THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1933 A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21470, 19 April 1933, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1933 A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

It is possible, for human ways arc apt to spring surprises, that some British folk have read the reports of the Moscow trial without any feeling of repugnance. If so, they must be very few—and very deficient in a sense of justice. The whole conduct of the trial, as it has proceeded day by day, has been a shocking exposure of the spirit and methods of the Soviet Government. It did not need this latest instance to enlighten most observers of that Government. They have had ample proof, furnished by the Soviet leaders themselves, that these rulers would adopt any handy means to reach their own objectives. In their quarrels, some of which make most interesting history, they have charged each other with foul practice, so circumstantially and in such detail that denial has been futile and therefore unattempted. What else, then, could their subjects expect, if perchance they should dare to oppose or even question the fiats of so unscrupulous a dictatorship—and how little safety can be enjoyed by resident foreign nationals if thenoppression be the whim of this same authority? This the trial emphasises, but it is merely part and parcel of a system notorious for its denial of personal rights as soon as they conflict, in even a small degree, with the political purposes of the Government. One in a good position to know and speak, for he has made the actions of these leaders a subject of sympathetic study, has lately put on record the fact that the Soviet Government takes no steps to disabuse the public, at home or abroad, of the common impression that cruelties and injustices of all kinds are officially committed by it. On other matters, such as the payment of debts, it has manifested a sensitiveness to foreign opinion. On this—the execution of justice—it has been significantly silent, although the whole world has rung with complaint. If it should feel disposed to enter a plea, that could now only take the form of excusing excesses on the ground of political expedience. That political expedience is the governing motive of the prosecution cannot be denied. The indictment against the accused has been drawn by the Soviet Foreign Office. It is not concerned with mere sabotage, but with this as part of an alleged counter-revolutionary intrigue. The official prosecutor has bluntly acknowledged that he is defending the Soviet revolution, and has made no secret of his hatred of Britain. "Our enemies," he said, and the reference to Britain was unmistakable, "tried to press us too hard and we lost patience. I hope the result will be a blow to them. They forgot they were dealing with the Soviet, which will never allow anyone to interfere in its internal affairs." His animadversions against Mr. Runciman, President of the British Board of Trade, were uttered with evident fury. To "instructions from London" he has attributed alleged insults to the court. This is all so gratuitous, so remote from judicial methods of proof of guilt, that the ulterior purpose of the prosecution is declared. Nor has he scrupled to acknowledge the real attitude of the court. "We have never concealed," are his words, "the class nature of our justice. Our courts defend the proletariat as theirs"—he was again referring to Britain—"defend the capitalist class." His jibes make this trial akin to that of 1930, when eight Russian professors and engineers were melodramatically charged with plotting to bring about foreign military intervention, this being alleged to have as its object the frustration of the Five-year Plan. The purpose of that trial was clear, and the villainy of its methods is confirmed by the I statement of Professor Tchernavin concerning the attempt to force from* him a confession in the following year. Incidentally, it is enlightening to learn that he too was charged with sabotage, an indication that this Soviet sort of justice, which M. Vishinsky proudly declares to be "the only true justice in the world," has had deliberate manufacture to serve its political end. It is no defence of this travesty of justice to say that the Soviet Government has a right to deal with foreign nationals resident in Russia as private individuals. That evades the point. Such nationals do not forgo, their rights in all respects. They arc entitled to a fair trial, in keeping with the selfsame principles that govern the international relations within which the right to try these nationals is allowed. To punish without trial for an alleged offence would not be tolerated by the victim's country : to punish after a sham trial would be no less intolerable. The question at issue is the fairness of the trial, a question involving the good faith of (he Government responsible for it. The accused have been subjected to dastardly treatment by political police—the illfamed Ogpu is confessedly such a body—and certain features of their pleas and evidence, including discrepancies with which the prosecutor has made cruel play, arc to lie understood in the light of that. They have been denied (lie aid of British counsel, bereft of just means of presenting their defence, refused opportunity to make relevant and important statements, browbeaten and derided with an indecency that is revolting. If this is "the only true justice in the world," M. Vishinsky and his employing Bolsheviks arc welcome to it. "Liberty," said Lenin, sardonically, "is so valuable that it must be rationed." The only liberty j honoured by Soviet Russia is carefully kept by its Government, lest J others should use it to speak the j truth and shame the present rulers.