SPECIOUS ANSWERS

Northern Advocate, 17 April 1933, Page 5

SPECIOUS ANSWERS

TEN TECHNICAL QUESTIONS TWO NOT ALLOWED. monkhou.se dissatisfied. PROSECUTOR’S LOFTY TONE.

(United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) , (Received ,1.1 a.nr.) MOSCOW, April 16. The city was cloaked in white after an over-night storm when the trial was resumed today (Sunday) of British engineers and several Russians on charges ■oi sabotage and espionage. Tins morning M, Komodov, counsel fpr Allan Monkhouse, the New Zealander, requested the court’s ruling on the admissibility of ten l technical questions submitted by Monkhouse. The president of the court, M. Ulrich, disallowed two of the questions, which referred to Metropolitan Vickers machinery, declaring emphatically that the company was not on trial, but only individuals. The session lasted an hour and then adjourned until 5 p.m. ’ “Those answers don’t satisfy me,” cried Monkhouse, springing to his -feet after a black-bearded Slav had read the court’s replies to his technical questions, two of which were disallowed.

The answers included the. assertion that the turbine at Ivanovo failed to •fulfil the guarauteee and that the Vickers engineers neglected to correct defective blades. "I should like to argue some of those points,” continued Monkhouse. '“You should have notified Arcos if wo did not. fulfil our agreement. ’ ’ Contempt of Britain. The prosecutor, M. Vishinsky, entered the Court with a bulky brief case, yawned, glanced at his watch, drank a glass .of Russian tea, which was brought by a guard, and then Ijegan a perfervid speech. “Wc are approaching the end of the trial and shall soon have accurate results,” he said. “Our enemies tried to press us too hard and we lost patience. ( I hope the result will be a blow to them. They forgot that they Were dealing with the Soviet, which will not allow anyone to interfere, with its internal affairs. ” \ M. Vishinsky’s face became more and more hectic as he punctuated his sentences, with downward chops of his left hand as he. contradicted the views expressed by Mr Walter Runcimnn, President of the British Board of Trade, concerning Russian justice. ; The prosecutor alleged that 'Britain practised third-degree methods in India, also in the recent Baillie-Stewart case, and added: “We have the only true justice in the world.**’ M. Vishinsky accused Monkhouse and Thornton of attempting to insult the court in accordance with ..London instructions. He ridiculed the allegations that they were subjected to third degree or a. “fi’ame up,” and added: ‘ ‘ Oleinik and Kutosova. are the most detestable of Russia’s enemies. The Russian accused are natural saboteurs, but cannot be pardoned. The Soviet does not fear them. Monkhouse’s and Thornton’s crimes are too . disgusting for words. They are worse than, those of the Russian prisoners.” The court here indulged in a 20 minutes’ recess.

NEARING THE CLOSE.

GARBLED STORY. RELATED BY OLEINIK. (British Official Wireless.) (Received Noon.) RUGBY, April 16. At last, evening’s session of the Moscow trial Olqinik’s evidence was continued. Ho was at first led by the prosecution into accusations against Monkhouse and then against Nordwall. Oleinik was somewhat confused in Ins story, n't 'one time referring to .Nordwall, for whom he expressed personal animosity, as a “very experienced spy, ’ ’ and afterwards stating that he was afraid to give Nordwall spying information, since he suspected Nordwall of being likely to report him to tI.J? Soviet authorities. Oleinik got into further difficulties when he challenged Nordwall to repeat “conversations he had with Gregory regarding wrecking,” and then himself asked counsel to define the term “wrecking.” Allan Monkhouse then gave his evidence in chief-and was questioned by the president of the court about his activities at Archangel and his acquaintance with Richards (Vickers manager) there and elsewhere. He described details of breakdowns involving machinery supplied by his firm, and admitted obtaining general information to give his firm data for determining its credit policy.

■ Thornton asked to be shown the documents which were rend to him in prison in which Kutosova stated that he had received money from the British Consulate.

The prosecutor stated that such reference could not be made public.

Gregory’s examination followed, but no allegation against him was |ressed.

Further questions were then put to Moukhouse. and in the course of argument with the prosecutor he admitted that the time of uninterrupted questioning in prison, during which he lytd been asked to confess, might have been shorter than 18 hours.

On the court re-assembling this morning the prosecution asked for the inclusion of the documents of prison time sheets, ‘ This was permitted. Mr Monkhouse asked for Inclusion of

correspondence rebutting Oleinik's evidence. This was refused. The court adjourned until this evening, when the concluding address by the prosecution is expected to begin.

WHAT IS HAPPENING?

DURING THE INTERVALS. MACDONALD’S HAPLESS PLIGHT. TORMENT CONJECTURED. . (Received. 10 a.rn.) LONDON, April 16, ■ As the trial proceeds, British Press denunciations of Soviet judicial methods become deeper and deeper. Not since the Dreyfus case have such influential journals been so outspoken. ! The “Sunday Times," in an editorial, declares: “The. evidence of the Russian witnesses is not worth .sixThe court relies almost exclusively on English confessions." ‘‘The Times" correspondent at Riga emphasises the grave anxiety which is felt regarding what is happening to the Britisher MacDonald during the intervals at the hands of the Ogpn in prison. The correspondent adds: “He js certainly being tormented. Foreign observers consider his plight desperate. Only extraordinary British pressure can save him, because the Ogpu does not allow disciplined prisoners to escatie who have rebelled in open court, especially in an important trial. The proceedings are exciting general abhorrence abroad."

“SAVAGE FARCE.’

, OCtPU INTIMIDATION. BRITISH ACTION DEMANDED. ... (Received 9 a.m.) LONDON, April 15. ; The “Morning Post” says: “Tt v is not -necessary to. wait till, the end of the Moscow trial before denouncing the court as a sham tribunal and a Ravage,farce. Spasms of varying testimony wrung from MaeD.onald prove that, the Ogpu is applying strange and vicious pressure.

“'The honour, perhaps the lives, of six Englishmen are being devilishly sworn away. We hope the British Government will intervene, because the moment has come to shake this tyranny. ”

The “Daily Telegraph” says: “At the most this .so-called trial is a stench in the nostrils of the civilised world. It shatters the illusion of those who fain would believe there was the seed of social good in the Bolshevik revolution. ’ ’

The Prime Minister has arranged that while he is on board the Berengaria on the way to New York he shall be kept informed of the Moscow trial. He will receive coded wireless messages from the Foreign Office. The “Sunday Times” says; “It is safe to say that upon the events of the next few days may depend the relations of iSoviet Russia, not merely with Great Britain, but with the whole western world.”

SECRET SERVICE DISCAIMER. CASE OF MR RICHARDS. '’"(Received 9 a.m.) ; ; LONDON, April la. The' Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, has issued the following statement supplementing that made by him in the House of Commons on Thursday:— “Mr Richards, who has been referred to in the Moscow trial, has never boon an agent of the British Secret Service. He served in the British Army from May, 1918, to November, 1919, as lieutenant and captain, and was posted at (Archangel as an ordinary officer. “It is tre that there he acted as an army intelligence officer on general service during those operations, but ho has had no connection whatever with any branch of the service for the last 14 years. ”

GERMAN OPINION. DIVERTING ATTENTION. "BERLIN, April 16. The German Press uniformly ■sympathises with the Vickers employees and regards the trial as a farce to divert Russians’ attention from their internal problems.