North Carolina Newspapers

I A TIT) M ID H SUPPLEMENT. Vol. XIII. RHLEIGH, N. Q, SEPTEMBER 12, 1898. No. J2 PRESIDENT KILGO'S DEEENSE A Masterful Review of the Evidence at the Investigation oi Judge Clark's Charges. Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Board of Trustees of Trinity college: Trinity College has had a very event ful history. Born ,as it was, in a log school house, -with a young country lad at the head of it, it has passed through all the stages of our educational sys tem, has fought all of the conflicts which beJpng to Southern colleges, has overcome in the great strife of a half centuiy, and it stands today the best endowed .college in the South Atlantic States, and in the Southern Methodis-. church. No man can review the his tory of Trinity without being thorough ly impressed with the great warfar; which has been waged upon this insti tution through all these years. Tht noble founder of the college was at tacked in private and in public, was op .posed at every point,' and it is the ver dict of his friends today that the heek of his enemies crushed his heart into the crave. Following in his footprints came the voung, scholarly, vigorous, noble and true John F. Crowell; and whatever people may say about Dr. Crowell, so lone as two bricks stand .one on top of another in the Crowell Science Hall, there will be a monument -at Trinity Park to the sincerity of that man's eirorts and the purity of his love. And so, sir, the defendant, John C. Kilgo, entered upon your work at your solicitation; he came to vour State a stranger, and vou and he began to gether strangers. He does not think that there is one pf you who questions the enersy with which he has toiled, if you question even the policy which "he has pursued. In a very short while this same attack, following the same line of historical succession, begins upon this new and strange president of Trinity College. Ia patience he bore it, and toiled ,on. He went into no news paper squabbles, he had no controversy with men. till at last it was vevy evi dent to his mind that the patience of Trinity College through all these years had been misinterpreted, and men re garded it as cowardice and felt dis posed to run over the college whenever and wherever they chose. Then he de termined that so long as he should stand at the head of this institution, holding high regard for her past his tory, and as guardian of the hundreds of its graduates and the thousands of its undergraduates, and the sensitive nature of the young men gathered about him, he would defend her name against the onslaught of any man liv ing. He invited no fight, but in his heart of hearts determined to be de famed no longer; then, when, to his surprise, in your Board, a member ap pointed guardian, not only of the in stitution, but of the character of every employee in this institution, should so far forget his high and sacred respon sibility in the matter, as not only to falsely interpret the motive which de fendant had in his work, but also to regard this work irreverently as to re tail and slander the defendant's plans to his damage' and to the damage of the institution, that came to the de fendant as the most fearful shock that ever broke in his young life. This is said by wav of explaining to your Board why the defense determined to pursue this matter, and why he demanded of your Board that you should either free this college of a trickster, or else vin dicate his character against these charges. Now, Sirs, this case falls into three ?reat divisions: The first refers to the . gaj, "Gentlemen. I am read v." You charges, as to whether they have been di(i not postpone that meeting on his supported by the testimony; the next account. Is that evasion? If he had refers to the history of the case in or- wanted to evade it he would have said, der to show the animus of the attack; "Gentlemen, I am not ready; give me and the third refers to the ultimate I more time." But he said, "I am ready," purpose of the attack. It Is under these an(jf maric vou, when more time was three lines that the representative of , asked Dy judge Clark and the $imita the defense will discuss the case and j tions proposed which did satisfy him. will leave the decision of it with you. (your defendant said, "Give Judge' Clark The defendant wishes to say now that(till Christmas." Was that an effort to he is perfectly willing for you to sit j hinder Judge Clark from the produc vn this case. We do not conceive that tinn nf tptimonv which he had had in God could Inflict a severer calamity and greater injustice upon the universe !Df a man who wishes to get round what than to wind up its history without a;a man has and has not? universal judgment, at which every man shall stand and God shall testify I as to him. And whatever shall be the verdict of this hour, this much is true, the defendant will stand before God at last and the truth will be known. Now the first charge concerns the re- lation of the defendant to this Board, j Judge Clark would have vou believe