the incident of the note writing, in which he even went so far as to attempt a quotation of what Frank said to him, shows premeditation on the negro’s part, it is argued, and further that the story was conceived by Conley while he was in prison. However, the negro’s childish brain was not capable of making it strong enough to withstand rigid investigation.

E. F. Holloway, timekeeper and foreman of the National Pencil factory, seen to-day by a Georgian reporter, said he was confident the negro Jim Conley, under arrest as a suspect in the Mary Phagan murder mystery, committed the crime.

Here is what Holloway told the reporter:

“Jim Conley, when he came to work here about one year ago, was a pretty good negro. We had no trouble with him for about two months. Then Jim got drunk. He had been running the elevator and we were afraid to trust him afterward. We then put him to work sweeping in the trimming department. Here Conley was closely associated with the girls. He used to move their chairs when he was sweeping. Conley was the only negro allowed in this department.

“Jim got so bad he used to carry whisky with him in his pocket. Several times he was caught by employees taking a drink. This was not known by the management until after the murder of Mary Phagan?

Drunk in Factory.

“About one week before the crime was committed the forelady of the trimming and finishing department, Miss Eulah May Flowers, went to the top floor of the building to look over the stock of boxes. When Conley was not sweeping he was supposed to fill the box bins with boxes. When Miss Flowers moved toward the bin to look in she stumbled over a form. She screamed and fell back. It was Conley. He was dead drunk. Miss Flowers tried to wake him up, but was unable.

Caught Washing Shirt.

“On the morning of the Coroner’s investigation, Thursday after the murder, when the plant was shut down because we all were called to the investigation, I testified and went back to the factory. As I entered the metal department I heard a splashing in the cooling tank. There was Conley washing his shirt. When I entered he was very much startled and tried to hide the shirt by trying to drop it through a crack in the floor. It was a blue shirt and I saw no bloodstains, for he had evidently been washing it for some time as it was pretty clean.

“This is the first time in the year that Jim Conley worked here that he ever washed his clothes here.

“Now, I don’t say Conley was degenerate enough to commit a crime so terrible when he was sober, but I am thoroughly convinced that he strangled Mary Phagan when about half drunk.

“I’ll go further and say that the last three months that Conley was here I was suspicious of him and tried to watch him as closely as possible for I placed no dependence in him. He became indifferent about his work and shiftless.”

Mrs. White Denies Identification.

Mrs. J. Arthur White, of 59 Bonnie Brae Avenue, made positive denial to the Solicitor General’s office Tuesday that she ever had made any identification of James Conley, the negro sweeper at the National Pencil Factory, as published in an afternoon paper.

“I can not understand why such a story should have been manufactured and published,” she said to reporter. “I was just called by the Solicitor General to confirm it, and told him, as I had told him before, that I never had identified the negro.

“I saw a negro sitting on a box on the first floor of the factory as I left there about 1 o’clock in the afternoon of the murder. I did not get a good look at his face. I got just a general impression of his clothes and of his size.

“At the police station ten negroes were brought before me. I picked out one with a green derby and said that he looked considerably like the man I had seen. They told me to look again, and I picked out another man that I thought looked a little more like the negro I had seen, but I never made any positive identification; and I told the detectives, in the first place, that I would not be able to. They never told me the names of the men I had picked out, so I don’t know whether one of them was Conley or not.”

The detectives never have placed much weight on the identification of Mrs. White, as she said that she could not be positive. Added to this is the fact that she saw a negro loitering around the factory at 1 o’clock, which, it is thought, he would have been very unlikely to do had he had anything to do with the disappearance of Mary Phagan, who was in the factory a few minutes after 12 o’clock.

* * *

Atlanta Georgian, May 27th 1913, “Suspicion Turned to Conley; Accused by Factory Foreman,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)