Tuesday, 7th October 1913: Dorsey At Work To Combat Charge, The Atlanta Georgian
The Atlanta Georgian,
Tuesday, 7th October 1913,
PAGE 1, COLUMN 8.
Defense Claims It has New
and
Positive Proof of Bias
Accusa-
tions Against Henslee
A. H. Henslee, of the jury that convicted Leo M. Frank, made
his bitterly denunciator remarks against the defendant in the
hearing of a far greater number of persons than already have
made depositions, according to information in the possession of
Frank's attorneys.
While the prisoner's lawyers are busy building up their plea,
Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey is working ceaselessly preparing to
demolish their arguments for a new trial.
We have the names of a great many other persons to whom
Henslee expressed his opinion of Frank's guilt and his hope that
he would have the opportunity to assist in convicting him, said
Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, Monday.
These persons would be called on to tell the truth in respect
to Henslee's attitude before the trial were it not for their evident
reluctance to incur the enmity of Henslee and the fact that we
already have the sworn statements of a sufficient number of
reliable persons to prove conclusively that Henslee was guilty of
making the biased and prejudiced remarks.
Fear They'll Harm Henslee.
We are in possession of the facts, however, and if we find it
necessary we will use them. Even the men from whom we have
taken statements have been reluctant to give them. They
acquiesced in making a statement of the facts only after they had
been summoned by a process of law. They did not wish to harm
Henslee, but they had overheard his unmistakable condemnation
of Frank and there was nothing left for them to do when they
were called to narrate the facts of the case.
Henslee's prejudice and that of Johenning alone constitute a
situation that is sufficient to form a basis for a new trial. It is
unthinkable that a man should be sentenced to death when the
two men at least were violently biased against him before a word
of evidence was heard.
Solicitor Dorsey and his assistant, A. E. Stephens, are
engaged in prep answer to the motion for a new trial. The lawyers
for the defense are prepared to argue the motion before Judge
Roan next Saturday. The Solicitor is expected to be ready for the
argument, although he has an immense task in reviewing all of
the reasons presented by the defense.
Grand Jury Session Delayed.
The meeting of the Fulton Grand Jury has been postponed
indefinitely, pending the final disposition of the Frank case,
according to information at the Solicitor's office Monday.
Coupled with this information was the announcement that
the decks had been cleared for the case. Absolutely nothing, not
even the Grand Jury, it is said, will be allowed to interfere with the
work of Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Stephens in summing up the final
evidence which will be used to combat the arguments of the
defense for a new trial.
In the meantime, the courts are becoming clogged and the
Grand Jury faces a heavy docket, including a number of important
cases.
The extreme thoroughness with which the attorneys for
Frank
Continued on Page 2, Column 5.
PAGE 7, COLUMN 5
-
FRANK DEFENSE
CLAIMS NEW
BIAS PROOF
Solicitor Dorsey
Meanwhile Col-
lects Data Combat the
Charges Against
Henslee
Continued From Page 1.
have set about substantiating their charge of prejudice and bias
against A. H. Henslee, on the twelve jurors who declared Frank
guilty of murder, made it evident Monday that the lawyers will
wage their fight around this one instance of alleged unfairness as
to constitute in itself and alone a sufficient ground for a new a
new trial.
Many persons with whom Henslee talked before the trial
were interviewed by agents of Attorneys Rosser and Arnold. One
deposition was bulkwarked by another until the lawyers
considered they had made out a clear case of prejudice and bias
against Henslee. Without the additional force lent by the more
than 100 other reasons presented in their amended motion for a
new trial, they were confident that they had obtained an
unassailable ground for a retrial of the convicted man.
Solicitor Dorsey is preparing for a determined fight against
their contention. He believes that Henslee has been
misrepresented. He is prepared to take the word of Henslee
himself that he uttered no statements to the effect that he
considered Frank guilty and would like to have a part in bringing
about his hanging.
Sparta Men Make Reply.
Henslee's repeated denials of the alleged conversations
brought a reply Monday from three of the Sparta men who
recently made depositions that they had overheard remarks of
the nature mentioned. They prepared a signed statement, in
which they reiterated their allegations of prejudice and bias
against Henslee and declared that Henslee must have been
misquoted in his repudiation of the remarks.
