clusion that a number of acts of personal violence were proved against Captain Müller and in particular, that he had been guilty of sending out to work men, whose physical condition rendered them wholly incapable of discharging it. This conduct was admitted to be contrary to the instructions of the Headquarters Staff and could not be justified. The court showed a tendency to attribute Captain Müller's conduct to his nervous state due partly to a heart affection, partly to his inexperience in dealing with prisoners of war, and partly to the great difficulties in which he found himself in a camp so ill-equipped to receive such a large number of men. After taking into account these circumstances, the court awarded sentence of six months imprisonment.

ROBERT NEUMANN

Neumann was charged with ill-treating prisoners of war at Pommerensdorf Chemical Works. The charge against him was closely connected with the charge against Trinke, his superior officer, and the case against him lost much of its significance, because the German Government were unable to secure the arrest of Trinke, with whom a greater degree of responsibility rested than with Neumann.

Three British witnesses gave evidence at Bow Street and twenty-five in Leipzig.

To some extent Neumann was able to shelter himself behind the defence that he acted under the orders of his superior officer, Trinke, but after hearing all the British witnesses the court came to the conclusion that he had, in a number of cases, exceeded his authority and had committed acts of violence upon his own initiative. For these offences he was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Four months, which he had spent in prison awaiting trial were, however, taken into account with the result that only two months remained to be served from the date on which the sentence was pronounced.

LIEUT.-COMMANDER KARL NEUMANN

This officer was in command of the submarine U. 67, which sank the hospital ship Dover Castle in the Mediterranean on the 26th May, 1917. The facts were admitted because the evidence was overwhelming.

Neumann had previously torpedoed a vessel named the Elmmoor and taken the master, Captain Williamson, on board the submarine. When the submarine returned to its base, Captain Williamson obtained from Neumann, under his own signature, a certificate as to his identity, and that the Elmmoor had been torpedoed as stated. Captain Williamson was available as a witness for the trial, and a photographic copy of the certificate was included in the volume of evidence sent to the German Government in October, 1920. The German authorities had announced that Neumann would rely on the defence that he acted under superior orders; but, after consultation with the Admiralty, it was decided to proceed with the case, because of the importance

which attached to it on the grounds hereinafter referred to, even though the result should be an acquittal on the legal plea.

The defence relied solely on the plea that in torpedoing and sinking the ship Commander Neumann was acting upon the direct order of his superiors. The order was produced in court and could not be challenged. The Oberreichsanwalt did not ask for a conviction and the court held that Lieut.Commander Neumann could not be held criminally responsible for the act as he had in no way exceeded the orders which he had received.

In the course of the judgment the court laid it down that the punishment of a subordinate, who has acted in conformity with his orders, can only arise (1) if he has exceeded the order given to him, (2) he is aware that his superior's orders directed action, which involved a civil or military crime or misdemeanor. The court did not consider that either of these elements was present in this case and the accused was accordingly acquitted.

It is important in this case to record that the decision of the court was based solely on the question of obedience to superior orders. The actual legality of the orders was not discussed in the judgment of the court, which only considered the question whether the accused was aware that they were illegal. In his address to the court the Oberreichsanwalt expressly stated that there was no evidence that the Dover Castle was being used in any other way than as a hospital ship, and that he was personally persuaded, that she did not carry troops or ammunition or anything that it was not proper for a hospital ship to carry. He invited the court to deal with the case on this assumption. Whether the orders were themselves just or not, he added, did not much matter so far as the accused was concerned, provided he did not know them to be unjust.

This was the ratio decidendi of the court, and there can be little doubt that by German law the decision was correct.

The proceedings against Commander Neumann completed the trials of the four persons named by the British Government who were amenable to justice, but after the conclusion of the last trial, proceedings were taken by the German Government, at their own instance, against two officersLieutenants Dithmar and Boldt-who were serving under the command of Commander Patzig in the submarine U. 86, by which the hospital ship Llandovery Castle was sunk.

HOSPITAL SHIP "LLANDOVERY CASTLE"
COMMANDER HELMUT PAtzig

LIEUTENANTS DITHMAR AND BOLDT

As has been already stated, Patzig is said to be out of the jurisdiction of the German Government, and his whereabouts are not known. In the course of the enquiry into the charges made against him by the British Government, the German authorities examined a number of witnesses and amongst them

the two officers, Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt, and the members of the crew of the submarine.

Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt both refused to make any statement, excusing themselves from doing so by the assertion that they had pledged their word to Patzig to give no information as to the events, which happened in connection with the destruction of the hospital ship Llandovery Castle.

