TORPEDOED HOSPITAL SHIP

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 35, 10 August 1921, Page 13

TORPEDOED HOSPITAL SHIP

U-EOAT COMMANDER ACQUITTED

"BOUND TO OBEY ORDERS."

The President of the Oourt to-day (4th June) dec}'red Lieutenant-Commandier Karl Neumann acquitted of the chaTge of sinking the hospital ship Dover Castle in'the Mediterranean on 26th May, 1917, on the ground: that he was boundi to obey the orders of his superiors (reports a Reuter message to London papers).

The President announced that all costs of tlie action were to be borne by the German Government. He said all civilised nations recognised the principle that a subordinate was covered by the orders of his superiors. Accused had, he said, carried out the orders ho had been given, without in any way exceeding them. There was nothing to prove that-he had been gnilty of particular cruelty, as alleged in the accusations of the Allies. He acted as he had to act, and in the opinion of the Oourt there was not the Slightest doubt that his orders were justified. Accused had therefore been found not guilty. The accused, who was defended' by Dr. Hahnemann, of Leipzig, is well built; clean shaven, and has short-cropped hair. He wore a large Iron Cross, looked self-possessed, and occasionally smiled at friends in Oourt. He answered the President's questions in a short, decisive tone, and stated that he was now a merchant in Breelau, and formerly commanded the-U-boat 67 in the Meditteraoean. t ... /

The President read over the indictment to the prisoner, who admitted, sinking the hospital ship in clear weather when all her signs -were visibly disclosed. He was bound, he sajd, by the order of the German Government, dated 29th March, 1917, to sink at sight all ships not keeping within a special channel provided in the Mediterranean. The accused declared that the hospital ship was outside this channel. He further declared his conviction that ammunition was on board, but was unable to adduce proofs. - PROSECUTION ASKS FOR ACQUITTAL. The Public Prosecutor stated that Neumann, as commandant of a submarine in the Tyrrhenian Sea, sighted two hospital ships escorted by two destroyers. He recognised them as hospital ships because they carried the prescribed indications. He allowed them to come on, and about six o'clock in, the evening fired one torpedo at one of them, killing six people. He then waited two hours to give the ship time to transfer all on board to the other ship.. The ship was the Dover Castle. It had not been proved that the ship carried munitions. * The accused cited an order, dated 29th March,' 1917, issued at the instance of the Admiralty Staff, stating that all ships, sailing outside the free channel must be immediately stopped. Having ! received this order he was convinced that he was in duty bound to carry it out. A soldier was bound by his oath of loyalty to carry out an order in service, matters, and when he acted solely in the 'execution of his duty he was not responsible. The order was' a regular one. / The Ha.gue Convention bound the peoples in the war between Britain and Germany, although Britain had not ratified it. A hospital ship was not entitled,, to protection when it sailed contrary to the provisions of the Convention. , ■■ ' -

, Hospital ships acted contrary tp these provisions when they v transported soldiers wounded in land warfare. They might only remove those wounded in sea operations. In the opinion, therefore, of the Public ■Prosecutor, tho accused was not guilty, even if the order were not in accordance with right. The military penal code only, recognised a subordinate as punishable when ho knew that tho order was given with criminal intent. Even when the carrying out of the order would appear to be a crime the a'censed must be aware that the authority issuing that order intended a' crime. Only in that case could the subordinate be held responsible. ' ■

The accused assumed that the provisions of ihe Hague Convention had been contravened, and that in this case the protection for hospital ships had been forfeited. He had further not the least reason for assuming that the Admiralty Staff had ordered him to commit a crime. Therefore, even on subjective grounds there could be no question of the guilt of'the accused, and the Public Prosecutor proposed that he be acquitted.

Counsel for the defence said he had an easy task, having merely to foljow in the footsteps of the Public Prosecutor. He laid great stress on the arguments that hospital ships should only be used in connection.with naval operations. Germany, therefore, in view of Great Britain's use of hospital ships i in connection with land warfare, was entitled to disregard the ' Hague Convention, but Germany, for reasons of humanity, did not go as far as this.

In a semi-official statement issued in Berlin, regarding the acquittal, stress is laid on the fact that this acquittal was due solely to the fact that he acted in obedience to an order from his superiors, which made his action obligatory for him. "Whether," it is added, "this prder was legal or illegal, was not decided in those proceedings. This question •forms the subject of other*proceedings."

Commenting on the trial, the special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, gaid: The trial of the former Captain Neumann was<over in a few hours.'

The accused was born in Kattowitz, entered the German Navy in 1907, and was commander of the U-boat C 67. whose field of' action was the Mediterranean. The English, indictment charged the accused with, "against international law, without previous warning, and with peculiar atrocity," torpedoing the 8,471----.ton hospital ship Dover Castle on the, north coast of Algiers, south .of the boundary line drawn by the 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 31st March, 1917, the German Government had informed the Allies through neutral. Ambassadors that German fighjing units- would no longer spar* hospital ships, aB the Allies had- been 1 using these for the transport <rf munitions and troops. The accused, too, had' received order* from the German Admiralty "to sink every hospital ship whensoever, wheresoever, and howsoever " he lound it. This was the fate of the Dover Castle. He sighted the convoy in clear weather, followed it for five hours, and fired a torpedo- at tlie Dover Caetle, which was recognisable as a, hospital ship. The TT-boat 1 came tip a^ain in an hour^s time, saw the drifting Dover Castle on the water, and fired another torpedo, aftei which the Dover Castle sank in' a few seconds, The Üboat commander took as many provisions as he could carry from about 30 empty lifeboats drifting round, An accusation of plundering brought against him by the English indictment will be follpwed up in ; a new case. THE Borne OF ACTION. These were facts obtainable in the proceedings. The C 67 had an English, prisoner aboard at thei time of IJio action. The latter is siiid tq havo called Neuminn'a attanticui. to the fact that the Dover Castle "was a hospital ship, which, on account of the fins weather, the accused had alroi Jy uoticei During

the trial the accused repudiated indignantly having conversed or actually having ireceived reproaches from his prisoner.

Counsel for 4he prosecution laid stress on the faot that in this case justice and politics are intermingled. It was hi« wish /to exclude politics and regard the case only from the legal point of view. It was not proved that the Dover Castle carried munitions, as the accused stated. Tho deed was done 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 criminal law as generally accepted. England has not indeed signed the Hague Convention of 1907. But England, as well as Germany, had appealed to the Hague Convention in several' cases; therefore, it must be considered binding for both. A convention is not dependent upon the purely formal part of. signature. The accused was informed of the aim of this Hague agreement. Yet he was also informed by his superiors that England disregarded the Hague Convention, and that for this reason Germany, too. ceased to regard it. , ■ ASOLDIER'SiDUTY. The accused was a soldier, and subject to the dictates of the Admiralty Staff. According to the German military courts he 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. Even if not binding and lawful the accused would still be not punishable, as an inferior has not the right to criticise an order. An army is built up upon obedience. The responsibility iis borne by his superiors. Only if a crime is intended by the command is the man performing the action guilty, and in this case only if both parties have recognised and intended a crime. The English law takes the same point of view as the German. In England there is not even this last concession made^by the German law.

The accused was of opinion that England was using her* hospital ships for wrongful purposes. The Admiralty Staff was of like opinion. The order was lega' and binding. Therefore the accused 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 o£ "not guilty." -1 ■ .