that he had in his possession evidence to establish his original charges, and that the defendant intentionally evad ed it. We read from Judge Clark's let ter to President Southgate: "If your committee wanted information I could! rpne next charge refers to the spirit have given it to them." That is not awhich animated the defendant in the promise to find something, but it states clearly, the grammatical tense makes it state clearly, that he had it then and could have given it to them: but says that he. President Kilgo, did not intend that they should have it. In another paragraph of his letter he says, speaking of this evidence, "That was the last thing Dr. Kilgo intended I should have a chance to do." Now, gentlemen, the prosecution doesn't of fer one word of testimony on this charge. Where is the evidence to prove it? It must be proven or disproven by the facts in the history of the case, and so we ask you to review this charge. it you go DUCK to tne original curie spondence between President Kilgo . and Judge Clark you will find that he stated, to Judge Clark in his last letter that he would place this correspondence before vour Board. Judge Clark re ceived, or was sent, the ordinary notice of the Board meeting, just as every other member of the Board. There is no evidence that Judge Clark was sick at the time of your Board meeting and could not attend; there is no evidence that his business duties prevented him from attending, but he was not here; nor can he say, nor can the prosecu tion say. that finding he would not be here, President Kilgo took advantage of his absence and put trils correspond ence before you. A year before he had said plainly, "This matter will go be fore the Board at the first opportunity," and that was the first. Where is there an element of evasion In that kind of procedure? This Board knows whether in the presentation of that correspond ence the defendant intended to evade any matter in connection with it, whether they had full information from him, whether they were forced to look after certain letters which he might have kept back. The Board remembers quite well how openly and frankly he rose to a question of personal privilege, and laid that correspondence In the hands of the Board and never had aught else to do with it. Besides that, gentlemen, this inves-'see tigation was not forced on the defend ant. He is not in this court this after noon by virtue of such power which you brought to bear upon him, but go to his published interview, as publish ed in The Raleigh Post, and vou will find that he says in it, "The Board will be unfair to. me unless it investigates these reports arid makes Judge Clark prove his charges." Is a statement like, that the scheme of a man endeavoring :o evade facts? Isn't it a public chal enge, issued to the Board bf Trustees jf Trinity College, to defend him, a mere employe, to bring him and the iccuser facer to face and let them set .le the truth of the whole matter? A nan who wishes to evade truth, does :e- publicly challenge any man to an pen investigation of a question? Be sides this, his honor knows quite well, hat as the chief officer of this Board, :he defendant went into his office ana said, "Nothing will satisfy the condi tions of justice and right In this mat ter except an investigation of it." Where is the effort at evasion in that conduct? You might call It high-handed impudence, you might call it defi ance, for an employe to issue such a demand to his superior, and official au thority; but you are not asked to call it such you are asked to call that kind of conduct evading facts. Now, the facts show that Judge Clark was the man who wished to evade the issues, and not the President of Trinity College. He was not present at the June meeting, mark you, though fully advised or what would occur. The defendant was at that meeting. In the meeting of July 18th Judge Clark em phasized the fact that he did not re open this case. Certainly he did not reopen it. He was quite willing for it to stop, he did not wish controversy, he did not wish friction, he was anxious for peace in the church. Then who did reopen it? The very man that's accueed of evading the facts in his possession. Why did he not wish to reopen it if, loaded with so much evidence and so much truth as he clalmvtl to be, know ing that this institution had at its head a man unfit for a janitor's posi tion, or to shovel coal m its furnaces? Yet he makes almost crime out of the fact that the defendant had it reopened. Where is the evasion in the conduct of the defendant? Has the defendant yet left the front , of trie battle and skulked off into some hiding place like a Spanish soldier behind the shrubbery of .some Cuban hill? He stands fully open and begs you to come here and reopen and investigate his record o the bottom. Not only this, but in the same meet ing of July 18th Judge Clark failed to produce a single word of evidence he had in his possession. He said he could have done It at the June meeting. There is no future tense