THE LEIPZIG TRIALS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17220, 10 August 1921, Page 4

THE LEIPZIG TRIALS.

SINKING OF HOSPITAL SHIPS. (XJLOIf OUB OWK COBRXSIOHDINT.) LONDON, June 9. In consenting to the trial of wa criminals in Germany the Allies stipu lated .that that should not "in effec bring about the escape of the criminal from just punishment," and they're served full rights to re-open the case before Allied tribunals. The fact tha Neumann, who sank the hospital ship Dover Castle, in the Mediterranean, ha been acquitted on the ground that hi merely obeyed superior orders raises thi question, Who was responsible for th< order to sink ■ hospital ships? It was stated in defence that as th< British were using hospital ships for th< transport of troops and munitions th< German Admiralty gave orders to sub marine commanders that hospital ship I were not to be spared if there wa; ' ground for suspicion that they wer< being used for purposes incompatibh with their character as floating hos ! pitals. Certain hospital ships were t< ! be excepted from this order, the name: of which had been communicated to sub ; marine commanders. ! Neumann stated that he sighted i number of big steamers escorted by tw< destroyers about one o'clock in th< afternoon in calm weather. Ho re cognised that they were hospital ships ; but as they -were steering a zig-zaj i course and were outsido the prescribet area for hospital ships he held it t< be his duty to torpetlo them. He fol lowed the British vessels, and about si? in the evening fired a torpedo into thi nearest of them at a range of 20( . metres. I He was then obliged to dive, as a Bri tish destroyer was about to ram th< submarine. When he returned to tlw i surface he saw that the British de i stroyers had taken the crew from th( ! topedoed vessel and were making foi I the African coast. As the torpedoet j hospital ship did not sink he fired i I second torpedo into her and sent her t< i the bottom. She went down with s I loud detonation, which convinced hiii that she carried munitions. He as certaincd afterwards from drifting abnn doned passenger boats that the ship h< had sunk was the Dover Castle. The unwisdom of placing upon tria a solitary submarine commander t( answer for the_ murderous policy of Vor Tirpitz and his fellow buccaneers wa.' apparent during the hearing of the case Neumann's defence —it was provided b> tho Public Prosecutor—was based en tirely upon the order of the Germai Admiralty. * Tho Imperial Prosecutor took th< standpoint that Neumann had done n< pore than carry put his orders. A German warship on the high . seaj was ]>art of Germany territory. Acts committed upon such ships were to b« Judged by the same principles at lau as if they had been committed in Germany. Neumann could only be punish, ed for obeying an order from his superiors if he knew that in giving tho ordei those superiors had been actuated by criminal motives. That was not the case. In the question of snips the Hague Convention was binding upor the nations concerned. The convention permitted hospital ships to carry onlj persons wounded in sea .warfare, and did not recognise their right to carry soldiers wounded on land. t Hence, as the British hospital ships carried wounded soldiers, the order of their destruction was legal. He maintained, therefore, that Neumann had obeyed a legal order as he was bound to do. The same principles in regard to obedience to orders-existed in the British Navy. He demanded Neumann's acquittal. Tho defending .counsel, Dr. Huhnemann, trounced England for daring to bring, her troops home from the Near East to-convalesce. They could have received sufficient medical treatment in Macedonia. Tho conveyance of troops, even of wounded soldiers to _ Europe, eerved military purposes, enabling England to strengthen her Territorial Army, and to relieve her lines of communication in the East. It was England who had broken the laws of the nations. It was the English whose tactics had confused the German naval officers in' the just performance of their duties at.sea. England had cone contrary to the. German Admiralty order, and must suffer the consequences. ACCTJSEp EXONERATED. After a brief .retirement, .during which' scoffing remarks about the Lusi- . tania and the British blockade were bandied about the lobbies of the Court, the tribunal reassembled to announce their verdict. The judgment was Based upon the protection affqrded by the Admiralty instructions, which i in the present case, the President ■ said; exonerated the accused from all responsibility. The chargoof cruelty could Hot be maintained. The accused was acquitted and the cost of the trial would bo borne by*he Treasury. Sir J. G. Butcher, member of Parliament of the City of York, writing to "The Times," discloses tho fact that on January 12. 1917, a "most secret" order was issued by the Chief of the Gei-man Admiralty Staff, ordering the sinking of hospital ships, whenever found outside a certain area. This order was Bigned.bv "Von HoltzendorfT by order of his Majesty."' "The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles for the trial and punishment of German war. criminals," he Bays, ."were inserted, not for any idle purpose of vindietiveness,/but to.ensure that those who had committed crimes against the established laws and customs of war should be brought to justice, .that thereby the authority of international law might be vindicated and established, and, further, that a strong deterrent, should for,all future time be held up to those who might be tempted to follow the wicked and bloodstained path which the German Government and their agents had trodden during the late war. "If the hideous crime of sinking hospital, ships is allowed to go without punishment, not only will the authority of international law have been brought into public contempt, but the belligerent of the future will .be encouraged to commit similar -monstrous • crimes with every hope of impunity. I leave it to others to say whether, _ in view of all the circumstances of this case, the plea of 'supenor orders' admissible, if so, which of those -espohsible for the . order should V broueht to justice. It is worth recalling, that in the notorious cases of Captain Fryatt and of other.British ofleers who fell into German hands during tho war the German Government, while admitting that the acts complained of were done under superior orders, disregarded the plea and inflicted exemplary punishment."