text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/65

54 '''II. The Area of Army Group E'''

To keep as many as possible of its better-trained troops available as a mobile striking force to counter Allied landings in Greece, Army Group E had already received a number of "Eastern" battalions, composed of Russians, Ukranians, Poles, and other Slavic groups, to supplement its German security units. Too, thousands of Italians, after a few months in German internment camps, found a more tolerable existence in labor and other auxiliary units. Known to the Germans as Hiwis (Hilfswillige), the labor troops relieved combat units by building coastal fortifications, constructing strongpoints, and repairing the extensive damage done by Allied bombing, now increasing in intensity; the Kawis (Kampfwillige) assisted by performing various guard and security duties. The heterogeneous collection of foreign troops proved insufficient for the maintenance of law and order in Greece, however, and the commander of Army Group E requested and received permission to raise and equip a battalion of Greek security troops, knowing approval for more would be forthcoming if the new unit could make any substantial contribution to the German defense plan.

This pilot model was known as the Laocoon Volunteer Battalion, after Laocoon of Greek mythology, and had approximately 700 men. Arms were limited to rifles and machine guns, and the first mission of the battalion was to participate in the clearing of the Peloponnesus. The fair success attained in the operation convinced the Germans of the advisability of organizing two additional battalions.

The practice of replacing German units with foreign troops had its disadvantages, however. For example, it had become necessary for General Loehr to warn all Russian members of the Eastern battalions against desertion. The worsening German war situation had prompted Stalin to call on all Soviet citizens in German service to obstruct operations in any way they could, and a number had done so by deserting, spreading rumors, and inciting the troops against their German officers and noncommissioned officers.

Next, the general reluctance among the Italians in the German auxiliary services caused the army group commander to require an oath of allegiance from each man. A full 30 percent of the Italians refused to take the oath, and rumors were rife among the 70 percent who did that they would be called upon for front-line service. According to other rumors, each man taking the oath of allegiance in the German cause would be imprisoned for 10 years if he were ever to return to Italy. The already low morale and lukewarm support of the Italians sank to new depths when this news became general knowledge among the labor and security units.

Nor had the situation with the Bulgarians improved. Reports from the liaison officer with the II Bulgarian Corps stressed the defeatist


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/353

 Indians to approve of the terms of the agreement. The Indians now came to a better understanding of the spirit of Satyagraha. Mr Andrews was the mediator and the witness in the present agreement, and then there was Sir Benjamin Robertson as representing the Government of India. There was therefore the least possible likelihood of the agreement being subsequently repudiated. If I had obstinately refused to accept the agreement, it would have become a count of indictment against the Indians, and the victory which was achieved in the next six months would have been beset with various obstacles. The author of the Sanskrit saying, ‘Forgiveness is an ornament to the brave’, drew upon his rich experience of Satyagrahis never giving any one the least opportunity of finding fault with them. Distrust is a sign of weakness and Satyagraha implies the banishment of all weakness and therefore of distrust, which is clearly out of place when the adversary is not to be destroyed but to be won over.

When the agreement was thus endorsed by the Indians, we had only to wait for the next session of the Union Parliament. Meanwhile the commission set to work. Only a very few witnesses appeared before it on behalf of the Indians, furnishing striking evidence of the great hold which the Satyagrahis had acquired over the community. Sir Benjamin Robertson tried to induce many to tender evidence but failed except in the case of a few who were strongly opposed to Satyagraha. The boycott of the commission did not produce any bad effect. Its work was shortened and its report was published at once. The commission strongly criticized the Indians for withholding their assistance and dismissed the charges of misbehaviour against the soldiers, but recommended compliance without delay with all the demands of the Indian community, such as for instance the repeal of the £3 tax and the validation of Indian marriages, and the grant of some trifling concessions in addition. Thus the report of the commission was favourable to the Indians as predicted by General Smuts. Mr Andrews left for England and Sir Benjamin Robertson for India. We had

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/353


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/354

 received an assurance that the requisite legislation would be undertaken with a view to implement the recommendations of the commission. What this legislation was and how it was brought forward will be considered in the next chapter.

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/354


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/66

GERMAN ANTIGUERRILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941–1944) attitude of the corps commander and his staff, who despaired of holding the Thracian coast against a determined Anglo-American landing in force. Rather, the Bulgarians preferred to build a defense line along the Rhodope Mountains, just inside their own country. Believing an invasion would be preceded by a large-scale airborne landing to their rear, they feared the cutting of communications with the Bulgarian zone of the interior.

Respecting the Bulgarians as hardy and willing soldiers, the Germans pointed out that the Bulgarian lack of experience in modern military operations had caused them to overestimate the Allies, and that a strong coastal defense organization would discourage any landing in an area so exposed to a German flank attack from the Greek peninsula. The Bulgarians, temporarily reassured, expanded their construction of coastal defenses and agreed to send a number of their commanders and staff officers to observe German operations in Italy.

The German units, bearing the brunt of the antiguerrilla effort, had difficulties of their own, chief among them a shortage of personnel. To supplement the trickle of replacements, General Loehr directed all service organizations to make their able-bodied men available for transfer to combat units. The commander of Army Group E also had to overcome some lethargy on the part of subordinate headquarters, and on one occasion sent a sternly worded directive ordering the abolishment of such terms as "Sunday duty" from the staff duty rosters of the corps and area commands.

A number of operations were undertaken by units of Army Group E during the opening months of 1944 in an attempt to clear guerrilla-infested areas of Greece. Though not on the large scale of operations in Yugoslavia to the north, they nonetheless diverted thousands of troops from the preparation of coastal defenses and transfer to other theaters of war. In addition, they involved extensive use of vehicles and an expenditure of gasoline the Germans could ill afford.

The first operation of significance, in the Salonika-Aegean area, was called WOLF; both German and Bulgarian troops participated. A total of 254 enemy dead was counted, and over 400 prisoners taken. Operation HORRIDO followed, with units of the XXII Mountain Corps participating. Guerrilla casualties totalled 310 dead and 15 captured, while the German troops suffered 18 dead, wounded, and missing.

During this period the economic situation worsened steadily, with the value of the Greek drachma reduced to a point where it required 500,000 to purchase a pound of butter on the widespread black market. As a result, large numbers of Greeks fled to join the guerrillas, particularly the communist group. General Loehr, for this reason, found it


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/355

 Within a short time of the issue of the report, the Government published in the official Gazette of the Union the Indians Relief Bill which was to effect a settlement of their long-standing dispute with the Indians; and I went at once to Cape Town where the Union Parliament sits. The Bill contained 9 sections and would take up only two columns of a paper like Young India. One part of it dealt with the question of Indian marriages and validated in South Africa the marriages which were held legal in India, except that if a man had more wives than one, only one of them would at any time be recognized as his legal wife in South Africa. The second part abolished the annual licence of £3 to be taken out by every indentured Indian labourer who failed to return to India and settled in the country as a free man on the completion of his indenture. The third part provided that the domicile certificates issued by the Government to Indians in Natal and bearing the thumb-impression of the holder of the permit should be recognized as conclusive evidence of the right of the holder to enter the Union as soon as his identity was established. There was a long and pleasant debate over the bill in the Union Parliament.

Administrative matters which did not come under the Indians Relief Bill were settled by correspondence between General Smuts and me, as for example, safeguarding the educated Indians’ right of entry into the Cape Colony, allowing ‘specially exempted’ educated Indians to enter South Africa, the status of educated Indians who had entered South Africa within the last three years, and permitting existing plural wives to join their husbands in South Africa. After dealing with all

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/355


text: Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/84


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/356

 these points, General Smuts, in his letter of June 30, 1914, added:

‘With regard to the administration of existing laws, it has always been and will continue to be the desire of the Government to see that they are administered in a just manner and with due regard to vested rights.’

I replied to the above letter to this effect:

‘I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of even date. I feel deeply grateful for the patience and courtesy which you showed during our discussions.

‘The passing of the Indians Relief Bill and this correspondence finally closed the Satyagraha struggle which commenced in the September of 1906 and which to the Indian community cost much physical suffering and pecuniary loss and to the Government much anxious thought and consideration.

