The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1916-03-02
PAGE' TWELVE
Hon. Mr.. Gregory, =
{ Attorney, General, U. s. A.,
WASHINGTON. D. c.

/ read with interest in today's
dispatches, carried by the morning
papers, your statement in re the
Watson proposed indictment in con-
nection with the Frank case.
l was interested to learn that you
were ready to read and to recognize
courteous and reasoned protests in
regard to that purpose. l am sure
that you will agree with me that the
great body of the people of this Sec
tion are not unreasonable, are not
Insulting, and are as~unbiased and
upright in this matter as you are.
| have never heard any body esti-
mate the majority in Georgia hold
ing Watson's point of view and in
dorsing his course in the Frank case
at a figure below ninety per cent.
As it not possible that the 90 per
cent. are right and yourself wrong
in this matter? 1t is well worth
while to remember Burkes assertion
that you cannot indict a whole peo-
PIE. Such an overwhelming majority
as that must feel themselves sup
ported by reason in the position that
they take.
Please let me appeal the reasons
~ Ill LuC1I pOS1IlOu 10 your I'M
agination:
Twelve months ago I doubted
Franks guilt. l knew that his sup
Qorters had appealed his case from
the courts to the decision of public
sentiment [ wish to ask you, as
Suming that the decision in his case
was appealed by him and his friends
to popular sentiment, whether this
new and unusual tribunal, elected bv
mis- friends and attorneys to hear and
decide his case, was not entitled to
know the evidence in the case? How
else could the public know whether
TO move for clemency in his behalf
or not? The evidence in the Frank
case was a revolving mass of Obscen-
atty and filth, unfit to print or to
think Of but I had made up my mind
favOrably to Frank, and my favor
able opinion was based on the ex
parte statements made in his behalf
by interested friends of his. They
gave me the evidence favorable to
the theory of his innocence and
asked me to move in behalf of Glenn
ency for him. If | was to act in the
matter was l not entitled to know
ell the evidence? If the case was ap-
pealed to the interference of public
sentiment, must it not necessarily
have been appealed on the whole
record? The government should by
law prevent the appeal of cases to
the decision Of public sentiment, if
it cannot permit the record to &C
company the appeal.
If you really want to know, if you
really are as courteous to us as evil
IDENTIFY you like that we should be to
you, if you have the understanding
imagination by which you put your
self in anOther's stead, can you not
see herein the ground upon which
the people of Georgia claimed the
right to see and read that record and
upon which Watson spread that rec
ord befort them for perusal and con-
Sideration?
The people of Georgia love decency
in their mailed prints quite as we'll
as do Pennsylvanians, they are in
every respect as decent and reason
able, but they claim the right to
look at the whole record, notwith-
standing it's indecency, when the is
sue presented to them is whether a
verdict of their court shall be sus-
tanned or overturned They know
that they had the same right and
duty to look at that record that the
members of the appeal courts had
under the same circumstances.
In the Frank case Watson and his