Answer. Yes, sir; the object was to restore peace and harmony to the country. I did interest myself very deeply.

Question. Was the danger of the situation conceded at that time?

Answer. Certainly; it is in the resolution.

Question. What was that danger believed to be ?

Answer. That a set of irresponsible men were riding around, and we did not know what protection there was from it. Right there, if you will permit me in reference to these disorders, I would respectfully suggest that my impression is that they are the result more of personal prejudice to the individual that has been punished or disturbed than from any regular organization.

Question. We have had that opinion very frequently.

Answer. I say it very conscientiously; I can give my reasons, if it is needed. Question. Why was it you made the expression a short time ago that you were unwilling or had felt an unwillingness to give vent to your own feelings, as you did not know to whom you might be talking on the subject?

Answer. Simply for the reason that I did not then know, and do not now know, who were engaged in it; I did not know who I was talking to.

Question. Did you suspect then that there was a secret organization, and you might be talking to a member of it?

Answer. Not as an organization-a regular organization throughout the county, at all; I never suspected that.

Question. You knew your own personal friends?

Answer. Yes, sir; but I did not know whether they were in secret sympathy or not. Question. You did not suspect general sympathy with an organization?

Answer. But in such a time anything a man might do or say might be readily perverted and misrepresented.

Question. I notice that the language in that card is that the pledge given is as to stopping further operations?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. I want to know whether that was the language of the paper as originally drawn by you?

Answer. I cannot state, sir. My impression is that the word "future" was stricken out, and it was made "general."

Question. Your recollection is that the paper as first drawn did not confine the pledge to future operations, and that was stricken out?

Answer. I think some member of the committee objected to that, and by general consent it was stricken out-the future clause as to the future-upon the ground that the implication would be that we were not objecting to the past, but to the future. For that very reason it was erased. When the different papers were handed in and printed, I discovered that that future clause was in them, and called the attention of the editor to it, and I told him my impression was that the future clause was stricken out by general consent. Some of them had the future clause, and some of them did not have it as originally given out, and we accounted for it in this manner: Dr. Lindsay's son-as I was busy at the time-was handed the original, and different parties from the country got copies from him, and I suppose that word-whether distinctly or not I cannot say that word "future" got in the paper I handed to him.

Question. Do you not know the fact that, when the cards got to the country, the people would not sign them unless this pledge was confined to future cases?

Answer. No, sir, I do not know the fact. Right there, I heard some one say that inasmuch as Major Merrill had confined his efforts to the future, why not express it so ; but who that is I cannot tell. I heard that on the street, and that is the only person I ever heard say it.

Question. You were not out with these cards through the county yourself?
Answer. No, sir.

Question. Was there any effort after that time made to discover and bring any one. of the persons who had been guilty to justice for past offenses?

Answer. No, sir; but the reason why there was none was this: If we had been furnished with the evidence, or put upon any plan by which we could have got the evidence--I do not know whether there was any effort made to discover or get the evidence, I do not know that there was any special effort made. The matter was generally discussed. I never heard any party named myself or any names mentioned as being the author of these past offenses.

Question. You say the outlines of this account of the proceedings of that meeting were shown to you by the editor?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Had you written any part of that yourself?

Answer. Yes, sir; a portion.

Question. Were you not the author of the article yourself?

Answer. No, sir; I wrote a part of it, and he ran over it and changed it.

Question. So that to a considerable extent you are the author of that article?
Answer. Not entirely; to some extent.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. The editorial article?

Answer. Yes, sir; Colonel Merrill approved it.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. You never heard of any outrages since then?

Answer. No, sir, except from Colonel Merrill.

Question. Have there not been outrages committed in the county and reported to him or by him to you, which you believe, since that time?

Answer. I do not know. He told me a man named Dick Wilson was whipped since that, but I am not certain whether it was before or after. I inquired in regard to him afterward.

Question. Were you not impressed with the belief that it was Major Merrill's sincere desire to avail himself of whatever public sentiment existed here against the Ku-Klux? Answer. It was.

Question. And secure the remedy through the civil authorities ?

Answer. Yes, sir; he stated so.

Question. Were you impressed with his sincerity?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. When it came to the alleged or expected raid on his camp, whatever preparation was made, was not that immensely magnified in the town here?

Answer. It was; they had it reported that he had his headquarters guarded, and some gentleman, Mr. Boyd, I think, asked him if that was possible.

Question. It was rather resented here in town that he had made such preparation? Answer. No, sir; the feeling was this: the people here had no idea that any one would be foolhardy, enough any larger number of men, let alone three men, however drunk they might be. The remark was made in this meeting that they did not believe any man in York district, drunk or sober, could have made any such declaration, because the sentiment is to avoid collision with the United States Government.

Question. You say gentlemen came to you and inquired about this next morning? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Who were they?

Answer. Dr. Lindsay, Mr. Graham, and Mr. -; but I do not remember distinctly. Question. You say they came to you to inquire about the cause of this disturbance? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. What disturbance?

Answer. The alleged disturbance in the town, according to the rumor.

Question. The disturbance in the town?

Answer. No, sir; the town rumor as to the disturbance in the camp.