‘As you are aware, some of my countrymen have wished me to go further. They are dissatisfied that the Trade Licence laws of the different provinces, the Transvaal Gold Law, the Transvaal Townships Act, the Transvaal Law 3 of 1885 have not been altered so as to give them full rights of residence, trade and ownership of land. Some of them are dissatisfied that full inter-provincial migration is not permitted, and some are dissatisfied that on the marriage question the Relief Bill goes no further than it does. They have asked me that all the above matters might be included in the Satyagraha struggle. I have been unable to comply with their wishes. Whilst, therefore, they have not been included in the programme of Satyagraha, it will not be denied that some day or other these matters will require further and sympathetic consideration by the Government. Complete satisfaction cannot be expected until full civic rights have been conceded to the resident Indian population.

‘I have told my countrymen that they will have to exercise patience, and by all honourable means at their disposal educate public opinion so as to enable the Government of the day to go further than the present correspondence does. I shall hope when the Europeans

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/356


text: Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/85


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/357

 of South Africa fully appreciate the fact that now the importation of indentured labour from India is prohibited, and the Immigrants Regulation Act of last year has in practice all but stopped further free Indian immigration, and that my countrymen do not entertain any political ambition, they, the Europeans, will see the justice and indeed the necessity of my countrymen being granted the rights I have just referred to.

‘Meanwhile, if the generous spirit that the Government have applied to the treatment of the problem during the past few months continues to be applied, as promised in your letter, in the administration of the existing laws, I am quite certain that the Indian community throughout the Union will be able to enjoy some measure of peace and never be a source of trouble to the Government.’

S.A.-22

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/357


text: Index:Houghton Mifflin v Stackpole Sons (31 F.Supp. 517).pdf


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/67

 56 necessary to direct the troops to desist from interfering with food shipments and neutral relief agencies, in the hope the gap in security his order created would be offset by an improved level of subsistence for the bulk of the population.

The Germans still had some supporters from the anticommunist elements of the Greek population, among them EDES. For keeping the Yannina–Arta road and a large part of the Pindus Mountains area cleared of ELAS forces, EDES was supplied with small arms and ammunition by local German commanders, a practice approved by the army group commander. According to revised German estimates, Zervas' main force at this time comprised only 2,500–3,000 men, but these were well disciplined, adequately armed, and organized into properly balanced units, with sufficient heavy weapons for support in their particular type of combat. ELAS, by contrast, had grown to 20,000 men, uniformly armed only to battalion and lacking heavy weapons in sufficient numbers or the more rigid organization and discipline of Zervas' nationalists.

Started the end of February, Operation RENNTIER was concluded in March, with a total of 96 guerrilla dead and 100 prisoners. The Germans suffered 2 and the Bulgarians 7 casualties in the operation. A second operation in the Salonika-Aegean area, with the code name ILTIS, cost the guerrillas an additional 15 men.

A communist-inspired strike in the Piraeus area in March was put down by the Germans only after security troops fired on the demonstrators, killing 21; an additional 132 strikers were taken into custody. Immediately following this, a German truck column on the Sparta–Tripolis road in the Peloponnesus was attacked, and a total of 18 Germans killed and 44 wounded. In reprisal, 200 communist suspects were executed, 10 villages burned, and martial law declared throughout the Peloponnesus. Both of these events worsened relations between the Greek civilian population and the German occupiers.

Another measure taken by Army Group E was the establishment of a restricted zone on either side of the railroad lines used by the German forces. In open country, this extended to 5 kilometers (approx. 3 miles) on either side of the track; in populated areas, to 200 meters (220 yds.). Within this zone, civilians were warned, they would be fired upon on sight.

While clearing operations, restrictions on movement in the area of the rail lines, and the active assistance of EDES and the Greek volunteer battalions restored a measure of security to the German supply routes, guerrilla forces increased their activities in more remote areas. On Euboea, elements of the LXVIII Corps and Greek auxiliaries had to be committed in a clearing operation that cost the guerrillas 85 dead and 69 prisoners. A concurrent small-scale opera-


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/358

Thus the great Satyagraha struggle closed after eight years, and it appeared that the Indians in South Africa were now at peace. On July 18, 1914, I sailed for England, to meet Gokhale, on my way back to India, with mixed feelings of pleasure and regret,pleasure because I was returning home after many years and eagerly looked forward to serving the country under Gokhale’s guidance, regret because it was a great wrench for me to leave South Africa, where I had passed twenty-one years of my life sharing to the full in the sweets and bitters of human experience, and where I had realized my vocation in life.

When one considers the painful contrast between the happy ending of the Satyagraha struggle and the present condition of the Indians in South Africa, one feels for a moment as if all this suffering had gone for nothing, or is inclined to question the efficacy of Satyagraha as a solvent of the problems of mankind. Let us here consider this point for a little while. There is a law of nature that a thing can be retained by the same means by which it has been acquired. A thing acquired by violence can be retained by violence alone, while one acquired by truth can be retained only by truth. The Indians in South Africa, therefore, can ensure their safety today if they can wield the weapon of Satyagraha. There are no such miraculous properties in Satyagraha, that a thing acquired by truth could be retained even when truth was given up. It would not be desirable even if it was possible. If therefore the position of Indians in South Africa has now suffered deterioration, that argues the absence of Satyagrahis among them. There is no question here of finding fault with the present generation of South African Indians, but of merely stating the facts of the case. Individuals or bodies of individuals cannot borrow from

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/358


text:
Page:The Mystery of the Blue Train.pdf/98

 "Don't think it," said Katherine; "try to pull yourself together. You could send your father a wire from Paris, if you like, and he would come to you at once."

The other brightened.

"Yes, I could do that. Dear old Dad. It is queer but I never knew until to-day how terribly fond of him I am." She sat up and dried her eyes with a handkerchief. "I have been very foolish. Thank you so much for letting me talk to you. I don't know why I got into such a queer, hysterical state."

She got up. "I am quite all right now. I suppose, really, I just needed some one to talk to. I can't think now why I have been making such an absolute fool of myself."

Katherine got up too.

"I am so glad you feel better," she said, trying to make her voice sound as conventional as possible. She was only too well aware that the aftermath of confidences is embarrassment. She added tactfully:

"I must be going back to my own compartment."

She emerged into the corridor at the same time as the maid was also coming out from the next door. The latter looked towards Katherine, over her shoulder, and an expression of intense surprise showed itself on her face. Katherine turned also, but by that time whoever it was who had aroused the maid’s interest had retreated into his or her compartment, and the corridor was empty. Katherine walked down it to regain her own place, which was in the next coach. As she passed the end compartment the door opened and a woman’s face looked out for a moment and then pulled the door to sharply. It was a face not easily forgotten, as


text:
Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/359

 others qualities which they themselves do not possess. The Satyagrahi veterans passed away one after another. Sorabji, Kachhalia, Thambi Naidoo, Parsi Rustomji and others are no more, and there are very few now who passed through the fire of Satyagraha. The few that remain are still in the fighting line, and I have not a shadow of a doubt that they will be the saviours of the community on the day of its trial if the light of Satyagraha is burning bright within them.

Finally, the reader of these pages has seen that had it not been for this great struggle and for the untold sufferings which many Indians invited upon their devoted heads, the Indians today would have been hounded out of South Africa. Nay, the victory achieved by Indians in South Africa more or less served as a shield for Indian emigrants in other parts of the British Empire, who, if they are suppressed, will be suppressed thanks to the absence of Satyagraha among themselves, and to India’s inability to protect them, and not because of any flaw in the weapon of Satyagraha. I will consider myself amply repaid if I have in these pages demonstrated with some success that Satyagraha is a priceless and matchless weapon, and that those who wield it are strangers to disappointment or defeat.

title: Page:Satyagraha in South Africa.pdf/359


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/86

GERMAN ANTIGUERRILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941–1944) Mountain Division, which succeeded in driving the guerrillas before it as the division moved westward. Probing for gaps in the German front, a number of small guerrilla groups slipped through the line formed by the 297th Infantry Division and fled to the north; the remainder of the guerrilla force moved southward, into a stronghold west of the road Vasilikon–Permet–Tepelene.

Reaching the road on the fourth day of the operation, the mountain division rested and regrouped to climb the almost vertical slopes west of Permet the following morning. With escape to the north and south now blocked off, the remaining guerrillas were compressed into the mountain area about Kuc and eliminated in another three days of hard fighting. The terrain, honeycombed with caves, had to be searched carefully and the guerrillas had to be killed or captured in hand-to-hand fighting.

