table that he called him "Englischer Schweinhund" (Dog of an Englishman). He thus insulted this prisoner of war who, by being placed under his command, had become his subordinate. At this time the accused was endeavoring to carry out his duties. Therefore he is guilty of a breach of §121 para. 1, of the Military Penal Code and deserves increased punishment under §55, No. 2, of the Military Penal Code.

III. In consequence of the discontent generally prevailing among the prisoners, their march from Herne railway station to the camp at shaft V (a distance of about half-an-hour's walk) was very slow. On their arrival in camp the prisoners were very dilatory in obeying orders, which were repeatedly and emphatically given them; and this although most of them had already been prisoners for almost a year and must have known their obligations as regards obedience.

On this occasion the Englishman Gothard, in particular, disregarded the order to fall in, because he wished first to mix his cocoa at a hot-water pipe. Excited over this disobedience, the accused, as has been credibly stated by Gothard and other witnesses, hit Gothard on the head with the fist and as he ducked under the blows, gave him a blow on the nose and eye with his sheathed side-arm, thus drawing blood. In this the accused offended against §§122, para. 1, 55, No. 2, of the Military Penal Code. This case is the same as that in para. I, 20, of the indictment, which charges him with illusage of an unknown Englishman.

It has not been proved that the accused on this evening committed any further punishable offences. That he did so is asserted by some witnesses (Abel, McLaren), but there is apparently some confusion with events of the following day, the 14th October. These are dealt with later. The prisoners fell in and a roll was called. They were then divided into working shifts for the following day. At the same time clothes were handed out to them, which they were to wear while at work in the pit.

IV. During the night of 13th-14th October the English prisoners agreed jointly to refuse to work in the mine, partly because only a few of them were miners and they did not like this kind of work, and partly because they looked upon such work as a help to Germany in her conduct of the war. In consequence of this, on the morning of 14th October, only some of the English prisoners, who were to form the morning shift, put in an appearance. Some of these, however, had not put on the mining clothes, which had been given out to them, though they had the clothes with them. Others had left the mining clothes in the sleeping room. As they had planned, they refused to obey the repeated order to put on the mining clothing. There were loud shouts such as "Nix Minen." They informed the accused through Parry that they would not go down the mine and gave their reasons.

In view of the strict orders given to the accused to see that under any circumstances the work was undertaken, he found himself in a difficult position. In order to enforce obedience to his orders to change clothes, which

had been repeated and explained to the prisoners, the accused first ordered his men to hold their rifles and to fix bayonets before the prisoners' eyes. Thereby he showed without any doubt that he intended his orders to be obeyed. By no such means could he succeed in breaking the disobedience of the prisoners. He was no more successful when he arrested and placed in the cells a number of them, who persisted in their disobedience in spite of repeated orders given personally. On the contrary the prisoners still made it clear by shouts, such as "Arrest "and the like, that they were determined, as they had agreed, not to obey the order to change their clothes. The position was not changed even when the pickets showed clearly that they were ready to use their bayonets and rifles. In order to quell this open revolt without delay and to break the prisoners' determination before their insubordination grew worse, the accused, thrown back entirely upon his own resources, was obliged to use force to secure obedience to his orders. In so acting he was justified and in duty bound. He was bound by the orders given to him to see that the work was done and by those orders he was covered. In view of these orders, a refusal of obedience, especially when general and disorderly, was inadmissible. Though they had a right to lodge complaints, the prisoners, as subordinates, were bound to comply unconditionally with the orders of the accused, even in cases in which they considered the orders to be illegal. In so far as the accused employed force, or ordered it to be employed, in order to quell an open revolt on the part of the prisoners or to compel obedience to his orders, he has not acted contrary to law and consequently has not rendered himself liable to punishment.

This right of compelling obedience includes, under the then existing circumstances, a right to make any necessary use of weapons; and this independently of §124 of the Military Penal Code. In particular, the accused committed no breach of the law, when under such circumstances, in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed he did not make use of rifles and side-arms for the purpose of shooting or stabbing, but used the butt ends of the rifles against unruly prisoners.

