The Atlanta Journal,
Wednesday, 19th November 1913,
PAGE 1, COLUMN 3.
Rev.
Alexander Lyons, of
Brooklyn, Declares Prison-
ers Jewish Nationality In-
fluenced Verdict of
Guilty
GIRLS
ALLEGED SLAYER
COMPARED TO
BEILISS
Conditions
Are Worse Here
Than in Czars Domain, He
Says, Because of Christian
Pretenses
Rabbi Alexander Lyons, one of the
foremost Jews in America, speaking at the Eighth Avenue temple, in Brooklyn,
last Friday night, compared Atlanta and the Frank case with Russia and the
Beiliss ritual murder case in an address which is attracting attention over the
entire country.
Dr. Lyons subject was American
interference in Russia, which he advocated, but he devoted considerable time to
the Frank case, urging America to keep her own household in order.
At this distance, the rabbi said, we
cannot pass on his guilt or innocence, but at least we know that he (Frank) has
not been given a fair trial. His trial was demonstrably influenced by some of
the basest passions at work in his community and his jury was victimized by mob
intimidations.
At this distance, the rabbi said, we
cannot pass on his guilt or innocence, but at least we know that he (Frank) has
not been given a fair trial. His trial was demonstrably influenced by some of
the basest passions at work in his community and his jury was victimized by mob
intimidations.
Dr. Lyons lauded the action of the
Christian citizens of America and other countries, who voiced their protest
against the ritual murder trial, and, speaking directly on his theme of
American interference in the internal affairs of other nations, he said:
PROTEST IS DUTY.
If our neighbors conduct themselves
within their homes in a way that threatens our peace and welfare, we have legal
recourse, and if delay increases danger we are under duty straightway to defend
ourselves.
Distance does not make Russia the less
our neighbor. If she so deports herself toward members of her household as to
involve directly through artificially provoked immigration our institutions,
our peace and our welfare, we have not only right but duty to protest
persistently and effectively.
Again, the question of the right of
American interference in Russian affairs springs from an ignorance of that
truer Americanism which is and has been the guiding ideal and spirit of leading
Americans from Washington to our down day. Neither in origin, history nor
present condition are we an insular fact of mere material dimensions and
content anchored in a great ocean of selfish indifference.
To the mind of distinguished Americans
of light and leading our country has spelt a destiny whose implication is nothing
less, and can be nothing higher, than the welfare of the rest of the world with
ourselves. Our greatest seers have rightly regarded our country in point of
possibility and duty as The Cradle of the Future, as George Elliot so aptly
expressed it. We have as Roosevelt has emphasized world duties. And we have
been exemplifying this more and more.
Our relations to Cuba and the
Philippines, our interest in peace in Mexico, are not merely the dictates of
commercial wisdom. It involves an important humanitarian consideration.
DISCUSSES FRANK CASE.
Dr. Lyons remarks which bear directly
on the case now in the Georgia courts, are quoted in the Brooklyn Citizen as
follows:
But this right of American
interference in the so-called domestic affairs of foreign peoples imposes upon
us the more urgent duty of setting and keeping our own household in order. When
in times past the American people voiced their objection to expressions of
cruelty in Russia we were properly reminded of cruelties within our own borders.
We were told of the presence among us of occasional outbursts of barbaric
lynching. Of course, the parallel is not correct. Such aspects of cruelty among
us are outburst of the irritated and spasmodic frenzy of individuals, and is
not only without governmental connivance, as it too often is in Russia, but is
even fought by governmental interference, though oftentimes unsuccessfully.
But even these outbursts of barbaric
passion of various kinds in our own midst should be persistently and un-intermittently
fought by us to the point of their ultimate disappearance. At this very moment
there is call for the uprising of the better elements of the American people in
protest against the perpetration in our midst of an outburst of brutal
prejudice. In Atlanta, Ga., a young man of our community has for months been
under the heavy hand of the law on the charge of murder.
