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

The Atlanta Journal

Monday, July 21, 1913

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

NO ANONYMOUS LETTERS WANTED BY THE JURORS

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

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

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

DORSEY MAKES STATEMENT.

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

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

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

A QUORUM PRESENT.

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

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

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

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

MADE LONG SPEECH.

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

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

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

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

DRAWING OF JURY

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

(Continued On Page 7, Col. 1.)

WILL NOT INDICT JIM CONLEY NOW, JURY’S DECISION

(Continued From Page 1.)

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

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

Conley Carried to Carter Street and Electric Ave.

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Protest of Solicitor Will Be Heeded

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

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

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

No Witnesses Called.

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

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

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

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

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

Not to Ignore Dorsey.

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

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

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

GRAND JPRY [sic] NOT TO HASTEN TO INDICT NEGRO

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

Continued From Page 1.

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

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

* * *

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

Introduction
By Alan M. Dershowitz

The trial, conviction, death sentence and its commutation and eventual lynching of Leo Frank during the second decade of the twentieth century, constitute a major episode not only in American legal history, but also in the development of American political institutions. The Knights of Mary Phagan, formed to avenge the murder of the young factory worker for which Frank was convicted, became an important component of the twentieth century resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith was founded in reaction to the anti-Semitism generated – or at least disclosed – by the Frank case.

Sometimes characterized as the American “Dreyfus” case (a reference to the frame-up of a French Jew which fanned the flames of nineteenth century European anti-Semitism), the trial of Leo Frank in Atlanta, Georgia was conducted in a carnival atmosphere. Crowds outside the courthouse sang “The Ballad of Mary Phagan,” which included the following lyrics:

Little Mary Phagan
She left her home one day;
She went to the pencil-factory
To see the big parade.

She left her home at eleven,
She kissed her mother good-by;
Not one time did the poor child think
That she was a-going to die.

Leo Frank he met her
With a brutish heart, we know;
He smiled, and said, “Little Mary,
You won’t go home no more.”

Sneaked along behind her
Till she reached the metal-room;
He laughed, and said, “Little Mary,
You have met your fatal doom.”

Down upon her knees
To Leo Frank she plead;
He taken a stick from the trash-pile
And struck her across the head.

Crowds inside the courtroom shouted anti-Jewish epithets, and demanded Frank’s death. The smell of the lynch mob was in the air.

The State’s star witness was a black maintenance worker at the factory which Frank managed and at which Mary Phagan worked. He testified that Frank killed the young girl and ordered him to dispose of the body. When the jury convicted Frank, it was the first time in memory that a white man had been convicted of murder on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a black witness. This apparent advance in racial justice was explained away by a local observer who said: “That wasn’t a white man convicted by that N…’s testimony. It was a Jew.”

Predictably, Frank was convicted, sentenced to death and denied relief on appeal, despite some critical dissenting words from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Unpredictably, the Governor of Georgia decided to commute Frank’s death sentence and leave him to serve out a term of life imprisonment. That appeared to be a great victory for Frank and his many supporters around the country, since the evidentiary foundation underlying Frank’s conviction was beginning to crumble as a result of the discovery of new evidence strongly suggesting that it was the government’s star witness – and not Frank – who had killed the victim. It seemed only a matter of time before Frank would be freed from his imprisonment.

In order to prevent Frank’s freedom, several of the “best” citizens of Georgia – including a minister, two former Supreme Court Justices, and an ex-sheriff – decided to take the law into their own hands. They constituted themselves as a vigilante committee and let it be known that they intended to kidnap Frank from prison and lynch him. Despite some perfunctory efforts by prison authorities to protect Frank, the lynch mob had little difficulty breaking into the prison and kidnapping Frank. It was obvious that at least some of the prison authorities were in on the plan. Frank was taken to Marietta, where he was lynched. Everyone knew exactly who was involved in the lynching – indeed some members of the lynch mob boasted about their participation and gave interviews to the press. Photographs of the lynching and souvenir pieces of the rope were sold throughout Georgia. Nonetheless, the coroner’s jury investigating the murder of Leo Frank concluded that it was unable to identify any of the perpetrators. This was typical of lynchings in the South during that era. The only difference is that this victim was not black.