The statement was signed by Joan M. Holmes, of Holmes &
Walker, an insurance and buggy firm; S. M. Johnson, cashier of the
firm, and Shi Gray. All assert they were present when Henslee's
reported conversation in regard to the guilt of Frank took place.
Practically Tried Frank.
The letter read:
You must recall in Mr. Holmes' office, on the day stated,
and in the presence of the undersigned, we all discussed the
Frank case and practically tried him, as it were, and that, in the
discussion, you not only said that Frank was as guilty as", but
you had so much to say about Frank's being a moral degenerate
"your exact language we can not use"and further stated that
you were drawn as a juror.
We have no disposition to injure you or to make public your
statement, as two of the writers, Gray and Holmes, have known
you and your family for many years, and we do not know how the
attorneys were acquainted with the fact of this conversation, but
your remark was common talk in the town, where there are a
number of people who could have given the information to the
attorneys.
We declined to make a voluntary affidavit in the matter and
said nothing until forced to by the court, but let us assure you
that the reluctance to testify in no way changes the fact, and you
shall not be permitted to make statements in the public press
denouncing us as liars in order to protect yourself from the
criticism you have justly deserved.
We await your answer.
J. M. HOLMES.
S. M. JOHNSON.
SHI GRAY.
County
Refuses
To Pay Newt
Lee.
Claims filed by attorneys for Newt Lee, the negro witness in
the Frank case, for recovery for time lost while confined in the
county jail, were turned down by the Board of County
Commissioners in monthly session Monday morning.
The vote of the board was unanimous, following motion of
General Clifford Anderson, who declared the county owed nothing
to Newt lee, inasmuch as he was held at the instance of the State.
The negro was held in the county as a witness for about three
months.
Previous to the decision of the board a communication was
read from Attorney Luther Rosser, who refused to give an opinion
as to the claims of Lee on the grounds that he was unqualified
because of his connection with the case.
The County Commissioners disposed of several important
matters Monday morning, including the Roxbury crossing matter
providing for the construction of an underpass by the Southern
Railway and the widening of the roadway 40 feet.
The board also heard the petition of 25 citizens, offering to
donate a 70-foot roadway about six miles in length, extending
along the Chattahoochee River from Pace's Ferry to Johnson Ferry
road. The petition was referred to the three local road
commissioners, who will report on the feasibility of the proposed
roadway.
An offer of the Piedmont Chapter of the Daughters of the
Revolution to place a Georgia State flag on the new courthouse
was also accepted with thanks and plans made for a flag-raising
day when the new building is completed.
The meeting Monday morning was postponed from last
week, pending the return of Commissioners Smith, Anderson and
Winn from Detroit.
PAGE 2, COLUMN 1
HIT DENIAL
BY FRANK
JUROR
Henslee, in Letter to The
Geor- gian. Declares
His Comment
Was Made After Trial
The idea that there could have been any mistake in the
dates when they say they overheard Juror A. H. Henslee make
denunciatory remarks against Leo M. Frank was ridiculed Tuesday
by persons who have made depositions in respect to the nature of
Henslee's remarks.
All insist that the invectives of Henslee against the
defendant were uttered before the trial began and Henslee was
chosen a juror.
They scoff at Henslee's reply to the charges in which he
seeks to establish that every one of his remarks indicating
prejudice and bias were made after the evidence was all in and
the verdict returned.
Say They're Not Mistaken.
The affiants declare that if it comes to an issue of veracity or
accuracy of dates, they have incidents by which they are able to
fix the dates as before the trial of Frank. They are positive there is
no opportunity of mistake.
Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted
that he had made some of the remarks credit to him, but asserted
that they had been uttered after the trial and that he had stated
explicitly that he believed the testimony of Jim Conley made on
the stand.
He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at
the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons
who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to
represent Henslee as a perjurer.
Juror Henslee's Reply.
Replying to your article in today's issue, October 6, in
reference to Messrs. Holmes, Johnson and Gray. I will say I am
sorry to think that you would go ahead and make such
statements above your signatures that I had remarked and tried
Leo M. Frank in your office per your date of July 27. Having read
your deposition in Hugh Dorsey's office, I will say that I spoke of
the case freely and met your many friends in your office on
September 2, which was Tuesday morning.
