Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-07-20
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 Main
talned by Prosecution, and De-
clare Action Of States Attorney
Has inflamed Public Opinion.

Luther z Rosssr and Reuben n.
Arnold, attorneys for Leo NJ. Frank
who will be tried July 2s 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 infamed 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 consti-
tutional and legal functions and hai
sought to usurp those Of the Grand
Jury by his attempt to block the In
dictment Of Jim Conley by that body.
They described his action as un-
precedented and dangerous in the OK
treme. 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 Solicitors conduct throughout the
investigation OF the murder mystery.
and charges that Dorsey has main
tanned his belief in Franks guilt ap-
parently for no other purpose than to
convict Frank.
Call Attention TO Secrecy.
Attention is called to tho secrecy
with which evidence is being gath
cred by the prosecution 'in manufac-
turing its case against Frank" as
though an innocent man-as the law
contemplates Frank until he is proved
guilty-should not be given the ad-
vantage Of a knowledge OF every
shred Of evidence which may be found
for or against him, 20 that II may be
presented, IL favorable, and that It
may be met and disproved II false.
Disciaiming any intention Of cr4tI-
cising the previous Grand Jury, At
torneys Rosser and Arnold cite this
circumstance OF Conley's first confess
sion, 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 "
the attention Of the Grand Jury, but
that he If report were true, actually
directed that It be not done.
Another indication Of the Solicitors
alleged domination over the Grand
Jury was contained, said the attor-
neys for the defense, in his reported
action in insisting that the jurors
pledge themselves not to act in any
way on the suggested Conley indict-
ment during his absence on a vaca-
ton.
Statement OF Defense,
The statement. In full, follows:
Counsel for Leo NJ. 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 &C
ton Of the Grand Jury to be taken
at It's 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 10 ex-
! ercise any sort of control in deter
mining who shah or shall not be
indicted.
To permit a Solicitor General to
use the position intrusted to him r
by the people TO decide for htzn-
self who shah and who shan not be
indicted is a danger too great to be
contemplated.
Reply to Solicitor.
With this preliminary statement
we reluctantly make a reply 70 So
rcitor Dorsey's interview IN this
mornings paper.
It is rather remarkable that The
Solicitor General and a person ad-
hitting completely IN q grave crime