Opinion of the Court.

223 U. S.

and he was not warned that the statement might be used against him or advised that he need not answer. These were matters which went to the weight or credibility of what he said of an incriminating character, but as he was not confessing guilt but the contrary, we think that, under all the circumstances disclosed, they were not of themselves sufficient to require his answers to be excluded on the ground of being involuntary as matter of law."

In the present case, it does not appear that the witness claimed his privilege, or was ignorant of it, or that if he had known of it would not have answered-indeed, the record shows that his testimony was entirely voluntary and understandingly given. Such testimony cannot be excluded when' subsequently offered at his trial.

As to the contention that the cross-examination before the commissioner shown in the bill of exceptions was improperly extorted from the witness under threat of commitment, an examination of the bill of exceptions, we think, requires an answer overruling this exception. There is some difference of opinion expressed in the authorities, but the rule recognized in this court is that a defendant, who voluntarily takes the stand in his own behalf, thereby waiving his privilege, may be subjected to a crossexamination concerning his statement. "Assuming the position of a witness, he is entitled to all its rights and protection, and is subject to all its criticisms and burdens" and may be fully cross-examined as to the testimony voluntarily given. Reagan v. United States, 157 U. S. 301, 305. The rule is thus stated in Brown v. Walker, 161 Ú. S. 591, 597:

"Thus, if the witness himself elects to waive his privilege, as he may doubtless do, since the privilege is for his protection and not for that of other parties, and discloses his criminal connections, he is not permitted to stop, but must go on and make a full disclosure. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 451; Dixon v. Vale, 1 C. & P. 278; East v. Chapman,

2 C. & P. 570; S. C., M. & M. 46; State v. K-, 4 N. H. 562; Low v. Mitchell, 18 Maine, 372; Coburn v. Odell, 10 Fost. (N. H.) 540; Norfolk v. Gaylord, 28 Connecticut, 309; Austin v. Poiner, 1 Sim. 348; Commonwealth v. Pratt, 126 Massachusetts, 462; Chamberlain v. Willson, 12 Vermont, 491; Lockett v. State, 63 Alabama, 5; People v. Freshour, 55 California, 375.

"So, under modern statutes permitting accused persons to take the stand in their own behalf, they may be subjected to cross-examination upon their statements. State v. Wentworth, 65 Maine, 234; State v. Witham, 72 Maine, 531; State v. Ober, 52 N. H. 492; Commonwealth v. Bonner, 97 Massachusetts, 587; Commonwealth v. Morgan, 107 Massachusetts, 199; Commonwealth v. Mullen, 97 Massachusetts, 545; Connors v. People, 50 N. Y. 240; People v. Casey, 72 N. Y. 393.❞

But it is contended by the defendant that the bill of exceptions shows that the alleged cross-examination was entirely irrelevant and improper, and not a legitimate cross-examination of the defendant's testimony in his own behalf. It appears that Powers testified, being charged with illegal conduct concerning the distillation of spirits, as already stated, that he was at a place about thirty steps from the still, beating apples, as testified by the Government's witness; that Preston Powers had hired him to work for him at the price of seventy-five cents a day, and that he put him to beating apples; that the witness had no interest in the apples or the product thereof and no interest in the still, but was merely hired to work by the day at the price of 75 cents. Having taken the stand in his own behalf, and given the testimony above recited, tending to show that he was not guilty of the offense charged, he was required to submit to crossexamination, as any other witness in the case would be, concerning matter pertinent to the examination in chief. The cross-examination, in the answer elicited, tended to

show that defendant had worked at a distillery the fall before with Preston Powers, the man he alleged he was working for at beating apples on the occasion when the Government witness saw him near the still, and had made brandy near his house, and had paid Preston Powers to assist him. This, we think, might be regarded as having some relevancy to the defendant's claim as to the innocent character of his occupation at the time charged. It had a tendency to show that defendant knew the character of the occupation in which he was then engaged, having worked before with Preston Powers at a distillery and made brandy with him, and did not exceed the limits of a proper cross-examination of the witness. As to the suggestion that § 860 of the Revised Statutes prevented the introduction of the testimony given by defendant before the commissioner, that section, providing that no pleading nor any discovery or evidence obtained from a party by means of a judicial proceeding, shall be used in evidence against him in a criminal proceeding, can have no bearing, where, as in the present case, the accused voluntarily testified in his own behalf in the course of the same proceeding, thereby himself opening the door to legitimate cross-examination. See Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164, 168.

Judgment affirmed.

223 U.S.

Syllabus.

ROCCA v. THOMPSON.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA.

No. 292. Argued January 17, 18, 1912.-Decided February 19, 1912.

Instructions of the head of a Department must be read in light of the statute directly bearing on the subject; and so held that instructions of the Secretary of State to consuls in regard to administering effects of citizens of the United States dying in foreign lands must be read in the light of § 1709, Rev. Stat.

There is no Federal probate law, but right to administer property left by a foreigner within the jurisdiction of a State is primarily committed to state law.

Quare: Whether it is within the treaty-making power of the National Government to provide by treaty with foreign nations for administration of property of foreigners dying within a State, and to commit such administration to consuls of the nation to which deceased owed allegiance.

"Intervene in the possession and administration of the deceased" as the expression is used in the Argentine Treaty of 1853, is to be construed as permitting the consul of either contracting nation to temporarily possess the estate of his national for the purpose of protecting it, before it comes under the jurisdiction of the laws of the country, or to protect the interests of his national in an administration already instituted otherwise than by him.

Under the Argentine Treaty of 1853 a consul has not the right to the original administration of the estate of a deceased national to the exclusion of one authorized by local law to administer the estate. While treaties are to be liberally construed, they are to be read in the light of conditions existing when entered into with a view to effecting the objects of the contracting states. The law of the Argentine Republic, as brought to the attention of this court, does not give to consuls of foreign countries the right to administer the estates of deceased nationals, but only to appoint an executor, which appointment is to be communicated to the testamentary judge.

Quare: Whether the most favored nation clause included in the treaty with Italy of 1878 carries the provisions of the Argentine Treaty of

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

223 U.S.

1853 in regard to the administration by consuls of the estates of deceased nationals.

In California, the public administrator is entitled to administer the estate of an Italian citizen dying and leaving an estate in California, in preference to the Consul-General of the Kingdom of Italy; and so held after construing the provisions of the treaty of 1878 with Italy, and that of 1853 with the Argentine Republic.

157 California, 552, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of the provisions of the treaty of 1878 with Italy and that of 1853 with the Argentine Republic in regard to the right of consuls to administer estates of their respective natives dying in the United States, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, with whom Mr. Paul Fuller, Mr. Ambrose Gherini, Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury and Mr. Charles Cheyney Hyde were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The treaty clauses in question, conferring the right of administration of the estates of deceased nationals upon the respective consuls, became part of the municipal law of California without further legislation and superseded any state statute not consistent therewith.

Should a state law and treaty be in conflict, the state law must give way. Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 598; United States v. Forty-three Gallons Whisky, 93 U. S. 197, 198; Ware v. Hilton, 3 Dall. 235.

Treaty provisions in regard to rights in estates must be construed in most liberal fashion, and are always paramount to state legislation. Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 249; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 267; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 488-490; and see Wyman, Petitioner, 191 Massachusetts, 276, criticising Lanfear v. Ritchie, 9 La. Ann. 96, as insisting on the doctrine of state rights too /strongly. People v. Gerke, 5 California, 381, 384; Forbes v. Scannell, 13 California, 243, 276.

The language of the Argentine treaty contemplates ad