Sorry to think that you would express yourself, and dating
your deposition as you did, either July 27 or June 27, I will say I
was in your office on June 27 between trains, but the Frank case
was never mentioned. As to branding you all liars, I have never
done so, but say that you have miscalculated your date. I did
willingly express myself freely regarding the Frank case on
September 2, Tuesday morning; met many of your friends, to
whom you introduced me, and did say and express to your friends
and yourselves that Leo M. Frank, from the evidence of Jim
Conley, was really a pervert.
I made a statement to one of the Atlanta papers that I
almost positively knew that from the deposition received from
Sparta, Ga., there would not be anything that I had expressed
prior to this case similar to that of Blakely, Ga. Regarding the fact
that you and my family for years, I wish to state that you
gentlemen regard and hold in in the highest esteem as men
whom I believe would defend and honor me and my family,
regardless of public sentiment.
Denies Calling Them Liars.
I wish to state further from your deposition, after reading
same in Hugh Dorsey's office, I am surprised that men with your
intelligence should come out and
Continued on Page 2, Column 8.
PAGE 8, COLUMN 8
FRANK
JUROR IN
DENIAL OF
BIAS
ACCUSATIO
N
Henslee Declares His
Only Com-
Ment on Case Was
Made Af-
ter the Trial.
Continued From Page 1.
in a way request a reply, as you have. As to branding you liars, I
have never. The fact is, you got your dates wrong.
Julius A. Lehman, of the firm of Floyd & Lehman, of the city
of Atlanta, as I understand, makes an affidavit of alleged
statements to him on either June 2 or June 6, on the train between
Atlanta and Experiment, Ga., which I brand as a false statement,
as on June 2, 1913, I was on the train between Edison, Ga., and
Arlington, Ga. On June 6, I was between Tifton and Ashburn, Ga.
Regarding his statement and affidavit, I brand it as absolutely
false, and furthermore wish to say I called on Mr. Lehman
Saturday evening, October 4, in his place of business, and stated
to him personally that the only reason I came by was to inform
him that I would get a bill of indictment when the next Grand Jury
convened in Fulton County for trying to make me a perjurer. That
was all I had to say to him, and left his place of business.
Regarding all the foregoing statements, will say that it is on
record that the Franklin Buggy Company's place of business is
Barnesville, Ga.
PAGE 3, COLUMN 1
HIT DENIAL
BY FRANK
JUROR
Henslee, in Letter to The
Geor- gian. Declares
His Comment
Was Made After Trial
Standing emphatically by their sworn affidavits that A. H.
Henslee, one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the
murder of little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice
against the prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson
and Shi Gray, of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's
defense.
The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain
that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to
secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in
the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark
that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected
as a juror.
Henslee in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted
that he had made some of the remarks credited to him, but
asserted that they had been uttered after the trial and that he
had stated explicitly that he believed the testimony of Jim Conley
made on the stand.
He also said that he proposed to seek a bull of indictment at
the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons
who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to
represent Henslee as a perjurer.
Juror Henslee's Reply.
Here is Henslee's letter from Barnesville:
Replying to your article in today's issue, October, 6, in
reference to Messrs., Holmes, Johnson and Gray, I will say I am
sorry to think that you would go ahead and make such
statements above your signatures and I had remarked and tried
Leo M. Frank in your office per your date of July 27. Having read
your deposition in Hugh Dorsey's office, I will say that I spoke of
the case freely and met your many friends in your office on
September 2, which was Tuesday morning.
Sorry to think that you would express yourself, and dating
your deposition as you did, either July 27 or June 27, I will say I
was in your office on June 27 between trains, but the Frank case
was never mentioned. As to branding you all liars, I have never
done so, but I do say that you have miscalculated your date, I did
willingly express myself freely regarding the Frank case on
September 2, Tuesday morning; met many of your friends, to
whom you introduced me, and did say and express to your friends
and yourselves that Leo M. Frank, from the evidence of Jim
Conley, was really a pervert.
