Answer. I get it from what I hear. I live near Spartanburgh, and see the people there. The business intercourse is very large between the people of the different counties.

Question. Name two or three men who have told you that is the reason for whipping the negroes?

Answer. I do not think I can give you any names at all.

Question. Can you remember none?

Answer. No, sir; none at all.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Let me understand. Do you say that men who have whipped the negroes have told you this?

Answer. No, sir; I never saw one who had whipped a negro, so far as I know. I do not admit that any of them are whipped, but I say that if any of them are whipped, I am satisfied my explanation is a true one. That is a fact.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Question. Then you undertake to give the motives of men, of whom and whose motives you are entirely ignorant?

Answer. Yes, sir; and your case is entirely unsupposable. I do not doubt that there are cases of people having been whipped, but I do not believe that there are two hundred. I live close to Spartanburgh, and my sources of information are as good as they can be from large numbers of persons in Spartanburgh. I see people from there every day.

Question. You have no idea that in one township in that county there have been one hundred negroes and white persons whipped?

Answer. I have no idea of the fact. I do not believe a word of it. Not that number.

Question. If the fact were established before you by testimony of witnesses, that these whippings had occurred, and were from political motives, would you still have the same doubts?

Answer. If I was satisfied in my own mind that they were credible witnesses, I would have no donbt.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Suppose they were black witnesses generally?

Answer. If they were black witnesses, I should doubt the fact.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Question. You do not give any credence to what they swear to?

Answer. I do; I know negroes who tell the truth, but as a mass they are very ignorant; are uneducated and depraved by political associations, and I do not believe they tell the truth much; but I know a few good negroes, those who have good opportunities.

Question. Is not that one of the difficulties of getting at the real state of thingsthe fact that the very people whose all was in the hands of these negroes, whose wives and children were at their mercy, and who depended upon them at one time, now say to us they cannot rely upon them with regard to their own interest? Is not that one of the difficulties we are to encounter?

Answer. I do not think it is a difficulty now about getting at the truth in this investigation.

Question. Is the whole of the race which eminently deserved your confidence at one time not entitled to confidence now?

Answer. I do not think they are entitled, or ever were entitled to confidence. The law made them incapable as witnesses.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. You never had any experience with them as witnesses before the war? Answer. No, sir; they were not allowed to testify.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Question. Has the whole moral nature of the negroes, which so fully executed his trust a few years ago, changed now?

Answer. No, sir; he has never changed. He had no trust; he was a slave, a chattel; he was sent to feed a horse or black a pair of boots. Slaves were treated kindly as domestic servants, but no trust was imposed upon them or committed to them.

Question. When the whole of the white population was in arms, had they no trust reposed in them?

Answer. Very little. There were white men at home, and the negro was as much in the control of white men during the war as when enslaved before the war. There were hundreds of wounded soldiers all over the country, and they were under more terror than they are now, or when they were slaves before the war.

Question. Is not that the real source of animosity-that the white man has sought to control the negro here and has been unable to do it?

Answer. I do not think so; I think, of all people under the sun, the old masters are the kindest disposed to the negroes.

Question. Personally; but politically, then, they have sought to control them and failed to do it; has not some animosity resulted, especially in the lower classes of the white people?

Answer. Not at all. There may be individual instances among the white people, but the masses are kindly disposed.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. On the question of credibility of witnesses, how are you to get at the proof which you would consider credible, in case a band of disguised men came at midnight to the house of a colored man, took him out and whipped him; suppose you, as a lawyer, were prosecuting that case, how would you undertake to make proof?

Answer. Well, sir, I would judge by the bearing of the witness upon the stand; the character of what he said-his expressions.

Question. Would you take the testimony of a negro?

Answer. I do not know whether I would or not; I would judge of his credibility by his bearing.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP :

Question. And his surroundings?

Answer. By all he might say; his whole bearing; just as I would judge of the credibility of any other witness.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. Then you do not mean to say absolutely that he is a non-credible witness? Answer. I say he is a credible witness, and, I believe, ought to have been a witness in slave times. I believe it is properly the law now that he may testify.