GEMSBOCK cost the guerrillas over 2,500 dead and prisoners, and a large stock of arms; German casualties for the operation were 120 killed and 300 wounded.

Three weeks after the close of GEMSBOCK, the XXII Mountain Corps took the field in Operation STEINADLER, to destroy the guerrilla forces threatening the Korca–Yannina and Yannina–Trikkala roads. (Map 8.) Attached to the corps for the operation were the 1st Mountain Division, a provisional division formed from elements of the Corps Group Salonika, and a number of security battalions. Estimates of the enemy strength were vague, but could probably be put at 6,000–8,000. Of considerable significance was the close liaison between these Greek guerrillas and the strong communist groups in Albania just across the frontier.

As a security measure, only the minimum number of commanders and staff officers were informed of the operational plan, while the troops were told they were assembling for a series of small-scale operations. Further steps to preserve the secrecy of the operation consisted of radio silence on the part of units moving into the area, small-scale troop movements in adjacent areas, and radio traffic from the light division below Arta indicating an attack farther south. The radio net operated by the guerrillas was monitored carefully to determine their reaction to these measures and to detect possible alerting of their units. Air reconnaissance was extended into Albania in order to allay guerrilla suspicions over unusual interest in the area.

Setting up its command post in the vicinity of Metsovan, the XXII Mountain Corps deployed the 1st Mountain Division along a line extending from that point to Yannina, Vasilikon, and Leskovic. Strongpoints and reinforced security units acting as a blocking force secured the road from Leskovic to the north and a junction with the Salonika Division Group near Korea. From a point east of Korca, the Salon-


text:
Page:The Mystery of the Blue Train.pdf/99

 Katherine was to know when she saw it again. A beautiful face, oval and dark, very heavily made up in a bizarre fashion. Katherine had a feeling that she had seen it before somewhere.

She regained her own compartment without other adventure and sat for some time thinking of the confidence which had just been made to her. She wondered idly who the woman in the mink coat might be, wondered also how the end of her story would turn out.

"If I have stopped any one from making an idiot of themselves, I suppose I have done good work," she thought to herself. "But who knows? That is the kind of woman who is hard-headed and egotistical all her life, and it might be good for her to do the other sort of thing for a change. Oh, well—I don't suppose I shall ever see her again. She certainly won't want to see me again. That is the worst of letting people tell you things. They never do."

She hoped that she would not be given the same place at dinner. She reflected, not without humour, that it might be awkward for both of them. Leaning back with her head against a cushion she felt tired and vaguely depressed. They had reached Paris, and the slow journey round the ceinture, with its interminable stops and waits, was very wearisome. When they arrived at the Gare de Lyon she was glad to get out and walk up and down the platform. The keen cold air was refreshing after the steam-heated train. She observed with a smile that her friend of the mink coat was solving the possible awkwardness of the dinner problem in her own way. A dinner basket was being handed up and received through the window by the maid.


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/87

72 ika force was responsible for the line Bilisht–Kastoria–Neapolis–Grevena–Krania–Metsovan.

Aware of their predicament as soon as the German troops had detrucked, the guerrillas evacuated Pendalofon and moved into the mountains. Air reconnaissance reported them still within the encirclement, however, and the troops continued their movement as planned. The first day ended with elements of the 1st Mountain Division held up by stiff resistance north of Metsovan. During the day, troops of the Salonika Division Group repulsed an attempt by a strong guerrilla force to break out at Grevena.

On the second day, the Salonika Division Group was forced to halt and reorganize, having found it difficult to maintain cohesion over the rough terrain. The 1st Mountain Division, meanwhile, became heavily engaged at close quarters when it attempted to break through the resistance to its front. It was in this engagement that a battalion aid station, moved too far forward, was overrun by the guerrillas and eighty wounded were murdered and mutilated.

On its left, the 1st Mountain Division managed to forge ahead and on the third day enveloped the guerrilla pocket north of Metsovan, only to find a large part of the defending force had escaped to the northwest. Some 1,500 guerrillas were compressed in a ring about Pendalofon and destroyed in a systematic combing operation lasting two more days.

STEINADLER cost the Greek guerrillas a total of 567 dead and 976 prisoners. In addition, 341 Italians and seven Britons were also captured. The booty taken included 10 tons of explosives, over three quarters of a million rounds of rifle and machinegun ammunition, and 10,000 head of livestock, mostly sheep and goats. Despite these losses, the guerrilla forces began to regroup as soon as the German combat troops had left the area.


text:
Page:Houghton Mifflin v Stackpole Sons (31 F.Supp. 517).pdf/1

 CONGER, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiffs for leave to take depositions, under Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The plaintiffs seek to examine one of the defendants, and several designated witnesses.

The answer has not, as yet, been served, and therefore the plaintiffs seek the leave of the court to take the examination. The purpose of the examination has nothing to do with preparation of the answer, or preparation for trial, but is solely as stated in the notice of motion: “as to whether or not the defendants or any of them have violated the temporary restraining orders issued herein and served October 21, 1939.” There is not even a pending proceeding to punish the defendants for contempt of court.

It seems to me that the application goes far beyond the purpose for which examinations are granted under the Federal Rules, even giving the Rules a most liberal construction.

No cases on the point involved have been cited by either party, nor can I find any.

As bearing somewhat, however, on the purpose for which examination can be had, attention is called to Rule 26(b): “Scope of Examination. Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by Rule 30(b) or (d), the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether relating to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.” If this section is to be taken literally, certainly, this examination cannot be allowed.

As also bearing upon this question, the following is found in Moore’s Federal Practice (Ch. 26, Section 26.01, page 2441), where, in discussing Rules 26 to 37, it is stated: “The promulgation of this group of rules satisfied the long-felt need for legal machinery in the federal courts to supplement the pleadings, for the purpose of disclosing the real points of dispute between the parties and of affording an adequate factual basis in preparation for trial.”

The plaintiffs in this application do not seek the depositions for the purpose of preparing an answer, nor in preparation for trial, nor for obtaining information which is relevant to the cause of action, or defense thereof. They seek the depositions for collateral purposes to the action; something which is not relevant to the subject matter thereof.

A very interesting question presents itself, although it does not have to be decided here, as to whether or not, if there were a motion to punish for contempt, the court would have the authority under the rules to allow such an examination.

Motion denied. Settle order on notice.


text: Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/88


text: Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/89


text:
Page:The Royal Book of Oz.djvu/191

 Lion chuckled behind his whiskers and Sir Hokus in great confusion stepped back.

“What time is it?” demanded the King suddenly. He touched a bell and next minute a whole company of clocks came running down the street. The big ones pushed the little ones and a grandfather clock ran so fast that it tripped over a cobble stone and fell on its face, which cracked all the way across.

“You’ve got plenty of time; why don’t you take it?” called the King angrily, while two clothes-trees helped the clock to its feet.

“They’re all different,” giggled Dorothy, nudging the Cowardly Lion. Some pointed to eight o’clock, some to nine and others to half past ten.

“Why shouldn’t they be different?” asked Sticken haughtily. “Some run faster than others!”

“Pass the time, please,” said the King, looking hard at Dorothy.

“The lazy lump!” growled the Cowardly Lion. But Dorothy picked up the nearest little clock and handed it to King Fix Sit.

“I thought so,” yawned the King, pointing at the clock. At this everybody began ringing bells till Dorothy was obliged to cover her ears. In an instant the whole street was filled with beds, “rolling up

title: Page:The Royal Book of Oz.djvu/191


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/90

A compilation of casualties sustained by the combatants in the Balkans during the period of the occupation would not present a true picture of the enormous loss in personnel and materiel, or of real property. Actually, operations in that area during the period from April of 1941 to the end of hostilities were a series of struggles within the framework of a major war. A large number of casualties were suffered by both EDES and ELAS in their intermittent conflicts and in the civil war that followed the German withdrawal. The same was also true of Yugoslavia, where Chetniks and Partisans fought one another and the Germans at the same time. The Yugoslav casualties were further compounded by the Croat-Serb strife, and the massacre of Serbs by the Ustascha, which occurred shortly after the establishment of the Croatian state. In Albania, the struggle between the nationalist and communist factions was no less bitter than the fight of both against the Italians and later the Germans.

