SOVIET LAW REVIEWED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21470, 19 April 1933, Page 11

SOVIET LAW REVIEWED

COMPARED WITH I3MTISJI VISH I NSKY'S INSINUATIONS MONKHOUSE ASSAILED BRITAIN " HOODWINKED " By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright British Wireless RUGBY, April 17 In tho course of tho prosecutor's address at tho Moscow trial to-dav, lie said that Monkhonse, in endeavouring to discredit his preliminary examination and the Court, was following a line extracted from tho first British White Paper. Tho Court would do a great service to humanity if it showed British public opinion the way in which it had been so cruelly hoodwinked. The first liar in the campaign to mobilise British public opinion, he declared, probably was Mr. Monkhonse. M. Vishinsky divided the accusations under three headings: Wrecking, military espionage, and bribery. Ho said the crimo was well understood as far as espionage was concerned. The provisions of the law did not apply to persons who informed themselves of such facts as crop yields, or tho difficulties experienced in Socialist construction. Ho contrasted the foreign laws relating to espionage with tho Soviet law, which he said was drafted in accordance with the peculiarities of tho Soviet State, just as laws in other countries wero drafted in accordance with their own peculiarities. "Conclusive Proof of Guilt" Dealing with the bribery charges, M. Vishinsky cited British Acts, and reminded tho Soviet and the accused that according to British laws bribes were punished, both in the case of the giver and the receiver. The Soviet's law was even more severe. "In tho whole of our criminal code bribery is tho biggest crime, as it is an attempt by an enemy to disorganise our country." Discussing the breakdowns, the prosecutor said it would bo necessary to take into account that "we have before us such facts as the confessions of somo of the accused." He discussed tho legislation of different countries, stating, "In Britain a confession obviates tho necessity of proving the charges." The proof in the present case had been so irrefutable that the Court's attitude toward only one person had changed since the indictment was read. "We never had in any other case such conclusive proof of guilt. It is a brilliant case from the prosecution's point of view." Soviet ready for War Continuing, the prosecutor said that Mac Donald had told him lie had been overcome by the weight of evidence against him. M. Vishinsky turned to Gusev, and, accusing him of wrecking acts at Thornton's instigation, said Thornton had explained that his object, in using "a network of spies" was to obtain information about the defensive and offensive capacities of the Soviet. "Well Thornton," he said, "we do not want war, but we are ready for it." Let Thornton try and then he would "find out what our defensive and offensive capacities are." He admitted that the information which he alleged Thornton had requested from Mac Donald was "not exactly defined," but claimed that it included information about military enterprises. If Mac Donald's confessions were not true, what had he to gain by making them? Referring to Thornton's entries in notebooks about his monetary transactions, M. Vishinsky said, "After we have finished dealing with Thornton here, he will also have to give an account of his crimes over there, when ho goes back." Direct Attack on Nordwall M. Vishinsky admitted that MacDonald's confessions were "not absolutely straightforward," explaining that this was because he was an experienced spy, and had burned his correspondence, which might have been useful to the Ogpu. After a short adjournment, 51. Vishinsky resumed with an attack on Mr. Nordwall, stating, "If we are asked whether our grounds are sufficient to charge Nordwall, we can answer with the firmest conviction that they are more than sufficient. He was obviously in touch with the wreckers, and concealed defects in the Vickers Company's equipment. He gave bribes and supplied information to Thornton." After a long discussion about the sum with which the prosecution claimed Nordwall had bribed Lobanov, M. Vishinsky said, "Nordwall cannot get away from this coat, and he will have to wear it himself. It. is a warm coat and he will need it." He concluded his attack on Mr. Nordwall by referring to him as one of those mentioned in the statement to which the prosecution had secured Mr. Thornton's signature (since repudiated), which gave a list of 27 past and present employees of Vickers in Russia, and described them as "members of an organisation for espionage." ,