Mr. NICKELS. Well, in 1920 and subsequent there to?

Mr. CLARKE. On the 1st of June, or around about the 1st of June, 1920, I became imperial kleagle, which is organizer of the klan. In January, 1921, or about that time, I became also imperial klaliff of the lan, which is supreme vice president.

Mr. NICKELS. Was your relation to the klan, which began about the 1st of June, 1920, evidenced by a written contract?

Mr. CLARKE. It was.

Mr. NICKELS. Will you examine this document and say whether that is a correct copy of the contract or not?

Mr. CLARKE (after examining paper). Yes; that is a copy of it. Mr. NICKELS. Now, briefly describe what sort of an organization, if any, you maintained

Mr. MCLEAN. In view of the fact that the witness Clarke has been convicted of a felony, we object to his testifying.

You are the Clarke who was recently convicted in the Federal court in Texas of a felony?

Mr. McLEAN. We object for Senator Mayfield to this witness giving any testimony whatever before this committee, upon the ground that he has been convicted, upon his own plea of guilty, of a felony in the Federal court of the State of Texas, and has not since received a pardon from the President of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the feiony bave to do with perjury?

Mr. MCLEAN. My understanding is that it had to do with the charge of white slavery.

The CHAIRMAN. Your objection is not well taken. That affects the weight of the testimony to be given by the witness, and is ground for impeachment. It does not render the witness incompetent to testify. Have you any authorities at all?

Mr. McLEAN. Yes, sir. Under the statute of the State of Texas, no man who has been convicted of a felony can testify in any court in the State of Texas, from a justice of the peace court to the district court, or any other court in the State of Texas, unless he has received a pardon. That is the law of the State of Texas.

I understand the Federal law is that the man may be brought even out of the Federal pentitentiary and made a witness and then carried back to the Federal pentitentiary; but this matter affects an election, and we insist, under the federal rulings, that the law of Texas should be followed, because if we try a case in the Federal court in the State of Texas, there being no Federal statute to the contrary, they follow the Texas statute. That is the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they follow it in regard to the competency of a witness under such circumstances as we have here?

Mr. McLEAN. If a witness who has been convicted in the Federal court appears in any court

The CHAIRMAN. Federal or State?

Mr. McLEAN. Federal or State, he is excluded, unless he has received a pardon from the President; unless he be convicted of a felony in the Federal court and is brought there in a Federal court case. Then, I understand, they permit him to testify, and they have done so in cases that I was interested in. But this man having been convicted of a felony and having received no pardon for his crime, we object, on behalf of Senator Mayfield, to his giving any testimony whatever.

Senator KING. What do you say, Mr. Nickels, on that? First, let me ask, is it conceded that he was convicted of a felony upon his own plea?

THE CHAIRMAN. And that he has not received a pardon?

Mr. NICKELS. Yes. I do not think that any reply is necessary further than to call attention to the fact that it has always been a rule, especially under the rules of procedure in the State courts; but the rule is not binding in any procedure in the Federal court; and that has not been the rule in trials in the State of Texas. But if it were the rule, at least under the rules and precedents even in a Federal court, it would not be binding upon the Senate, for the simple reason that the Constitution vests all the judicial power there is, not in any court, State or Federal, but right in the Senate itself, without any detailed procedure, or limitation or restriction as to procedure, or rules of evidence. The third case that came before the Senate involving consideration of the nature of that power vested in the Senate, laid down the reason why the Senate itself, looking at it from its own standpoint, to protect the purity of itsown membership, as well as properly to represent the interests of the public, could not in the nature of things in a case of this sort apply strictly any rule of evidence or procedure ordinarily applied in State. or Federal courts.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume the committee agrees with you, that the Senate is not bound by the interpretation of the law either in the courts of the State of Texas or in the Federal court-that is, the Senate being the sole judge of the qualifications of its members, is a law unto itself in those matters.

