863 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Here is the translated text as follows:

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER, 823

James Thompson Callender claims that he can prove, through William B. Giles, that the President of the United States has expressed in conversation with him a sentiment to the effect that he believed the executive department of the United States ought to be vested with the power to direct and control the public will.

He believes he will be able to prove, through General Blackburn, that he received an address from John Adams, President of the United States, in response to the field officers of Bath County. In this address, the President avows that there was a party in Virginia that deserved to be humbled into dust and ashes before the indignant frowns of their injured, insulted, and offended country.

He is advised and believes that it is crucial to his defense against the aforementioned indictment to procure authentic copies of various responses made by the President of the United States to addresses from inhabitants across the United States. These authentic copies cannot be procured in time for the trial during the present term. He is also advised and believes that a certain book, entitled "An Essay on Canon and Feudal Law," or a title to that effect, ascribed to the President of the United States, is material to his defense. He believes the President is the author of this book, but he cannot procure a copy or evidence of the President's authorship without being allowed several weeks, and perhaps months, for this purpose.

His counsel has informed him that they cannot possibly be prepared to investigate the evidence related to the several charges in the indictment, even if all the necessary persons and documents were available on the spot.

The court granted a postponement until the following Monday.

June 2:
Mr. Hay requested a postponement for a few hours to determine whether Mr. Giles would attend. It was suggested that the poor weather on the previous day might have delayed his arrival in town.

June 3:
Mr. Hay renewed a motion for a postponement until November. He stated that Mr. Giles had not arrived and that he no longer expected him. Mr. Giles would probably assume that the indictment was either tried or continued to the day he was summoned, and since he had not arrived on that day, he could not be expected to attend.