In consequence, however, of the information obtained from the members of the crew, supported as it was by the statements of the British witnesses, which had already been furnished to the German Government, the German authorities came to the conclusion that Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt were implicated in the destruction of this vessel and the subsequent firing on her boats, and that there was sufficient evidence to justify them in placing these officers upon their trial for murder. Both officers were accordingly placed under arrest and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in Leipzig for trial. The British Government was invited to arrange for the attendance of the British witnesses to give evidence at the trial, and although the British Government did not itself make the charge against these officers, it was considered that in view of the gravity of the offence with which they were charged, and of the deplorable nature of the outrage, every assistance should be given to the German Government in bringing to justice the persons responsible for the crime.

When notice was received of the date fixed for the trial, less than three weeks remained, in which to trace the witnesses and arrange for their attendance at Leipzig. Four of the most important witnesses were found to be either serving in ships at sea or living abroad. Of these two were intercepted in New York by wireless, one was on passage from the West Indies to England, and one was traced in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Special arrangements were made for the immediate return of these witnesses to England and all were able to attend the trial in Leipzig, though the witness from British Vancouver arrived only on the last day of the hearing, which was specially adjourned for his attendance.

One witness was examined at Bow Street and twelve witnesses gave evidence at the trial. After hearing these witnesses and the witnesses called by the German authorities themselves, who included a number of the members of the crew of the submarine, the court found that the Llandovery Castle was a British hospital ship, that she was properly equipped and lighted, and was used solely for the purposes of a hospital ship and carried no combatants or munitions of war; that she was on her proper course; that she was followed by the submarine U. 86 for several hours and when her lights were lit she was recognized as a hospital ship beyond any possibility of doubt; and that after fully considering the matter and discussing it with the members of his staff, Commander Helmut Patzig torpedoed the vessel without warning. The court further held that at least three boats got safely away from the ship with survivors in them; and that the boats were found and searched by the

submarine, whose commander professed to hold the belief and was attempting to prove that the vessel carried eight American flight officers; that failing to find in the boats any justification for torpedoing the ship, Commander Patzig with the approval and concurrence of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt (who with the Gunner Meissner-now dead-were alone on the deck of the submarine with the commander at the time), deliberately fired on the surviving boats and hit and destroyed two out of the three of them with the consequent loss of life of all the persons who were in them. Commander Patzig required and obtained from the officers, crew and prisoners in the submarine, a pledge to maintain silence as to the incident until the conclusion of the war, and he further concealed all traces of his act by omitting any reference to the incident from the log book and forwarding a falsified chart of the courses of the submarine to the German Admiralty.

The court recognized that Commander Patzig, the commander of the submarine, was primarily responsible for this outrage, but held that the plea of superior orders would not avail Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt in such a case. While relieving them of responsibility for the torpedoing of the ship, the court found that they had taken part and concurred in the firing on the boats and that they could have prevented this action by refusing to pledge themselves to secrecy and declaring their intention of reporting the incident upon their return to port.

In his address to the court the Oberreichsanwalt expressed some doubt whether there was direct legal proof that the boats had been hit by the shells fired by the submarine and he asked the court to find that the officers had been guilty of attempted murder, and to award a sentence of four years imprisonment. The court, however, came to the conclusion that the inference that at least two boats had been hit was irresistible and they found as a fact that these two boats had been destroyed by the firing. There is, however, a degree of killing recognized by the German criminal law which is not known to the law of this country. It may be said to come between murder with deliberate intent and manslaughter by negligence without intent, and in the present case the court considered that the prisoners acted without adequate premeditation and they therefore held that they were guilty of the intermediate degree of killing and awarded four years imprisonment with, in the case of Lieutenant Dithmar, dismissal from the service, and of Lieutenant Boldt, who was a retired officer, deprivation of the right to wear uniform.

Commander Patzig did not appear at the trial to give evidence in defence of his brother officers and was severely criticised for his failure to do so.

SUMMARY

Out of the seven persons, whose names were placed by the British Government in the abridged list, four have now been tried with the following results:

In addition, arising out of the case of the Llandovery Castle, but not named by the British Government:

In all of these cases the sentences were to imprisonment in a prison and not to confinement in a fortress. Official confirmation of the fact that the sentences

are being served has been received.

A satisfactory feature of these trials has been the admirable way in which the British witnesses have given their evidence before the Supreme Court at Leipzig. They consistently displayed a remarkable degree of intelligence and impartiality, which appeared greatly to impress the President and other members of the court.

Translations of the judgments are appended."

LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT,
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE,
STRAND, W.C. 2.

8th August, 1921.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM RELATING TO THE WIESBADEN AGREEMENT OF OCTOBER 6, 1921, BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY1

October 26, 1921

In order to understand the arrangements proposed by the Wiesbaden agreement, it is necessary to bear in mind certain provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the application of which is affected by it.

The treaty itself provides in the reparation chapter, Part VIII, and in some of its annexes, for the partial liquidation of Germany's reparation indebted5 Printed, infra, p. 674.

1 British Parliamentary Paper, 1921, (Cmd. 1547).