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

Here is the translated text as follows:

In the opinion given by the court, I understand that evidence cannot be produced by the traverser to prove the truth of only a part of a charge. However, if evidence could be adduced to prove the entire charge, then such evidence would be admissible. One specific charge is twofold: that the President is an aristocrat and that he proved serviceable to British interests.

We believe the evidence will support this charge. We wish to prove the truth of the entire charge if we can, though I am not certain it is within our power. We have reason to believe the evidence first demonstrates that he is an aristocrat and, secondly, that he did prove serviceable to British interests. If the testimony indeed proves these two points, regardless of the court's opinion, I do not hesitate to say that, in my estimation, it will fully excuse and justify the traverser.

If we can prove that the President has expressed aristocratic sentiments in conversation and that he did, in reality, prove faithful and serviceable to British interests, the traverser must be acquitted of this charge. Regarding the first part, I can prove by the words of Mr. Adams, published by himself in his book titled "A Defense of the American Constitution," that he believes a government composed of three parts—a king, lords, and commons—is the best in the world.

Suppose, in addition to this, it could be proven that a law passed the House of Representatives of the United States to sequester British property. Suppose that half of the Senate of the United States favored it and that the policy of passing the law was advocated by the best and wisest men in this country, who have the same claims to patriotism and virtue as Mr. Adams. Yet, its passage was prevented by the casting vote of Mr. Adams as Speaker of the Senate. Would not the traverser be justified concerning this charge? Would it not demonstrate that he proved serviceable to British interests? By the answers to the first and third questions, we expect to prove both these points.

Mr. Nelson objected to the introduction of such testimony, arguing that it was altogether inadmissible. He suggested that gentlemen ought to reflect that if such evidence as this were to be received, any...

---

This revision corrects spelling and grammatical errors and organizes the text into clearer paragraphs for better readability.