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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, July 20, 1913

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

“SHUTTING EYES TO TRUTH, DORSEY PROTECTS NEGRO”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT IN FULL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

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

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

THE SOLICITOR’S POSITION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY SO MUCH FEAR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN REPLY TO MR. SMITH.

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

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

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

“LUTHER E. ROSSER.
“R.R. ARNOLD.”

New Witness Found Who Will Testify for Frank

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

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

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

Conley’s Attorney Does Not Believe He Will Be Indicted

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

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

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

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

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

DOESN’T FEAR JURY.

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

(Signed.) WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

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

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

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

The attorney’s statement in full follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Attorney for Conley Makes a Statement,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call Attention to Secrecy.

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

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

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

Statement of Defense.

The statement, in full, follows:

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

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

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

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

Reply to Solicitor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dorsey Sharply Criticized.

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

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

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

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

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

Score State’s Secrecy.

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

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

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

Solicitor’s Action Attacked.

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

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

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

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

Question Precedent.

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

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

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

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

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

LUTHER Z. ROSSER,
R. R. ARNOLD.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Counsel of Frank Says Dorsey Has Sought to Hide Facts,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Sunday, July 20, 1913

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

EXCEEDS PROVINCE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

Roan Out of City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Not Expect Indictment.

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

“Well, I’m not discussing that any[…]

Continued on Page Two.

FRANK’S LAWYERS SCORE DORSEY

Continued From Page One.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement of Attorneys.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why So Much Fear?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relies on Smith.

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

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

LUTHER Z. ROSSER,
LUTHER Z. ROSSER,

Statement by Conley’s Lawyer.

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Journal

Saturday, July 19, 1913

Protest of Solicitor Fails to Stop Session to Consider Phagan Evidence on Monday

DORSEY STILL BELIEVES JURY WON’T INDICT

Solicitor Says Frank Defense Wants Jury to Try Him Drawn From the Grand Jury List

Grand Jurors Who Will Consider Conley’s Case

This is the Fulton county grand jury which has been called to meet Monday over the protest of the solicitor to take up the case of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper at the National Pencil factory:
W.D. Beatie, foreman.
T.C. Whitner.
John S. Spalding.
W.C. Carroll, East Point.
H.B. Ferguson.
Garnet McMillan, East Point.
Edward H. Inman.
A.W. Farlinger.
M.A. Fall.
Julius M. Skinner.
Oscar Elsas.
George Bancroft.
W.H. Glenn.
S.E. McConnell.
Thomas J. Buchanan.
Sameuel A. Carson.
Eugene Oberdorfer.
A.Q. Adams.
W.O. Stamps.
W.T. Ashford.

There are only twenty citizens on the grand jury which has been called to meet Monday by Foreman W.D. Beattie to consider indicting James Conley, the negro sweeper, for the murder of Mary Phagan.

As it takes eighteen grand jurors to form a quorum, it is extremely likely that when the body meets at 10 o’clock there will not be enough members to proceed with business.

The lack of a quorum, when the meeting is first called, however, will not halt procedure on the case if the grand jurors present wish to go ahead, for the foreman can then call on a judge of the superior court to summons talesmen grand jurors to complete the panel.

The talesmen will be brought immediately to the grand jury room and the consideration of the proposed indictment can proceed immediately.

The average grand jury is made up of twenty-three men in order that five may be absent and jury work still proceed. However, as this is an “off term,” and it was generally supposed that the grand jury would have little business, only twenty citizens were empanelled.

GRAND JURY DETERMINED.

Solicitor Dorsey will fight every move in the attempt to indict Conley before the trial of Leo M. Frank, who has already been charged with the Mary Phagan murder by a previous grand jury. That the solicitor general will personally appear before the grand jury when it convenes Monday and urge that Conley not be indicted at this time, is almost certain.

It has been generally predicted, however, that since the members of the grand jury have called the meeting to consider the matter over his vigorous protest that they will not stop until they have heard the evidence against the negro.