There is a fascinating and largely unknown ethical story behind the public legal story of the Frank case. I use it as a teaching vehicle in my course on legal ethics. It turns out that while Leo Frank was on death row, one of Atlanta’s most prominent lawyers learned that Frank was innocent and that another man – presumably the government’s star witness – was the killer. We do not know for certain whether the real killer confessed directly to the lawyer, or to another lawyer who then sought ethical advice from the pillar of the bar. This is the way the eminent lawyer described it in his own writings:

I am one of the few people who know that Leo Frank was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and lynched. Subsequent to the trial, and after his conviction had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, I learned who killed Mary Phagan, but the information came to me in such a way that, though I wish I could do so, I can never reveal it so long as certain persons are alive. We lawyers, when we are admitted to the bar, take an oath never to reveal the communications made to us by our clients; and this includes facts revealed in an attempt to employ the though he refuses the employment….The Law on this subject may or may not be a wise law – there are some who think that it is not – but naturally since it is the law, we lawyers and the judges cannot honorably disobey it.

The eminent lawyer (and any other lawyer who may have received the real killer’s confession in confidence) was forced into the most excruciating legal, ethical and moral dilemma a professional can possibly confront. The ethical rules of the profession are fairly clear. There is no available exception to the rule mandating confidentiality of privileged communications about past crimes. It is not a future crime for a guilty client to remain silent while an innocent man goes to his death for the murder committed by a silent, guilty client. The issue is a bit more complicated if the confessing client was, in fact, the witness who testified against Frank, for the client would then be confessing to perjury. Some courts and commentators have suggested that allowing perjured testimony to remain unrecanted, while the victim of the perjury remains under a death or prison sentence, may constitute a continuing fraud on the court, and thus an exception to the lawyer-client privilege. But that line of authority is hazy at best, and the eminent lawyer did not apparently consider it. He saw the legal and professional ethics issue as simple and straightforward. That still left the moral and personal issue of whether any human being – regardless of his or her profession – can and should allow a preventable miscarriage of justice to be carried out, especially in a capital case. My students in legal ethics generally split down the middle over whether they would violate the rules of the profession – engage in an act of civil disobedience against their own client – in order to save an innocent non-client.

In a typically lawyer-like way, the eminent lawyer in the real case apparently saw to it that the governor learned the information known to him, but without his own “fingerprints” being on the communication. This is how he put it: “Without ever having discussed with Governor Slaton the facts which were revealed to me, I have reason to believe, from a thing contained in the statement he made in connection with the grant of the commutation, that, in some way, these facts came to him and influenced his action.” But the eminent lawyer’s compromise did not work. Although the governor did commute Leo Frank’s sentence, he was not able to persuade a vengeful public of Frank’s innocence. I doubt that Frank would have been lynched had the eminent lawyer come forward and disclosed his information. Instead, his client would almost certainly have been lynched. The complexity of ethical and moral issues in the law can rarely be resolved by simple compromise solutions of the kind attempted by the lawyer in the Frank case. Indeed some such issues have no entirely satisfactory solutions.

Nearly seventy years after Leo Frank’s murder, new evidence of his innocence emerged. An eighty-two-year old man, who have been a youthful eyewitness to events surrounding the killing of Mary Phagan, finally came forward and told what he had seen back in 1913. His evidence contradicted the State’s star witness and strongly suggested that the murder was committed by that same witness, the black maintenance man. The murderer threatened the young witness with death if he ever mentioned what he had observed, and he did not come forward for all those years. Now, he has told his story and it seems to have persuaded most objective people that Leo Frank was lynched for a crime committed by someone else.

Finally, in 1986 Frank was posthumously pardoned with following official apology: “The lynching aborted the legal process, thus foreclosing further effort to prove Frank’s innocence. It resulted from the State of Georgia’s failure to protect Frank. Compounding the injustice, the State then failed to prosecute any of the lynchers.” Remarkably, some Georgians continued to resist the pardon.

Alan Dershowitz

Cambridge, Massachusetts
January 11, 1991

Source: Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. Notable Trials Library edition, 1991.

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Dr. M. W. Lewis, a prominent physician of Carrollton, was arrested Monday morning and placed under $1,000 bond on a charge of disorderly conduct. He is charged with registering as man and wife at the Hotel Scoville, on Mitchell street, with Miss Effie McColman, who is held as a witness in the case. The trial will be held before Recorder Broyles Tuesday afternoon. The arrest was deloyed [sic] until the physician had finished a difficult operation at a sanitarium.

According to the charges, Dr. Lewis arrived in Atlanta Monday morning with Miss McColman, registering at the Hotel Scoville with her as Dr. Lewis and wife.

This is denied by Dr. Lewis, who says someone, who evidently has it in for him, added the “and wife.”

Dr. Lewis and the girl, who is only 19 years old, were arrested on information furnished to the police by an alleged friend of the couple, who saw them on the train Monday morning.

According to Dr. Lewis, the girl came to Atlanta with him to have some work done on her teeth. The girl says she came with the doctor with her parents’ permission. The McColmans live in the country about ten miles from Carrollton.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Doctor And Girl Are Taken On Vice Charge,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Presents Evidence Showing Indictment of Negro Would Hinder Frank Prosecution.