Question. Do you know any other way of establishing such a fact as that than by negro testimony?

Answer. Why, no, sir; for the case is a visit by a disguised band; there is no other way; but

Question. Coming to a negro's house at midnight; no others knowing anything about it, they will not tell; they are bound by an oath of secrecy among themselves not to tell, and they are guilty and would not tell on themselves. How are you to prove that?

Answer. I would substantiate his testimony by circumstances; if they went on foot, by the surroundings, by the tracks they would make in marching; if they were charged with having been on horseback, I would examine the ground; the neighbors near would probably hear. A band of armed men could not collect without somebody seeing them, and other negroes also would see them and corroborate the negro who was the prosecuting witness; and there might be other facts by which the presence of this party could be traced; probably there would be marks of violence upon the person. In that way I would take the testimony with all the surroundings that might be proved by other parties.

Question. From all that, I gather that you do not consider the testimony of a negro totally worthless?

Answer. Certainly not; at the same time, if his testimony is impeached in any way, I would have to give some credibility to it; but here, in an investigation like this, there is no opportunity to impeach testimony, and, therefore, I think the testimony of the negroes generally must be admitted with grains of sand of allowance, in my judg

ment.

Question. If some fifty witnesses testified that they had been whipped for political reasons, those engaged in the whipping having declared that they had been whipped for political reasons, you would think that very doubtful?

Answer. Yes, sir; I should doubt whether they were whipped for political reasons. I do not believe that occurs.

Question. Suppose a dozen white men swore they were whipped, and political reasons were given for the whipping at the time?

Answer. I should disbelieve the whole story.

Question. Upon what ground?

Answer. Because I have heard-I do not know of my own knowledge of any whipping by any party-but I have read in the newspapers and heard oral statements of parties in this State being whipped and otherwise maltreated; and, in many of these instances, I have heard that they were persons of bad repute notoriously in their neighborhoods, and I believe they were whipped for these reasons, and because the law could not reach them.

Question. You believe that from what you hear in the newspapers?
Answer. From what I hear of these parties.

Question. In the newspapers?

Answer. Yes, sir; I cannot call to mind now, but from the names and characters of the people whipped, I am convinced that they are bad people for any community. Question. I understand that you would discard sworn testimony upon statements in the newspapers?

•Answer. I give no credit at all to statements in the newspapers, because that is no evidence at all. They merely publish rumors.

Question. I would like to get at the root of this absolute confidence in your mind. Are you a member of this organization called the Ku-Klux?

Answer. Well, sir, I would not answer that question, because, were I to answer “No,” it would be a confession of your right to ask the question. Were I to answer "Yes," it would criminate me. Therefore I would not answer the question. I do not believe any other southern man, under the circumstances before your committee, would do justice to himself and neighbors in answering it. I believe there is an organization commonly so known, and I believe that if I did answer it "No," then every other man in the community might be forced to answer No; and some might criminate themselves or perjure themselves; therefore I would not answer the question.

The CHAIRMAN. If Mr. Stevenson desires the question answered, it is proper to call your attention to an act of Congress which takes away from parties immunity from answering questions of that character.

The WITNESS. Well, sir, I decline to answer the question.

Mr. STEVENSON. I insist upon my question. If such a question as that is not to be answered, we certainly never can get inside of this organization.

The CHAIRMAN. The second section of the act of Congress of 1857 reads thus: “SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That no person examined and testifying before either House of Congress, or any committee of either House, shall be held to answer criminally in any court of justice, or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for any fact or act touching which he shall be required to testify before either House of Congress or any committee of either House as to which he shall have testified, whether before or after the date of this act, and that no statement made or paper produced by any witness before either House of Congress, or before any committee of either House, shall be competent testimony in any criminal proceeding against such witness in any court of justice; and no witness shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or any committee of either House, for the reason that his testimony touching such fact or the production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt any witness from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed by him in testifying as aforesaid.

