Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/269

UNITED STATES V. STONE. 255 �But the defendant was not under arrest, and no charge had been brought or complaint made against him at the time o£ his interview with Reed." At page 193. �The court then compares the men in their relations and respective intelligence, and refers to the capacity of the accused to know what he was. doing, and declares that vyhat was said must always be con- sidered in the light of the accompanying circumstances, which are never to be lost sight of in determining whether the promises in threats were limited, explained, or qualified in their meaning by whatever else was said and done. See, also, Com. y. Curtis, 97 Mass. 474, 678; Com. v. Whittemore, 11 Gray, 202; Com, v, Cuffie, 108 Mass. 287; Com. v. Smith, 119 Mass. 311; Com. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210. The cases in the federal courts substantially agree with these Massa- chusetts cases. U. 8. v. Nott, supra; U, S. v. Pocklington, 2 Cranch, 293; U. S. v.Kurtz, 4 Cranch, 682; U. S. v. Williams, 1 Cliff. 5'; U. S. V. Graff, 14 Blatchf. 381; Montana v. McClin, 1 Mont. 394; Beery v. U. S. 2 Col. Ter, 186, 203, in which there is an able dis- senting opinion attacking the rule Of exclusion and recommending its abandonment. Indeed, it is generally lamented that there is any exclusion of the evidence of confessions under any circumstances, although it is conceded that the rule bas become too firmly estab- lished to be ignored. The Tennessee cases are likewise in accord with the best cases on the subject. Beggarly v. State, 8 Bax. 520; Self y. State, 6 Bax. 244; Frazier v. State, Id. 539; 2 King, Dig. (2d Ed.) § 184. And I have found no more exact statement of the law of the subject than that made by that iearned and accurate writer, now Mr. Justice Stephen. He says : �" No confession is deemed to be voluntary if it appears to the judge to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority and having reference to the charge against the accused person, whether addressed to him directly or brought to his knowledge indirectly ; and i£ (in opinion of the jndge) such inducement, threat, or promise gave the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making a confession he would gain some advantage or avoid some evil in reference to the pro- ceedings against him.' But a confession is not in voluntary only because it appears to have been caused by the exhortations of a person in autliority to make it as a matter of religious duty, or by an inducement collateral to the proceeding, or by inducements held out by a person not in authority. The proseeutor, offlcers of justice having the prisonerin custody, magi strates, and other persons in similar positions, are persons in authority." Steph. Dig. "Evidence," (May's Ed. 1877,) 72. �See, also, 1 Greenl. Ev. (12th Ed.) § 219 et seq.; 2 Ben. & ��� �