◆ SpookStack

14 Ashcraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. of a greater one. Furthermore, the very grounds on which this Court now upsets his conviction Ashcraft repudiated at the trial. He asserts that he was abused, but he does not testify as this Court holds that it had the effect of forcing an involuntary confession from him. On the contrary, he flatly insists that it had no such effect and that he never did confess at all. Against Asheraft’s word the state courts and jury accepte? the testimony of several apparently disinterested witnesses of high standing in their communities, in addition to that of the accused officers, One of the witnesses te Asheraft’s admission of guilt was his own family physician, two were disinterested business men of substance and standing, another was an experienced court reporter who had long held this position of considerable trust. Another was a member of the bar. Certainly, the state courts were not committing an offense against the Constitution of the United States in refusing to believe that this whole group of ap- parently reputable citizens entered into a conspiracy to swear a murder onto an innocent man, against whom not one of them is shown to have had a grievance or a grudge. This is not the ease of an ignorant and unrepresented defen- dant who has been the vietim of prejudice. Ashcraft was a white man of good reputation, gaod position, and substantial property. For a week after this crime was discovered he was not detained, although his stories to the officers did not hang together, but was at large, free to consult his friends and counsel. There was no indecent haste, but on the contrary evident deliberation, in sus- pecting and accusing him. He was not sentenced to death, but - for a term that probably means Hife. He was defended by re- sourceful and diligent counsel. The use of the due process clause to disable the states in pro- tection ‘of society from crime is quite as dangerous and delicate a use of federal judicial power as to use it to disable them from social or economic experimentation. The warning words of Mr. Justice Holmes in his dissenting opinion in Baldwin v, Missouri, 281 U. §. 586, 593, seem to us appropriate for rereading now. . Mr. Justice Ronerrs and Mr. Jus opinion. : hae . . Dano m7 aan in éhic HaANBPURLENR JOR i tars