Saturday, June 7th, 1913
In Card to The Journal, Wife of Factory Superintendent Declares Solicitor Dorsey Has Approved Third Degree
"WE ARE SUFFERING NOW, BUT WHO WILL BE NEXT?"
Her Statement in Full—Conley Will Not Be Indicted as Accessory, but if Frank is Acquitted, He Will Be Tried
Mrs. Leo M. Frank, wife of the indicted pencil factory superintendent, Saturday afternoon sent The Journal a second statement in which she renews her charge that Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey and the city detectives are obtaining evidence in the Phagan murder case by torturing witnesses into giving testimony.
Mrs. Frank's statement is given out in reply to one issued Thursday afternoon by the solicitor. She declares that her negro cook, Minola McKnight, was arrested in violation of the criminal laws, because there was no charge against her and she was suspected of no crime.
"I do not wish to be in any manner bitter towards Mr. Dorsey, even in my feelings," declares Mr[s]. Frank, "because it is [m]os[t] perfectly clear that his action is dictated by a serious mistake of judgment, and my only purpose is to let the community understand as thoroughly as I can, in the interest of fairness to my innocent husband, that Mr. Dorsey is proposing to use third degree torture chamber testimony in an effort to take his life and that he thinks it is perfectly proper for him to do so."
MRS. FRANK'S STATEMENT.
Following is Mrs. Frank's statement:
"Atlanta, Georgia, June 7, 1913.
"Editor, Atlanta Journal,
"Dear Sir: I think fairness to Mr. Frank requires that the public should clearly understand Mr. Dorsey's position as stated by him in his card in the Constitution of June 6, and repeated in the papers yesterday, in reply to my statement that he proposes to use testimony which comes from witnesses as the result of torture.
"His real position, as gleaned from his card, can be stated in the following sentences which he employed:
"‘I have only to say, without in any wise taking issue with her in the premises as I might . . . that I welcome all evidence from any source that will aid an impartial jury, under the charge of the court, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.'
"That is to say, he thinks it unnecessary to waste time in disputing the fact that the detectives are procuring testimony from witnesses by torture. He considers this point immaterial. He believes he is thoroughly justified in using tortured testimony, if it is turned over to him, for he says: "I welcome all evidence from any source."
"The Journal and the Constitution stated that he had had my cook arrested and carried to his office and quizzed to such an extent as to drive her into hysterics and that after this he sent her screaming to the police station in the patrol wagon.