The act of 1862 reads thus:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the second section of the act entitled "An act more effectually to enforce the attendance of witnesses on the summons of either House of Congress, and to compel them to discover testimony," approved January twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, be amended, altered, and repealed, so as to read as follows: That the testimony of a witness examined and testifying before either House of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, shall not be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against such witness in any court of justice: Provided, however, That no official paper or record, produced by such witness on such examination, shall be held or taken to be included within the privilege of said evidence so to protect such witness from any criminal proceeding as aforesaid; and no witness shall hereafter be allowed to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper touching which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or any committee of either House, for the reason that his testimony touching such fact, or the production of such paper, may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to exempt any witness from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed by him in testifying as aforesaid."

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. Are you a member of this organization called the Ku-Klux?

Answer. I am not.

Question. What organization do you belong to?

Answer. I do not belong to any organization.

Question. Have you ever belonged to any such organization?

Answer Well, sir, I have never; I have not belonged to any organization, I do not think, of any character at all that might be termed an organization. I remember in 1868, I think previous to the election, when we were in apprehension of some attack upon us-I think there was a threat to burn--I organized a club of fifteen or twenty young men in my town for self-protection and to protect the property of the town. I think we had signs and tokens of recognition; but it was discontinued.

Question. What were the signs?

Question. We do not propose to put them on trial, but we would like to know the facts?

Answer. These are not facts.

Question. Is it not a fact that they joined you?

Answer. It is a fact that certain parties did; but who these parties are is another matter. I do not think I am called upon, unless they are criminally charged, to testify as to who they were.

Question. Why not? Did you take any obligation of secrecy?

Answer. I do not think we did.

Question. You do not think you did?

Answer. I do not think so.

Question. Do you not remember whether you were under any obligations to each other?

Answer. I do not think we were. I think the obligation was simply that we were, at the making of a signal agreed upon, to assemble for the protection of the property of the town, and the lives of the citizens, and of the country. I think that was the entire obligation, and no secrecy in it.

Question. Was there no arrangement that they should defend each other and come to the assistance of each other?

Answer. No, sir, not of each other; I think not.

Question. Was there any arrangement or understanding as to who should command or control them when together?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What was it?

Answer. I think we agreed upon four officers who were to take charge whenever they were congregated or assembled.

Question. What did you call your officers?

Answer. I think they were called captain, and first, and second, and third lieutenants. Question. What place did you hold?

Answer. I think I was captain.

Question. You think you were?

Answer. I do not remember.

Question. You do not remember whether you were captain or not?

Answer. I do not remember. I do not think we ever met again.

Question. You do not remember whether you were captain?

Answer. I do not.

Question. That is the first time I ever heard of a man holding an office and not remembering it.

Answer. It was not an office. It was merely an organization gotten up one evening when it was charged that there were rumors of the town being burned. Then gentlemen got together and made the arrangement who should take charge. There might have been a written statement drawn up designating the officers; I do not remember that they were styled officers. I think I was designated first. I do not think there was a constitution at all. It was simply a paper, an inch long, and that the undersigned agreed to form an association for the protection of the property and lives of the citizens of Laurens village.

Question. Who wrote it?

Answer. I think I wrote it.

Question. Who were your subordinate officers?

Answer. I do not remember. I think I remember two of them; but I submit that it is a question of privilege that I am not bound to answer.

Question. On what point do you put such a privilege as that?

Answer. Well, I do not know any strictly legal ground upon which I can put it; but I think it is incompetent. It would be in a court of justice. Question. Why?

Answer. Simply because it is irrelevant to any issue. I say that a certain number of gentlemen composed a certain organization. If half a dozen men are on trial for murder and I am charged as having been present as a principal or accessory, I do not believe it would be competent in a court of justice to ask was anybody else present as accessory or principal.

Question. Do you think so? I will submit the question to the committee if you object?

Answer. Then if the committee overrules me I shall answer the question.

The CHAIRMAN. The general duty with which the committee is charged is that of inquiring into the manner in which the laws are executed in the late insurrectionary States, and the security in this State of life, person, and property. One of the largest elements of insecurity has been the existence of secret organizations affecting life, person, and property. In all our inquiries we have directed them not only to ascertain the extent of this organization, but who compose the organization, and if Mr. Stevenson insists upon the question, it will have to be put to a vote of the committee whether the question shall be answered or not.