Question. Had there been any disturbance?

Answer. That was what we wanted to find out. Colonel Merrill says there was none.
Question. The rumor that there was an immense disturbance?

Answer. Not immense, but the camp had been threatened and cartridges issued, &c.
Question. He told you in that conference, to which he was accidentally called
Answer. Yes, sir, it was accidental.

Question. That he believed, from information that he had and observation, that some reckless men intended to fire on his camp-two or three men?

Answer. No, sir; he stated that it had been reported to him, and he knew the men's names. My recollection is that he never had believed they would do such a thing. Question. But he had the information?

Answer. Yes, sir; and that one man had been down there surveying.

Question. And that he thought it prudent to make these preparations?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Did he not make a further statement that he had put a silent sentinel there, hoping that if any such men came there they would go so far as to try it, and he would capture them?

Answer. Yes, sir; he said something about sentinels. I will not say silent sentinels; I do not think he used the word-but that he had made arrangements by which, if they attempted it, they would be captured.

Question. When asked for the names of these men he declined to give them?
Answer. Yes, sir; from public policy.

Question. We ask you as a lawyer, taking this whole case as he stated it-taking the application made to him to bring these men to justice-for what offense would you have indicted men who were simply suspected of having intended to fire on the camp? Answer. We would have investigated the matter, and it might have been that an offense could have been made out of it; I cannot tell.

Question. Upon his statement of it, was there any offense for which men could be indicted?

Answer. It was a conspiracy to do an unlawful act.

Question. If it actually existed?

Answer. Yes, sir; and if it was boisterously done, with threats, it would have been a riot.

Question. If actually accomplished?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. But his information to you was that it had not been accomplished?

Answer. Yes, sir; if we had carried out the investigation and proved that fact to exist that threats and boisterous language had been used, it would have made it a riot according to the laws of this State.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. If Colonel Merrill had information at that time that Major Avery was not only a member but commander-in-chief in this county of the Ku-Klux, do you not think his reasons of public policy were very good for withholding the names of these inen?

Answer. Yes, sir, of course it would have been prudent.

Question. But there was a feeling of resentment toward him for withholding the names?

Answer. No, sir; I did not say there was resentment. Certainly Colonel Merrill was enjoying the utmost confidence of every man present, and therefore it could not certainly be any resentment. That is my distinct impression.

Question. You passed on from that to the list of persons killed, and the number that, in your estimation, had been whipped. I shall not examine on that further than to ask, have you ever sat down to make out a list of names of persons you had heard were whipped in this county?

Answer. Never. I state my general impression and recollection.

Question. And that impression is without ever having undertaken to make an actual estimate with pen and paper?

Answer. I never have made a list with pen and paper.

Question. You have never taken it up township by township?

Answer. No, sir; but I am confident in my own mind that it could not have exceeded that many.

Question. How can you tell that without going over it by townships?

Answer. It is an impression. I do not state it as a fact within my own knowledge. It is my opinion.

Question. I come to the cases of Byars and Hicks; you say that on that trial the defense was an alibi?

Answer. Yes, sir, by disinterested persons-by parties not connected with the case. Question. Not connected by blood or marriage with the men?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was the question put on the trial, to these men, whether they were members of the Ku-Klux Klan ?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. How did they answer?

Answer. My impression is that they positively denied it. In one of these cases the witnesses were separated, so that there could be no sheltering among them.

Question. Were the defendants put upon the stand?

Answer. Yes, sir; that is my impression.

Question. Byars, Hicks, and Randall?

Answer. That is my recollection. You will remember that in the trial the solicitor managed it.

Question. Your professional connection with it ceased before the trial justice ?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Were those three men asked that question, whether they were members of the Ku-Klux Klan ?

Answer. I cannot remember whether they were or not.

Question. The defendants, you think, were probably acquitted on the testimony? Answer. I do, sir.

Question. Have you looked at the notes of the testimony taken by the judge and on file?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. What is your impression as to whether the notes disclosed the fact that at least one or two witnesses, who proved the alibi, were dismissed without a word of cross-examination ?

Answer. My impression is that there were so many witnesses that some of them were. The alibi was proved by so many witnesses that in some cases the State made no effort. Question. Are you sure that those are men not suspected of being members of the Ku-Klux Klan?

Answer. I cannot think so.

The CHAIRMAN. I have asked to have a copy of the whole record of that trial mad for the proceedings of this committee.

Mr. VAN TRUMP. I would prefer much to have that done, as Major Merrill stated it only from his recollection.

[A certified copy of the record in the case above mentioned is attached to the testimony of this witness, marked Appendix No. 2.]

The WITNESS. I never saw the judge's notes, and I only speak from my recollection of the testimony as given on the trial.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Question. One other part that I understood occurred in that trial; one boy, you say, was an invalid?

Answer. Yes, sir; he struck me as an invalid.

Question. Did not these facts occur with reference to that boy, that his father stated that he went to bed in the evening; that soon after he went to bed he heard a noise out among the horses; that he did not know what that meant; and that the next morning when he got up he met that same boy, and the first thing the boy said to him was, before he or anybody else in the neighborhood knew it, that Tom Roundtree had been killed the night before?