In addition to the conflicts between nationalities within the same state and strife between political factions, there was also a determined attempt on the part of Serb Orthodox adherents of Mihailovitch to destroy the Mohammedan minority in Yugoslavia. The Germans added fuel to the flames of this fire by enlisting numerous Mohammedans in their forces and using them as occupation troops.

Finally, the occupation troops were composed of Italians, Bulgarians, and Hungarians, as well as Germans, and numerous foreign legionaries. While the Bulgarians were under German command, in large part, the situation was somewhat different with the Italians in that German units on coastal defense and in Italian-occupied areas were often under Italian command. Of the legionaries, some, such as the Russian Guard Corps, were integrated into the Wehrmacht, while others, for example the Serbian State Guard, were not. While the losses of the Russian Guard Corps would be counted among the German casualties, the personnel of the Serbian State Guard killed, wounded, and missing would not be, despite the fact they may have been fighting side by side. 73


text:
Arkansas v. Sanders/Opinion of the Court

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, police are required to obtain a warrant before searching luggage taken from an automobile properly stopped and searched for contraband. We took this case by writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas to resolve some apparent misunderstanding as to the application of our decision in United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977), to warrantless searches of luggage seized from automobiles. [p755]

I
On April 23, 1976, Officer David Isom of the Little Rock, Ark., Police Department received word from an informant that at 4:35 that afternoon respondent would arrive aboard an American Airlines flight at gate No. 1 of the Municipal Airport of Little Rock. According to the informant, respondent would be carrying a green suitcase containing marihuana. Both Isom and the informant knew respondent well, as in January 1976 the informant had given the Little Rock Police Department information that had led to respondent's arrest and conviction for possession of marihuana. Acting on the tip, Officer Isom and two other police officers placed the airport under surveillance. As the informant had predicted, respondent duly arrived at gate No. 1. The police watched as respondent deposited some hand luggage in a waiting taxicab, returned to the baggage claim area, and met a man whom police subsequently identified as David Rambo. While Rambo waited, respondent retrieved from the airline baggage service a green suitcase matching that described by the informant. Respondent gave this suitcase to his companion and went outside, where he entered the taxi into which he had put his luggage. Rambo waited a short while in the airport and then joined respondent in the taxi, after placing the green suitcase in the trunk of the vehicle.

When respondent's taxi drove away carrying respondent, Rambo, and the suitcase, Officer Isom and one of his fellow officers gave pursuit and, with the help of a patrol car, stopped the vehicle several blocks from the airport. At the request of the police, the taxi driver opened the trunk of his vehicle, where the officers found the green suitcase. Without asking the permission of either respondent or Rambo, the police opened the unlocked suitcase and discovered what proved to be 9.3 pounds of marihuana packaged in 10 plastic bags.

On October 14, 1976, respondent and Rambo were charged with possession of marihuana with intent to deliver in violation [p756] of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (1976). Before trial, respondent moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the suitcase, contending that the search violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court held a hearing on January 31, 1977, and denied the suppression motion without explanation. After respondent's conviction by a jury on February 3, 1977, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was fined $15,000.

On appeal the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed respondent's conviction, ruling that the trial court should have suppressed the marihuana because it was obtained through an unlawful search of the suitcase. 262 Ark. 595, 559 S.W.2d 704 (1977). Relying upon United States v. Chadwick, supra, and Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), the court concluded that a warrantless search generally must be supported by "probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances." 262 Ark., at 599, 559 S.W.2d, at 706. In the present case, the court found there was ample probable cause for the police officers' belief that contraband was contained in the suitcase they searched. The court found to be wholly lacking, however, any exigent circumstance justifying the officers' failure to secure a warrant for the search of the luggage. With the police in control of the automobile and its occupants, there was no danger that the suitcase and its contents would be rendered unavailable to due legal process. The court concluded, therefore, that there was "nothing in this set of circumstances that would lend credence to an assertion of impracticality in obtaining a search warrant." Id., at 600, 559 S.W.2d, at 706. [p757]

II
Although the general principles applicable to claims of Fourth Amendment violations are well settled, litigation over requests for suppression of highly relevant evidence continues to occupy much of the attention of courts at all levels of the state and federal judiciary. Courts and law enforcement officials often find it difficult to discern the proper application of these principles to individual cases, because the circumstances giving rise to suppression requests can vary almost infinitely. Moreover, an apparently small difference in the factual situation frequently is viewed as a controlling difference in determining Fourth Amendment rights. The present case presents an example. Only two Terms ago, we held that a locked footlocker could not lawfully be searched without a warrant, even though it had been loaded into the trunk of an automobile parked at a curb. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). In earlier cases, on the other hand, the Court sustained the constitutionality of warrantless searches of automobiles and their contents under what has become known as the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). We thus are presented with the task of determining whether the warrantless search of respondent's suitcase falls on the Chadwick or the Chambers/Carroll side of the Fourth Amendment line. Although in a sense this is a line-drawing process, it must be guided by established principles.

We commence with a summary of these principles. The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy and security of persons [p758] in two important ways. First, it guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, this Court has interpreted the Amendment to include the requirement that normally searches of private property be performed pursuant to a search warrant issued in compliance with the Warrant Clause. See, e.g., Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978); United States v. Chadwick, supra, 433 U.S., at 9; United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 317 (1972); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 33 (1925). In the ordinary case, therefore, a search of private property must be both reasonable and pursuant to a properly issued search warrant. The mere reasonableness of a search, assessed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, is not a substitute for the judicial warrant required under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. United States District Court, supra. As the Court said in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S., at 481:

"The warrant requirement has been a valued part of our constitutional law for decades, and it has determined the result in scores and scores of cases in courts all over this country. It is not an inconvenience to be somehow 'weighed' against the claims of police efficiency. It is, or should be, an important working part of our machinery of government, operating as a matter of course to check the 'well-intentioned but mistakenly overzealous executive officers' who are a part of any system of law enforcement."

[p759] The prominent place the warrant requirement is given in our decisions reflects the "basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of government." United States v. United States District Court, supra, 407 U.S., at 317. By requiring that conclusions concerning probable cause and the scope of a search "be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime," Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948), we minimize the risk of unreasonable assertions of executive authority. See McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455–456 (1948).

Nonetheless, there are some exceptions to the warrant requirement. These have been established where it was concluded that the public interest required some flexibility in the application of the general rule that a valid warrant is a prerequisite for a search. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 555 (1976). Thus, a few "jealously and carefully drawn" exceptions provide for those cases where the societal costs of obtaining a warrant, such as danger to law officers or the risk of loss or destruction of evidence, outweigh the reasons for prior recourse to a neutral magistrate. See United States v. United States District Court, supra, 407 U.S., at 318. But because each exception to the warrant requirement invariably impinges to some extent on the protective purpose of [p760] the Fourth Amendment, the few situations in which a search may be conducted in the absence of a warrant have been carefully delineated and "the burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951). See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762 (1969); Katz v. United States, supra, 389 U.S., at 357. Moreover, we have limited the reach of each exception to that which is necessary to accommodate the identified needs of society. See Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S., at 393; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S., at 15; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S., at 455.

One of the circumstances in which the Constitution does not require a search warrant is when the police stop an automobile on the street or highway because they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, 428 U.S., at 561–562; United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 896 (1975); Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 68 (1975). As the Court said in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S., at 153:

"[T]he guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment has been construed, practically since the beginning of the Government, as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a store, dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a proper official warrant readily may be obtained, and a search of a ship, motor boat, wagon or automobile, for contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant

[p761] There are essentially two reasons for the distinction between automobiles and other private property. First, as the Court repeatedly has recognized, the inherent mobility of automobiles often makes it impracticable to obtain a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Chadwick, supra, at 12; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S., at 49–50; Carroll v. United States, supra. In addition, the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 155 (1978) (, J., concurring); United States v. Chadwick, supra; South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368 (1976); Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974) (plurality opinion); Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441–442 (1973); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 279 (1973) (, J., concurring).

III
In the present case, the State argues that the warrantless search of respondent's suitcase was proper under Carroll and its progeny. The police acted properly—indeed commendably—in apprehending respondent and his luggage. They had ample probable cause to believe that respondent's green suitcase contained marihuana. A previously reliable informant had provided a detailed account of respondent's expected arrival at the Little Rock Airport, which account proved to be accurate in every detail, including the color of the suitcase in which respondent would be carrying the marihuana. Having probable cause to believe that contraband was being driven away in the taxi, the police were justified in stopping the vehicle, searching it on the spot, and seizing the suitcase they suspected contained contraband. See Chambers v. Maroney, supra, 399 U.S., at 52. At oral argument, respondent conceded that the [p762] stopping of the taxi and the seizure of the suitcase were constitutionally unobjectionable. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 30, 44–46.

