THE RUHR

Southland Times, Issue 18937, 10 May 1923, Page 5

THE RUHR

KRUPP TRIAL ENDS HEAVY SENTENCES IMPOSED SENSATIONAL TRIAL SCENES. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) BERLIN. May 8. (Received May 9, 8.15 p.m.) The following is a full list of the sentences in connection with the Krupp trial: —Krupp and his fellow directors, Osterley and Hartwig, fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of 100,000,000 marks; Bruhn, ten years and 100,000,000 marks fine; Mueller, a member of the Workers' Council, six months. These were present at the trial. The following were absent: Bauer, Schaeffer, Kuntz and Schraepler, and they were sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined 100,000,000 marks each. Groos, head of the apprentices, was sentenced to ten years and hned 50,000,000 marks. The closing scenes of the trial at Werden w’ere marked by intense excitement, the whole neighbourhood of the courthouse being guarded by French troops, the market place being occupied by cavalry and tanks as the French feared that an effort might be made to rescue Krupp. In the final evidence, Krupp admitted his firm received official instructions from Berlin regarding lines on which resistance should be carried on which was the same as the whole German nation received.

Captain Duvert, in a bitter closing speech for the prosecution, insisted that Krupp’s personal responsibility was incontestable. “The Germans are a disciplined people, who never act on their own initiative,” declared Duvert, adding that the order for the attack on a little group of ten French soldiers came from Berlin, and was issued by the Krupp firm itself. Some thousands of disguised police agents took part in the attack.

"Imagine how these great Krupp chiefs remained motionless in the board room, while thousands of their employees were threatening these ten French soldiers with death. Imagine their smile when they peeped down on the spectacle from the windows. We saw the same smile during the war. Their generals displayed it when German troops were burning French villages, massacring the inhabitants. “The hands .of these men,” Duvert concluded dramatically, “are red with the blood of their own workmen, and with French blood that flowed that day.” Maitre Moriaud, the famous Swiss international lawyer, in an impassioned speech on behalf of Krupp, maintained with a wealth of argument that the charges were not supported by a single fact. A sensation followed when Duvert rose and said that seven persons were to be tried in Dusseldorf the following day who had already admitted that they belonged to a society w’hose purpose was to murder persons objectionable to Germany. These persons declared that they received pay in the Krupp building from an ex-officer, who was once a Krupp engineer. Amidst the amazement of the people in the courthouse, who were unaccustomed to the procedure of other countries, Moriaud sprang up and protested against the statement. adding: “Anyone who said that is guilty of a lie.” Raising his voice Moriaud concluded, “You call this justice? In the name of France, in the name of France, I say, render justice!” The Court agreed upon Krupp’s and Bruhn’s sentences by a majority of only a three to tw r o decision. In the other cases it was unanimous. Krupp and his co-directors will be taken to a French prison. COMMENT ON SENTENCES. 'TAKE ONE’S BREATH AWAY.” CHALLENGE TO THE CONSCIENCE OF THE WORLD.” LONDON, May 8. The majority of London newspapers received the news of the Krupp sentences too late for comment. The Daily Chronicle says the sentences fairly take one’s breath away. Solemnly to pretend that the blame for the massacre is on the side of the massacred is to challenge, not merely the feeling of Germany, but the conscience of all the world. “How can peace for Europe, security for France, or civilisation for mankind be compatible with such courses?” the paper asks. The Daily Express's Berlin correspondent reports that the sentences roused general indignation. Dr. Sorge, president of the Union of Industrialists and Krupp’s Berlin representative declares: ‘lt is now impossible for German industrialists to co-operate with the French. The sentence is an indignity.” FRENCH HASTE REGRETTED BRITAIN TO DRAFT SEP.ARATE REPLY LONDON, May 8. The Hon Stanley Baldwin, in the House of Commons, said the Government regretted the unnecessary precipitancy of the Franco-Belgian reply to the German Note; also the loss of an opportunity of again testifying to the solidarity of the Allies by a joint communication. Britain proposed to state her own views in a separate reply with the least possible delay. He believed Italy would do the game. It was the Government’s view that the best and

most natural procedure would be to return concerted reply, more so as the German Note was in response to a suggestion made publicly and officially by the British Foreign Minister as to reparations, wherein the Allied Powers, and not France and Belgium alone, were deeply concerned; nor, in the opinion of the Government, need any insuperable difficulty have been experienced in drafting a collective reply, reserving for separate treatment by the French and Belgian Governments, if desired, questions arising directly out of the recent occupation of German territory. The Government had reason to believe that these views were shared by some of the Allies. They were quite prepared to make proposals to this effect, having already communicated their views to the Allied Governments when they were officially informed that France and Belgium had drafted a reply for themselves alone, and the text of which was communicated by them on Saturday afternoon, with an announcement that it would be presented within 24 hours to the German Ambassador. BITTER GERMAN ATTACK. “DOCUMENT OF INSUFFERABLE INSULTS.” BERLIN, May 8. M Hile most influential newspapers reserve judgment in regard to the French reply a violent attack has been made on M. Poincare by Stinnes’ organ Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, which says “In Paris sit® the peace breaker, the criminal of Eur ope’s future. The sarcastic politics of the impudent advocate run like a scarlet thread through the Note. It is a document of insufferable insults and insolent stupidity.” The general feeling in Berlin is one of increased bitterness against France, but Germany is waiting to hear the answer of Britain and Italy. It is hoped Britain will exercise a moderate influence in the joint reply.

PARIS, May 8. It is learned authoritatively that the French Government would have preferred a joint reply, but this is ‘impracticable seeing Britain is not involved in the occupation of the Ruhr to which essential passages of the German Note referred. The hope is expressed that in Britain public opinion will not be offended by France’s action. Some apprenhension is felt lest the result in a joint British and Italian reply which would w-eaken the Entente, especially in view of the King’s viait to Ronx