Saturday, 13th September 1913 Classmate Of Leo Frank Writes Warm Defense

The Atlanta Constitution,

Saturday, 13th September 1913.

PAGE 8, COLUMN 4

New York Physician Declares

Leo Frank Was Noted in College

For His Clean Morals.

Dr. Morris J. Clurman, A. B., graduate of Cornell university with Leo M. Frank and now a resident of New York, writes the following letter to The Constitution in reference to the case of his classmate:

Editor, Constitution:

I trust you will honor a New Yorker with a little space in your newspaper and thereby yield me an opportunity to express candidly and in an absolutely unbiased manner what I know concerning the character and past life of Leo M. Frank, who is now convicted to die for a horrible crime that was committed in your city.

As a classmate of Leo M. Frank at Cornell and as one who for four years while at college and for some years thereafter came into intimate contact with him. I feel particularly and peculiarly qualified to speak with authority concerning the character and previous reputation of Leo M. Frank. While at Cornell Mr. Frank was regarding with uniform respect by both the members o the faculty who knew him and by his fellow students who loved him for his manly qualities, his warm-heartedness and his readiness at all times to help a friend. He was the soul of honor at all times and was always characterized by his evident refinement and culture. His home influences which were of the best never deserted him and seemed to be an essential part of his moral nature.

Mr. Frank was never addicted to any of the vices which students sometimes indulge in. His classmates can testify that he was noted for his absolutely clean morals and abstemious habits. And now we are suddenly asked to believe that he is guilty of a crime of the foulest possible nature! Knowing Frank as I do, I cannot but believe that a colossal mistake has been made and that guilt has been fastened upon an absolutely innocent man. If I thought for an instant that Frank were guilty, I would not raise a finger to save him. I would have carefully followed the course of Frank's trial in the Atlanta papers and cannot see how he was convicted upon the evidence presented.

Just consider that the evidence was entirely circumstantial and that the strongest points of incrimination were based upon the word of an irresponsible negro watchman. That the unsupported word of a negro, who at the trial was proved to be a perjurer and a criminal, should be used effectively to convict a man of enviable reputation and standing, is something that passes understanding.

Here are the facts. We know that Leo Frank has been married only a short time and that his home life was ideally happy. The implicit faith of his wife in him testifies to that fact. This must be constantly borne in mind, especially when we consider the character of the crime. Can it seem natural or probable to reasonable human beings that a young man who has everything to live for, who is very happily married, who is blessed with the respect and love of many friends and who has always enjoyed a spotless and unsullied reputation, should suddenly commit the very worst crime that is possible in all the categories of crime? Such a state of affairs are irreconcilable and inconsistent with all knowledge of human nature. Only a man absolutely insane or degenerate could be guilty of the crime for which Frank was convicted. And all the evidence points to the fact that Frank was absolutely normal on the day of the crime. Does that seem natural? Does his behavior during the trial and since his conviction appear to be that of a man guilty of such an atrocious crime? A man who could be the perpetrator of such a horrible crime, would have been bound, at some time previous, to betray his evil nature to his intimate friends and chums. But I do not know of a single stigma that could be attached to him by any of his classmates or friends.

Even the prosecution will acknowledge that Frank is a highly intelligent man. Does it seem probable that if he were about to commit rape and murder on an innocent child, he would coolly ask a negro watchman to be on the lookout while he was committing the crime? Would he be likely to ask a negro to help him carry the dead body of a little girl into the cellar of the factory or to burn her body in the factory furnace? Would he not be more likely to keep the dastardly crime hidden and secret from all the world? Would he not have disposed of the dead body himself without taking into his confidence a negro watchman? Would a man guilty of such a crime be capable of assuming the normal behavior and cheerful confidence which has never deserted him during and since his trial?

I submit these questions to the people of Atlanta with the utmost confidence in their sense of justice. I can not believe that they will be satisfied with the sending to his death of a good man because of the unsupported word of a negro perjurer, jail-bird and criminal. I cannot help feeling also that the prosecuting attorney in his zeal to obtain a conviction, went beyond the limits of fairness and distorted the facts.

To the people of Atlanta, I submit again that the worst tragedy of all is to execute an innocent man and then discover the victim's innocence when it is too late. And I would stake everything that I possess and that I hold dear in life upon Leo Frank's innocence. Respectfully yours,

MORRIS J. CLURMAN, A.B., M.D.

New York, September 9, 1913.