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

Here is the translated text as follows:

828 X, AMERICAN STATE TRIALS

The defendant wished that the executive had the power to control the public will.

This testimony, when compared with the President's records, will substantiate the charges in the book written by Mr. Callender. It strongly supports the charges in dispute and directly addresses the part of the indictment where the President is accused of being a professed aristocrat. It has been stated that, although there are nineteen charges in the indictment against the defendant, even if we prove eighteen of them to be true, he must still be found guilty because we do not prove the truth of the nineteenth. But how is it possible for us to defend ourselves, or how can we be prepared for trial, if the witness who can prove that particular charge is absent? If the court believes that, in order to justify ourselves, we must prove the entire libel to be true, and it becomes apparent that testimony to prove a particular charge is lacking, the court should provide us with an opportunity to present it. I submit that the court's previous decision to postpone the trial acknowledged the materiality of Mr. Giles's evidence and that his personal attendance is essential to justice.

Justice Chase: Mr. Nicholas has misunderstood the court's opinion. Although, on the application of the defendant's counsel, the court allowed them the choice to postpone the trial until today instead of just a few hours, it was not intended by that indulgence to declare Mr. Giles's testimony as material or to postpone the trial until another term due to his absence.

Mr. Nicholas urged the necessity of postponing the trial until Mr. Giles could attend. The question on a motion for a continuance is whether the testimony of the absent witness can substantiate the defense or the point in issue. How can it be done if the witness is not present? When a witness needed to prove the truth of a particular charge is absent, I trust the court will give us time to avail ourselves of his evidence and will not rush into a trial when it cannot be properly demonstrated.