Solicitor Dorsey refused to make any statement Saturday saying that he had nothing to add to the interview published exclusively in Friday’s Journal.

The statement that the lawyers acting for the defense of Leo M. Frank, accused of the murder of Mary Phagan and soon to be tried, have asked the judges of the superior court to order that veniremen for possible jury serv-[…]

(Continued on Last Page, Column 5.)

JURY IS DETERMINED TO CONSIDER A BILL AGAINST JIM CONLEY

(ontinued [sic] on Page 6, Col. 1.)

[…]ice in the trial be drawn entirely from the grand jury list of some 1,000 names instead of from the petit jury list of about 6,000 names, was made Saturday by Solicitor General H.M. Dorsey.

“I did not believe that the grand jury will indict Conley for the murder after it knows the true state of affairs, any more than I believe that the judges of the superior court will accede to the request of the defense that the jurors to try Frank be drawn from the grand jury,” declared the solicitor.

At 2 o’clock, when Solicitor Dorsey made his charge, it was impossible to reach any of the attorneys for the defense of Frank to secure a statement from them.

SUMMER TRIAL DREADED

Both the state and the defense are going steadily ahead with preparations for the Frank trial, which has been set for Monday week. The trial, which is expected to last from two to three weeks, is dreaded by the attorneys, the witnesses, court attaches and others who will have to be in the court room. It is certain that hundreds of curious people will crowd into the court room and a repetition of the famous Grace trial, when every moment it was expected that people would be overcome by the stifling heat, is very probable.

Judge L.S. Roan has already announced that he will not hold the trial in the stuffy court room on the fourth floor of the Thrower building, where the Grace trial was held, but the court room on the first floor of the old city hall, where the Frank trial will be staged, is very little better.

HEAT WILL BE TERRIFIC.

Court attaches are making every possible preparation for the comfort of the jurors, the witnesses, the attorneys and others interested, but on account of the intense heat of this season of the year, the trial is being anticipated with terror.

It was learned Saturday that the list of 150 veniremen, from which twelve jurors to decide Frank’s fate will be chosen, will be drawn by a judge of the superior court on next Thursday.

Judge L. S. Roan will probably be out of the city at that time, and the drawing of the evniremen [sic] will fall to one of the judges in the civil division of the superior court, probably Judge John T. Pendleton.

The defense of Frank will make a statement Saturday evening in reply to the attack by William M. Smith, attorney for Conley, on the grand jury because Monday’s meting [sic] has been called over the protest of the solicitor.

CONLEY’S LAWYER TALK.

Following the exclusive announcement in Friday’s Jurnal [sic] that W.D. Beattie, foreman, has called a meeting of the grand jury for Monday to consider the indictment of James Conley for the Mary Phagan murder, a sensational development is a statement to the public from William M. Smith.

Mr. Smith, who is the attorney representing the negro Conley, intimates that an unseen force is behind the unprecedented action of the grand jury, and says in his statement:

“When they meet I would like for them (the grand jury) to first investigate the movement that seems to have stirred their enthusiasm.”

In the course of his statement Mr. Smith pays a high tribute to Solicitor Dorsey, ad [sic] attacks the grand jury for calling Monday’s meeting over his protest.

SMITH’S STATEMENT

Mr. Smith’s statement is as follows:

“I notice Foreman Beatie has called the grand jury to meet Monday. When they meet I would like for them to first investigate the movement that seems to have stirred their enthusiasm. I wish the press could afford to publish what I have the nerve to say about this latest move.

“If they meet, I do not doubt they will indict Jim all right. If they get up inspiration enough to run over the state’s sworn counsel in getting together they can see their way to indict.

“Jim Conley has been dealing fairly with the state of Georgia. His story has been an open book to the sworn, trusted prosecuting officers of this state. He is not skulking coward-like behind the protection of iron bars, nor have his lips been sealed with tomb-like silence, until he can spring suddenly in a court, a well-prepared statement, which the state has no opportunity to investigate and disprove. Conley allows himself grilled, cross-examined and unceasingly questioned by the representatives of the state. He is talking and talking now. Conley says to the state of Georgia, here is my story, investigate it, sift it, and prove it a lie, if you can.

