Newspaper Page Text
Franks put Varick on the stand to testify for him and
Varick put Franks on the stand to testify for him The resulting testimony shows that I ranks knew much and was eager to tell how much h knew of Arnold' traitorous intentions but he did not tell if until nold's treason was exposed and he himself under arn l The purpose of this article being ht,Iv to nil tin the gaps which are left in the JewUh propndist boasting of the part they have played in public af fairs in the United States, the retder must himself be a judge as to how far Major David Solesbury Franks was in Arnold's secret. (The "Smith" mentioned in the testimony was Joshua Hett Smith, who did secret work for Arnold and rowed Andre ashore for the night conference with Arnold.) Following are vital extracts from the testimony: Major Franks-"What was my opinion of Joshua H. Smith's character and conduct, and of his visits at Arnold's headquarters .?" Colonel Varick "When I first joined Arnold's family .... Arnold and yourself thought well of him as a man, but I soon prevailed on you to think him a Liar and a Rascal; and you ever after spoke of him in a manner his real char acter merited . . . ." Arnold, of course, knew what Smith was. Arnold and Smith were already partners in treason. But Varick did not know of this partnership. All that Varick knew was that both Arnold and Franks ap peared to hold the same opinion, that Smith was all right. Here Arnold and Franks appear as agreed again. Varick regarded them as holding the same opinion. Varick says so to Franks' face in answer to Franks' question. He does it, however, from a friendly purpose. But the fact is significant that Franks and Arnold are found holding the same front "Arnold and yourself thought well of him as a man." How Much Did the Jewish Aid Know? NOW, Arnold knnv what Smith was, knew enough about Smith to hang him. Smith was one of the tools of his long extended treason. The question is. did Franks also know? Was Franks kept in ignorance of Arnold's real knowledge of Smith, or was Franks actually deceived as regards Smith? It may be, but let this be observed, that Varick who was not at all in Arnold's confidence, nevertheless was not deceived about Smith but saw through him at once. Did not Franks see through him too? Until the time that Varick dared speak about the matter, Franks and Arnold were preserving the same appearance of opinion they "thought well of him as a man." Then Varick honestly spoke out. He got hold of the Jewish Franks and told him all that he knew and suspected about Smith. The evidence was too over whelming for Franks to scoff at. Any man scoffing at Varick's tale would himself be under suspicion. Varick was given to understand that he had changed Franks' opinion of Smith. Thereafter Franks com ported himself in a manner to convince Varick that he regarded Smith as a "Liar and a Rascal." It is permissible to ask, was this pretense or re ality? If Varick knew things, Varick was a man to handle wisely. If Varick knew things, it would be foolish to lose touch with him and thus lose the benefit of knowing how much was known or surmised outside. These, of course, are the arguments of suspicion, but they are made concerning the same Jewish officer who, on finding that Colonel Fitzgerald had discovered the profiteering venture in which Franks and Arnold were partners, was wise enough to inform Arnold and per mit the plan to drop. Major Franks' previous be havior, like Benedict Arnold's, arouses the suspicion. Benedict Arnold appeared to Varick to regard Smith as a good man ; Franks appeared to Varick to share Arnold's opinion; but whether Franks really knew, as Arnold knew, and only pretended to change his opinion that he might keep the confidence of Varick, is a point on which Franks' previous conduct compels the mind to waver. Franks Knew Enough to Hang Arnold HOW well Franks knew Arnold may be gathered from other points brought out in this testimony: Major Franks "How often did Arnold go f down the river in his bar . whilst I was ;it Rob inson's House (Arnold's headquarters) ? Hid I ever attend him, and what were our opinions and conduct on his going down and remaining absent the night of the twenty-first of Septem ber?" (This was the night of his meeting Andre.) Colonel Varick (answers that Franks, to his knowledge never accompanied Arnold) Twit when I was informed by you or Mrv Arnold, on the twenty-first, that he was not to return that evening, I suggested to you that I supposed he had gone to Smith's, and that I considered Ar nold's treatment of me in keeping up his con nection with Smith, in opposition to the warning I had given him, as very ungenteel and that I was resolved to quit his family" (meaning his staff.) "We