duced at the trial to give evidence of a continuous course of ill-treatment by the person charged. The witnesses had long since been demobilized from the army and were dispersed to civilian employment all over the country.

In the remaining cases, the charges were torpedoing of hospital ships and a merchant ship, and the witnesses, who were mainly employed in the merchant service, were also widely dispersed at sea.

Tracing these witnesses through changing addresses and taking comprehensive statements, such as were suitable for production in a court of law, involved great labor and some delay. When the question arose of securing their testimony at the trial, it was found that it was not possible to secure the attendance in Leipzig of all the witnesses, and there was of course no means of compelling unwilling witnesses to attend the trials there.

Many further witnesses in the cases of Heynen, Müller and Neumann were traced and interviewed with a view to making the Crown's case as complete as possible, and as soon as the collection of the evidence had been completed, arrangements were made for the examination in London at as early a date as could be arranged of all the witnesses in those cases, who were unable or unwilling to proceed to Germany to give oral evidence at the trial.

After consultation with the representatives of the German Government, who visited London in February, 1921, for the purpose of conferring with the Attorney-General upon the procedure to be adopted in securing the evidence of the British witnesses the 26th April was fixed for the examination at Bow Street Police Court before the chief magistrate of all British witnesses, who were unable to attend the trials. The German Government and the accused German persons were legally represented and an opportunity was given to them of putting questions to the witnesses. The examination of witnesses was commenced on that date and continued on April 27th, 28th and 29th, fifteen witnesses being examined in the three prison camp cases. The depositions of these witnesses were at once transmitted to the Supreme Court in Leipzig and were available at the main trials of the accused.

PROCEDURE AT THE TRIALS

The cases were taken in the following order:

Karl Heynen.

Captain Emil Müller.

Robert Neumann.

Lieut.-Commander Karl Neumann.

and the trials opened in Leipzig with the first of these cases on May 23rd. The court comprised seven judges under the presidency of Dr. Schmidt.

A British mission attended the trials and followed the proceedings throughout. It comprised the Solicitor General (Sir Ernest Pollock, K.B.E., K.C., M.P.), Sir William Ellis Hume-Williams, K.B.E., K.C., M.P., Mr. V. R. M. Gattie, C.B.E., Mr. R. W. Woods, C.B.E. (of the Department of H.M.

Procurator General). Mr. Claud Mullins, Barrister-at-Law, accompanied the mission as interpreter. Mr. J. B. Carson, of the British Embassy in Berlin, and Commander Chilcott, M.P., also attended the trials.

In accordance with the arrangement made between the Allies stated above, whereby they agreed not to intervene in the trials but to leave the full responsibility to the Germans, the mission took no part in the proceedings, and declined the offer of the German authorities to be joined as parties to the proceedings. The mission obtained, however, and asserted on many occasions, the right to communicate in court with the Oberreichsanwalt, through the representative of the German Ministry of Justice, for the purpose of calling his attention to any point, which appeared to have been overlooked or imperfectly brought to the attention of the court by the necessary translation of the evidence of the witnesses.

In accordance with the practice prevailing in Germany and other Continental countries, the witnesses were examined and the proceedings were for the most part conducted by the president. The Oberreichsanwalt (Dr. Ebermeyer), appeared on behalf of the German State. The accused persons were present and were represented by legal advisers, who, although entitled to question the witnesses, took a relatively small part in the proceedings, and confined themselves to addressing the court after the examination of the witnesses had been concluded.

The Oberreichsanwalt summed up the evidence in his address to the court and indicated which charges in his opinion had, and which had not, been proved and where he had come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty demanded the sentence which he considered proper. The court then considered its decision and in due course delivered orally its judgment and sentence. The judgment was subsequently reduced to writing in a more extended form and a translation of the full judgment in each case is attached hereto as an appendix.3

The evidence of the British witnesses was given through an interpreter. At the trials of Heynen and Müller, and at the trial of Lieuts. Dithmar and Boldt, to which separate reference is made hereafter in connection with the charge against Commander Patzig, the interpreter was Dr. Peters, who is a professor of languages at Leipzig University and holds a degree of Aberdeen University. Dr. Peters' interpreting left nothing to be desired. It was entirely satisfactory, and with his assistance the witnesses were enabled to give their answers fully and clearly. Dr. Peters' engagements unfortunately prevented him from attending the trial of Robert Neumann and the interpreting in that case was less satisfactory, being done in a more perfunctory and less intelligent manner; but it cannot be said that its defects, such as they were, had any effect upon the sentence.

› Printed herein, infra, pp. 674.

THE BRITISH CASES

KARL HEYNEN

Heynen was in charge of a working camp established at the Friedrich der Grosse mine at Herne, Westphalia. The complaint against him was that he consistently ill-treated British prisoners of war under his charge by knocking them about with the butt end of his rifle and with his fists. Complaints had been made to the higher German authorities while Heynen was in charge of the camp and in consequence of these complaints Heynen was removed and court-martialled by the German military authorities. He was found guilty of certain of the charges made against him and sentenced to 14 days' medium arrest, the execution of the sentence being suspended till the end of the war. On the 21st July, 1920, these proceedings were set aside pursuant to the laws of 18th December, 1919, and of 24th March, 1920, the statutes under which the Supreme Court had power to try the cases remitted to it, in order to enable proceedings to be commenced afresh. This case was selected as one of the test cases, because it seemed probable that if a German military court during the war had found Heynen guilty of the charges made against him, the Supreme Court in Leipzig could hardly fail to do the same.

