866 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [357 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

826 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS

When one accused another of being a thief, the accuser could support the charge by proving that the accused had taken property secretly, without the consent or knowledge of the owner. Regarding evidence in such a matter, all people of common understanding would form the same opinion. However, what kind of evidence would be necessary to prove the initial words of the indictment, that the reign of Mr. Adams had been one continuous tempest of malignant passions? The circumstances to which the writer might allude, and which convinced him that Mr. Adams was intemperate and passionate, might only prove to a person of a different political perspective that Mr. Adams was under the influence of a patriotic, honest, and virtuous sensibility.

When Mr. Adams said in his reply to the people of Arlington and Sandgate, "that he had long observed the efforts of dangerous and restless men misleading the understanding of well-meaning citizens, and prompting them to such measures as would sink the glories of America, and prostrate her liberties at the feet of France," some might interpret this as the language of passion and malignity. Many held that opinion, including Mr. Adams himself. He did not believe that Mr. Adams could identify a single person who deserved such a vile reproach. It was language intended to exacerbate the rage of contending parties. On the other hand, he was willing to admit that there were individuals of good sense and upright principles who genuinely believed that the President spoke the plain truth and that they themselves had witnessed such men as he described. This was a matter of opinion only and was therefore open to endless discussion.

One more instance completely illustrates his meaning. The indictment charged the defendant with having maliciously asserted that the President had reversed all his principles. If this assertion could be proven, it would be necessary, first, to show what his principles were; second, what they are now. The first branch of discussion presented difficulties that were absolutely insurmountable. Men of different perspectives would undoubtedly have varied interpretations of what constituted the President's principles.

---