about that declaration of his. The verv charge that the defendant wished to evade shows that something first existed to be evaded, and then, when he faces the issue, said, "I know nothing. Give me time and I will get it. I have no evi dence to put before your Board." What did the defendant say at that July meeting? "Gentlemen, I am ready." By day and by night he had toiled from one end of the State to the other, had held close to the duties and responsi bilities of his official relation to this in stitution, but inside of nine or ten days given him he had brought his friends who could testify to these things and jhis hands for weeks? Is that the spirit- Now I ask you as honest men, in the sjght of these facts, who evaded the is- sue? What is the record of this em ployee's dealings with this Board? Has it been that of a skulking man, or of a man who always came to your Board, o-avp vou the advantage of all the knowledge he had. and presented to you every suggestion possible to him for the good of this college? No, sir. We say to your prosecutor that the crime of this charge rests, not at the feet of the defendant, but it does rest at the feet of the accusing witness. serenade of Mr. Duke on the night of June 7th. The words which Judge Clark used are "affluence of sycophan cy." This Is 'a grave charge, end it means that the defendant is a base par asite. You can't find a word that sinks a man to a lower depth when you fast en it on him, than that word "syco phancy." And it was not ordinary sycophancy, but an "affluence of syco phancy" which animated him on that occasion. Now where is the proof as to this charge? What evidence do they produce to prove it? Not one word that's worth a notice. They bring in an honest, open-faced young reporter, Mr. Council, and put him on the stand to agk him abou(. the speech, to prove the . f th defendant. He testi- ,- . v ,,;! tYto dafondant nn that ccasion was that of humor and of mere outburst of impromptu exulta tion with a crowd of his college boys round about him. Where is the syco phancy? What does Mr. Wilson say about the defendant toadying to men? Says his knowledge of the man is that he is iacapable of that kind of thing. 'What does every witness for the defen dant state? That he is an open, a frank, independent, self-assertive man who stands on his manhood. They are men who know the defendant, they are not men who dreamed one night they saw him, and woke up the next morn ing to retail yarns about his reputation. They are men who have stood by him In the pulpit all over his native State, who have gotten down with him in trie straw at Methodist camp-meetings and talked with poor penitents, who have bowed with him at the bedside and offered their prayers unto their God, who have sat at tables and talked one with another, who unbosomed their in nermost souls to each other and these men come here and say, "This man Is incapable of sycophancy, he toadies to nobody." "What fa the testimony of the defen dant's colleagues? They are men who him here under every trial incident to his oJL.wml position ,they see him in his home, they know him on the walks of this park, they know him in his as sociations with the students, they know him in connection with the financial problems of this institution, they have seen the laugh of joy on his face, and the knit brow of distress he wore, these men come here and say that he is a frank, open, independent man who stands on his manhood. And yet, here is this man, Judge Clark, who, mark you, was not present on- the occasion of that speech, who never sat with the defendant, outside of this Benefactor's Parlor, three hours together socially, a man upon whom is the ermine of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, sitting in judgment up on the innocent, frolicsome spirit of the defendant, when with his boys, they went to thank a good old gentleman for rich benefaction which he had be stowed upon their institution. That was no mean hour to us; other men may have cursed it as an hour of bar tering away manhood; other men may nave shed false tears and mourned hy-. pocritically over what they thought was a degradation of this institution; hut in that crowd, that happy laughing crowd, assembled on the green of that oiu gentleman's yard sat that night ren who knew Trinity when she was small and poor and w ho know her now, w.d are thankful to a Providence that !cd her amid her strifes and protectsher -a her wealth. They loved Trinity in the 'lark days and they did not that night ?o to barter their institution to any body. Because the defendant told ni3 U.ricf.t t'uth, that he, Mr. W. Duke. s the greatest benefactor in the Soutl, h is x.har.i.d with sycophancy, flavi yiu. f Milkmen of the Board of Trus tees, co:ur beit year rv year, ana s'-n the defendant Lariar this institution ff f r small gains, absolutfcly. trading its character for a few sh)iiiQJs and tethering it out in the pastures bi po litical grazers, and have you kept your lips closed? That is a charge that doesn't simply