In this case three English witnesses gave evidence at Bow Street and sixteen attended the trial in Leipzig. It appeared from their evidence that on the day following the arrival of the prisoners at the camp, there had been concerted resistance on their part to the order to change their clothing and descend the mine and work in it, because they considered that such work was helpful to Germany in carrying on the war against England, and also because the great majority of the men had no experience of working in a coal mine. In consequence of this disobedience, Heynen had ordered the guard to drive the prisoners to work, using the butt ends of their rifles and fists. This incident formed one of the charges against Heynen, but the court considered that in view of the orders given to him by his superiors to see that the work was done and of the insubordination on the part of the prisoners, Heynen was justified in using force to compel obedience to his orders, and he was accordingly acquitted on this charge.

Another charge related to a prisoner named Cross-now dead-who, according to some of the British witnesses had been rendered insane by treatment meted out to him by Heynen in the bath. The facts and conclusions of the court upon this charge are referred to in the judgment (Appendix II.).* Two of the English witnesses stated that Cross' insanity was not due to the treatment he received in the bath, as to their knowledge he had shown signs of insanity some ten days previously. Asked by the President of the court how they knew he was insane they referred to certain habits of Cross, which were inconsistent with his having his reason and control.

A number of other charges of violence to individual prisoners were, howPrinted, infra, p. 674.

ever, found to be proved against Heynen by the evidence of the English witnesses, which was held by the court to be trustworthy.

The President, in delivering sentence, observed:

One cannot help acknowledging that this is a case of extremely rough acts of brutality aggravated by the fact that these acts were perpetrated against defenceless prisoners against whom one should have acted in the most proper manner, if the good reputation of the German Army and the respect of the German nation as a nation of culture was to be upheld. Heynen was ultimately sentenced to ten months imprisonment.

EMIL MÜLLER

Captain Emil Müller was in charge of the prisoners of war camp at Flavyle-Martel on the Western Front at the end of April and beginning of May, 1918. The camp had been used by the British as a clearing station, but was used as a working camp by the Germans during the rapid advance in March and April, 1918. While it was in the occupation of the Germans, the conditions of the camp were indescribably bad. Into sheds capable of accommodating at the utmost 450 men over 1,000 men were crowded. The sanitary and washing arrangements were so primitive as to be practically nonexistent. The provision of food and medical attention was wholly insufficient, and no parcels or letters reached the camp. In a very short time the men were starving, verminous, and in a filthy condition, with the inevitable consequence that dysentery appeared almost at once and men began to die with appalling rapidity. In spite of the terrible condition of the men, they were forced to engage in heavy work behind the lines at long distances from the camp, and practically no excuse of weakness or sickness was accepted as relieving them from work. Men in the last stages of dysentery were driven out to work and fell and died by the road.

The evidence in this case fell under two headings, that relating to the physical condition of the camp, and that relating to personal brutality committed by Müller.

Eight British witnesses gave evidence at Bow Street and nineteen in Leipzig.

There was a conflict between the evidence tendered by and on behalf of the accused and that of the British witnesses as to the date on which Captain Müller left the camp, but if the German records which were produced were correct, and it was not practicable to challenge them, it appeared that he left the camp on May 5th, 1918, and did not subsequently return to it. It was naturally impossible for the British witnesses, after so long a lapse of time, to state with convincing certainty whether particular incidents, to which they spoke, occurred before or after the 5th May, and after hearing evidence, which tended to exonerate Captain Müller from responsibility for the state of the camp, the court showed an inclination to discount evidence as to inci

dents, and in particular, as to the very numerous deaths which may have occurred after the 5th May, although there could be no reasonable doubt that they were directly attributable to conditions, which had been brought into existence before that date.

After considering the records produced by the German military authorities on behalf of the accused, the court came to the conclusion that Captain Müller was not to be held responsible for the insanitary conditions of the camp to which the numerous deaths were directly attributable, inasmuch as reports from Müller to divisional headquarters were produced calling attention to its state and asking for assistance and supplies. It was stated that these appeals met with no response owing to the great strain put upon German Headquarters Staff by the rapid advance in March, 1918, to the fluid state of the front, the number of prisoners taken, the lack of supplies in Germany, and the general inability of the staff to meet the demands made upon it at this time. The court, therefore, came to the conclusion that Müller had done his best to improve the conditions of the camp, and that his failure to render them satisfactory was due not to his fault, but to the lack of assistance given to him by his superiors. He was, therefore, acquitted on this charge.

In considering Müller's responsibility for the general conditions of the camp upon the complete evidence given at the trial, it must be borne in mind that it was proved at the trial that Müller had taken over the camp from the English in the condition in which it was found later to be; that he had, while at Flavy-le-Martel, reported to his superiors that the camp was overcrowded and without facilities for washing; that water was short and the men were lousy; and that there was no supply of clothing available. He further reported that the condition of the prisoners was bad and rapidly becoming worse, and that they were unfit for hard work. He had asked for the camp to be improved, and for equipment to be sent to him, but without result, and he had, meantime, made such small improvements as were within his power. It was, moreover, proved that he had left the camp before the epidemic of dysentery had reached its height, and that only one or two deaths occurred before his departure.

While it may be doubted whether, even with the scant means at his disposal, Müller took all the measures, which it was his duty as commandant of the camp to take, in order to improve, so far as was in the circumstances possible, the insanitary state of the camp and to afford to the prisoners means for keeping themselves clean and for getting treatment when they were sick, yet it must be admitted that the main responsibility did not rest with him, but rather with those, who elected to crowd into a small and insanitary compound three times as many men as could properly be quartered there, and thereafter to keep them short of water, short of food, and entirely without change of clothing, while exacting from them work of the most arduous nature.

After hearing the British witnesses, however, the court came to the con