Wednesday, 19th November 1913: Frank Trial Unfair, Jewish Rabbi Says In Scathing Speech, The Atlanta Journal

Reading Time: 9 minutes [1420 words]

Rev.

Alexander Lyons, of

Brooklyn, Declares Prison-

ers Jewish Nationality In-

fluenced Verdict of

Guilty

GIRLS

ALLEGED SLAYER

COMPARED TO

BEILISS

Conditions

Are Worse Here

Than in Czars Domain, He

Says, Because of Christian

Pretenses

Rabbi Alexander Lyons, one of the

foremost Jews in America, speaking at the Eighth Avenue temple, in Brooklyn,

last Friday night, compared Atlanta and the Frank case with Russia and the

Beiliss ritual murder case in an address which is attracting attention over the

entire country.

Dr. Lyons subject was American

interference in Russia, which he advocated, but he devoted considerable time to

the Frank case, urging America to keep her own household in order.

At this distance, the rabbi said, we

cannot pass on his guilt or innocence, but at least we know that he (Frank) has

not been given a fair trial. His trial was demonstrably influenced by some of

the basest passions at work in his community and his jury was victimized by mob

intimidations.

At this distance, the rabbi said, we

cannot pass on his guilt or innocence, but at least we know that he (Frank) has

not been given a fair trial. His trial was demonstrably influenced by some of

the basest passions at work in his community and his jury was victimized by mob

intimidations.

Dr. Lyons lauded the action of the

Christian citizens of America and other countries, who voiced their protest

against the ritual murder trial, and, speaking directly on his theme of

American interference in the internal affairs of other nations, he said:

PROTEST IS DUTY.

If our neighbors conduct themselves

within their homes in a way that threatens our peace and welfare, we have legal

recourse, and if delay increases danger we are under duty straightway to defend

ourselves.

Distance does not make Russia the less

our neighbor. If she so deports herself toward members of her household as to

involve directly through artificially provoked immigration our institutions,

our peace and our welfare, we have not only right but duty to protest

persistently and effectively.

Again, the question of the right of

American interference in Russian affairs springs from an ignorance of that

truer Americanism which is and has been the guiding ideal and spirit of leading

Americans from Washington to our down day. Neither in origin, history nor

present condition are we an insular fact of mere material dimensions and

content anchored in a great ocean of selfish indifference.

To the mind of distinguished Americans

of light and leading our country has spelt a destiny whose implication is nothing

less, and can be nothing higher, than the welfare of the rest of the world with

ourselves. Our greatest seers have rightly regarded our country in point of

possibility and duty as The Cradle of the Future, as George Elliot so aptly

expressed it. We have as Roosevelt has emphasized world duties. And we have

been exemplifying this more and more.

Our relations to Cuba and the

Philippines, our interest in peace in Mexico, are not merely the dictates of

commercial wisdom. It involves an important humanitarian consideration.

DISCUSSES FRANK CASE.

Dr. Lyons remarks which bear directly

on the case now in the Georgia courts, are quoted in the Brooklyn Citizen as

follows:

But this right of American

interference in the so-called domestic affairs of foreign peoples imposes upon

us the more urgent duty of setting and keeping our own household in order. When

in times past the American people voiced their objection to expressions of

cruelty in Russia we were properly reminded of cruelties within our own borders.

We were told of the presence among us of occasional outbursts of barbaric

lynching. Of course, the parallel is not correct. Such aspects of cruelty among

us are outburst of the irritated and spasmodic frenzy of individuals, and is

not only without governmental connivance, as it too often is in Russia, but is

even fought by governmental interference, though oftentimes unsuccessfully.

But even these outbursts of barbaric

passion of various kinds in our own midst should be persistently and un-intermittently

fought by us to the point of their ultimate disappearance. At this very moment

there is call for the uprising of the better elements of the American people in

protest against the perpetration in our midst of an outburst of brutal

prejudice. In Atlanta, Ga., a young man of our community has for months been

under the heavy hand of the law on the charge of murder.

