F247 059 Originally published in 1872 by Republican Printing Company, State Printers Reprinted 1969 by Negro Universities Press A DIVISION Of Greenwood Publishing Corp. NEW YORK SBN 8371-1997-9 PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Reporters' Note. The following pages contain a report of the proceedings before the Circuit Court of the United States, at Columbia, S. C., in what are known as the Ku Klux Cases. That portion of the publication which embraces the arguments on the motion to quash the indictment in the case of the United States vs. Allen Crosby, et al., and the evidence and arguments in the case of the United States vs. Robert Hayes Mitchell, et al., is strictly a verbatim report of all that occurred. The evidence in the case of the United States vs. John W. Mitchel and Thomas C. Whitesides is also verbatim, but the remainder of the report is somewhat condensed. In the latter cause, the arguments are verbatim, so far as they relate to questions of general interest, in connection with these Ku Klux prosecutions, and are condensed only in their references to the alibi which the defence attempted to prove. The evidence in the causes tried subsequently is considerably condensed, but no material fact that appeared, and nothing which occurred to indicate the animus of witnesses, on either side, has been omitted. The report of the case of Edward Y. Avery is much more complete than that of John S. Miller, and the statements of those prisoners who pleaded guilty are abstracts only to the extent of the omission of a large number of the questions. B. P. Introductory Part. On the 27th day of November, 1871, the United States Circuit Court convened at Columbia, S. C. The Hon. HUGH L. BOND, of Maryland, Circuit Judge, presided, and the Hon. GEORGE S. BRYAN, of Charleston, District Judge, sat with him upon the Bench. After the roll of grand and petit jurors was called, the Hon. D. T. Corbin, United States District Attorney, challenged the array upon the following grounds: 1. That said jurors were not designated and drawn in the manner provided by law. 2. That said jurors were drawn from the jury box by a small child, and not by the Clerk or Marshal, as required by law. 3. That said jurors were not drawn in the presence of the Clerk and Marshal, but were drawn in the presence of the Clerk only. In support of these objections the following affidavits were read: The affidavit of the United States Marshal, L. E. Johnson, asserted that he was in the city of Charleston on the second day of August, 1871, and in going to his office on that day he was informed that the grand and petit jurors for the next stated term of the Circuit Court had been just drawn, which greatly surprised him, as he had received no notice from the Clerk, Daniel Horlbeck, Esq., or any other person, of the intended drawing of the jurors that day by the Clerk, and consequently was not present during any part of the time of the drawing of said jurors, as the law requires. The affidavit of the Chief Deputy Marshal, Edward P. Butts, was to the effect that, on the second day of August, while he was in his office in Charleston, he was notified by the Clerk of the Court that he (the Clerk) was about to draw the jurors for the next term of the Court, to be held in Columbia, and that he went into the room where Daniel Horlbeck, Esq., the Clerk of the Court, had the jury box, which he (Horlbeck) unlocked and opened in his presence; that a small boy being called in, and instructed by the Clerk to draw from the jury box the ballots; that the boy commenced drawing the ballots; that he (Butts) was called away after he had drawn a few, and left Mr. J. H. Shriner, a Bailiff of the Court, to take his place. Butts also deposed that the Marshal was not present during the time of the drawing. John H. Shriner deposed that he was a Bailiff of the Court at the time |