The only question, therefore, is whether the police, rather than immediately searching the suitcase without a warrant, should have taken it, along with respondent, to the police station and there obtained a warrant for the search. A lawful search of luggage generally may be performed only pursuant to a warrant. In Chadwick, we declined an invitation to extend the Carroll exception to all searches of luggage, noting that neither of the two policies supporting warrantless searches of automobiles applies to luggage. Here, as in Chadwick, the officers had seized the luggage and had it exclusively within their control at the time of the search. Consequently, "there was not the slightest danger that [the luggage] or its contents could have been removed before a valid search warrant could be obtained." 433 U.S., at 13. And, as we observed in that case, luggage is a common repository for one's personal effects, and therefore is inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy. Ibid.

The State argues, nevertheless, that the warrantless search of respondent's suitcase was proper, not because the property searched was luggage, but rather because it was taken from an automobile lawfully stopped and searched on the street. In effect, the State would have us extend Carroll to allow warrantless searches of everything found within an automobile, as well as of the vehicle itself. As noted above, the Supreme Court of Arkansas found our decision in Chadwick virtually controlling in this case. The State contends, however, that [p763] Chadwick does not control because in that case the vehicle had remained parked at the curb where the footlocker had been placed in its trunk and that therefore no argument was made that the "automobile exception" was applicable. This Court has not had occasion previously to rule on the constitutionality of a warrantless search of luggage taken from an automobile lawfully stopped. Rather, the decisions to date have involved searches of some integral part of the automobile. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, 428 U.S., at 366 (glove compartment); Texas v. White, 423 U.S., at 68 (passenger compartment); Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, 413 U.S., at 437 (trunk); Chambers v. Maroney, supra, 399 U.S., at 44 (concealed compartment under the dashboard); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S., at 136 (behind the upholstering of the seats).

We conclude that the State has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the need for warrantless searches of luggage properly taken from automobiles. A closed suitcase in the trunk of an automobile may be as mobile as the vehicle in which it rides. But as we noted in Chadwick, the exigency of mobility must be assessed at the point immediately before the search—after the police have seized the object to be searched and have it securely within their control. See 433 U.S., at 13. Once police have seized a suitcase, as they did here, the extent of its mobility is in no way affected by the place from which it was taken. Accordingly as a general rule there is [p764] no greater need for warrantless searches of luggage taken from automobiles than of luggage taken from other places.

Similarly, a suitcase taken from an automobile stopped on the highway is not necessarily attended by any lesser expectation of privacy than is associated with luggage taken from other locations. One is not less inclined to place private, personal possessions in a suitcase merely because the suitcase is to be carried in an automobile rather than transported by other means or temporarily checked or stored. Indeed, the very purpose of a suitcase is to serve as a repository for personal items when one wishes to transport them. Accordingly, [p765] the reasons for not requiring a warrant for the search of an automobile do not apply to searches of personal luggage taken by police from automobiles. We therefore find no justification for the extension of Carroll and its progeny to the warrantless search of one's personal luggage merely because it was located in an automobile lawfully stopped by the police.

[p766] In sum, we hold that the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies to personal luggage taken from an automobile to the same degree it applies to such luggage in other locations. Thus, insofar as the police are entitled to search such luggage without a warrant, their actions must be justified under some exception to the warrant requirement other than that applicable to automobiles stopped on the highway. Where—as in the present case—the police, without endangering themselves or risking loss of the evidence, lawfully have detained one suspected of criminal activity and secured his suitcase, they should delay the search thereof until after judicial approval has been obtained. In this way, constitutional rights of suspects to prior judicial review of searches will be fully protected.

The judgment of the Arkansas Supreme Court is

Affirmed.


text: German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944)/Chapter 11


text:
Page:Houghton Mifflin v Stackpole Sons (31 F.Supp. 517).pdf/2

 Action by Houghton Mifflin Company against Stackpole Sons, Inc., and another to restrain copyright infringement. On plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Motion granted, and action referred to master on issue of damages and to require accounting of profits.

Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Archie O. Dawson, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Philip Wittenberg, of New York City, for defendants.

CONGER, District Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment in an action to restrain infringement of a copyright to the book “Mein Kampf”, written by Adolf Hitler. The plaintiff made an application for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. Upon an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for this circuit, this ruling of the district court was reversed, and the preliminary injunction was granted. 2 Cir., 104 F.2d 306; writ of certiorari denied, United States Supreme Court, 60 S.Ct. 131, 84 L.Ed. —, October 23, 1939.

The plaintiff is now moving for a summary judgment granting a permanent injunction. The defendant objects to the granting of this motion on the ground that there are two main issues which the plaintiff has failed to establish: (1) that title is in the plaintiff; and (2) that the copyrights are valid.

Upon reading the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals, I am of the opinion that defendants’ contention cannot be sustained. The Circuit Court has held that title is in the plaintiff, and that the copyrights are valid. It has further held that since the Copyright Law makes the Certificate of Copyright prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein (17 U.S.C. § 55, 17 U.S.C.A. § 55), and since the certificate has not been controverted by any affidavits or evidence, the preliminary injunction must issue.

Upon this application there are no new facts presented, other than those that were before the Circuit Court. The only issue presented here is the contention of defendants that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. It seems to me that this has been fairly and squarely passed on by the Circuit Court, and that therefore there is no real and genuine issue of fact to be presented to the trial court. Under all these circumstances it seems useless and idle to allow this case to go to the trial court which would be faced with the decision of the Circuit Court, which has decided the issues herein.

The defendants argue that summary judgment cannot be had in an action for permanent injunction. I cannot hold with defendants on this issue. Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, makes no distinction as to the character or kind of judgment which can be rendered. I can see no reason, under this rule, to differentiate between a case of this kind and any other case.

There being no question of fact to be presented to the trial court, I see no reason why summary judgment cannot be granted. As stated in Moore’s Federal Practice, (p. 3177): “Rule 56 is the first instance where the procedure may be employed in any action, whether formerly denominated legal or equitable, and whether the claim is liquidated or unliquidated.”

Motion granted. Pursuant to Rule 53, this action is referred to a master to take evidence and pass on the issue as to the damages to the plaintiff, and to require an accounting of, and pass on, the profits of the defendants to which the plaintiff may. be entitled. Settle order on notice.


text: Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons (31 F.Supp. 517)


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/91

74 Finally, German casualties from disease, chiefly typhoid, dysentery, and malaria, were unusually high, as were losses from direct physical exhaustion in the long marches and movements over rough terrain. The majority of the German personnel throughout the operations were of the older age groups and, except for the mountain units, had had little or no experience or conditioning for the type of warfare in which they had to engage.

On the basis of incomplete casualty figures, it can be said with some degree of accuracy that 1 out of 7 soldiers in German uniform, whether German or not, became a casualty by the close of operations. At the time of the capitulation, thousands more fell into Yugoslav hands, when they did not manage to get clear of the Balkans to surrender to Allied forces in Italy or Austria.

All three occupied countries were impoverished by the peninsula-wide fighting and reprisals. Greece, a maritime country, lost the bulk of the merchant fleet upon which it depended for its very existence. Yugoslavia, a grain-producing country that supplied food to much of southern Europe, could no longer even feed itself. Albania, the least developed of the three, lost a large part of the livestock upon which the national economy was based. In a 1-month period in mid-1944, a full quarter of all the locomotives in the Balkans were destroyed by Allied air attacks, a most serious loss in view of the inadequate road system and uneven distribution of food-producing areas. In Yugoslavia, the facilities of numerous mines were destroyed by sabotage, in the fighting to retake them, or demolished by the withdrawing occupation forces.

Perhaps the most significant results of the occupation were in the political field. Two kingdoms fell, if Albania is considered, and replaced by communist dictatorships; Greece was prevented from sharing their fate only by the prompt intervention of strong British ground forces, supported by air and naval units. As was to be expected, the assumption of power by the communists was followed shortly by the elimination of all political opposition and the establishment of one-party states.