strike the President, but it charges the last man, from Judge Clark down, with being a party to a fearful crime, and that orime in re ligious matters. Where is the sycophancy? That young man, Mr. Council, says the de fendant made an impromptu speech, that he said nothing that Judge Clark published, that he made a humorous reference to Mr. Duke's home. Ah, let me say, after an association of fifteen long and eventful vears with men, measuring their characters by the standards of truth, by which we meas ure them under the ordinary conditions of life, that a man who leaps at such small, insignificant thingsas these to make of them crime, is a ma whose spirit would degrade praying into crime if his interests so indicated to him. We come to the speech as the third charge. The defendant is made to ut ter a speech, which, if true, is blas phemous. What are the facts in the case? The speech was made in the presence of several hundreds of people, and evidence is ample that no such speech was made. The witness for the prosecution says it was not made. Mark you, this is no indirect discourse, at tempted to be quoted, but it is a posi tive statement that in the spirit, of sycophancy President Kilgo made this speech, and in it attempted to defame the courage of Mecklenburg, wipe out the lustre of Bethel, stamp out the glory of Cardenas, and on this dust and wreckage erect a god of gold. What does Mr. Bivins say, a student who has been in the class room with the defendant and heard his private talks to his students, and when he spoke his thoughts out frankly, as Mr. Bivins says he always does? What does Mr. Bivins say? "He points us to high standards." Just contrary to Judge Clark's charge; he tries to lift the minds of his students to the heights of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, where, in defiance of the assembled hosts, they will not bow at the sound of music, but stand out and declare that manhood and truth are aboye dol lars and pennies. A number of witness es, gentlemen, went on the stand to testify as to this same fact, men who mark you, were standing close by the side of the defendant on that occasion. Every man of them savs, "No such speech was uttered." They testify, on the contrary, that the spirit of the defendant is a reverent spirit, that he has at least some symptoms of respect ft r God and the trut'i, and that he nev er takes such high language as the cor onation declaration of God when He shall crown His son, and drags it down to an hour like that, and gives it any such false application. He is a rever ent man, they say. Do they know? They have seen him in the happy crowd full of laughter; they have seen him in the sad hour of the heavy groans in the cemetery; they have seen- him bowed down morning after morning in prayer; they have heard, him talk to his stu dents assembled from all parts of North Carolina; they have seen him down morning after morning in prayer; en soul and trying to lead it into spirit ual light and liberty, and these men say he is reverent. There are some things, gentlemen, that It takes a stronger nerve and spirit than the defendant has to bear without emotion. His mother taught him reverence before he can remember; she taught him to honor God and his word; and now, after the toil of these years, to have flung to the four winds of the earth that this man is a common blasphemer is beyond tolerance. You may substantiate the other charges if you can, but In the name of God and all truth, don't charge the defendant with trampling on the first lessons his mother taught him at her knees. Take in the surroundings o" this charge, will you? Judge Clark was not present, and could have learned of it only by hearsay, and he would not in timate that he made this statement upon anything else than hearsay evi dence. He is a member of the Supreme Court , of this Commonwealth and ex amines and passes upon the ability of young men to practice law in its courts, and nobody should know better than he that hearsay testimony is never valid testimony. His experience at the bar, his digrnitv in the Great Court where he has a seat, should have lifted him high enough not to introduce mere newspaper reports, for the slander and damage of one over whom he had been sent as guardian. But he does it on hearsay testimony. You recall that he accused the Board of Trustees of convicting him on ex parte testimony in the June meeting; yet he, a Supreme Court judge, on hearsay, ex parte testimony, renders this verdict of blasphemy against the defendant and announces it to all men. There is no way out of that gentlemen; no amount of squirming, no amount of logical trickery, and no amount of dick ering with words will get around the fact that the verdict was rendered on hearsay, ex parte testimony, the very crime which he charges had been com mitted against him In its June meet ing by this Board of Trustees. Where was that sincere conscience of his when in that court room in which he was the self-appointed juror, witness and judge, and to which the