“What more could the grand jury ask? Conley is giving the state a square deal; Conley is remaining a voluntary prisoner, and no honest citien [sic] doubts that he will be held to account for his part in this terrible tragedy.

LEAVE IT ALONE, HE SAYS.

“If the grand jurors do not want to please Frank and his friends, if they do not want to help clear Frank they had better leave this alone, for the present. The good people of this county elected Hugh Dorsey as the solicitor general. Under the law, this makes him the legal adviser of the grand jury. There is not a business man on the grand jury that does not follow in his own affairs the advice of the lawyer of character and ability, to whom he goes for counsel. Let the grand jury do wtih [sic] the public business what they would do with their own matters, follow the advice of the sworn representative of the good people of this county.

“Does the grand jury think their legal judgment or their personal integrity above that of our solicitor general, or do they doubt the professional or private character of Hugh Dorsey? The people of this county know that Dorsey is straight; that in this case he is fighting brains, money and influence. I know that he is standing by what he thinks right, and with constant threats thrown at him that they will defeat him at the next election and with every handicap thrown in his way in the discharge of his duty in prosecuting a white man who has wealth and influence. It is the supreme test of a man’s good character, and I glory in the fact that Hugh Dorsey has those high and honorable traits of his good father and mother that enables him to know the right, and, knowing the right, to dare to do it.

“WILLIAM M. SMITH.”

PINKERTONS’ CHANGE.

The Journal’s exclusive story of Friday telling that the Pinkreton [sic] detectives, who long held to the theory that Leo M. Frank was guilty of the murder which occurred April 26 in the factory of which he was superintendent, now believe in his innocence and in the guilt of Conley, has occasioned wide comment.

Chief Detective N.A. Lanford has issued a statement in which he says that in his opinion the theory of the Pinkertons, who have rendered the state valuable aid in working the murder case, has not changed.

Harry Scott, field chief of the Pinkertons, however, still refuses to commit himself.

“The Pinkertons at the coming trial, or at any other that may result in the case, will give fair and impartial testimony,” he said. “Whether our testimony affects Frank or the negro is no concern of ours.”

Further than that Scott would not talk, sidestepping all questions relative to his theory.

The report that the Pinkertons are trailing W.H. Mincey, who claims in an affidavit that Conley confessed the crime to him, is erroneous.

Mincey is known to be at Rising Fawn, Dade county, Georgia, where he is now teaching in a district school.

A Journal correspondent reached Mincey Friday afternoon, following a report that he had disappeared, and the teacher-solicitor said that he would certainly be on hand at Frank’s trial or at any other time that he may be needed.

He maintains that Conley told him on the afternoon of April 26 that he had killed a girl.

* * *

The Atlanta Journal, July 19th 1913, “Jury Is Determined to Consider a Bill Against Jim Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, July 19, 1913

Call Is Issued After Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey Had Flatly Refused Request of Foreman.

A call for the Fulton grand jury to meet at 10 o’clock Monday to take steps leading to the indictment of James Conley, the negro sweeper of the National Pencil factory who accuses Leo M. Frank, its superintendent, of the Mary Phagan murder was issued yesterday by Foreman W.D. Beatie [sic] after Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey had flatly refused the foreman’s request to call the meeting.

The move to indict Conley is wrong and should not be made, the solicitor told the grand jury foreman when discussing the matter with him and the call which went out was over the head of the state’s legal representative in Fulton county.

Smith Attacks Action

[…] representative of Conley declared in a statement which he issued Friday afternoon that the indictment of Conley would probably follow the meeting and he also attacked the members of the grand jury for their action in taking this move against the advice of the solicitor.

Solicitor Dorsey issued the following statement in regard to the meeting.

Its only purpose will be to exploit the evidence and embarrass the state and I hope the grand jury when it meets will decide to leave the matter alone.