The successes achieved by the guerrillas against the Germans, Italians, and Bulgarians in the Balkans during World War II strengthened considerably the tradition of resistance to foreign occupation forces. Communist indoctrination of large segments of the population, with stress placed on clandestine methods and guerrilla tactics, also played its part in awakening this sentiment. Thus there is little doubt that a foreign invader today, whether from East or West, would be confronted with a formidable task of pacification following a successful campaign against the regular forces of the Balkan nations.

The experience of the Germans in their Balkan occupation also offers a number of lessons in the administration of conquered enemy


text:
Page:Robert M. Kennedy - German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944) - CMH Pub 104-18 (1954).pdf/92

GERMAN ANTIGUERRILLA OPERATIONS IN THE BALKANS (1941–1944) countries and is a measure of what a future occupier might expect in that area. Before launching into a consideration of the sound as well as the injudicious aspects of the German occupation proper, however, it might be well to visualize the situation in which the Wehrmacht found itself in relation to its allies in Greece and Yugoslavia following the surrender of those two countries.

Regarded as the chief architect of their defeat by the Greeks, the Wehrmacht turned over the bulk of the occupation responsibility to the Italians in 1941. Already smarting under defeats in Africa at the hands of the British and having made a poor showing in their own Balkan campaigns, the Italians undertook no appreciable measures to prevent the growth of a guerrilla movement. The few Italian attempts at suppression, harsh and arbitrary, only kindled the resentment of the Greek population and placed a further onus on the Germans. Even more resented was the German invitation to the Bulgarians to annex Thrace, won at the cost of so many thousands of Greek lives in 1922–24 and still fresh in the minds of the bulk of the Greek population.

Yugoslavia, to appease Italian, Bulgarian, and Hungarian ambitions, was partitioned and temporarily ceased to exist as a sovereign state. Even worse, one large minority, the Croats, were granted their independence and then accepted into the ranks of the German satellites. Italian and Bulgarian reprisals for guerrilla activities, often inflicted on the innocent, alienated still more the bulk of the population, which also attributed the excess of the Croat Ustascha to the Germans as well as the Italians.

In their own zones of the occupied countries, the Germans exploited the economy for as much as it could bear, leaving the civilian population at a scant subsistence level and in many cases at a level so low that the relief agencies of neutral powers had to be called upon to prevent widespread starvation. This, the raising of native collaborationist forces to augment their own, and the obvious fact that there would be no relief so long as the Germans remained, placed the occupiers in a position that could only be held with increasing force as time passed.

Shorn of allies by the defection of the Italians and Bulgarians, the Germans found themselves in possession of a rugged and largely mountain area seething with discontent, where even former collaborators were eager to join the winning side, well exemplified in the cases of EDES and a number of the Chetnik units.

In brief, this multinational suppression of the heterogeneous peoples of several national states was doomed to failure by the lack of central direction and the divergent aims of the Germans, Italians, and Bulgarians. Had one power alone administered the occupation and held out some hope of eventual relief to the conquered nations, better results might well have been achieved.


text: Page:Wallenstein, a drama in 2 parts - Schiller (tr. Coleridge) (1800).djvu/339


text: Page:Fifteen Poets of Modern Japan - A Book of Translations (1928).pdf/1


text: Page:Fifteen Poets of Modern Japan - A Book of Translations (1928).pdf/2


text: Page:Fifteen Poets of Modern Japan - A Book of Translations (1928).pdf/3


text: Page:Fifteen Poets of Modern Japan - A Book of Translations (1928).pdf/4


text: Page:Fifteen Poets of Modern Japan - A Book of Translations (1928).pdf/6


text: Page:Wallenstein, a drama in 2 parts - Schiller (tr. Coleridge) (1800).djvu/340


text: Wallenstein/The Death of Wallenstein/A4S01


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/15

35. The power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case, pending its decision on the merits thereof. It follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to belong to either party. Therefore, the Court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the party requesting such measures are at least plausible (see, for example, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 223, para. 50).

36. At this stage of the proceedings, however, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which South Africa wishes to see protected exist. It need only decide whether the rights claimed by South Africa, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible. Moreover, a link must exist between the rights whose protection is sought and the provisional measures being requested (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 224, para. 51).

37. South Africa argues that it seeks to protect the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza, as well as its own rights under the Genocide Convention. It refers to the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to be protected from acts of genocide, attempted genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, complicity in genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide. The Applicant argues that the Convention prohibits the destruction of a group or part thereof, and states that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, because of their membership in a group, “are protected by the Convention, as is the group itself”. South Africa also argues that it seeks to protect its own right to safeguard compliance with the Genocide Convention. South Africa contends that the rights in question are “at least plausible”, since they are “grounded in a possible interpretation” of the Genocide Convention.

38. South Africa submits that the evidence before the Court “shows incontrovertibly a pattern of conduct and related intention that justifies a plausible claim of genocidal acts”. It alleges, in particular, the commission of the following acts with genocidal intent: killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. According to South Africa, genocidal intent is evident from the way in which Israel’s military attack is being conducted, from the clear pattern of conduct of Israel in Gaza and from the statements made by Israeli officials in relation to the military operation in the Gaza Strip. The Applicant also contends that “[t]he intentional failure of the Government of Israel to condemn, prevent and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes in itself a grave violation of the Genocide Convention”.


text: Template:Film transclusion/sandbox

title: Template:Film transclusion/sandbox


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/16

 South Africa stresses that any stated intention by the Respondent to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent by Israel towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

39. Israel states that, at the provisional measures stage, the Court must establish that the rights claimed by the parties in a case are plausible, but “[s]imply declaring that claimed rights are plausible is insufficient”. According to the Respondent, the Court has also to consider the claims of fact in the relevant context, including the question of the possible breach of the rights claimed.

40. Israel submits that the appropriate legal framework for the conflict in Gaza is that of international humanitarian law and not the Genocide Convention. It argues that, in situations of urban warfare, civilian casualties may be an unintended consequence of lawful use of force against military objects, and do not constitute genocidal acts. Israel considers that South Africa has misrepresented the facts on the ground and observes that its efforts to mitigate harm when conducting operations and to alleviate hardship and suffering through humanitarian activities in Gaza serve to dispel—or at the very least, militate against—any allegation of genocidal intent. According to the Respondent, the statements of Israeli officials presented by South Africa are “misleading at best” and “not in conformity with government policy”. Israel also called attention to its Attorney General’s recent announcement that “[a]ny statement calling, inter alia, for intentional harm to civilians … may amount to a criminal offense, including the offense of incitement” and that “[c]urrently, several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities”. In Israel’s view, neither those statements nor its pattern of conduct in the Gaza Strip give rise to a “plausible inference” of genocidal intent. In any event, Israel contends, since the purpose of provisional measures is to preserve the rights of both parties, the Court must, in the present case, consider and “balance” the respective rights of South Africa and Israel. The Respondent emphasizes that it bears the responsibility to protect its citizens, including those captured and held hostage as a result of the attack that took place on 7 October 2023. As a consequence, it claims that its right to self-defence is critical to any evaluation of the present situation.

41. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article I of the Convention, all States parties thereto have undertaken “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide. Article II provides that

“genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/17

 (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

42. Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (b)), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (Article III, para. (c)), attempt to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e)).

43. The provisions of the Convention are intended to protect the members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group from acts of genocide or any other punishable acts enumerated in Article III. The Court considers that there is a correlation between the rights of members of groups protected under the Genocide Convention, the obligations incumbent on States parties thereto, and the right of any State party to seek compliance therewith by another State party (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 20, para. 52).

44. The Court recalls that, in order for acts to fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention,

"“the intent must be to destroy at least a substantial part of the particular group. That is demanded by the very nature of the crime of genocide: since the object and purpose of the Convention as a whole is to prevent the intentional destruction of groups, the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole.” (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 126, para. 198.)"

45. The Palestinians appear to constitute a distinct “national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, and hence a protected group within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide Convention. The Court observes that, according to United Nations sources, the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip comprises over 2 million people. Palestinians in the Gaza Strip form a substantial part of the protected group.