did thereupon concert the plan of yoftTZrT in,ormme 22 Smith ,u . "" tor his connections with nn, t y0" VP to avaricious """ and susPcctl he meant to open trade with ,XeW Yrk' "ndtr '-.ion of '""iniand and by means of flags and the ttn- SW.;rf that you we e -ddced to suspect it from the letter he wrote to Anderson ,n a commercial style as related o wo H yf T l therCUpn Pled' to our I h hTr,'hat f Ur SUSPici0"s sh'd Prove o be mW in fact we would instantly quit a son Intimate With Every Element of the Tre I hi n T1 X.anCk talking' Franks stioning l 1 AWlH erved that is Flkl who tells Varick of Arnolds absence and that he will not return that night Franks knew, but Varick did not. It will be observed also, that it was Varick who protested and threatened to quit Arnold. It was indeed the second time he had threatened to quit, but the Jewish major seems never to have had a similar thought. But most important to observe is Varick's statement in answer to r-ranks, and m Franks' presence, that it was Franks who opened up with information regarding Arnold's character that Arnold was an avaricious man. that Franks suspected him of opening up trade with the enemy "under sanction of his command" (just as he had planned to misuse his authority at Philadelphia) and that Smith was to be the go-between. Then he mentions a letter to "Anderson in a commercial style" this "Anderson" being none other than Major John Andre of the British Army. Here we find Major Franks intimate with every element of the conspiracy every element of it ! and giving a certain explanation of it to Varick. Did Franks know more than he told, and was he quieting Varick with an explanation which seemed to cover all the facts and yet did not divulge the truth? It is a question that occurs, directly we recall the close col lusion of Arnold and Franks at Philadelphia. There is other testimony, that it was Varick, not Franks, who prevented Arnold selling supplies of the government for his own profit. Time and again this occurred, but never with Franks, the long-time aid and confidant of Arnold, in the role of actor. But every time Varick did it, Franks knew of it, as he testified. Now we approach the "Day of his Desertion" as the records call the day of Arnold's treason. Major Franks "What was Arnold's as well as my conduct and deportment on the Day of his Desertion, and had you the slightest reason to think I had been or was party or privy to any of his villainous practices and correspondence with the enemy, or to his flight? Pray relate the whole of our conduct on that day to your knowledge. Franks' Actions on the Tragic Day COLONEL VARICK "I was sick and a greater part of the time in my bed in the morning of his flight. Before breakfast he came into my room" (and talked about certain letters) "and I never saw him after it but betook myself to my bed. I think it was about an hour there after when you came to me and told me Arnold was gone to West Point also a considerable time thereafter you came to the window of my room near my bed and shoving it up hastily told me with a degree of apparent surprise that you be lieved Arnold was a villain or rascal, and added you had heard a report that one Anderson was taken as a spy on the lines and that a militia officer had brought a letter to Arnold and that he was enjoined secrecy by Arnold. I made some warm reply, but instantly reflecting that I was injuring a gentleman and friend of high reputa tion in a tender point, I told you it was uncharita ble and unwarrantable even to suppose it. You concurred in opinion with me and I lay down lecnft in the hili idea I entertained of Arnold's integrity and patriotism . . . Here is a record of Major Franks' conduct, told at his own solicitation before a court of inquiry. It reveals that Arnold told Franks but did not tell Varick. where he was going. It reveals also that Franks' knew of the nu age which came to Arnold, the bearer of which had bee bound by Arnold to se crecy (For the readers benefit it is recalled that Arnold's treason was prematurely exposed by Andre being lost in the woods at night after his interview with fXrnold, and his consequent inability to get back To the British ship. He was sighted and halted in daylight, and discovery was made ot tne nlans in his stockings. The innocent soldiers sent word to Beneditf Arnold, their commanding officer, that they had captured a spy named Anderson. This gave TdoW information that the plot had fallen through. Enjoining absolute secrecy on the messenger, Arnold made off hastily as if to investigate, but really to rush to the ship to which Andre had failed to re turn.) But, observe: the messenger arrived and im mediately Franks appears to be informed what the message contains. He is