defendant was not admitted, bearing the seal of our highest court, comes this verdict of blasphemy against the defendant? I ask vou, gentlemen, when you come to make up your verdict, to take in all these facts, to review them, and if you find a verdict of guilt in every charge, if in the range of mercy, justice and truth you can lighten on this one, let it be done. In the fourth place, Judge Clark charges the defendant with venality, by asking the question, "I wonder how much personal gratuity he received for this speech? It is hard for a man to be patient when he sees the low and false measures which . certain men put to him. For fifteen years1 in a Southern Methodist conference, at the call of the defendant's name, the answer has been, "Nothing against him." That is the measure of his church on him. But hear the measure of your highest Judi ciary upon a common citizen; it is that he is guilty of venality. It is true that the man who makes free to charge other men with venality should retire to his own closet and ask his own con science as to whether he has not a price for himself. But where is the evidence , by which he expects to sustain the accusation? The prosecution dodges this charge. No doubt he wishes that the defendant would dodge it. If the defendant is guilty of evasion, then what must you say about the prosecuting witness? Not a question did they hear bearing on it. The defendant did ask witnesses: he asked Dr. Wrhsan,, he asKed a number of South Carolina gentlemen, whether they thought that was the character of the defendant, and every man of them said "No." Any man should be slow to charge another witk a crime so low, and should pray a kin Providenc to save him from measuring humanity by zvrti low standards, and if men are guilty Oi-these things, for the good, of humanity kecp.it from the public's ears. But this Supreme Co.urt judf e, the con servator one of the rli3al conservators of moral truth and civil rectitude, makes free to charge that crime, against the President of Trinity College, 'vnd hadn't a word of testimony to prove it; but says, "Give me thirty days' time and I will get it." He got forty-three days and never secured a word of this promised testimony, but comes into this court and goes around the charge with a display of high-handed innocence. Now, whatever else vou may find, gentlemen, in your review of this mat ter, I do not hesitate to say, you can not find one word that ought to make you stop a moment at this charge. In the fifth place, he charges the de fendant with having the reputation of a wire-pulling politician of the ward type in South Carolina. Mark the words, gentlemen: not simply a poli tician, not simply a wire-puller, but a wire-pulling politician of the ward type. Who can define the meaning of that? I stand here to say that the de fendant doesn't know what he means by ward politics. Providence has sent his life from the cradle to this hour along a different plane and along a dif ferent pathway from the dirt of what I he means by "ward politics," "wire pulling ward politicians." If a ward politician is a mean man, then how much meaner is a wire-pulling one? That man would out-Beelrebub Beel zebub. This, gentlemen, is not the language of a calm man, it is the lan guage of an enraged man; it is not the deliberate utterance of a man sure of the foundation of his statements. Poor human nature, when once turned loose under passion, drags its anchor and too frequently drives its bow into the rocks and wrecks itself. And when men be come enraged, adjectives become cheap, and the charging of crimes becomes pastime. This charge, gentlemen, refers to the defendant's South Carolina record, and South Carolina testimony is necessary for its establishment. Because you as his brethren, and the church which you represent, could not know all the facts in the case, the defendant was willing to undergo the humiliation of walking in the streets of the towns of his na tive State and telling his friends he had come back to ask for a vindication before a North Carolina body of Meth odists. You mav think that a small thing, but a sensitive nature, having to 'harden its face in its young years to a task like that is no small undertaking to tell the men wTho very nearly nursed him that he was in search of evidence to prove to his church in another State that he is not a scoundrel. I say that he was willing to undergo that huniilia tion for your sake, not because he lelt that before God he needed it, but as unholy hands had been laid on holy in terests, he was determined that the spots left by those finger touches should be washed off and he should be bleached. The supreme question concerning the charge is, "Where did Judge Clark get his original information?" He did not know it personally, for he so stated In your meeting of July 18tri. Mark that, gentlemen; he was not writing what he personallv knew, for after having time to consider it, having been sum moned before this court to prove it, he was forced to sav that he had no personal