Atlanta Georgian., 1914-02-28
MRS. FRANK DISCUSSES
CASE IN PLEA To PUBLIC;
CHARGES A CONSPIRAC'


Continued From Page /.
tence, the prisoner stilI is under SEN
tence, The date simply remaining in
definite until the prisoner again is
brought before the trial judge or his
successor.
The Georgia Code says on the sub
ject:
Whenever for any reason any con-
vtct sentenced to the punishment Of
death shall not have been executed
pursuant 10 such sentence, and tho
same shall ytand in fun force. the
presiding judge of the Superior Court
where the conviction was had. on the
application Of the Solicitor General
Of the circuit. ar other person prose-
cutting for tine State, shall issue a
habeas corpus to bring such convict
before him, and upon the con-
vict being brought before tho judge,
II no legal reason rests against
the execution OF the sentence. ne
shall sign and issue a warrant to the
Sheriff Of the proper county, cSm-
manding him to do execution OF such
sentence at suah time and place as
shall be appointed therein, winch the
Sheriff shall do accordingly"
Resentenee Early Next Week.
The remittituF from the supreme
Court was expected to be filed with
the Superior Court Friday afternoon.
Solicitor Dorsey early next week viii
ask Judge Hll to set the date fo-
Franks execution.
That the execution will not be car
RED out al once is made certain by
he preparations Of the defense for
The filing Of an extraordinary motion
Tor q new trial This may be sub
mitted to Judge Hin before sentence
is imposed
II this is done. it will delay, at
least temporarily, the resentencing
If the motion is granted. the date for
The new trial probably will be set
for several months ahead
Wife Discusses Case.
Here is Mrs. Franks statement;
TO the Public
THE editorial in yesterdays CON
stitution referring to the trial Of
Becker Of necessity compels par
allel between this case and that Of my
husband In that Of Becker the at
mospherc surrounding the trial which
was denounced by the Court Of Ap-
peals Of New York as fully set forth
in The New York Times Of February
70, was occasioned by the conduct Of
the court, less potent by far than the
overwhelming influence Of the clam
oring mob that surrounded the
jury during the trial of my husband,
or the hourly extras scattered through
the courtroom proclaiming as truth
every false rumor concerning my hus-
band, or the frequent outhursts OF the
crowds during the course of the trial,
all clearly indicating to the Jury the
temper of the crowd
In the case of Becker the Court
OF Appeals OF New York declined TO
sustain the conviction on the testl-
mony OF criminals. while in the case
Of my husband the only testimony
connecting him with the crime was
that of the negro conley many
times convicted criminal and q more
often self-confessed liar, whose tes-
timony as finally produced in the
courthouse was testified by those re-
sponsibe for it TO be a tale made to
ut the case
Appeals to States Honor.
Shall It be said that the people
Of Georgia are less willing to accord
fair play than are the people of New
York, as indicated hv the decisions
of its court? Or is it unfair to say
that the people of Russia, in the trial
of Bells. are more disposed toward
principles of fair dealing? Or shall
the people of this State content them
selves to be on a parity with the
methods of the Mexican Villa and re-
ceive the just condemnation of all
civilized States?
Il fear that there Is some misap-
prehension created by the divided
opinion of the supreme Court ! un-
derstand that some misguided people
believe and feel that by reason of
this decision the Supreme Court Of
this State has set its approval on the
findings OF the jury, but | am advised
that this is not the fact. That the
supreme Court has merely passed ON
the questions Of law involved, as to
whether errors were committed I'm the
introduction OF testimony or the rul-
ing OF the trial court The decision
OF the trial court in refusing to grant
a new trial was based upon whether
fair trial had been granted, and as to
whether or not the jurors We're im-
partial were matters with which the
supreme Court would not interfere.
That the trial judge, notwithstanding
his refusal TO grant new trial, be-
lieVed that my husband did not have
a fair trial, no man can doubt.
Questions the Motive.
ITO what potent influence shall
then he ascribed such REFUSAL Can
IL be anything hut the deep seated,
ll-pervadins. insistent demand that
victim be onered2 And was not
this demand created and nurtured by
the false statements fed to the public
Immediately following the murder by
interested detectives and seekers aft
er reward
THE prominence given to the story
of the Formby woman caused many
good people to be satisfied of my
husbands guilt. The detectives point
ed to IL as absolute proof The intiu-
ence of this story upon the public.
and its aid IN creating the unfaVor-
able atmosphere can not be con-
ceiVed the unlawful arrest of my
cook, Mnola Mcknight, and the atli-
daylt which she was forced to give
under such trying circumstances. and
which, as soon as she was released
from Imprisonment. she promptly re-
pudiated was another morsel offered
10 the public To fortitN and strength
the IN q In h.a.L L..