◆ SpookStack

i j i ‘ ‘ . f . S) ) 2 Anderson et al. vs. United States. at Copperhill, Poik County, Tennessee. The strike was followed by a shut-down, but the mines were reopened in August after the sheriff brought in a number of special deputies who were in the company’s pay. It was one of those obdurate mining strikes, and it eontinued into April of 1940, when the violence which gave rise to this prosecution occurred. On April lst the company’s operations were interrupted by the dynamiting of two power lines, owned by the TVA, from which the company obtained the power neces- sary for its activities. On April 14th two steel towers were dynamited. Two days later two special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived in Copperhill to investigate the explosions, On April 24th two more power lines were blown down. Thereupon, on the same day, the sheriff on his own initiative began to take into custedy strikers, including the eight petitioners, whom he suspected of participation in the dynamiting, These i arrests were made without warrant. With commendable candor in regard to this and other misconduct of officers of the law, the Gov- ernment does not defend the legality of the arrests.2 The men were not taken before any magistrate or other committing officer, as required by Tennessee law. Michie’s Code (1938) §11515, In- stead they were taken to the company-owned Y. M. C. A. building in Copperhill, which was being used by the sheriff and his special deputies as their headquarters. On April 24th and 25th six more special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived in Copperhill to assist in the investigation. While the petitioners, with at least thirteen others, were thus held in custody at the Y. M. C. A. by the state officers, they were questioned by the federal agents intermittently over a period of six days during which they saw neither friends, relatives, nor counsel. Incriminating statements from six of the petitioners were the fruit of this interrogation. To determine whether these state- the jury regarding the admission of these incriminating statementa: ‘‘ There has been allowed for your consideration certain statements, confessions, or admissions alleged to have been made by some of the defendants. It is primarily for the Court to determine whether or not such statements are admissible for your consideration but it is wholly for you to determine how much weight or credit you will give to these statements.** We shall as- Bume as facta, therefore, only the testimony of Government witnesses and so much of the petitioners’ evidence as is uncontradicted. 2 Under Tennessee law an officer may arrest without a warrant when a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable grounda for believing that the person arrested haa committed it. Michie’a Code (19388) §11536. But willful destruction of power lines is only a misdemeanor under atate law. Id., § 10863(8),