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

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [377 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

788 ZX. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

Alluded to in the indictment, you will reverence as you ought the sacred obligation of the oath you have taken.

Gentlemen of the jury, I acknowledge, as freely as any of you can, the necessity of a certain degree of confidence in the executive government of the country. However, this confidence ought not to be unlimited and need not be paid in advance; let it be earned before it is reposed. Let it be claimed by the evidence of benefits conferred, by measures that compel approbation, and by conduct that is irreproachable. It cannot be exacted by the guarded provisions of sedition laws, by attacks on the freedom of the press, or by prosecutions, pains, and penalties on those who boldly express the truth or who may honestly and innocently err in their political sentiments. Let this required confidence be the reward of merit, and the public will not be backward in paying it.

But in the present state of affairs, the press is open to those who will praise, while the threats of the law hang over those who blame the conduct of the men in power. Indiscriminate approbation of the measures of the executive is not only unchallenged but fostered and received with the utmost avidity. Meanwhile, those who venture to express a sentiment of opposition must do so in fear and trembling, running the risk of being dragged, like myself, before the frowning tribunal erected by the Sedition Law. Be it so; but surely this anxiety to protect public character must arise from fear of attack. Conduct that will not bear investigation will naturally shun it. Whether my opinions are right or wrong, as stated in the charge, I cannot help thinking they would have been better refuted by evidence and argument than by indictment. Fines and imprisonment will produce conviction neither in the mind of the sufferer nor in that of the public.

Nor do I see how the people can exercise their elective franchise on rational grounds if perfect freedom of discussion of public characters is not allowed. Electors are bound in conscience to reflect and decide who best deserves their suffrages; but how can they do so if these prosecutions serve as a deterrent?

---