Q. All the persons who attended that meeting-were they not members of the Klan?

Question objected to, and withdrawn.

Q. Was it a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan?

A. I did not consider it so.

Q. Were you, or not, elected chief that night?

A. I was elected to govern that party; and allow me to state-
Mr. Corbin. That is all I desire.

Witness. The condition of the up-country demanded something at that time. They had been burning and making threats in the country, and it certainly did demand that something should be done. Word was left at my house to go to that meeting. I came very near not going; but when I did go, I asked the object of the meeting, and it was said that, inasmuch as there had been so much burning and threats made round our County, that it was necessary we should come to some understanding; that we should know where to get assistance, if we needed it.

Q. Well, you organized a Klan?

A. Yes, sir; if you consider that an organization.

Q. And they elected you chief of that crowd, did they not?

A. They elected me leading officer of that party.

Testimony objected to.

Mr. Corbin. We think this testimony is pertinent as to whether all who were present acknowledged, before proceeding to business, that they were sworn members of the Ku Klux Klan, or other Klans.

Mr. Johnson. We object to that. I understand him to ask whether the persons present at that meeting acknowledged that they belonged to that Klan-as to whether they said so. The proper way is to call up the men themselves, if they can get them; but they propose to rely upon the unsworn declarations of those who were present. We are entitled to have direct evidence of the fact that each one was a member of the Klan in point of fact-not by his own declarations, but by something that he did-if they can show any act that he did.

Mr. Corbin. This organization, as we shall be able to show, is one that operates in the dark, and that the members were known to each other by signs and grips, and by various means, and that, when they recognized each other, they talked and discussed the proceedings of the order.

Mr. Johnson. We do not object to that.

Mr. Corbin. We wish to show that, on this occasion, they did not proceed to business till each man had been examined, to know whether he was initiated within the order. That this question was put to the members of the order, and that they all gave assent that they were sworn members of the Ku Klux Klan; and that they then proceeded to the organization, electing Mr. Hope as their chief.

Q. Was each person present at that meeting interrogated as to whether every member present belonged to the Ku Klux Klan?

me.

A. I do not know positively that they were. It was not done by

Q. Was it done by somebody?

Question objected to as leading.

A. A portion of it was; but it was not done by me.

had been sworn in.

Q. Did not that apply to all of them?

A. I do not think it did.

A portion of them

Q. They did elect you commander, that night, did they not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there not some officers elected?

A. Some were appointed.

Q. What were they called?

A. Some termed them Wardens, to let them know if they were needed.

Q. What is the general names by which they were known?

A. I do not know; some of them called them Night Hawks.

Q. How many Night Hawks did you elect?

A. I do not remember, exactly.

Q. Were there any other officers there?

A. I think there were; a man that kept the roll or record, in case there was any need of them.

Cross-examination by Mr. Stanbery.

Q. You speak about going yourself to that meeting?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At what season of the year was it?

A. I think about the last of March, 1871.

Q. You say the reason why you went to the meeting was because of certain burnings and threats which had been made?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you any burnings there?

A. Yes, sir; we had a number of them.

Mr. Corbin. We object to that.

Mr. Stanbery. It was you who proved it; we didn't ask him if there had been any.

Q. State what burnings there were?

A. Dr. Masters and Mr. Castle, and Rev. James Castle and Jackson Brown, who had their gin-houses, and mills, and barns, and stables burned, and then the smoke-house of Mr. Brown, and others in the neighborhood.

Q. Had these burnings been frequent?

A. About five or six.

Q. What threats had been made?

A. Threats had been made.

Q. (by Mr. Corbin). Name the person who made the threats?

A. It was a freedman by the name of Mick Moore.

Q. (by Mr. Corbin). Did you hear him make it?

A. No, sir.

Mr. Corbin. We object to the testimony.

Mr. Stanbery. They are attempting to make out a conspiracy, and to show intention, purpose and motives which instigated the parties to make the agreement. I have heard of no agreement that is before the jury, except the meeting this gentleman attended in March last. That is the only agreement which has yet been given in evidence. We want to show what was the purpose and objects of that meeting. What measures the meeting agreed to take to avert these injuries, or burnings, or threats. Supposing there had been no threats, but that the parties had been informed that threats had been made to burn their houses, or other injuries. Acting upon that information, there are abundant reasons to prove the intent, animus and motives of the meeting.

The Court. The witness says he heard those threats, but does not know who made them.

