THE MOSCOW TRIAL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 106, 18 April 1933, Page 10

THE MOSCOW TRIAL

WHOLE CASE A FRAME-UP OUTBURST BY MONKHOUSE. CONTINUATION OF EVIDENCE. MOSCOW. April 15. There was a remarkable scene at the opening of the court when Monkhouse jumped up and said he wanted to make a declaration. The judge stopped him while he was | protesting against being cross-exam- ! itied for 18 hours. Monkhouse shouted: “ The trial is a frame-up,” and declared, after hearing Shukhoruchkin that the trial was based on the evidence of terrorised Russians. The whole proceedings were disorganised and all messages stopped until the official stenographers were supplied with the exact words. Pressmen were unable to restrain their excitement and hectically I dashed to and fro. Monkhouse asked to be allowed to i make a statement. He was three times interrupted by the president, but stie- ■ cecded in stating in English that Shukboriv likin’s evidence showed conclusive- , ly that “the whole case is a frame-up” ' against Hie Metro Vickers men, based on th.- evidence of terrorised Russian prisoners. He got as far as saying that he knew from his owu experience in being subjected to 18 hours uninterrupted interrogation, when the president requested him to postpone his statement rill the proper time. Al. RE BRIBERY ALLEGATIONS. Another of the Russians who pleaded guilty, Krsashetnimikov, then gave evidence for the prosecution, alleging that be had been bribed by Thornton for machine wrecking at the Moscow electrical station, and also for espionage and concealing defects in plant supplied by Metro Vickers. The prosecution secured similar evidence from Zorin and Oleinik, who also pleaded guilty, and the latter tried to incriminate Monkhouse as well. lu questioning Krsashetnimikov, Thornton was able to show that all the defects to which he deferred were well known to the management of the electrical station. At one stage of the examination by the prosecution the witness Krsashetnimikov was asked if he understood the difference between a Soviet citizen carrying out wrecking activities and a foreigner doing so, and said he understood it was treason in the former case. CUSHNY EXAMINED. Cushny was then examined. The proiccution questioned him in detail about his acquaintances among Russians, endeavouring to obtain admissions of espionage. Cushny answered fully, not accepting the apparent implication of the prosecution that his extensive acquaintance amongst his fellow Russian engineers was prima facie evidence of guilt. Cushny said that the Russians who were giving evidence against, him were perjuring themselves, and he repeated that phrase when the prosecution suggested that he meant they were not telling the truth. At the end of his examination Cushny requested permission to make a statement, but was told by the president that it must be postponed. The latter part of the session was spent in a further examination by the prosecution of Oleinik, again directed against Thornton, who, according to Oleinik, arranged for part of the latter’s salary to be paid to him in England. His statement that 2000 roubles were transferred to an English account was difficult to reconcile with the amount of his salary. He continued liis allegation against Thornton of bribery for machine-wrecking at lots of places, but was only able to quote one of them. He also stated he provided military information, but when questioned it transpired that the information was based cn an observation that troops were travelling in one train while he was travelling in another. The session was closed by Oleinik explaining that his espionage work was in the interests of a certain group and not in the interests of Metro Vickers. MOSCOW SABOTAGE GROUP. The court resumed after twenty minutes. Krasashetnimikov, head engineer for the Moscow electric station, accused of belonging to the so-called Moscow sabotage group, gave evidence that he received only 500 roubles from Vickers, but had been promised more. Zorin, an engineer in the Moscow power department, declared: “Thornton led me into sabotage, giving me 1000 roubles and asking me to conceal defects and supply secret information.” Vishinsky, referring to Thornton’s! repeated denials and accusations, sneeringly remarked: “I suppose you will deny that, Thornton.” Thornton shrugged his shoulders and nodded his head. Cushny, a burly South African, who served in the Air Force in wartime, gave evidence that he worked at the Don Basin and then Baku, where be had 200 friends. He gave some in need fivers and lent others money, which had been returned. He denied