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

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

Will Aid the Defense

Should Conley be indicted it is positive that the solicitor will not allow him to go to trial before the final disposition of the Frank case which is set for trial Monday week but the attorneys who represent Frank would probably get before the court the fact that Conley is under indictment for the time for which they will be defending Frank. This and the fact that it will appear to the jury that Conley, in swearing against Frank, will be influenced to a greater or lesser degree by a desire to save his own neck, would greatly aid the defense.

When the grand jury meets Monday to take up the investigation of Conley it will be the first time in the history of the county that a grand jury has gone directly against the advice of the solicitor who is paid by the state as their legal adviser.

Solicitor Dorsey will also be compelled to produce what evidence he has in the case, should the grand jurors request such action.

Attorney Smith’s Statement

The statement as issued by Attorney Smith on behalf of Conley is as follows:

I notice Foreman Beatie [sic] has called the grand jury to meet Monday. When they meet I would like for them to first investigate the movement that seems to have stirred their enthusiasm. I wish the press could afford to publish what I have the nerve to say about this latest move.

If they meet, I do not doubt they will indict Jim all right. If they get up inspiration enough to run over the state’s sworn counsel in getting together they can see their way to indict.

Jim Conley has been dealing fairly with the state of Georgia. His story has been an open book to the sworn trusted prosecuting officers of this state. He is not skulking coward-like behind the protection of iron bars nor have his lips been sealed with lamb-like silence until he can spring suddenly in a court a well-prepared statement which the state has no opportunity to investigate and disprove. Conley allows himself grilled cross examined and unceasingly questioned by the representatives of the state. He is talking and talking now. Conley says to the state of Georgia here is my story investigate it, sift it, and prove it a lie if you can.

What more could the grand jury ask? Conley is giving the state a square deal. Conley is remaining a voluntary prisoner and no honest citizen doubts that he will be held to account for his part in this terrible tragedy.

Better Leave Him Alone.

If the grand jury do not want to please Frank and his friends, if they do not want to help clear Frank, they had better leave this alone for the present. The good people of this county elected Hugh Dorsey as the solicitor general. Under the law this makes him the legal adviser of the grand jury. There is not a business man on the grand jury that does not follow in his own affairs the advice of the lawyer of character and ability to whom he goes for counsel. Let the grand jury do with the public business what they would do with their own matters, follow the advice of the sworn representative of the good people of this county.

Does the grand jury think their legal judgment or their personal integrity above that of our solicitor general? Or do they doubt the professional or private character of Hugh Dorsey? The people of this county know that Dorsey is straight, that in this case he is fighting brains money and influence. I know that he is standing for what he thinks right and with constant threats thrown at him that they will defeat him at the next election and with every handicap thrown in his way in the discharge of his duty in prosecuting a white man who has wealth and influence. It is the supreme test of a man’s good character and I glory in the fact that Hugh Dorsey has those high and honorable traits of his good father and mother that enables him to know the right and knowing the right to dare to do it.

WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 19th 1913, “Grand Jury Meets to Indict Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Constitution

Saturday, July 19, 1913

Chief’s Statement Follows the Publication of Report That Pinkertons Are Now of the Opinion Sweeper Is Guilty.

“OPEN TO CONVICTION,” SCOTT TELLS REPORTER

“Our Testimony in Case Will Be Fair and Impartial,” He Says—Grand Jury Called to Consider Indicting Conley.

DEVELOPMENTS OF DAY IN MARY PHAGAN CASE

Meeting of grand jury called to take steps leading to indictment of James Conley on the charge of murder, over protest of Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey, who declares that indictment of Conley will be useless procedure.

Reported on Friday that the Pinkertons have changed their opinion in case, and now believe Conley guilty of murder, and Leo M. Frank innocent.

Harry Scott, field manager of Pinkertons, is denied permission to see Conley in his cell and subject him to quiz, although always allowed this privilege in past.

“Scott told me he still believes Conley innocent and Frank guilty,” says Chief of Detectives Lanford. “Pinkertons will give fair and impartial testimony at coming trial,” Scott tells Constitution. “Whether it affects Frank or the negro is no concern of ours; we were employed to find the murderer.”