knowledge of any facts to sus tain a charge he made. Then where did he get it? He said that his charges were based upon hearsay evidence which came to him in private conver sation and private correspondence. The defendant wishes for the high esteem he once had for the highest judiciary, feeling that over and above him were men, each of them so full of justice and fairness that whatever injustice might be perpetrated in the lower courts, it would be more than adjudicated and justly settled in this higher court. But here a Supreme court judge comes to say to vou frankly that he published grave charges on hearsay testimony. So, then, Judge Clark is not the orlg- inal accuser, and, I have It in my mind to sav. I believe it is the honest truth, that Judge Clark has been most falsely dealt with by some common gossip in whom he thought he had a right to have confidence. You can't make the de fendant believe, you never will do it, though Judge Clark himself testify to it, he will never believe that Judge Clark, born and raised in the home from which he comes, cultured as he is, with the high social environments of his life, would have made a charge like that .without believing that he had just grounds upon which to make it. He would have violated the laws of common testimony which would not be violated today in a negro magistrate's , court, though an opossum dog be the only property at issue. Now the question stands, ana it is stn unonarcoT-ori niiPsUnn whn u . the original maligner? We regret very much that Judge Clark did n3t go on the stand and tell you who he is. Judge Clark's duties to himself demanded that he should do it. Fairness to you de- manded that the prosecution should have brought out that man: for to . hide a crime is to become particeps criminis, and there is today somewhere ! in this land a maligner turned loose with a dagger in his hand to stab the defendant in the dark, and from- all sides, and yet the. defendant not even given a warning by which he may watch for this dastardly work. Where is he, gentlemen? Hear me, and if you forget everything else, remember this, ''Character and a good name are too cheap in the South today." What en couragement has a man to toil and suf fer and denv himself, "if all his self denial and his struggle against tempta tion, his character is to be traduced by a hidden maligner? Two men were examined in South Carolina by the deputy of the prosecu tion, and they did not know how they came to be witnesses in this case. They had not spoken with Judge Clark;. they had no correspondence with Judge Clark, and they were surprised that they were in any manner involved in this matter. So those two men were not the original informants. It took Judge Clark till August 11th or 12th to furnish, even the names of these wit nesses. Mark that, gentlemen. Here is the defendant's summons before me, dated August 11th, that is, just twenty-four days from the time you had your July meeting in which, according to your minutes, Judge Clark was or dered by this court to give the defen dant at once the names of his witnesses and twenty-four-days following, he got 'he names of these South Carolina wit nesses; and those who went on the stand say, "We know nothing about Judge Clark nor how we came to be witnesses.!' Then, gentlemen, I say none of these men is the original ma ligner. Then where did Judge Clark get the :nformation concerning J. C. Kilgo's South Carolina reputation? Why did he not tell you ? Certainly you cannot think he was afraid to tell you? Is he ishamed of his man? Is he a man of such a low type of character that Judge Clark is afraid to let you know who he is? Would there be more disgrace In publishing his companion in these charges than there would be in suffer- ng what may come from them? You recall, gentlemen, that in the de- tsndant's first correspondence with JuCge Clark, the Judge demanded that President Kilgo give him the inform ant. The defendant did so at once. But sentlemen, if you will take in the whole situation and, connect it with the testi mony of Mr.- Gattis you will likely find the original slanderer. Here are the facts, Mr. Gattis saldv that he was put on the stamd against His will, that he did not wish to come here; that he ws pressed to come; that he had rather give one hundred dollars and be out of it. That is & very high price for him. That means that an ordinary man would have given a very large amount for a like commodity. Behind a pious smile, a religious walk, and a solemn twitch of the coat tail, many men car ry a spirit unworthy of them. He has oeek occasionally to South Carolina and evidently gossiped 'too much for a preacher about the defendant. You re member quite well how he in his testi mony dodged the issues, and would look o solemn and say, "I can't answer;" vou remember how witty he tried to be it one time. Poor writ over the suffer ing heart and the torn bosom of one of his brethren whom he had lascerated :n the dark by stabbing him in the oack! - Had -the defendant done anything