U-BOAT COMMANDER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 253, 20 July 1921, Page 5

U-BOAT COMMANDER

TRIED FOR SINKING A HOSPITAL SHIP WHY KARL NEUMANN WAS ACQUITTED The trial of the former Captain Neumann, who was acquitted at Leipzig on the charge of sinking the* hospital ship Dover Castle, was over in a few hours, says the correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian.” The proceedings consisted of an acknowledgment of the, facts brought up against him by tho accused, of a defence of the accused by counsel for the prosecution, an unimportant speech by counsel for the accused, and tho reasons for acquittal offered by the presiding justice. The accused was born in Kattowitz, entered the German Navy in 1907. and was commander of the U-boat C 67, whoso field of action was the Mediterranean. The English indictment charged tho accused with “against international law, without previous warning, and with peculiar atrocity,” torpedoing the 8471-ton hospital ship Dover Castle on the north coast of Algiers, south of tho boundary line drawn by tho Germans for neutral and hospital ships, with the result that six men and stokers were killed. The Dover Castle ’was (accompanied by a second hospital ship and two destroyers. On March 31, 1917, the Gorman Government had informed the Allies through neutral ambassadors that German fighting units would no longer spare hospital ships as the Allies had been using these for the transport of munitions and troops. The accused, too, had received orders from tho German Admiralty to sink every hospital ship whensoever, wheresoever, and howsoever” he found it This was the fate of the Dover Castle Ho sighted tho convoy in clear weather, followed it for five hours and fired a torpedo at the Dover Castle, which was recognisable as a hospital ship. The U-boat came up again in nn hour’s time, saw the drifting Dover Castle on the water, and fired* another torpedo after which the Dover Castle sank in a few seconds. The' U-boat commander took as many provisions as he could carry from about 30 empty lifeboats drifting round. These' ’were facts obtainable in tho proceedings. The C 67 had an English prisoner on board at the time of the action. The latter k? said to have called Neumann’s attention to the fact that the Dover Castle was a hospital ship, which on account of tho fine wea-her, the accused had already noticed During tho trial the accused repudiated inf dignantly having conversed or actuaHy having received reproaches from PT c“unlel for the prosecution laid stress on the fact that in this case justice a.nd politics are intermingled. It was his wish to exclude politics and regard tho case only from tho legal point of view. 1 was not proved that the Dover Castlo carried munitions, aa the accused stated The deed was dona on a German boat, therefore on German soil and subject to German jurisdiction. Although the book of German Criminal Law contains no paragraphs dealing with international law and its infringements no difference can be made between, international and law as generally accepted. England had not, indeed, signed the Hague Convention, of 1907. But England, as well as Germany, had appealed to this Hague Convention W several cases; therefore it must bo considered binding for both. A convention is not dependent upon the purely formal port of signature. The accused was informed of the aim of this Hague agreement. Yet ho was also informed by his superiors that England, disregarded the Hague Convention, and that for this reason Germany too ceased to regard *t. Tho accused! was a soldier and subject | to the dictates of tho Admiralty Staff, says tho correspondent. According to I tho German military courts ho is not . responsible when carrying out definite orders. The order of the Admiralty to . sink hospital ships was binding and therefore lawful for the accused. Evon if not binding and lawful tho accused would still be not punishable, as an inferior has not tho right to criticise cn order. An army was built up upen obedience. The responsibility is boruo by bis superiors. Only if a crim.? is intended by tho command is tho man performing the action guilty, and in this case only if both parties haro recognised and intended a crime. Tho English law takes ths same point of view ns tho German. In England there is not oven this last concession made by the German law. The accused was of opinion that England wns using her hospital ships for wrongful purposes. Tho Admiralty Staff was of like opinion. The order was legal and binding. Therefore the accu.'ied must be adjudged not guilty. Counsel for the defendant approved of these statements of the prosecution and endorsed them. After one hour’s debate the jury gave a verdict of not guilty.