46. The Court notes that the military operation being conducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 has resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as the massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population, and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure. While figures relating to the Gaza Strip cannot be independently verified, recent information indicates that 25,700 Palestinians have been killed, over 63,000 injuries have been reported, over 360,000 housing units have been destroyed or partially damaged and approximately 1.7 million persons have been internally displaced (see United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel—reported impact, Day 109 (24 Jan. 2024)).


text: Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/230


text: Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/242


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/18

 47. The Court takes note, in this regard, of the statement made by the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr Martin Griffiths, on 5 January 2024:

"“Gaza has become a place of death and despair.

… Families are sleeping in the open as temperatures plummet. Areas where civilians were told to relocate for their safety have come under bombardment. Medical facilities are under relentless attack. The few hospitals that are partially functional are overwhelmed with trauma cases, critically short of all supplies, and inundated by desperate people seeking safety.

A public health disaster is unfolding. Infectious diseases are spreading in overcrowded shelters as sewers spill over. Some 180 Palestinian women are giving birth daily amidst this chaos. People are facing the highest levels of food insecurity ever recorded. Famine is around the corner.

For children in particular, the past 12 weeks have been traumatic: No food. No water. No school. Nothing but the terrifying sounds of war, day in and day out.

Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence—while the world watches on.” (OCHA, “UN relief chief: The war in Gaza must end”, Statement by Martin Griffiths, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, 5 Jan. 2024.)"

48. Following a mission to North Gaza, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that, as of 21 December 2023:

"“An unprecedented 93% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger, with insufficient food and high levels of malnutrition. At least 1 in 4 households are facing ‘catastrophic conditions’: experiencing an extreme lack of food and starvation and having resorted to selling off their possessions and other extreme measures to afford a simple meal. Starvation, destitution and death are evident.” (WHO, “Lethal combination of hunger and disease to lead to more deaths in Gaza”, 21 Dec. 2023; see also World Food Programme, “Gaza on the brink as one in four people face extreme hunger”, 20 Dec. 2023.)"

49. The Court further notes the statement issued by the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), Mr Philippe Lazzarini, on 13 January 2024:

“It’s been 100 days since the devastating war started, killing and displacing people in Gaza, following the horrific attacks that Hamas and other groups carried out against people in Israel. It’s been 100 days of ordeal and anxiety for hostages and their families.


text: Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/95


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/19

 In the past 100 days, sustained bombardment across the Gaza Strip caused the mass displacement of a population that is in a state of flux—constantly uprooted and forced to leave overnight, only to move to places which are just as unsafe. This has been the largest displacement of the Palestinian people since 1948.

This war affected more than 2 million people—the entire population of Gaza. Many will carry lifelong scars, both physical and psychological. The vast majority, including children, are deeply traumatized.

Overcrowded and unsanitary UNRWA shelters have now become ‘home’ to more than 1.4 million people. They lack everything, from food to hygiene to privacy. People live in inhumane conditions, where diseases are spreading, including among children. They live through the unlivable, with the clock ticking fast towards famine.

The plight of children in Gaza is especially heartbreaking. An entire generation of children is traumatized and will take years to heal. Thousands have been killed, maimed, and orphaned. Hundreds of thousands are deprived of education. Their future is in jeopardy, with far-reaching and long-lasting consequences.” (UNRWA, “The Gaza Strip: 100 days of death, destruction and displacement”, Statement by Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 13 Jan. 2024.)

50. The UNRWA Commissioner-General also stated that the crisis in Gaza is “compounded by dehumanizing language” (UNRWA, “The Gaza Strip: 100 days of death, destruction and displacement”, Statement by Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, 13 Jan. 2024).

51. In this regard, the Court has taken note of a number of statements made by senior Israeli officials. It calls attention, in particular, to the following examples.

52. On 9 October 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza City and that there would be “no electricity, no food, no fuel” and that “everything [was] closed”. On the following day, Minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border:

"“I have released all restraints … You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against … Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”"

On 12 October 2023, Mr Isaac Herzog, President of Israel, stated, referring to Gaza:

“We are working, operating militarily according to rules of international law. Unequivocally. It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It is absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup d’état. But we are at war. We are at war. We are at war. We are defending our


text:
Page:South Africa v. Israel (Order of 26 January 2024).pdf/20

 homes. We are protecting our homes. That’s the truth. And when a nation protects its home, it fights. And we will fight until we’ll break their backbone.”

On 13 October 2023, Mr Israel Katz, then Minister of Energy and Infrastructure of Israel, stated on X (formerly Twitter):

"“We will fight the terrorist organization Hamas and destroy it. All the civilian population in [G]aza is ordered to leave immediately. We will win. They will not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.”"

53. The Court also takes note of a press release of 16 November 2023, issued by 37 Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and members of Working Groups part of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council, in which they voiced alarm over “discernibly genocidal and dehumanising rhetoric coming from senior Israeli government officials”. In addition, on 27 October 2023, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observed that it was “[h]ighly concerned about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanization directed at Palestinians since 7 October”.

54. In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible. This is the case with respect to the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts identified in Article III, and the right of South Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention.

55. The Court now turns to the condition of the link between the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and the provisional measures requested.

56. South Africa considers that a link exists between the rights whose protection is sought and the provisional measures it requests. It contends, in particular, that the first six provisional measures were requested to ensure compliance by Israel with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, while the last three are aimed at protecting the integrity of the proceedings before the Court and South Africa’s right to have its claim fairly adjudicated.

57. Israel considers that the measures requested go beyond what is necessary to protect rights on an interim basis and therefore have no link with the rights sought to be protected. The Respondent contends, inter alia, that granting the first and second measures sought by South Africa (see


text: Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/241


text: Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/229


text:
Presidential Decree No. 1413 (Marcos)

, our nation is charting new directions oriented towards a new society responsive to the needs and aspiration of every Filipino;

, this task calls for the ultimate national unity and necessitates the active participation of every citizen motivated by one guiding spirit;

, the official adoption of a national motto as a national symbol that would be incorporated in the national seal is a faithful representation of the spirit and aspiration of the Filipino people;

, the theme "ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA" aptly describes the aspiration of the Filipino people of all generations to live under one nation in one spirit, and gallantly pays tribute to the epic struggle of countless Filipino leaders to achieve this end;

, this theme has been used in two national celebrations, and will be employed anew as the theme of this year's Independence Day celebration, having been proven as the most responsive theme so far;

, Independence Day is the best and most opportune occasion to proclaim to the Filipino people this theme as a new symbol of their nationhood;

, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the constitution, do hereby decree:

1. That the theme "ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA" be officially adopted as the national motto of the Republic;

2. That this phrase be incorporated in the official seal of the Republic;

3. That this motto be made known to every Filipino so that he may take pride in this new symbol of nationhood.

This decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 19th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.

Rh

By the President:

Rh

title: Presidential Decree No. 1413 (Marcos)


text:
Executive Order No. 1010 (Marcos)

, Section one, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines prescribes the colors of the national flag of the Philippines as red, white and blue, with a sun and three stars, but silent as to the shade of the color blue;

, in the original flag designed by General Emilio Aguinaldo that was unfurled during the declaration of Philippine Independence in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898, the shade of the color blue was lighter than the present dark blue being used in the making of Philippine flag;

, there is a need to correct historical inaccuracy as regards the true shade of the colors of the Philippine flag as evidenced by the historical findings made by the National Historical Institute, the government agency which absorbed the functions of the defunct Philippines Heraldry Committee;

, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby promulgate and order the National Historical Institute to take the necessary steps to restore the original color of the First Philippine Flag:

The NHI shall issue guidelines concerning the implementation of this Executive Order;

This Executive Order supersedes Executive Order No. 23, dated March 25, 1936.

Done in the City of Manila, this 25th day of February, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-five.

By the President:

title: Executive Order No. 1010 (Marcos)


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/173

Carless and Driver practised their profession of the law in one of the old houses on the south side of Lincoln's Inn Fields—a house so old that it immediately turned Viner's thought to what he had read of the days wherein exercised his art up the stately frontages, and duels were fought in the gardens which London children now sport in. In one of these houses lived Blackstone; in another Erskine; one ancient roof once sheltered John Milton; another heard the laughter of ; up the panelled staircase which Mr. Pawle and his companion were presently conducted, the feet of many generations had trod. And the room into which they were duly conducted was so old-world in appearance with its oaken walls and carving and old-fashioned furniture that nothing but the fact that its occupants wore twentieth century garments would have convinced Viner that he had not been suddenly thrown back to the days of Queen Anne.