“Conley is dealing fairly with the state of Georgia,” says his attorney, William M. Smith, in making attack on action of the grand jury.

That Harry Scott, field manager for the Pinkertons, came to police headquarters yesterday afternoon immediately following the publication of a story to the effect that the Pinkertons now believed in Conley’s guilt, and declared that he still held to the theory that the negro was innocent and Frank guilty, was the assertion made by Newport Lanford, chief of detectives, last night.

“Scott told me,” said the chief last night, “that there was no truth in the article so far as he personally was concerned, and that he continued firm in the belief that Conley was innocent.

“He has maintained throughout the investigation that Frank is guilty, and that Conley had nothing more to do with the crime than the complicity to which he confessed. He came to me Friday especially to deny the story.

Why Scott Was Barred.

Lanford stated that Scott had worked during the entire case along this line. It is further stated that Scott told the chief Friday that his original belief had not been altered in the slightest.

A prominent police official explained the move which prevented Scott from interviewing the negro Friday afternoon. It was to keep any additional statement which might be made by the negro from reaching the ears of counsel for Frank’s defense, he said.

“Police headquarters has been working in co-operation with Scott,” said the official, “and he has been invaluable to the Phagan investigation. His retainers, however, are pencil factory officials, and his daily reports are submitted to Frank’s counsel.

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

It was inferred by this statement that new evidence has been gained from Conley. Chief Lanford would not commit himself. He would neither deny nor affirm the report that additional statements had been obtained.

Scott’s Attitude.

Detective Harry Scott made his attitude in the Phagan case clear to a reporter last night. He declared that he would not commit himself as to his belief of guilt either toward Conley or Frank, but that he was open to conviction regarding either suspect.

“The Pinkertons at the coming trial—or any others that may result from the case—will give fair and impartial testimony. Whether it affects Frank or the negro is no concern of ours. We were employed to apprehend the murderer. This we strove to do at the best of our ability. All evidence we have got will be submitted fully and fairly.”

Scott Is Non-Committal.

Scott would not say whether the evidence at hand was damaging to either of the prisoners. He was extremely non-committal; in fact, more […]

Continued on Page Two.

SCOTT BELIEVES CONLEY INNOCENT

Continued From Page One.

[…] so than at any other stage of the famous case. He did state, however, that there had been no change of attitude in the Pinkerton forces, and that they were concerned in the investigation as they had always been, solely to find the slayer.

It was also stated from the Pinkerton offices that they would not assist the defense of Leo Frank. Their relationship, it is rumored, has been severed from the police department so far as concerns the Phagan case. They will not strive it was said, to prosecute or defend anyone put on trial their object being to submit evidence tending to disclose the murderer.

Conley Quizzed Enough.

Regarding the action of Chief Beavers in refusing permission to see Conley when he applied at police headquarters Friday afternoon, Scott told the reporter.

I will not try to examine the negro again. I do not want to clash with the police department in the first place and in the second I do not think it necessary to quizz [sic] Conley any further. He has already told enough.

As to a definite statement having been made of their attitude as was reported Friday afternoon Scott declared that no such intimation had been given from his office. It probably resulted, he said, because of their reticence which has been maintained of late and of the refusal of the police chief to permit an interview with Conley.

* * *

The Atlanta Constitution, July 19th 1913, “Scott Believes Conley Innocent, Asserts Lanford,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, July 12, 1913

After Gruelling Third Degree, Officials Refuse to Deny or Affirm Negro Confessed.

Habeas corpus proceedings to release Newt Lee collapsed in the court of Judge Ellis Saturday morning.

By agreement, Bernard L. Chappell, representing Lee, withdrew his application for a habeas corpus; Solicitor Dorsey promised to present a bill against Lee as a suspect in the Phagan murder case, with the expectation that a “no bill” would be returned. This appeared satisfactory to the attorneys for Lee, as well as to the State.

