The Washington times., 1914-12-08

the fact that the prisoner was not
present in the court when the verdict
of guilty was returned, as was his
constitutional right. His absence was
a concession of the fact that intense
prejudice ruled. 1t has been de-
clared repeatedly that this prejudice
against the prisoner was such that
1t was deemed dangerous to have
him in court; lest, if the verdict
should be favorable to him, violence
might ensue. Concerning these con-
dIuons in Atlanta, c. P. Connolly in
his Golfers article wrote:
Years ago 1 was prosecuting attorney
IN Suite, Mont. have seen III. mob
spirit in all its forms. but 1 have never
known II in such rampant rage a. on
that dav in Atlanta when the public
prosecutor was carried on tho SnOuidJ rs
OF those VINO. hooking the modes OF
law, condemned the Innocent Jew to
death. Innocent or guilty, Frank had
as hluch chance Of escape as wound
cd stag in trap.
Tie Florida Times MON. OF Jack
sonv.lle. said il would have been bet
ter had Atlanta burned Fra1l; ON the
stat" capitol grounds than to have
gone through the forms of LAW and en-
acted so hIdcous an Injustice.
AttCr study OF every phase OF the
Frank case for weeks. | am as salts
fed of this mans innocence of this
crime as ! am OF my own innocence or
il. The judge who tried Frank declared
from the bench that he could not make
up his MIND from the evidence that
Frank was guilty. do not know any
one who has ever studied the case who
has not arrived at the CONCLUSION that
Franks guilt is impossible under the
evidence adduced against him. ! tried
to discover one lawyer in Atlanta who
believed him guilty. ! was curious TO
know on what he would base his iudg-
ment. ] found only one who was in
doubt Of Franks innocence. but who
was certain that there was no sufficient
evidence against him. Even this Jaw
yer spoke of Franks trial as dis
graceful farce. NO Jew in modern
times" said a distinguished lawyer and
a law partner Of the man who prose-
cuted Frank, has been prosecuted as
this jew has been
But the Supreme Court, whose
business is not with the evidence, but
with the forms of law, finds that it
has no occasion to interfere. Georgia
Justice claims Frank for its own; and
if Georgia justice chooses to send
him to the scaffold, the highest court
in the land cannot interfere with the
krotting of the moose.
There remains the possibility of a
reprieve by Governor Slaton. In his
hands rests the only power that can
now be exercised to stay the execu-
ton of the death sentence. Georgia
has a prison commission, which IN
such cases is authorized to examine
the claims for executive clemency,
and make a recommendation. There
after, the governor has the power Of
pardon or reprieye.
1t would seem that, in view of the
expressions of both judges of the
United States Supreme Court who
have indicated opinions in any wise
reaching to the merits of the whole
affair, the governor is more than
justified in using his power at least
to insure Frank the utmost chance.
Here a man stands in the shadow of
the scaffold, while most people who
have thoroughly studied his case de-
clare belief that he is innocent
There is strong probability that if
he goes to his death, and if in fact
he is innocent, the truth will one
day come out. 1t is inconceivable
that the State of Georgia will risk
responsibility for such a travesty on
Justice. 1t is beyond understanding
that in all the judicial processes OF
this country, so often and effectively
used to help the guilty escape, there
can be found no avenue through
which a more than reasonable doubt
may be translated into humane &C,