The Daily News. THURSDAY JANUARY 23, 1919. THE KAISER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 January 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY JANUARY 23, 1919. THE KAISER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

To discuss the question of the Kaiser's responsibility for the war and the crimes committed by his soldiers is from a humane point of view useless, except as a means for letting loose the vials of wrath and indignation, but to consider these matters from a legal standpoint may be productive of consequences that will bring the criminal to the bar of justice, there to answer for those crimes and abide by the decision of the Court Tt is of the utmost importance for the future peace of the world that the question of responsibility as affecting sovereigns who have the sole power to declare war should be decided by a fitting legal tribunal, and it is perfectly clear that no steps could be taken in this direction until the most expert advice of jurists thoroughly versed iu the principles of inter-national jurisprudence had been taken. The civilised world should therefore welcome the contents of a recent cable which states that van official bulletin has been issued by the Tnter-Allied Conference setting *forth a report of two eminent French jurists on the question of the Kaiser's responsibility for the v/ar and the crimes committed by 'i.hq Gennaus therein. Much has

been said and written by laymen on this subject, indicating a unanimity of conviction of the Kaiser's guilt that clearly showed the trend of popular opinion, hut coming very far short of the weight which attaches to the conclusions arrived at by those who alone are qualified to speak with authority on matters of this technical and complex nature. The report made by the two foremost French jurists is not only interesting, but thoroughly convincing. There is no flourish of rhetoric or marshalling of technicalities only understood by the profession. They go straight to the point and state without reservation that the Kaiser is answerable, in his own person, both in penal and civil law, for the war, and the crimes committed by the armed forces under his control. The illustration they give as to the similarity of the Kaiser's position to that of directors of a company is one that will enable the public to readily grasp the position and enable them to follow the reasoning on which the experts' opinion has been formed. It would seem from this analogy that the Kaiser, if found guilty, can be made to suffer in person as well as in estate, while the German nation can only suffer at civil law, by payment of damages. Should the ex-Kaiser attempt to shelter himself under the Genu' n Constitution, it will be of no avail, although it gave him the sole power to declare war. That plea offers no avenue of escape, and rightly so, for Nattel clearly and authoritatively states that "a prince guilty of an unjust war is liable to personal penalty if necessary for the sake of example, for security to the injured party, and for security to human society." This exposition of international jurisprudence exaetly fits the Kaiser's case—punishment for the sake of example and for i he security of human society. Only one item of evidence is contained in the cabled summary of the report, but that is of such a damning nature that if it stood "lone it would suffice to condemn the criminal autocrat who boasted blatantly that he derived his power from God, whose vice-regent on earth he claimed to be. The terms of the letter written by Wilhelm i early in the war to the Emperor of Austria leave no room for a shadow of doubt as to the criminality of its author. It seems almost incredible that the head of & great cultured nation like Germany could write thus: "Everything must be put''to fire and sword. Men, women, children and old men must be slaughtered. No house or tree must be left standing. With these methods of terrorism, which alone are capable of affecting a people so degenerate as the French, the war will be over in two months." No wonder will now be felt at the terrible horrors and atrocities committed and the wanton devastation that everywhere gave evidence of the trail of the Hun. In the face of such self confessed criminality there can be no question of the ex-Kai-ser's personal responsibility, "whereto must be added the civil responsibility of the German Empire." It is not the case of committing excesses in the heat of strife, but a cold calculated programme of terrorism which the Hun supercriminal designed as the only means to affect "a people so degenerate as the French." France was to be made a shambles and a howling wilderness in order that the war might be over in two months. The barbaric savagery that prompted these hideous atrocities Avas intensified by the suecessful opposition to Hun designs, but the advisory jurists assert, apparently with the utmost confidence, that both the Kaiser and the German Empire are responsible at law for the crimes committed, the Kaiser being also responsible to the penal code "according to the most elementary rules of right." Armed with this high legal advice, it is for the Allies to consider their next step, and unless they ignore the "elementary rules of right" they will bring the Kaiser to trial, and no greater criminal than the ex-German Emperor has ever had to face the punishment which his inhuman ferocity demands. The Peace Conference may well be left to deal justly with the German nation