DENIED FAIR TRIAL.
We are not competent at this distance
to pass upon his innocence, although we do know as a result of years of
knowledge that his life was exemplary in all that makes a young manhood
beautiful and admirable. But of this we are certainthat he has not been fairly
tried in keeping with the scared right of every American. His trial was
demonstrably influenced by some of the basest passions at work in his
community. His jury was victimized by mob intimidation.
The fact of his Jewishness was again
and again used as a ground of influence and action against him. This can be
proved on the testimony of Christians of intelligence and prominence in
Atlanta. The judge himself, who was appealed to for a new trial, refused,
although he acknowledged that he was not convinced one way or another with
regard to the guilt or innocence of the assumed culprit. This Frank case is not
an Atlanta case. It is not of exclusive concern to the state of Georgia. It is
national, it is humanitarian, it is Christian in its importance and scope.
The question involved is not whether
the young man in the case is innocent or guilty, but, along with this, is the
larger and important ques-
(Continued on Last Page, Column 4.)
PAGE 22, COLUMN 4
FRANK
TRIAL UNFAIR,
JEWISH RABBI SAYS
IN SCATHING SPEECH
(Continued From Page 1.)
tion whether
it shall now or ever be possible in American life for the course of justice to
be swerved in the least by the fact of a mans color or creed. During the
course of the trial one could hear on the streets of Atlanta that Frank should
be put to death because he was only a Jew and had crucified Christ.
Will the Christian element of the
American people stand idly by while a young man is being put to death without
his guilt being adequately proven and at the same time allow our Savior to be
crucified once again in spirt? In the present situation in that horrible
Atlanta affair we are more to be condemned than Russia in her occasional
cruelty, because we are generally more enlightened and more boastful of being a
Christian country.
Let us, as Americans, interfere in
Russia when the call of humanity requires, but let us not overlook the urgent
demands of duty to our very door. Russia has yielded to the influence of
humanity as exerted by ourselves, together with the rest of the world. Let us
not run the risk and incur the danger of the worlds contempt and of the loss
of our self-respect in permitting even the humblest citizen among us to be doomed
without the certainty of a scrupulous regard for justice and become the victim
of a so-called racial or religious prejudice that is characteristic of savagery
and out of place in the midst of a civilization such as we claim and emulate.
America should interfere in Russia
when occasion warrants.
PAGE 1, COLUMN 5
JIM
CONLEYS CASE MAY
BE CALLED ON THURSDAY
Judge Hill May Not Allow Trial Until Court Decides Frank Case
The case against Jim Conley, the negro
who says he carried the body of Mary Phagan to the basement of the National
Pencil factory after she had been murdered by Leo M. Frank, will probably be
called in the criminal division of the superior court Thursday.
The case was checked until that date
because of the absence from the city of his attorney, W. M. Smith. Mr. Smith is
expected to return Wednesday evening.
Interest in the case has been aroused
because of speculation as to the attitude of Judge Ben H. Hill.
When Solicitor Dorsey called the case
last week, Judge Hill refused to allow him to enter in the trial of it at that
time, but gave no explanation of his attitude further than that he didnt care
to take up the case that week.
REASON FOR DELAY.
It is therefore the conjecture of many
that the court will continue to block every effort of the solicitor to dispose
of the case before the supreme court acts on the plea of Frank for new trial.
The obvious reason for this is that should Frank be cleared of the charge it
would be consistent to try Conley for the murder, and this will be prevented if
the solicitor general is allowed to carry out his promise of protection for the
negro by trying him as an accessory, which would prevent his ever facing the
more serious charge.
Should Judge
Hill allow Conley to go on trial Thursday or Friday the trial will eb largely a
discussion of legal technicalities. The negros statement at the Frank trial
that he assisted in disposing of the body will be admitted, but his attorney
will argue that because of a technicality the law does not cover Conleys case.