any connection with the breakdown of turbines at Baku, which was due to the Russians’ carelessness in allowing water to enter. Oleinik, who has been employed with Vickers in Russia and England for 20 years, declared that he was associated with Nordwall in acts of sabotage in the Don Basin when he spied in military matters. He believed Thornton and Nordwall were working for another organisation. Thornton interjected: “He’s lying.” At yesterday evening’s session Lebedev, another Russian accused who pleaded quilty was examined. The prosecution obtained from him a similar story to that told in the morning session by his fellow accused, Lobanov, aimed at incriminating Nordwall. NORDWALL’« DENIALS. Nordwall, giving evidence in a confident, decisive manner, emphatically denied Lebedev’s allegation of bribery for machine wrecking, also subsequent allegations of the same kind made by another Russian, the accused named Oleinik, who had been in the employ of Metro Vickers or its associates for 20 years. The prosecution then took the evidence of another Russian accused, Zivert, who said that Thornton bribed him for providing information and delaying the election of works, and he also accused Gregory of propaganda. As Zivert’s evidence concluded Gregory insisted upon making a statement on the ground that his professional efficiency had been impugned, and, describing his work at Dnieprostroi, he challenged anyone to show that it could have been done better or more rapidly. The latter part of the session was devoted to an examination of Shukhoruchkin, who told the prosecution that Thornton bribed him for providing secret information, machine-wreck-ing and concealing defects in Metro Vickers machinery at the Moscow power station, statements which Thornton emphatically denied. The session concluded with an examination of the history of Shukhoruchkin’s political views, which ended in the latter stating that he had been working in the interests of the workers’ and peasants’ enemies. This statement was obtained as a result of putting to Shukhoruchkin a distinction between himself and Thornton, the lattet of whom, in desiring concealment of defective machinery, was said by the prosecution to be working in the interests of his firm.

THORNTON SELF-CONFIDET. At last evening's session Thornton entered the witness box and spoke with increasing self-confidence. He said ho joined Vickers after demobilisation. He went to London annually to give information regarding their work. He used many methods to obtain business information. He never spied, but ho admitted breakdowns at Zouevka, Baku, Cheliabinsk and Moscow None was serious. Vishinsky, interrupting, began w> read the depositions. Thornton sharply interjected: “I retracted all that. They questioned me on March 12 until I was exhausted and also questioned me on the four following days. 1 signed under pressure. It was suggested that if 1 confessed it would be all right; if 1 didn’t I should he useless either to the Soviet or England. J was so tired and browbeaten that i signed depositions dictated in Russian. I wasn’t tortured.” Vishinsky: Which Englishman in Moscow taught you tell that lie P Thornton: No one. Vishinsky: 1 know who. Thornton added: I deny sabotage. I have always done my work well. MDLLE. KUTUSOVA. Mdlle. Kutusova, marcelled, manicured, powdered and rouged, stood in the witness box and answered in monosyllables leading questions confirming her depositions admitting bribes, which were not entered in Vickers’ books, but in Thornton’s diary, which was sent to England in December. Shukhoruchkin, Krsashetnimikov ana Zorin standing in unison, corroborated this evidence. Thornton then sprang to his feet, saying: “1 deny that.” Mdlle. Kutusova added that she first noticed Thornton’s and MacDonald’s activities in 1930, but was powerless, as she had given her word for silence. “I am ignorant of the details of the sabotage. I only heard conversations.” The court ajourned. Ulrich expects to finish on Tuesday. Ryshinsky denied Thornton’s and Monkhouse’s allegations that undue pressure was used wheu he was being questioned in the Lubiank prison. TRIAL APPROACHES THE END. ADDRESS FOR PROSECUTION. At yesterday evening’s session of the Moscow trial Oleinik’s evidence was continued. He was at first led by the prosecution into accusations against Monkhouse and then against Nordwall. Oleinik was somewhat confused in his story, at one moment referring to Nordwall, for whom he expressed personal animosity, as a “ very experienced spy” and afterwards stating that he was af raid to give Nordwall spying information since ho suspected Nordwall of being likely to report him to .the Soviet authorities. Oleinik got into further difficulties when he challenged Nordwall to repeat the “conversation he had with Gregory regarding wrecking” and then himself asked counsel to define the term “wrecking.” Monkhouse then gave his evidcnee-in-chief and was questioned by the president of the court about his activi-