Luther Z. Rosser, Reuben R. Arnold and Herbert J. Haas, of counsel for Frank, were in court to fight against the appearance of Frank as a witness. William M. Smith represented Conley, one of the witnesses subpenaed.

Jim Conley underwent a racking third degree late Friday afternoon at the hands of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and Attorney Frank A. Hooper in an effort to verify or discredit the W.H. Mincey affidavit, in which the negro was charged with confessing to the murder of a girl on the afternoon that Mary Phagan met her death.

The grilling of nearly four hours followed The Georgian’s publication of the details of Mincey’s accusations and was undertaken with the utmost secrecy, an attempt being made to avoid knowledge of the “sweating” becoming public by taking Conley to the Commissioners’ room on the second floor of the police station by a circuitous route.

Negro’s Most Severe Ordeal.

It was the most severe ordeal through which the negro has passed. Its result was kept a profound secret both by the Solicitor and Attorney Hooper. Neither would deny the rumor that Conley had made a complete confession admitting that it was he that killed the little factory girl, nor would they confirm the report, which arose when it was learned that Solicitor Dorsey apparently was making ready to take an entirely new statement from the negro.

Dorsey, Hooper and Chief Lanford were present in the Commissioners’ room when the inquisition began. After a few minutes Chief Lanford departed and did not return while the questioning was in progress. He was inclined to deny at first that Conley even was behind the closed doors. But ocular proof had been afforded and the newspaper men hovered about the hallway in the hope that some scrap of information might come to them.

Policeman Guards Door.

Their hovering tactics received a bad setback when Chief Lanford detailed a policeman to guard the door and keep all inquisitive persons away.

For an hour Dorsey and Hooper alternated in shooting questions at the negro, apparently without getting anything from him that he had not already told. Then they removed their coats and renewed the grilling. At one point it seemed Conley must have wavered in some of his statements or changed some of the testimony he previously had given. Dorsey emerged from the room and got a blotter from Chief Beavers’ office. It was taken to mean that a new statement was being obtained from the negro.

The questioning was resumed and the Solicitor from a distant vantage point could be seen turning sheet after sheet of the testimony already given by Conley and comparing it with the statements then being made.

Attorneys Keep Silence.

Dorsey, coatless and perspiring, leaned far over the table and asked the negro question after question, his finger following the answers which had been given when the negro was interrogated before.

Not until after dark did the sweating process cease. Conley was taken back to his cell and Dorsey and Hooper went to their homes. Not a word could be obtained from either.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 12th 1913, “Conley Kept on Grill 4 Hours,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Saturday, July 12, 1913

*Editor’s Note: This article also ran with the headlines “Says Women Overheard Conley Confess” and “Says Women Heard Conley Confess” in the Final and Home Editions, respectively. The headline used here is from the Night Edition.

AFFIDAVITS SUPPORT MINCEY STORY

Attorney Leavitt Declares Tale That Negro Admitted Killing Girl Will Stand Test.

That several negro women overheard Jim Conley when he ran the insurance agent, Mincey, away with the alleged statement that he had just killed a girl and didn’t want to kill any one else, and that the affidavits from the women are in the hands of the attorneys for the defense, was stated Saturday by Attorney J.H. Leavitt, who aided in obtaining the sensational affidavit from Mincey.

Attorney Leavitt defended the character of the man who made the affidavit and denied emphatically that Mincey even asked about the money he would receive as a witness, except whether his railroad fare would be paid if he were out of the city.

Explains Dukes’ Doubts.

“I am attorney for the American Insurance Company and know its manager, J.S. Dukes, very well,” said Leavitt. “He sought to discredit the affidavit very likely because Mincey left his employ to get a better position and he had to do some of the outside work. Mincey is a college graduate and is well known in Atlanta. It will be utterly impossible to shake his evidence.

“I am not employed to represent Frank and aided in getting this affidavit purely because I happened to stumble on to the information. Before I submitted it to Mr. Rosser, Frank’s attorney, I spent eleven days investigating the character of the man, questioning the women in the neighborhood and generally verifying the facts. When I turned it over to him I was convinced of its absolute truth and that it would stand the acid test.”

