The Hokitika Guardian THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1922. THE LEIPZIG TRIALS.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1922. THE LEIPZIG TRIALS.

When the German war criminals were tried at Leipzig last year there was a ecu era! impression that the proceedings were so much camouflage. The British, French and Belgian Governments hail originally prepared a formidable list for” prosecution, but finally reduced it to thirteen cases, in which the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Dials were conducted by the German authorities. The Allies took no pad in them. The thirteen “incontestable'’ cases resulted in seven acquittals a»d six convictions, the sentences in which were extraordinarily lenient. A ea;> Uiu whose shocking inhumanity had caused Hie death of many British soldier's in a prison camp was sent to gaol for six months Two submarines c iii, us who, after torpedoing a hospital ship, the Llandovery Castle, attacked the boats full of nurses and wounded with gun lire and ramming, and sank all save one, got off with four years. One of these men ha., since escaped. Another submarine commander who also sank a hospital ship, tun Lover Castle, was acquitted on the grounds that he was acting under instructions from Berlin. M hen such ideas were accepted, when such absurdly light punishment was indicted when a verdict of guilty was unavoidable, was the Court sincere? The conclusion reached by Mr Claud Mullins in “The Leinzig Trials” is that, in spite of their insignificant result, these proceedings were no travety of justice, but were quite honest. Mr Mullins is an English barrister who was interpreter to the British -Mission at t.cip- j y.ig. Air Mullins holds no brief for j (;. rn any, but lie believes that the Ger- I man Supreme Court and l)r Schmidt, : the presiding Judge, were not partisans bid. conscientiously attempted to do

, their duty according to their lights. He j points out that German procedure differs from British in many respects, 'there is apparently no cross-examina-

tion in our sense. Witnesses are not called for the prosecution; the Judge call only those whom he wishes tu hear. Most important of all, the fact that a thing was done in obedience to orders is a good defence. That, of course, is not the case in Britain,' According to our law il an act is illegal the plea that it was done in pursuance of the instructions of a superior officer is of no avail. Hence a suUor dinute who is ordered to do something illegal is in an awkward predicament; II l,c disobeys he is liable to be bO'nramartiallcd": If he obeys lie will have to Stand his trial! However in practice, the dilemma rarely occurs. These incidents of the German system, according to Air Mullins, account for the fewness of the convictions. Aet, although tile sentences passed oil the convicted six were so grotesquely inadequate, Mr .Mullins attaches tin greatest significance t.i these trials. They established the principal of personal responsibility. It is now recognised that individual atrocities commit ted in time of waJ* may be punished ,whnn the war is over, and the pree-e----(1 cut set at I e'nzig will serve as a> wurniinr lor the future.