Mr. NICKELS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us assume that to be true. What have you to say about the statement of Mr. McLean that as a matter of practice in the State of Texas, if a case were being tried in a Federal court in Texas between citizens of Texas, involving a constitutional question which gave the Federal court jurisdiction, and either side introduced a witness who was under conviction for a felony and had not been pardoned, the Federal court would not hear his testimony? Do you agree with Mr. McLean that the Federal court in that case would not hear the testimony of that witness?

Mr. NICKELS. I do not. I think the rule is the other way.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nickels, the committee is agreed that we would like some authority on the difference of opinion between you and Mr. McLean as to what the ruling of a Federal court would have been in the State of Texas. We are all agreed that your first proposition is right, namely that we are not bound by either state or Federal decisions in such a matter as is before us; but we recognize the persuasive influence, in a Texas case, of a rule of law which is not only applicable in the State courts of Texas but is also applicable, if so it be, in the Federal courts in Texas, even though we are not bound by it. Therefore the committee will excuse this witness at this time. You have other witnesses here?

Mr. NICKELS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed with the examination of another witness, and we would like to have from both of you some authority on the question. Mr. Clarke, you will be under subpoena and will

remain subject to the order of the committee, and we will hear your testimony just as soon as we can.

Mr. CLARKE. I want to get away just as soon as I can.

The CHAIRMAN. We will not be able to hear you, I am sure, until to-morrow morning. You will report then. You are free for this afternoon.

Mr. NICKELS. You, of course, would not expect us to produce those authorities before to-morrow morning?

The CHAIRMAN. I think not.

Mr. NICKELS. As bearing upon the competency of the testimony of this witness, I doubt if we find any that are very closely in point. Senator KING. Well, give us the benefit of your wisdom on that matter. We would be glad to have it.

Mr. ZUMBRUNN. Before this next witness is examined, I want to call attention to the fact that the witness Clarke who was just on the stand is still in the room, and we would like to have him excluded, under our rule.

Mr. NICKELS. Mr. McCord is in the room, also.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, those witnesses should leave the room.

TESTIMONY OF E. J. JONES

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.)

Mr. NICKELS. Your name is E. J. Jones?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. NICKELS. Where do you live?

Mr. JONES. Atlanta, Ga.

Mr. NICKELS. Are you acquainted with Mr. E. Y. Clarke?
Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. NICKELS. Did you or not have an official connection with the organization known as the Knights of the Ku-Klux Klan, during the years 1920, 1921, and 1922 ?

Mr. JONES. Not officially.

Mr. NICKELS. What was your connection?

Mr. JONES. I was Mr. Clarke's cashier.

Mr. NICKELS. And what line of work was Mr. Clarke engaged in at that time?

Mr. JONES. The propagation department, or the organization department, of the Ku-Klux Klan.

Mr. NICKELS. As briefly as you can, and as generally, describe the scope of the work done by that department.

Mr. JONES. We organized the Ku-Klux Klan. That is, he had the contract. I went with Mr. Clarke in April of 1921, and we were organizing he was-his force was at that time--the Ku-Klux Klan. We would put out in the field men, district men, State men, and men in charge of several States, and then local organizers who would solicit members for the Knights of the Ku-Klux Klan, collecting the donations, keeping their part and remitting a portion to their superior officer, which would finally get into my office-the total remittance. Mr. NICKELS. With respect to the extent of your duties, what was your position in the propagation department, which you just described?

Mr. JONES. I was cashier of the propagation department.

Senator KING. Did his contract cover the whole United States?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Senator KING. Or just sections?

Mr. JONES. The entire United States.

Senator KING. Go ahead.

Mr. NICKELS. Now take an individual klan lodge, for instance; how long would the jurisdiction of your department, or the propagation department, exist over that lodge?

Mr. JONES. It would exist until the lodge was chartered.

Mr. NICKELS. Until it was chartered?

Mr. JONES. Until it was given a local charter.

Mr. NICKELS. What was it called, or described by, before it was actually given a charter?

Mr. JONES. It was a provisional organization.

Mr. NICKELS. What would happen with respect to the manner of handling the lodge after it would receive a charter?

Mr. JONES. It would go under the jurisdiction of headquarters, and we would have nothing further to do with it.