I made a statement to one of the Atlanta papers that I
almost positively knew that from the deposition received from
Sparta, Ga., there would not be anything that I had expressed
prior to this case similar to that of Blakely, Ga. Regarding the fact
that you knew me and my family for years, I wish to state that
you gentlemen I regard and hold in the highest esteem as men
whom I believe would defend and honor me and my family,
regardless of public sentiment.
Denies Calling Them Liars.
I wish to state further from your deposition, after reading
same in Hugh Dorsey's office, I am surprised that men with your
intelligence should come out and in a way request a reply, as you
have. As to branding you liars, I have never. The fact is, you got
your dates wrong.
Julius A. Lehman, of the firm of Floyd & Lehman, of the city
PAGE 8, COLUMN 9
FRANK
JUROR IN
DENIAL OF
BIAS
ACCUSATIO
N
Henslee Declares His
Only Com-
ment on Case Was
Made Af-
ter the Trial.
Continued From Page 1.
of Atlanta, as I understand, makes an affidavit of alleged
statements to him on either June 2 or June 6, on the train between
Atlanta and Experiment, Ga., which I brand as a false statement,
as on June 2, 1913, I was on the train between Edison, Ga., and
Arlington, Ga. On June 6, I was between Tifton and Ashburn, Ga.
Regarding his statement and affidavit, I brand it as absolutely
false, and furthermore wish to say I called on Mr. Lehman
Saturday evening, October 4, in his place of business, and stated
to him personally that the only reason I came by was to inform
him that I would get a bill of indictment when the next Grand Jury
convened in Fulton County for trying to make me a perjurer. That
was all I had to say to him, and left his place of business.
Regarding all the foregoing statements, will say that it is on
record that the Franklin Buggy Company's place of business is
Barnesville, Ga.
PAGE 4, COLUMN 8
DENIAL
MADE BY
FRANK
JUROR
IS
ATTACKED
Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,
one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of
little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the
prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,
of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.
The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain
that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to
secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in
the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark
that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected
as a juror.
Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted
that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks
credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the
trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the
testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.
He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at
the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons
who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to
represent Henslee as a perjurer.
PAGE 5, COLUMN 4
DENIAL
MADE BY
FRANK
JUROR
IS
ATTACKED
Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,
one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of
little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the
prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,
of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.
The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain
that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to
secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in
the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark
that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected
as a juror.
Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted
that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks
credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the
trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the
testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.
He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at
the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons
who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to
represent Henslee as a perjurer.
PAGE 12, COLUMN 6
DENIAL
MADE BY
FRANK
JUROR
IS
ATTACKED
Henslee, in Letter to
The Geor-
gian. Declares His
Comment
Was Made After Trial.
Standing emphatically by their affidavits that A. H. Henslee,
one of the men who found Leo M. Frank guilty of the murder of
little Mary Phagan, had expressed violent prejudice against the
prisoner before the trial, John Holmes, S. M. Johnson and Shi Gray,
of Sparta, Tuesday attacked the accused juror's defense.
The three Sparta men declared they were absolutely certain
that Henslee made the statements on which the defense hopes to
secure a new trial from Judge Roan before the case came up in
the Fulton court, because they say, Henslee made the remark
that he had been summoned as a talesman and might be selected
as a juror.
Henslee, in a letter sent to The Georgian Tuesday, admitted
that he had admitted that he had made some of the remarks
credited to him, but asserted that they had been uttered after the
trial and that he had stated explicitly that he believed the
testimony of Jim Conley made on the stand.
He also said that he proposed to seek a bill of indictment at
the next Grand Jury against Julius A. Lehman, one of the persons
who made a deposition, because of Lehman's alleged endeavor to
represent Henslee as a perjurer.
PAGE 13, COLUMN 2
Governor Slaton Personally
Investigates and
Verifies the Circulation of The
Georgian
and Hearst's Sunday
American. :: ::
Daily Sunday
Georgian American
October 4th 1913.
At the request of the management of The Atlanta Georgian
and The Sunday American, I personally examined on Friday after
noon their various circulation statements, in detail. This work
required sometime, but it was willingly given, because I regard
these newspapers as enterprises of which all Georgia should be
proud. The figures the papers furnish, under oath, to the postal
authorities show a marvelous growth for the time The Georgian
and Sunday American have been in Mr. Hearst's hands"
particularly The Sunday American, which is only six months old.