It is essential, however, that, in the use of physical force, whether by the use of weapons or without, a man in such a position should not exceed the degree of force necessary to compel obedience. It has not been proved that the accused went beyond this limit. It seems quite clear that no serious wounds were inflicted, in spite of the use of weapons.

In order to enforce his authority in face of the united and deliberate refusal of obedience, the accused first gave a perfectly proper order that small groups of 2 to 4 men should be brought into the dressing room and there compelled, partly by force, to change their clothes. Then he ordered larger groups of prisoners, who were not only persisting in their disobedience, but were encouraging each other to continue to disobey, to be driven into the dressing room. Force, partly by the use of the butt-end of the rifle, was rightly employed against these obstinate men also. Further force was in

part necessary to get the men, who had changed their clothes, out of the dressing room and into the pit cage.

As regards the incidents of 14th October, the evidence of the witnesses shows that only in the case of the prisoner Baker is there any doubt whether the accused used or tolerated a greater amount of force than the insubordination of the prisoners justified. Baker, as he himself states, received a blow with the butt-end of a rifle, not from the accused, but from a sentry. This was because, when ordered to get down from his bunk, he did not do so quickly enough. When he did get down the accused then dealt him a further blow in the face. Owing to the confusion prevailing at that time, this matter does not appear to be sufficiently elucidated for the court to hold that a punishable offence on the part of the accused has been proved.

In all the cases included in the indictment, which relate to ill-usage in direct connection with the mutinous refusal to work on 14th October (No. 1, 3 and 4 of the indictment and Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of the supplementary indictment), the Senate has arrived at the decision to acquit the accused. The same holds good as regards the kicks and blows alleged in the indictment (No. I., 1), which relate to prisoners who have not been identified. These incidents appear to relate, not to the falling-in on 13th October, but to the measures necessary for the enforcement of obedience on 14th October. V. No further cases of violence on the part of accused against the English prisoners of war placed under him have been proved in relation to the month of October, 1915. It cannot be established whether this, as the defence maintains, is due to the prisoners being so overawed by the accused that they at first avoided further conflicts with him. The fact is that the prisoners, after their first resistance had been broken, took up their work in the mine and that they subsequently executed it without hesitation, if with varying diligence. At the numerous inspections of the camp by supervising officers, the prisoners, as they themselves testify, brought forward no complaint of any kind, either concerning the legality or the amount of their employment in mining, or concerning their treatment by the accused, or in the mine or even concerning their lodging or maintenance. That the accused at any time prevented complaints being made by the prisoners has not in any way been shown. On this accusation (No. II., 2 of the indictment) the accused is therefore acquitted.

VI. In reality the prisoners had also no justifiable grounds for complaint about their lodging and maintenance. The lodging conditions were satisfactory and the accused endeavored with great zeal to remedy the defects of the camp, which at the beginning still required improvement. Above all he energetically attended to the welfare of the prisoners, personally arranged with the directors of the mine and the boarding contractor about their food, so that the prisoners' food, especially their meat, might be served to them in full measure and in a condition to which no objection could be taken. As a

matter of fact, their rations, as has been proved, were almost exactly the same as that of the accused and his sentries. That the food was not more strengthening and more plentiful was due to the general food difficulties already prevailing at that time in Germany. That the English prisoners, especially after the abundant conditions obtaining in their own country, suffered no serious want is shown by the fact that they frequently threw away their vegetable and meat soup, and sometimes spitted their ration of liver sausage (which was less liked than black pudding) on the barbed wire of the camp.

VII. On the other hand, in November, 1915, a series of punishable offences against English prisoners of war have been proved against the accused. He interpreted his duties as camp commandant very seriously. He was on duty from 4.0 a.m. until midnight almost uninterruptedly and did not spare. himself even during a painful attack of tonsilitis. Moreover, he had not sufficient support; his staff was inadequate and unreliable. By degrees, therefore, he developed a state of nervous excitement and irritability, which was due to over exertion in the execution of his duties.