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

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

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

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

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

Defense Said To Be Willing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delay in Trial Rumored.

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

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

Says Judge Favors Delay.

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

SOLICITOR HALTS INDICTMENT OF JIM CONLEY

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

Continued From Page 1.

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

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

Fighting Mincey.

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Monday, July 21, 1913

Four young women, three of whom had been caught in Chief Beavers’ vice dragnet last week, escaped from the Martha Home during chapel exercises Sunday night.

The women were Effie Drummond, who after being caught in a raid on Mrs. Lula Bell’s place at Peters and Fair streets, declared she was a minister’s daughter from North Carolina, and had been the victim of a white slaver; Maude Doughetry, apprehended at the same house; Beatrice Renfro, companion of A.N. Trippe, a Whitehall street clerk, arrested on complaint of Tripp’e [sic] wife, and Myrtle Bell, who was placed in the home at the request of her parents.

The dragnet has been recast for the fugitives.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 21st 1913, “Four Women Caught In Vice Net Escape From Martha Home,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Journal

Sunday, July 20, 1913

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

“SHUTTING EYES TO TRUTH, DORSEY PROTECTS NEGRO”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT IN FULL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued on Page 3, Col. 1)

SOLICITOR SCORED FOR HIS ATTITUDE IN CONLEY’S CASE

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

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

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

THE SOLICITOR’S POSITION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY SO MUCH FEAR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN REPLY TO MR. SMITH.

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

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

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

“LUTHER E. ROSSER.
“R.R. ARNOLD.”

New Witness Found Who Will Testify for Frank

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

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

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

Conley’s Attorney Does Not Believe He Will Be Indicted

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

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

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

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

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

DOESN’T FEAR JURY.

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

(Signed.) WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

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

THE GRAND JURY IS CALLED

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

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

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

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

Crucial Battle Coming.

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

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

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

Dorsey Refuse sto [sic] Comply.

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence More Direct.

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

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

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Dorsey Fights Movement to Indict Conley,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

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

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

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

The attorney’s statement in full follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLIAM M. SMITH.

* * *

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

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

The Atlanta Georgian

Sunday, July 20, 1913

Man Who Says He Heard Negro Confess Now Is at Rising Fawn, Ga.

W.H. Mincey, the school teacher who made an affidavit declaring Jim Conley confessed to him on the afternoon of the murder of Mary Phagan that he killed a girl, will appear before the Grand Jury to repeat his startling story when that tribunal convenes Monday to consider the Phagan matter, it was reported Saturday night.

Mincey, who is now at Rising Fawn, Ga., has expressed his willingness to come to Atlanta for this purpose. His evidence, which has proved the most important of all that has come to light since Conley’s affidavit directing guilt at Frank, is considered of the greatest weight in bringing the Grand Jury to its consideration of indicting Conley.

Hugh Dorsey, Solicitor General, insisted Saturday that his every effort would be directed against the indictment of Conley.

The Solicitor will not fight in Conley’s defense except as a last resort. His chief desire is that the Grand Jury postpone action in regard to the negro until after the Frank trial.

“Conley can be indicted after the Frank trial is disposed of much more properly than at present,” said the Solicitor Saturday. “And by the delay, there will be no danger of a miscarriage of justice.”

The chief contention of the Solicitor is that with Conley indicted for the murder, and with uncertainty thus engendered, much of the force of the State’s case against Leo M. Frank will be lost. It is the insistent declaration by police, city detectives and the Solicitor’s force that a chain of direct and apparently conclusive evidence has been forged against Frank.

It is mostly for this reason that Dorsey will request the Grand Jury to keep its hands off the Conley case. The Solicitor also hinted that he holds evidence, revelation of which would prevent the Grand Jury from indicting the negro. He feels also, as he announced, that a consideration of the Phagan case at this time will bring about an indiscreet exploitation of the State’s evidence, thus revealing essential features of the prosecution’s case to the defense.

All this he will present to the Grand Jury, it is expected.

Other phases of the case discussed Saturday included the intimation that the Frank defense will ask for a trial jury drawn from the Grand Jury box, and not from the petit jury box. The legality of this procedure, according to the Solicitor, is a matter of conjecture.

The Grand Jury will meet Monday at 10 o’clock, at the call of the foreman. The body has only twenty members, and by statute a quorum of eighteen is necessary to consider the indictment or exoneration of a person. The fact that a small margin thus is left for probable absence seems to strengthen the Solicitor’s forecast that no indictment will be returned against Conley at this time.

* * *

The Atlanta Georgian, July 20th 1913, “Mincey Ready to Tell Story to Grand Jury,” Leo Frank case newspaper article series (Original PDF)