JEWS IN AMERICA

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 40, 17 February 1915, Page 2

JEWS IN AMERICA

ARE THEY VICTIMS OF PREJUDICE? CELEBRATED MURDER CASE. (ntOU OCR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) SAN FRANCISCO, 18th January. As France had its Dreyfus case, and Russia more recently had its "bloodritual" murder trial of Mendel Beilis, so the United States is now having its aiiti-bemite cause celebre. Leo M. Frank, of Atlanta, Georgia, convicted and sentenced to death for -the murder in April, 1913, of Mary Phagan, a four-teen-year-old girl employed in the pencil factory of which he was the manager, is the centre of a nation-wide agitation, in which it is claimed that he was not given a fair trial, and that he is being made the victim of prejudice against the Jews. It is said that Jews- in all parts of the world are aiding Frank with funds for his defence and with published protests. Three times sentence of death has been passed upon him, only to be stayed by process of Court, and now, within the last few days, the United btates Supreme Court has granted what practically amounts to a stay of execution while that tribunal examines the entire record to determine whether JJrank was given a fair trial. Since his trial and conviction numerous independent authorities have minutely investigated the case and decided that Frank is innocent. 'William M. Burns, the famous detective, reached this conclusion. Collier's Weekly sent a lawyer to Atlanta to study every angle of the affair, and in a series of articles he proclaimed the guiltlessness of Frank and gave his reasons. The same judgment was reached by an investigatoi* for a New York daily paper. It is asserted by them all that the jury was overawed by a mob crying for a victim. Certainly, the admitted facts show that the mob spirit was extraordinarily rampant. While the jury was_ considering its verdict an immense yelling crowd gathered, outside the Courthouse and shouted its demand for a conviction. So apprehensive was the trial Judge of violence 'being visited on Frank by the mob, that the accused man was excluded from the Courtroom when the jury's verdict was returned. Ihis unusual step was taken after consultation with Frank's 'Counsel, but the mere fact that it was deemed necessary is indicative of the extraordinary circumstances in which the trial was held. Although Frank's counsel consented to the defendant's exclusion fro. the Court when the verdict was returned, the point upon which the appeal to the Supreme Court is based is that in so doing the Judge deprived him of a constitutional right. This is a point wh'oh has never been decided by the Supremo Court. ihe people of Atlanta angrily deny that there is any "Jew-baiting" in that city or in the State of Georgia. But outsiders are of a different opinion. A writer in the Chicago Tribune, in an account of the case, says that at the time of the murder a wave of crime was sweeping over Atlanta, and the hue and cry was raised that someone must be punished as a lesson to the others and in expiation of the crimes that had been committed. Then came the murder of Mary Phagan. The writer adds : "Frank, part-owner of the pencil factory and its superintendent, was a Jew— almost enough, in the minds of some of Atlanta's voters, to indict him without further evidence on the charge of murder of the girl he had employed. A Jew was a prize subject for the accusation of the crime^ — much better than a negro. In the South they do not hato the negroes- They don't respect them; they deny rights to, disfranchise, lynch, and pity them; but they do not. hate them. To hate them would mean some acknowledgment of the equality of white and blackamoor, which no true Southerner will admit." Frank was convicted mainly on the testimony of a negro named Conley, a man with a criminal record. Conley stated that Frank killed the girl upstairs in the factory, and that he afterwards assisted Frank to carry the body to the ba-sement. Those who are fighting the case in Frank's behalf maintain Jjhat the negro Conley was the murderer. The girl was outraged by the murderer, whoever he may be. Frank, up to the time of his arrest, bore an absolutelyclean reputation. Throughout his ordeal he has borne himself with extraordinary composure, stoutly maintaining his innocence. Some statements made by him, both m Court and out, show him to be a man of marked ability. His present appeal to the Supreme Court is ms kit chance, and the outcome is being awaited with keen interest and concern throughout the nation.