informed also that Arnold is going to West Point. He is informed of "Ander sons" capture. Once again franks is in instant touch Wtth all the points of the matter, but this time he goes further and accuses Arnold. In the peculiar phrase ology of Varick, which may or may not be significant, Franks "hastily told me with a degree of apparent sur prise that he believed Arnold to be a villain or rascal. Then the difference between these two men ap peared again; it shines out luminously. When it was possible to save Arnold, it was Varick who was most concerned, while Franks appeared to be hand-in-glove with the traitor. But when it was apparent that some thing irrevocable had happened, it was the Jew who was first and bitterest to denounce, while Varick re membered the conduct expected of gentlemen. Like wise as at first, the Jewish major changed his opinion of Smith to agree with Varick's opinion, so now he concurred in opinion" with Varick, although he had just violently uttered the opposite opinion concerning Arnold. Arnold's Testimony to Franks' Innocence VTA RICK was charitable because he did not have the V facts. Was Franks as outspoken as he was because he had all the facts? If so, where did he get them? From Arnold? How much did Franks know? That question will probably never he answered. There is, however, this additional testimony of his on record: "I told you that I thought Arnold had cor responded with Anderson or some such name before from Philadelphia and had got intelligence of consequence from him." David Solesbury Franks was implicated in every major crime of Benedict Arnold and in the great trea son he gave evidence of knowing every movement of the game, from its far beginning in Philadelphia. Franks was exonerated by the court. From his safe retreat on the British man-of-war, Benedict Arnold wrote a letter in which he exculpated Smith. Franks and Varick. writing that they were "totally ignorant of any transactions of mine, that they had reason to believe were injurious to the public." Smith was neither ignorant nor innocent. He had rowed out to the British ship and brought Andre ashore for his conference with Arnold. He had been a go between on many shady missions. Yet Arnold in his letter exonerates Smith. That fact seriously affects his exoneration of Franks. If Arnold can lie about Smith's innocence, why cannot he lie about Franks' innocence? As to Varick, he is the only one of the three who can do without Arnold's exoneration; to Varick it is an insult to have Benedict Arnold vouch for him. Franks, however, was always afterward in clined to lean upon Arnold's letter. An impartial study of the testimony, upon the background of a knowledge of Franks' history, leaves grave doubts as to the unimpeachability of his relations with Benedict Arnold. So much so, indeed, that in the study of Arnold's treason it is a grave omission to pass over Franks' name. The End of Arnold's Jewish Aid THE reader who will make a complete study of Franks' character as revealed in the records will testify to this : the present study has been exceedingly charitable to his character ; he could easily have been prejudiced in the reader's mind by the presentation of a series of facts omitted here; the object has been to judge him solely on his acts with relation to Benedict Arnold. Rightly or wrongly, Franks was suspected ever after ward. It was the Philadelphia incident that stamped his reputation. The suspicion .of perjury on that oc casion never left him. Franks insisted on having him self vindicated all round, but he was never satisfied with his vindications, he always wanted more. Jewish propagandists have misrepresented his subsequent work as a diplomatist. It was of the merest messenger-boy character, and he was intrusted with it only after the most obsequious appeals. He peddled petitions recit ing his services and asking for government favor. The man who asserted in his defense at Philadelphia that he was eager to leave the army and enter busi ness, could not be induced to leave the public service, until the allotment to him of 400 acres of land seems to have effectually weaned him from public life. Wrhat his end was, no one appears to know. His present-day uses, however, is to furnish Jewish and pro-Jewish propagandists with a peg on which to hang extravagant praise of the Jew in Revolutionary times. There can be no objection whatever to Jewish propagandists making the most of their material, but there is strong objection to the policy of concealment and misrepresentation. These impositions on public confidence will be exposed as regularly as they occur. Volumei Oo end Two of "Tk Inttruitbn al Mm 236 .od 256 j r..peotir.ly, .cot to any .ddr... upon receipt of 25 cent, for eeeh volume.