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

Here is the translated text as follows:

JAMES THOMPSON CALLENDER

Mr. Nelson, although the paper is long and complicated, the testimony is not so. The testimony, as I stated to you before, is concise, plain, and correct. If there be a man who, now that he has heard that testimony, entertains a doubt...

...almost any which the old confederation ever endured. The tardiness and timidity of Mr. Washington were succeeded by the indolence of Adams.

Idem: "Under the old confederation, matters never were, nor could have been conducted so wretchedly as they actually are, and have been under the successive monarchs of Braintree and Mount Vernon."

Page 19: "It has been frequently asserted, and never denied," says Mr. Findley, "that the power of granting charters of incorporation was repeatedly moved for in the federal convention, and especially the power of incorporating banks, but always rejected by a great majority." Mr. Washington was president of this federal convention. Of course, he could not plead ignorance of its intention against the erection of a national bank. He swore to support the constitution. Directly after, he ratified the bank law, which drove the plowshare of paper jobbing through the very midst of his double oath, as a federal citizen and as a President.

Page 27: "For all this confusion and iniquity, we must thank Mr. Washington. He acted like a tenant who quits the premises without giving notice to the landlord, that he may provide a successor."

Page 34, Note: "If Washington wanted to corrupt the American Judges, he could not have taken a more decisive step than by the appointment of Jay."

Page 39: "His refusal must be resolved, therefore, into that utter want of feeling, which constitutes the keystone of character; and which has cost the lives of so many hundreds of families on the southwestern frontier."

Pages 39 and 40: "The wretched proclamation of neutrality, of April 22nd, 1783, was most likely communicated to Pitt long before it had been openly proposed in the cabinet of America. On the 8th of June following, the court of London issued the order for seizing neutral ships bound to France with provisions. This was just forty-six days after the proclamation of Mr. Washington. Perhaps his manifesto had reached England before that order issued. At any rate, Pitt was undoubtedly acquainted with the President's abhorrence for the French revolution."

Page 99: "The proclamation of neutrality does therefore deserve that title. It was a proclamation by prevarication and pusillanimity."

Page 41: "Mr. Washington had then only two things to do: The one to negotiate with the court of Lisbon for the continuance of the..."

---