Answer. Not that I recollect. My recollection was that there was a disturbance in the barn lot. That occurred to me as a circumstance of very great suspicion at first. Question. Was not that a part of the evidence to prove the alibi; that he was the first person to communicate the news in the neighborhood?

Answer. No, sir; I don't remember that. I remember distinctly they were aroused at the house by the barking of the dog about the stables. The old man suspected something was wrong about the barn or horses.

Question. I come to the case of Wright. You commenced by saying that Sapaugh was a respectable man, and, in your opinion, incapable of such an offense?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You commenced your investigation of the case, acting as the counsel of Wright, with that impression?

Answer. No, sir; my former partner-not now my partner-conducted the Sapaugh

case.

Question. That is, he conducted the case against Sapaugh?

Answer. No, sir, for Sapaugh. Mr. Smith against him.

Question. But when the subsequent case came up for perjury, you were counsel for Wright?

Answer. Wright applied to me, but failed to get up a fee.

Question. Did I misunderstand you when I thought you said that you did defend him? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. It was in the Barrett case that you acted at the request of Major Merrill? Answer. Yes, sir. I did not act as Wright's counsel.

Question. In that case Wright made information first against Sapaugh, charging him positively with being one of the parties who had whipped him?

Answer. Yes, sir; that was before Roberts.

Question. Wright was an ignorant negro

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. He could not read or write?

Answer. That is my opinion.

?

Question. Do you know whether, in his verbal statement before the magistrate, he had made any qualification, such as that he believed this was the man?

Answer. I was not present at the magistrate's examination.

Question. Do you know whether, in the second information before the other justice,

he did so?

Answer. I do not know that there was any hearing before the first; somehow it was turned over.

Question. I am speaking of the information, not the hearing. I understand that no hearing occurred before the first justice.

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Was that done by a new information, or have you a practice here of taking a man from one trial justice to another?

Answer. In fact, the practice is so loose you can take a man anywhere. Almost any

thing would be recognized as conforming to practice before the trial justices in this county last year.

Question. So that it is possible that the officer charged with the execution of the warrant, instead of taking him before the justice before whom the information was made, went to another justice, and the hearing occurred there?

Answer. Yes, sir; Miles Johnson.

Question. Was there any evidence as to whether the negro, in his verbal statement before Johnson, had qualified it by saying that he believed this was the man, or had sworn positively?

Answer. I was not there.

Question. How were the facts as developed in the upper court; did it appear there that his testimony before the justice was positive?

Answer. My recollection is, that the trial justice could not be positive whether it was

or not.

Question. Then we come into court, and the means, after this information, whether positive or qualified, by which Wright undertook to identify Sapaugh, was a white beard and something about the appearance of his hands. He gave that as the ground of his belief.

Answer. No, sir; the ground upon which he made the accusation.

Question. On that trial before the court he was convicted of perjury in swearing to Sapaugh as being the man.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. The preliminary investigation having decided, whether properly or not I am not prepared to say, that this man Sapaugh was innocent, Sapaugh himself was a witness against Wright in the prosecution for perjury, and swore that he was not there at the time?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. He did swear, however, that he had previously worn a beard of the kind described by Wright?

Answer. Yes, sir. I have seen the beard myself.

Question. And it was his testimony that he had met Wright the evening before this whipping was alleged to have occurred?

Answer. Yes, sir; in perfect friendship.

Question. Now, was Sapaugh asked whether he was a member of the Ku-Klux Klan? Answer. I do not remember.

Question. It was on that testimony that Wright was convicted of perjury in having identified Sapaugh?

Answer. No, sir; I have forgotten whether there was any more testimony except the record of Wright's testimony and Sapaugh's testimony or not, but the jury were satisfied that it was a falsehood.

Question. Of course, the issue would be as to whether he had sworn willfully or not? Answer. Yes; but according to a statute of our State under which he was indicted it is not necessary to prove "the willful."

Question. Can a man in South Carolina be convicted of perjury for having sworn to what he in good faith believes, even if it turns out that he is mistaken?

Answer. Not if he swears according to his belief.

Question. Suppose he swears according to his belief at the time?

Answer. You are correct about that. It is "willfully and falsely." I was in error. There has been some reform in the practice-some change in the statute; but that is not the point.

Question. Now, in Barrett's case, Caldwell, Smith, and Barber were all charged before the trial justice with this offense of Ku-Kluxing Barrett?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Were they all three put upon the stand in their own defense?

Answer. Yes, sir, I think they were.

Question. Is that the practice before a trial justice?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. That he hears not only the testimony as to whether there is sufficient cause to bind a man over, but what he has to offer in his defense?

Answer. Yes, sir; that was the practice by the trial justices last year. The trial justice at this place now is not doing that. He only hears the State's representation of the case, which is the correct practice, I think.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Is that according to a statute or practice?

Answer. Our magistrates have very large jurisdiction, and on the preliminary examination they either acquit, discharge, or bind over.

By the CHAIRMAN :

Question. There was a discharge without binding over?
Answer. Yes, sir.