Witness. I heard of threats being made, but do not know who made them.

Mr. Johnson. The specific charge against the prisoner is, that he belonged to a conspiracy to violate the rights secured by the Act of 1870, that is, the right to vote or to do anything else.that was secured by the Act of 1870. The counsel for the prosecution has told the jury that they proposed to prove that this was an organization for the purpose of frustrating or defeating some right belonging to our colored citizens, and especially the right of suffrage, and he has told the jury that the conspiracy or association was to that end.

Now, is it not competent for us to prove by the party, if he is a competent witness, that that was not the object of the conspiracy at all, so far as is known? That, on the contrary, his individual motives, in becoming a party to that association, was to protect his own property and that of his neighbors, and the lives of those who might be connected with them, from what he supposed to have been going on in the neighborhood by some persons-whether white or black is immaterial-or whether there were threats or no threats; if they went together, under the honest impression that such threats had been made, and to guard themselves against the consequences of such threats.

It disproves the very ground on which the prosecution are placing

their case, that they got together for a different purpose than preventing the colored man from exercising the right of suffrage. It is wholly immaterial whether there were fires or threats then or not. If they believed that these conflagrations would be continued, and honestly believed that other wrongs would be committed upon them and their neighbors, such as were indicated by the threats, then they not only did not commit the offense charged in this indictment, but they did what they had a right to do. They acted in self-defense, upon the hypothesis which we suppose to be established by the testimony of this witness; that is to say, they acted upon the natural desire of shielding themselves against outrages, and not for the purpose of perpetrating outrages upon others.

Q. (by Mr. Johnson). What was your motive in going to the meeting in March, 1871?

A. For self-defense and the protection of those that were helpless in my neighborhood; to guard against anything that was going on, or that might be gotten up. There were other things which led my mind to believe there would be difficulties.

Q. (by Mr. Johnson). You went to the meeting to guard yourselves against further conflagrations?

A. I had no other object in view.

Q. What did you understand to be the nature of these threats?

A. It was just this, that they were threats.

Q. Who did you understand that these threats came from?

Question objected to.

Q. (by Mr. Johnson). You understood them as coming from somebody?

A. Yes, sir; I did.

Q. Did you understand these burnings to be accidental or incendiary? A. They could not possibly be accidental.

Mr. Corbin. We object.

Judge Bond. The witness has a right to answer that.

Mr. Corbin. They insist that we shall not put in any hearsay testimony, and they are asking nothing else.

Q. Then your purpose in going to that meeting was to protect yourself and your family against those fires and the performance of those threats? Had you to guard your own house for several nights?

A. Yes, sir. I walked my yard several nights. We could not sleep. There were several fires around us. I do not know how they came. Q. Then you were impressed with the danger to yourself and family? A. Yes, sir; from their nearness to me, I certainly was impressed.

Re-direct Examination.

Q. You replied, in answer to a question, that you went to that meating

to protect yourself and the helpless ones about you. Did that include the colored people, as well as your own family?

A. Yes, sir; I intended to protect all about me.

Q. Who were you to protect the colored people against?

A. From any party that might molest them.

Q. Had you reference to the Ku Klux organization in that reply?

A. I had no reference to any particular organization.

Q. Do you not know that the Ku Klux were raiding generally? Was it not your motive to protect your colored laborers from them?

A. There were raiding parties going about the country.

Q. And you intended to protect the colored people on your lands? A. I did, sir.

Q. (by Mr. Stanbery). From whom did you understand these threats

to come?

A. I understood them to come from a portion of the colored race.

Q. Who did you understand were committing these raids around the country?

A. My understanding was that the raids were made generally by white parties.

Q. What were these raiding parties called?

A. They were generally called Ku Klux.

Q. What was the character of these raids? what were they raiding on, and what were they doing?

Mr. Stanbery. We object.

The Court. We think he has a right to answer that.

Mr. Johnson. There is no conspiracy proved.

The Court. The witness is entitled to answer, to show the conduct of

the raiding parties throughout that country.

Mr. Corbin. I do not think we will press that further.

TESTIMONY OF KIRKLAND L. GUNN.

Kirkland L. Gunn, for the prosecution, being duly sworn,

testified as

follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Corbin.

Q. Are you a resident of York County?

A. I was, sir.

Q. When did you reside in York County? how long?

A. I resided there from the time I was born until last May, sir. Q. Were you, Mr. Gunn, during your residence in Yorkville, a member of the Ku Klux Klan?