VIII. Some of the offences committed in November, 1915, which have been proved against him, were committed against prisoners who had reported sick. The medical service in the camp was under the superintendence of the doctor of the Miners' Society, Dr. Kraus, who lived in Herne. At the beginning this doctor visited the camp almost daily, early in the morning, so that prisoners, who reported themselves sick without cause, could still be sent to work in the pit with the morning shift. In consequence of this, during the early days the inducement to report sick out of pure disinclination to work was comparatively small. After some time Dr. Kraus became exceedingly busy in consequence of the scarcity of doctors, and so he ordered that prisoners, who reported sick, should be brought to his residence during his consulting hours. This took up so much time that prisoners, who were found on inspection to be fit for work, missed the whole shift. Thus numerous prisoners were induced, although they were not sick, to report themselves to the doctor, in order that they might at least escape work. This practice became so common that often there were gangs of 20 and 30 prisoners going to the doctor, of whom only isolated cases were really sick. This was bad for both the doctor and for the work which had to be done, so the accused was told to send to the doctor only those prisoners whom he himself considered to be sick. He was particularly told to take the temperatures of all prisoners reporting sick and, except where there were signs of other illness besides fever, to allow only those prisoners to go to the doctor who had temperatures which showed fever (over 37° C). It has not been proved that the accused did not properly carry out this duty of examining prisoners. In particular there is no proof that he knowingly prevented sick men from going to the doctor. He must, therefore, be acquitted on this part of the indictment (No. II, 1).

IX. On the other hand the accused has, in the following instances, assaulted prisoners who maintained that they were sick or while they were being treated temporarily by him:

(a) On 8th November he ill-used the English prisoner Jones by means of blows with the fist and kicks on the ground, alleging that he had reported sick but had been found fit by the doctor. (Case I, 6, of the indictment.)

(b) He struck the same man Jones in the face with his fist on 10th or 11th November because Jones, who had a swollen cheek, declared that he had tooth-ache. It seems that Jones is the prisoner referred to in I, 8 of the indictment, and also that it is Jones, who really is the prisoner mentioned in I, 9, of the indictment where the name is given as Walter Farror. As the last-named had not been ill-treated, the accused is acquitted of the charge in I, 9, of the indictment.

(c) At the beginning of November the English prisoner McLaren was in the sleeping room and the accused struck him with a broom, because he remained in bed on account of alleged sickness. (Case I, 10, of the indictment.)

(d) The English prisoner Cross suffered from abscesses in the lower part of the leg. Some days previously the doctor had ordered that poultices should be given him. On November 15 Cross went to the accused to get bound up and seemed clumsy while he was being bandaged. The accused in consequence got very excited and hit him with his fist. Cross fell from his stool. As he lay upon the ground the accused kicked him. As a result of his ill-treatment by the accused Cross became unable to contain himself; perhaps he also passed excrement. Later-not on the following day as accused in the indictment (I, 12; compare I, 11)-the accused ordered that on this account Cross should be given a bath. Thereupon Cross was brought into the bath-room, and, after his clothes had been taken off, was placed under the shower. He struggled and cried out loudly, and, when he wanted to get away he was again put under the shower. How long Cross was kept under the shower cannot be established with certainty. Such statements about time are usually apt to be incorrect, and in addition to this, the memory of witnesses on this, as on many other points in regard to the charges has naturally and obviously become vague. There can be no question of this shower bath having continued for an hour or more; it is more likely that the whole proceeding in the bath-room (as has been stated by the English prisoner Burrage) took only a few minutes. Further, the court has heard the definite statements of Machine-Inspector Horstmann, who knew all about the mechanical working of the shower and his evidence disproves the charge that the accused subjected Cross repeatedly to sudden changes of cold and warm water; the structural arrangements of the shower would not permit such sudden and frequent changes. The ill-usage treatment in regard to Cross of which accused is guilty is limited to the blows and kicks when Cross showed the sores on his leg. With reference to the charge of