Mr. NICKELS. You mean the imperial palace?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Senator KING. When you say "we," you mean Mr. Clarke and his field force?

Mr. JONES. Yes; our organization force.

Mr. NICKELS. Give us your best idea as to the kind of organization you maintained in Atlanta in the propagation department—I mean the extent of it.

Mr. ZUMBRUNN. Now, just a minute. Mr. Chairman, I think that is wholly immaterial, and uselessly taking up time, and we object to it. The klan is not being investigated on any issue in this

case.

Mr. MCLEAN. This was long before Senator Mayfield was a candidate for the United States Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. We have already announced as the policy of the committee that we do not intend to inquire into the organization or conduct of the Ku-Klux Klan, except so far as it may have to do with the election of 1922, primary or general. This question has to do with the organization of subordinate lodges or subordinate chapters in the years 1920 and 1921, long before the election. I do not see the relevancy of the matter.

Mr. NICKELS. Well, I do not care to pursue that any further right now. If it becomes relevant, we can go back to it.

Are you acquainted with Mr. N. N. Furney?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. NICKELS. Do you know what position he occupied with the Ku-Klux Klan during the same years?

Mr. JONES. I relieved Mr. Furney as cashier of the propagation department when he went in as cashier of headquarters. I think that prior to that time he was cashier of both departments.

Mr. NICKELS. So far as you know, has he been cashier at the palace continuously since that time?

Mr. JONES. Yes; so far as I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the gentleman who was on the stand here? Mr. NICKELS. Yes.

Senator KING. Were you trying to impeach his testimony?

101521-24-PT 2— 12

Mr. NICKELS. No.

Senator KING. Then why duplicate it?

Mr. NICKELS. It is to show the situation there.

Senator KING. All right.

Mr. NICKELS. Are you acquainted with Dr. H. W. Evans?
Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. NICKELS. When did you first meet him in connection with the Klan work?

Mr. JONES. About March, 1922.

Mr. NICKELS. During the spring of 1922, did you or not have any conversation with Mr. Furney with respect to the senatorial campaign in Texas?

Mr. ZUMBRUNN. Just a minute. To that, Mr. Chairman, we object as useless repetition, and an attempt to impeach their own witness, and as hearsay; and I want to come back to that rule on, hearsay. May I again state my position? I think it is well stated and I believe the committee ought to follow it.

Senator KING. First let me ask, is it for the purpose of impeachment you ask this?

Mr. NICKELS. No, sir.

Senator KING. Then why did you not ask Mr. Furney what he said, if it was material, when he was on the stand? Mr. NICKELS. There would be many reasons. One would be that I do not recall that it occurred to me to ask him the question, if I did not ask him. The other is that it has been our idea that we had a right to prove a material fact by any witness that we could procure. Senator KING. I will wait until the chairman speaks on this. Mr. ZUMBRUNN. My own information with respect to this hearsay testimony, in brief, is that

Senator KING. Let us have the question read.

(The stenographer read the question referred to as follows:)

Mr. NICKELS. During the spring of 1922 did you or not have any conversation with Mr. Furney with respect to the senatorial campaign in Texas?

Mr. ZUMBRUNN. That calls for testimony, hearsay in its character. This committee, in this sort of proceeding, is sitting as a court of judgment, not as a body of inquiry. Most of the senatorial investigations you have had up here are inquiries in which the investigating committee has acted something like a grand jury, although there is a distinction, in that the grand jury investigation supposedly is secret and this is public. Now, I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and I am making the direct appeal to you, to cut out this hearsay testimony, and I want to call your attention to the position you have taken in the Teapot Dome investigation on evidence offered there of a similar character to this. There you have said that it was crucifying some of the highest officials of the Government of the United States, and I ask you now that you are presiding over this deliberative body, to follow the rules which you urged that Senate committee in the Teapot Dome matter to follow, and I ask it because it is fair and right.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems that that committee did not agree with me. Mr. ZUMBRUNN. I know, but you now have an opportunity to follow your convictions, and I appeal to you to do it. I think that is a precedent that it is hard to get away from.