ties at Archangel and his acquaintance with Richards there and elsewhere. Ho described details of breakdowns involving machinery supplied by his firm and admitted obtaining general information to give the firm data lor determining its credit policy. Thornton asked to be shown the document read to him in prison in which Mlle. Kutusova stated that he had received money from the I British consulate. The prosecutor . stated that such reference could not be made in public. Gregory’s examination followed, but no allegation against him was pressed. Further questions were then put to 1 Monkhouse, and in the course of arguI merit with the prosecutor he admitted j that the time of uninterrupted questioning in prisou during which he had been asked to confess might have been shorter than 18 hours. MONKHOUSE’S QUESTIONS. The city was cloaked white after an overnight snowstorm when the trial of the Vickers engineers was resumed. This morning Monkhouse’s couusel, Kodomov, requested the Court’s ruling as to the admissibility of ten technical questions submitted by Monkhouse. Ulrich disallowed two referring to the Metro-Vickers machinery, declaring emphatically that the company was not on trial but only individuals On the Court reassembling thia morning the prosecution asked for the inclusion in the documents or the prison time-sheets. This was permitted. Monkhouse asked for the inclusion of correspondence rebutting Oleinik’s evidence. This was refused. The eight questions by Monkhouse were then submitted to the expert commission attached to the Court, and the Court adjourned until the evening. “Those answers don’t satisfy me.” cried Monkhouse, springing to liis feet after a black-bearded Slav had read the Court’s replies to his technical questions, two of which were disallowed. The answers included an assertion that the turbine at Ivanovo had failed to fulfil the guarantee and that the Vickers employees had neglected to correct defective blades. “I would like to argue some points,” continued Monkhousc. “You should have notified Arcos if we didn’t fulfil the guarantees.”

VISHINSKY’S ADDRESS. The concluding address for the prosecution began this evening. Vishinsky entered with a bulky brief case, yawned, glanced at his watch, drank a glass of Russian tea brought by a guard and then began a perfervid speech:— “We are approaching the end of the trial. We shall soon have accurate results. Our enemies tried to press us too hard. They lost patience. I hope the result is a blow to them. They forgot they were dealing with the Soviet, which won’t allow anyone to interfere with its internal affairs.” Vishinsky, his face more and more hectic, punctuated his sentences with downward chops of his left hand as he contrasted the Hon. Walter Runciman’s aud Mr C. M. Patrick’s views of Russian justice. He alleged that Britain had practised the third degree in India and also in the BaillieStewart ease. He added: “We have the only true justice in the world!” Vishinsky accused Monkhouse and Thornton of attempting to insult the Court in accordance with London instructions, and ridiculed the allegations that they had been subjected to a third degree or frame-up. Vishinsky added: “Oleinik and Mdlle. Kutusova are the most detestable of Russia’s enemies. The Russian accused are natural saboteurs but eaunot bo pardoned. The Soviet does n6t fear them, Monkhouse's and Thornton’s crimes are too disgusting for words. They arc worse than the Russian prisoners.” The Court here indulged in a 20-min-utes recess. Vishinsky claimed that the accused Russians had been proved to be traitors and therefore demanded, the death penalty. He emphasised that the crimes of the Russians were more heineous than those of the Englishmen. This is taken to mean that he will not demand the death penalty for the Englishmen. Vishinsky, urging the importance of the trial in the eyes of the world, piled adjectives in denunciation of enemies. Referring to British attacks, he said: “We have never concealed the class nature of our justice. Our courts defend the proletariat; theirs defend the capitalist class. Monkhouse must remember that he is here not as a representative of Vickers but as an individual accused of espionage, sabotage and bribery.” Towards the close of the session the accused listened apathetically, so weakening the rhetoric of Vishinsky, who fell back on technicalities. He dis’ eussed the meaning of espionage, declaring that the Soviet interpretation corresponded with the English legal dictionary. It was decided to conclude the summing up to-morrow, after which the last pleas of the accused will follow. The verdict is expected late on Tuesday or early on Wednesday. VISHINSKY GROWS WORRIED. MONKHOUSE’B DEFENCE. LONDON, April 17. The “Chronicle’s” Moscow correspondent says that Vishinsky »poke for j