to warrant this meanness? Didn't Mr. Gattis say himself that the defemdant befriended him in South Carolina and ised his influence to get him employed by that conference? Didn't he say him self that the defendant had' recom mended books for him; that the defen dant had tried to soil books for him and help his business; that President Kilgo was his friend? What, then, had President Kilgo done to him to warrant any such vicious conduct? Between the man hiding himself by the highway and making a victim of an innocent traveler and the man who in the dark assas sinates the character which a man has tried to build for himself, send me to th woods with a -revolver and let me murder every passerby rather than ma lign my fellow man. He was asked if President Kilgo had not ceased to go to his store, and he aaid "Yes." President Kilgo Had been there and heard gossip till decency de manaea that he fceep out ot such a crowd. President Kilgo had heard very unchristian gossip over the counters where Christian literature was re tailed. - But you say It migh have been Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Boone, because they are two other witnesses for Judge Clark. It could not have been, for this reason: They gave testimony which they got since the July, meeting; they did not know the defendant's reputation in South Carolina at that time. Mr. Beckwith did not know anything about it till recently, and he testified to wrhat he learned this month. This is true of Mr. Boone. Judge Clark acted on what he knew in June, to say the least. So his original informant dates back of June. The two South Carolina witnesses say, "We don't know how we got to be witnesses; don't know Judge Claark, and never corresponded with him." Mr. Gattis is the only other witness for the prosecution on this criarge, and his knowledge antedates the Judge's charges, and hence Mr. Gattis Is the original gossip. And it is evident that this whole affair comes out of the fact that a Methodist preacher, licensed by the same law; worshipping in the same pulpit, has foully dealt with the de fendant. Again, Dr. Peacock testified that Mr. Gattis has slandered Pres ident Kilgo to him. More than once those slanders reached the defendant's ears. - I11 :1S Never did the defendant suppose till just a few days since that Mr. Gattis naa anytning to ao wun ims raauer He -says that two others told him that he must come here and give his tes timony or else his name would be used in this court. You recall that Judge Clark said in the July meeting, "If these men," meaning his Informants, "do not testify, I will come here and say thev lied to me." Judge Clark would have kept his word, if he had not produced here the witness upon whom he relied to come here and re lieve him, and that witness were not in this court we would not have been here thirty ' minutes. Judge Clark wrould have relieved the whole situa tion. M-. Gattis said two others press- ed him to come here. Who are they that forced him to testify? We urged him to tell this court, but he declined. The. man who wishes to tell the truth. the whole truth and noting DUt tne ; truth, dodges nothing. Under all these Conditions do you gentlemen propose to say that you believe Mr. T. J. Gattis : told and Intended to tell you the truth? He says that what he told was forced out of him. The lover of truth never speaks under such compulsion, but Judge Clark seemed to have him in close quarters. Who were those other two men? They are a law firm, gentlemen, in the city of Durham. They were men represent ing Judge Clark and helping him out of his trouble into which he was dragg ed py this traducer of the defendant's character. Mr. Gattis said they liyed in Durham and are not members of this board and when urged if they had any connection with this court he said, "I will not say." Why? Because Mr. Boone happened tobe a witness in this court. There is Where the connection came. Judge Clark would have kept his word but his friends got behind a man who was not willing to stand by what he said to Judge Clark and they forced him to open his lips here. They no doubt told him you cannot play the coward this way, since Judge Clark had made statements on your authority. That is the situation of the case as it appears to us, and if it is not true when we find it out, we will retract it before you, but we cannot now with the pres ent light before us. We cannot reach any other conclusion than this which we bring before you now. You recollect that we set out to find the original Informant, and satisfactorily to our minds we have found him. We ask vou, gentlemen, before you fling away the arguments that we have made and the conclusion that we have drawn to weigh every inch of that tes timony well. President Kilgo was summoned to South Carolina by the prosecution to take depositions on the charge against his South Carolina reputation The prosecution secured only tvvo witnesses, Messrs. Ligori and Jennings. Out of all the thousanas in South Carolina, only two men could be secured as