These circulation figures I have checked up and verified in
person. I have examined the sworn statements of the circulation
and the cashier of The Georgian corporation, and cross
questioned them in detail about the circulation figures. I believe
the figures to be absolutely correct.
Purely from a business man's viewpoint, both The Georgian
and The Sunday American, in points of quality and quantity of
circulation, should be, and I have no doubt are, highly satisfactory
and effective advertising mediums. Certainly, they are most
excellent newspapers, and should commend themselves to
merchants for business purposes.
The fine circulation showings furnish me ample foundation
for warm congratulations. I sincerely wish for Mr. Hearst and his
Georgia newspapers the fullest measure of prosperity and
success"both of which seem assured. I am persuaded this great
publisher means to be consistently a firm and powerful friend of
Atlanta, Georgia, and the whole South, and I well know his ability
to do big things in a big way.
PAGE 46, COLUMNS 1
& 4
PAGE 46, COLUMN 1
FRANK GIVES 115 REASONS FOR
ASKING NEW TRIAL
PAGE 46, COLUMN 4
MANY ERRORS
ARE
LAID TO THE
COURT
Charge Is Also Made by
the Law-
yers That the Jury
Was
Intimidated.
In an exhaustive research, requiring nearly 200 typewritten
pages, citing 115 counts and attacking two of the jurors, an
amended motion for a new trial for Leo M. Frank, sentenced to
hang October 10 for the murder of Mary Phagan, was filed
Wednesday.
Each count wherein the court is declared to have erred in the
trial of the pencil factory superintendent, is dissected, its effect
asserted and the whole combined in a masterly manner to form
the chain of the defense's claims.
The two jurors named are Marcus Johenning and J. A.
Henslee, both of whom, it is claimed in the motion, were
prejudiced against Frank before they were selected. Affidvaits will
be introduced to support this contention.
The motion was placed in the hands of Solicitor Dorsey for
his inspection and reply.
Principal among the objections offered in the motion is
conduct of the crowds which attended the trial. Frank's attorney
openly declare that the jury was intimidated, and despite their
objections no effort was made to stop the applause which time
and again rang out in the courtroom.
Threats to clear the room were made by the trial judge,
the motion states, but they were absolutely disregarded and the
threats were not enforced, despite the objections of counsel for
the defense.
Hits at Conley Testimony.
The motion struck also at the admission of the lascivious
testimony of Jim Conley, the negro sweeper. The testimony
referred to included that wherein the negro declared on the
witness stand that Frank had entertained women in the factory on
holidays while he stood watch at the front door.
Lasciviousness is not one of the character traits involved in
a plea of murder and can not be held in a murder and can not be
held in a murder trial, even when the defendant has put his
character in issue, the motion stated.
The testimony of Dr. H. F. Harris, County Physician, also was
objected to. The motion declared that the physician's testimony
was argumentative and not a statement of fact, scientifically or
otherwise. Dr. Harris had gone extensively into an analysis of the
cabbage taken from the stomach of Mary Phagan, which she had
eaten on the morning of her tragic death.
PAGE 50, COLUMN 4
MORE ATTACKS
ON FRANK
JUROR
Defense Claims It Has
New and
Positive Proof Bias
Accusa-
tions Against Henslee.
A. H. Henslee of the jury that convicted Leo M. Frank, made
his bitterly denunciatory remarks against the defendant in the
hearing of a far greater number of persons than already have
made depositions, according to information in the possession of
Frank's attorneys.
While the prisoner's lawyers are busy building up their plea,
Solicitor General Hugh Dorsey is working ceaselessly preparing to
demolish their arguments for a new trial.
We have the names of a great many other persons to whom
Henslee expressed his opinion of Frank's guilt and his hope that
he would have the opportunity to assist in convicting him, said
Reuben R. Arnold, of counsel for Frank, Monday.
These persons would be called on to tell the truth in respect
to Henslee's attitude before the trial were it not for their evident
reluctance to incur the enmity of Henslee and the fact that
already have the sworn statements of a sufficient number of
reliable persons to prove conclusively that Henslee was guilty of
making the biased and prejudiced remarks.