Habeas Corpus Fight Fails.

Habeas corpus proceedings to release Newt Lee collapsed in the court of Judge Ellis Saturday morning.

By agreement, Bernard L. Chappell, representing Lee, withdrew his application for a habeas corpus; Solicitor Dorsey promised to present a bill against Lee as a suspect in the Phagan murder case, with the expectation that a “no bill” would be returned. This appeared satisfactory to the attorneys, for Lee, as well as to the State.

Luther Z. Rosser, Reuben R. Arnold and Herbert J. Haas, of counsel for Frank, were in court to fight against the appearance of Frank as a witness. William M. Smith represented Conley, one of the witnesses subpenaed.

Conley Gets Third Degree.

Jim Conley underwent a racking third degree late Friday afternoon at the hands of Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and Attorney Frank A. Hooper in an effort to verify or discredit the W.H. Mincey affidavit, in which the negro was charged with confessing to the murder of a girl on the afternoon that Mary Phagan met her death.

The grilling of nearly four hours followed The Georgian’s publication of the details of Mincey’s accusations and was undertaken with the utmost secrecy, an attempt being made to avoid knowledge of the “sweating” becoming public by taking Conley to the Commissioners’ room on the second floor of the police station by a circuitous route.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 12th 1913, “Says Women Heard Conley Confession,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Wednesday, July 9, 1913

iGrl [sic] Called to Tell of Negro She Saw in Pencil Factory—Lee Stays in Jail.

A sensation in the Phagan murder mystery developed Wednesday afternoon when Solicitor Dorsey summoned Miss Mattie Smith under a special subpena to question her in regard to a negro she saw in the National Pencil Factory the morning of the Saturday that Mary Phagan was murdered.

Miss Smith told a Georgian reporter that she saw a negro there that morning and believed it was between 9 and 10 o’clock. She thought she might be asked to identify Conley. If she identifies the negro, it will disprove Conley’s statement that he did not go to the factory until after he had met Frank Saturday.

Judge W. D. Ellis Wednesday morning postponed indefinitely the hearing on the application for a writ of habeas corpus to liberate Newt Lee, material witness in the Phagan murder mystery.

The action came as a result of an agreement reached between Graham & Chappell, attorneys for Lee, and Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey. It is believed to mark the end of all efforts to gain the negro’s freedom before the trial of Leo M. Frank July 28.

The most unconcerned person in the courtroom was Newt Lee. He was brought before Judge Ellis by Deputy Sheriff Miner.

Lee is Unconcerned.

“It don’t make no difference to me whether I am inside or outside the jail,” he said to a reporter. “It’s just as the white folks say. I don’t know what all this is that’s going on. I know that my church offered to get me a lawyer. I guess this Mr. Chappell must be the one.”

Chappell did not appear in the courtroom. Lee was represented by C. J. Graham, Chappell’s law partner. Graham and Arnold had a conference half an hour before the hearing, and after it was announced that the judge would be asked for a postponement. Solicitor Dorsey arrived shortly before the hearing began and shortly afterward William M. Smith, attorney for Jim Conley, and Herbert Haas, associated with the defense, entered the courtroom.

Attorney Chappell was opposed in his move to obtain the liberty of Lee not only be the lawyers for the defense, but by those of the prosecution.

“I have advised against this action,” said Solicitor Dorsey, “and I have no idea that it will be successful. The State will be able to prevent the liberation of the negro, as we regard him as a most important witness in our case against Leo Frank. By permitting him to go free would be taking serious chances of losing him as a witness when the case comes to trial.”

Attorney Chappell desired to have Frank present at the hearing in order to repeat his former statements that so far as he knew there was no possibility that Lee could in any way have been connected with the crime.

Conley, who admitted to having assisted in the disposal of the body, was expected to deny that Lee had any connection with the crime to his knowledge.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 9th 1913, “New Evidence in Phagan Case Found,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)