witnesses by the prosecution. Think about that. Only two men out of more than a mil lion people in South Carolina. The de fendantfputs on the stand thirteen wit nesses, and could have put on the stand thousands had he been so disposed and time would have allowed. We call your attention to the class of these witnesses. Mr. Ligon is a preacher and president of the Holiness Association and that means very much Tn South Carolina. It may not mean much to the North Carolina mind, but !.t means very much more to a man who has wrought earnestly in South Caro lina. According to Mr. Ligon's own tes timony "he know s very little about Pres ident Kilgo. He said "We were never closely associated." He was asked if he was an intimate friend of Dr. Kilgo's. They only had a conference associa tion. Now there is this statement to start out with. He also admits that President Kilgo was opposed to his pe culiar notions of santincation and that there had been friction between mem bers of this association and those who did not belong to it. The defendant has had those men to eome to him in the congregation, and try to lead him to the altar. He has sat in the congrega tion avmd been abused along witk the other men who did net agree wltfi them; hk bsen stopped in the midst of his serknons by men who attacked him beeausehe said something that did not exactly arree with them. They in trude themselves nfqto therpstratfi,r they encourage each other in it. One of the witnesses says that Mr. IJgon's mind is biased and that he is thought by some of his brethren to be fanatical; that the worst thing in this whole thing is that these brethren are un teachable, and some of us know some thing about that, Mr. Jennings, a witness for the prose cution, says that Dr. Kilgo was not liked by these men because he was not one of them and even names Mr. Ligon. Mr. Jenning is a witness for the prose cution, and he says that President Kil go was not liked by those Holiness brethren, and doesn't stop at that, but says that Mr. Ligon is the president of the Holiness Association, specifying him. Mr. Brown says that there haa been friction between these two classes in South Carolina, Mr. J. W. Kilgo. testified that Mr. Li gon was complained against at one of his conferences for encouraging some of these men to go in the bounds of an other man's pastorate. The spirit of Mr. Ligon is shown In his efforts at testimony. I say "ef forts," gentlemen, because he gives no clear-cut testimony from start to fin ish. We looked Mr. Ligon straight in the eves when he was oh the stand and saw hie dodging. Some of the word quibbling that Mr. Ligon deals in is mnworthy of him. He said the character of Mr. Kilgo was good. When asked how about President Kil go's reputation he said: "His official reputation is bad, but his moral char acter is good." The defendant now wondered in what sort of a fix he will be when his moral character gets to Heaven and his official character goes to hell. There is but one way out of this dilemma that is to get the Sec ond Blessing and save tne official character. In his efforts at testimony Mr. Ligon fails to tell anvthing he knew, at tempts to report rumors. Go through his testimony, and everv word of it is rumor, but these rumors he seeems to retail with a special decree of pleas ure. All this shows that in spite of his high professions of holiness he has gathered an amount of gossip against three men in his conference, one now dead, and retails it. Dr. Davis Kirk land who. If he were living today, sirs, would be here to answer for himself, must be dragged out of the quiet sepul chre where his friends put him just the other day, it seems, and by men who rrofess entire satisfaction, abso lutely brought into this court. Will a man so far lose his sense of duty as to retail rumors on the dead? Will men not auit lying on a man when he is dead? Will gossip follow him to the .ga h Jh ates of the eternal world and bom- ard them with their falsehoods till hey shake the confidence of angels in e new-born saint? Mr. Beckwith and Mr. Ligon could have allowed Davis Kirkland to rest In his grave. The de fendant knew the poor follow and he stands today to defend his dead broth er and friend against any such gossip. He had enough. God knows he had enough to bear, and vet he must be dragged out of his grave and dragged into this court to be a party to false i rumors against a friend, on whose bosom he leaned till hl3 dying day. We wish you to charge this to ths spirit of this witness. The defendant protested against this as hearsay testimony. Yet the deputy, Mr. Beckwith, seems to- have drawn the conclusion that the defend ant was utterly helpless and totally Ig norant ol the laws of evidence. This deputy did not ask about the general character and reputation of the de fendant, but sought for special rumors. Such methods are against the ethics of the legal profession and beneath the dignity of a Aigh-toned lawyer. Mr. Lleon taid that he saw Presi dent Kilgo at the Laurens . Conference ' - .3 : k 1 f X