four hours. He was never at a loss for a word or a phrase and addressed the Bench as “Comrades.” Ho wore rhe Order of the Ked Banner. The “Times’” Riga correspondent says that Monkhouse's courage and self-defence in challenging the evidence of the Russian informers uoticably worried the prosecutor Vishinsky and completely put him out of his stride. (The report of the trial is continued on page seven.) BRITISH PRESS COMMENT TIME TO INTERVENE LONDON, April 15. The “Morning Post ’ says: “It is not necessary to wait till the end of the Moscow trial before denouncing the court as a sham tribunal and a savage farce. The spasms of varying testimony wrung from MacDonald prove that the Ogpu are applying strange and vicious pressure on the honour, perhaps the lives of the six Englishmen, who are being devilishly sworn away. We hope the Bridsh Government intervenes, because the moment has <ome to shake this tyranny.” The '‘Daily Telegraph” says: “Al most Lius so-called trial is a stench in the nostrils oi the civilised world and shat.el's the illusion of those fam to believe that there is a seed of social good in the Bol.hevik revolution.’’ The “Sunday I'iines” says; “It is safe to say that upon the events of the next few days may depend the relations between Soviet Russia not merely with Great Britain but with the whole Western world.” Ihe foreign Secretary has issued the following statement supplementing that made by him in the House of Commons on Thursday:—“Richards, who I.as been referred to m the Moscow trial, and who is now a director of Metro Vickers, has nevoi been an agent of the British secret service He served m the British army from May, 1918, to November, 1919, as lieutenant and captain, and was posted at Archangel as an ordinary officer. It is true that there he acted as an army intelligence officer on general service during these operations, but he has had no connection whatever with any branch ol the British service for the last 14 • s.” uie "Daily Telegraph’s” Moscow coriespondent recalls that Ulrich, president of the court, was sentenced in 1928 to ten years’ imprisonment for espionage and the sale of State secrets to a German commercial traveller who told his Swedish employers the details of Soviet cream separators. As the Moscow trial proceeds, British press denunciations of Soviet judicial methods become deeper and deeper. Not since the Dreyfus case have influential journals been so outspoken. The “Sunday Times” in an editorial declares that the evidence of the Russian witnesses was not worth sixpence. The Court relied almost exclusively on the English “confessions.”

The “Times’ ” correspondent at Riga emphasises grave anxiety regarding what has been happening to MacDonald during his intervals in the Ogpu prison and adds: “He has certainly been tormented. Foreign observers consider his plight desperate. Only extraordinary British pressure can save him, because the Ogpu does not allow disciplined prisoners to escape who have rebelled in open court, especially in an important trial exciting general abhorrence abroad. ’ ’ GERMAN PRESS SYMPATHISES TRIAL REGARDED AS FARCE BERLIN, April 16. The press uniformly sympathises with the Vickers engineers and regards the trial as a farce to divert Russia’s attention from her internal problems, OVEY-LITVINOFF DISCUSSIONS RUSSIA’S OFFICIAL VERSION MOSCOW, April 16. The “Isvestia’s” official version of the conversations between Sir Esmond Ovey and Litvinoff demonstrates the earnestness of Sir Esmond’s efforts on behalf of the accused Vickers engineers. Litvinoff promised them special liberties but declared that the British Government’s alarums and excursions would not help them, while further pressure would neutralise his efforts on their behalf. Sympathy with Russia’s resentment at the sabotage had outweighed Mr Baldwin’s statements. A storm in a teacup could not dismay Russia. Nothing could stop the trial; therefore Sir Esmond Ovey need not trouble to read the terms of his Government. This neutralised Sir Esmond’s last effort. METRO-VICKERS RESOLUTION INTEGRITY OFPRISONERS LONDON, April 15 Tha Metro-Vickers board unanimous ly passed a resolution expressing sym pathy with the accused and emphasis ing complete confidence in their integ rity and loyalty, and elected Mr Rich ards a director as an indication of then confidence in his conduct of the Russian business.