DENIED FAIR TRIAL.

We are not competent at this distance

to pass upon his innocence, although we do know as a result of years of

knowledge that his life was exemplary in all that makes a young manhood

beautiful and admirable. But of this we are certainthat he has not been fairly

tried in keeping with the scared right of every American. His trial was

demonstrably influenced by some of the basest passions at work in his

community. His jury was victimized by mob intimidation.

The fact of his Jewishness was again

and again used as a ground of influence and action against him. This can be

proved on the testimony of Christians of intelligence and prominence in

Atlanta. The judge himself, who was appealed to for a new trial, refused,

although he acknowledged that he was not convinced one way or another with

regard to the guilt or innocence of the assumed culprit. This Frank case is not

an Atlanta case. It is not of exclusive concern to the state of Georgia. It is

national, it is humanitarian, it is Christian in its importance and scope.

The question involved is not whether

the young man in the case is innocent or guilty, but, along with this, is the

larger and important ques-

(Continued on Last Page, Column 4.)

PAGE 22, COLUMN 4

FRANK

TRIAL UNFAIR,

JEWISH RABBI SAYS

IN SCATHING SPEECH

(Continued From Page 1.)

tion whether

it shall now or ever be possible in American life for the course of justice to

be swerved in the least by the fact of a mans color or creed. During the

course of the trial one could hear on the streets of Atlanta that Frank should

be put to death because he was only a Jew and had crucified Christ.

Will the Christian element of the

American people stand idly by while a young man is being put to death without

his guilt being adequately proven and at the same time allow our Savior to be

crucified once again in spirt? In the present situation in that horrible

Atlanta affair we are more to be condemned than Russia in her occasional

cruelty, because we are generally more enlightened and more boastful of being a

Christian country.

Let us, as Americans, interfere in

Russia when the call of humanity requires, but let us not overlook the urgent

demands of duty to our very door. Russia has yielded to the influence of

humanity as exerted by ourselves, together with the rest of the world. Let us

not run the risk and incur the danger of the worlds contempt and of the loss

of our self-respect in permitting even the humblest citizen among us to be doomed

without the certainty of a scrupulous regard for justice and become the victim

of a so-called racial or religious prejudice that is characteristic of savagery

and out of place in the midst of a civilization such as we claim and emulate.

America should interfere in Russia

when occasion warrants.

PAGE 1, COLUMN 5

JIM

CONLEYS CASE MAY

BE CALLED ON THURSDAY

Judge Hill May Not Allow Trial Until Court Decides Frank Case

The case against Jim Conley, the negro

who says he carried the body of Mary Phagan to the basement of the National

Pencil factory after she had been murdered by Leo M. Frank, will probably be

called in the criminal division of the superior court Thursday.

The case was checked until that date

because of the absence from the city of his attorney, W. M. Smith. Mr. Smith is

expected to return Wednesday evening.

Interest in the case has been aroused

because of speculation as to the attitude of Judge Ben H. Hill.

When Solicitor Dorsey called the case

last week, Judge Hill refused to allow him to enter in the trial of it at that

time, but gave no explanation of his attitude further than that he didnt care

to take up the case that week.

REASON FOR DELAY.

It is therefore the conjecture of many

that the court will continue to block every effort of the solicitor to dispose

of the case before the supreme court acts on the plea of Frank for new trial.

The obvious reason for this is that should Frank be cleared of the charge it

would be consistent to try Conley for the murder, and this will be prevented if

the solicitor general is allowed to carry out his promise of protection for the

negro by trying him as an accessory, which would prevent his ever facing the

more serious charge.

Should Judge

Hill allow Conley to go on trial Thursday or Friday the trial will eb largely a

discussion of legal technicalities. The negros statement at the Frank trial

that he assisted in disposing of the body will be admitted, but his attorney

will argue that because of a technicality the law does not cover Conleys case.