Lord Ellingham was already there when they arrived—in conference with his solicitor, Mr. Carless, a plump, rosy, active gentleman who wore mutton-chop whiskers and—secretly—prided himself on his likeness to the type of fox-hunting squire. It was


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/174

 very evident to Viner that both solicitor and client were in a state of expectancy bordering on something very like excitement; and Mr. Carless, the preliminary greetings being over, plunged at once into the subject.

"I say, Pawle," he exclaimed, turning at once to his fellow-practitioner, "this appears to be a most extraordinary business! His lordship has just been telling me all about the two calls he had yesterday—first from two men whom he'd never seen before—then from you two, who were also strangers. He has also told me what both lots of his callers had to say, and hang me if I ever heard of two such curious unfoldings coming one on top of the other. Sounds like a first-class mystery!"

"You forget," remarked Mr. Pawle with a glance at Lord Ellingham, "that we don't know—Mr. Viner and myself—what it was that his lordship's first couple of callers told him. He left that until today."

Mr. Carless looked at his client, who nodded his head as if in assent to something in the glance.

"Well, as I'm now in possession of the facts," said he, "I'll tell you, Pawle—His Lordship has given me a clear account of what his first callers said, and what you and Mr. Viner added to it. The two men whom you saw coming away from Ellingham House were Methley and Woodlesford, two solicitors who are in partnership in Edgware Road—I know of them: I think we've had conveyancing business with them once or twice. Quite a respectable firm—in a smallish way, you know, but all right so far as I know anything of them. Now, they came to Lord Elling-


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/175

 ham yesterday afternoon with a most extraordinary story. His lordship tells me that he learned from your talk with him yesterday afternoon that you are pretty well acquainted, you and Mr. Viner, with his family history, so I'll go straight to the point. What do you think Methley and Woodlesford came to tell him? You'd never guess!"

"I won't try!" answered Mr. Pawle. "What, then?"

Mr. Carless smiled grimly.

"That the long-lost Lord Marketstoke was alive and in England!" he said. "Here, in fact, in London!"

Mr. Pawle smiled too. But his smile was not grim—it was, rather, the smile of a man who hears what he has been expecting to hear.

"I thought it would be something of that sort!" he exclaimed. "Aye, I fancied that would be the game!"

"You think it a game?" suggested Mr. Carless.

"And a highly dangerous one—as somebody will find out," responded Mr. Pawle. "But—what did these fellows really say!"

"His lordship will correct me if I miss anything pertinent," answered Mr. Carless with a glance at his client. "They said this—that they had been called upon by a gentleman now staying at one of the private residential hotels in Lancaster Gate, who was desirous of legal assistance in an important matter and had been recommended to them by a fellow-boarder at the hotel. He then told them that though he was now passing under the name of Cave—"

"Ah!" exclaimed Mr. Pawle, with a snort which


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/176

 denoted a certain sort of surprised satisfaction. "Ah, to be sure! Cave, of course! But I interrupt you—pray proceed."

"I see your point," remarked Mr. Carless with a smile. "Well—although he was passing under the name of Cave, he was, in strict reality, the Lord Marketstoke who disappeared from England many years ago, who was never heard of again, and whose death had been presumed. He was, therefore, the rightful Earl of Ellingham, and as such entitled to the estates. He proceeded to tell Methley and Woodlesford his adventures.

"He had, he said, never at any time from boyhood been on good terms with his father: there had always been mutual dislike. As he grew to manhood, his father had thwarted him in every conceivable way. He himself as a young man, had developed radical and democratic ideas—this had caused a further widening of the breach. Eventually he had made up his mind to clear out of England altogether. He had a modest amount of money of his own, a few thousands which had been left him by his mother. So he took this and quietly disappeared.

"According to his own account he became a good deal of a rolling stone, going to various out-of-the-way parts of the earth, and taking particular pains, wherever he went, to conceal his identity. He told these people Methley and Woodlesford, that he had at one time or another lived and traded in South Africa, India, China, Japan and the Malay Settlement—finally he had settled down in Australia. He had kept himself familiar with events at home—knew of his father's death, and he saw no end of ad-


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/177

 vertisements for himself. He was aware that legal proceedings were taken as regards the presumption of his death and the administration of the estates; he was also aware of the death of his younger brother and that title and estates were now in possession of his nephew—His Lordship there. In fact, he was very well up in the whole story, according to Methley and Woodlesford," said Mr. Carless, with a smile. "And Lord Ellingham believed that Methley and Woodlesford were genuinely convinced by him."

"Seemed so, anyway, both of 'em," agreed Lord Ellingham.

"However," continued Mr. Carless, "Methley and Woodlesford, like you and I, Pawle, are limbs of the law. They asked two very pertinent questions. First—why had he come forward after this long interval? Second—what evidence had he to support and prove his claim?"

"Good!" muttered Mr. Pawle. "And I'll be bound he had some excellent replies ready for them."

"He had," said Mr. Carless. "He answered as regards the first question that of late things had not gone well with him. He was still comfortably off, but he had lost a lot of money in Australia through speculation. He replied to the second by producing certain papers and documents."

"Ah!" exclaimed Mr. Pawle, nudging Viner. "Now we're warming to it!"

"And according to what Methley and Woodlesford told Lord Ellingham," continued Mr. Carless, "these papers and documents are of a very convincing nature. They said to His Lordship frankly that they were greatly surprised by them. They had thought


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/178

 that this man might possibly be a bogus claimant, who had somehow gained a thorough knowledge of the facts he was narrating, but the papers he produced, which, he alleged, had never been out of his possession since his secret flight from London, were—well, staggering. After inspecting them, Methley and Woodlesford came to the conclusion that their caller really was what he claimed to be—the missing man!"

"What were the papers?" demanded Mr. Pawle.

"Oh!" replied Mr. Carless, looking at his client. "Letters, certificates, and the like,—all, according to Methley and Woodlesford, excellent proofs of identity."

"Did they show them to Your Lordship?" asked Mr. Pawle.

"Oh, no! they only told me of them," answered Lord Ellingham. "They said, of course, that they would be shown to me, or to Mr. Carless."

"Aye!" muttered Mr. Pawle. "Just so! Yes, and they will have to be shown!"

"That follows as a matter of course," observed Mr. Carless. "But now, Pawle, we come to the real point of the case. Methley and Woodlesford, having informed His Lordship of all this when they called on him yesterday afternoon then proceeded to tell him precisely what their client, the claimant, as we will now call him, really wanted, for he had been at some pains, considerable pains, to make himself clear on that point to them, and he desired them to make themselves clear to Lord Ellingham, whom he throughout referred to as his nephew. He had no desire, he told them, to recover his title, nor the


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/179

 estates. He did not care a cent—his own phrase—for the title. He was now sixty years of age. The life he had lived had quite unfitted him for the positions and duties of an English nobleman. He wanted to go back to the country in which he had settled. But as title and estates really were his, he wanted his nephew, the present holder, to make him a proper payment, in consideration of the receipt of which he would engage to preserve the silence which he had already kept so thoroughly and effectively for thirty-five years. Eh?"

"In plain language," said Mr. Pawle, "he wanted to be bought."

"Precisely!" agreed Mr. Carless. "Of course, Methley and Woodlesford didn't quite put it in that light. They put it that their client had no wish to disturb his nephew, but suggested, kindly, that his nephew should make him a proper payment out of his abundance."

Mr. Pawle turned to Lord Ellingham.

"Did they mention a sum to Your Lordship?" he asked.

"Yes," replied Lord Ellingham, with a smile at Carless. "They did—tentatively."

"How much?" asked Mr. Pawle.

"One hundred thousand pounds!"

"On receipt of which, I suppose," observed Mr. Pawle dryly, "nothing would ever be heard again of your lordship's long-lost uncle, the rightful owner of all that Your Lordship possesses?"

Lord Ellingham laughed.

"So I gathered!" he answered.


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/180

 "I wish I'd been present when Methley and Woodlesford put forward that proposition," exclaimed the old lawyer. "Did they seem serious?"

"Oh, I think they were quite serious," replied Lord Ellingham. "They seemed so; they spoke of it as what they called a domestic arrangement."

"Excellent phrase!" remarked Mr. Pawle. "And what said your lordship to their—or the claimant's proposition?"

"I told them that the matter was so serious that they and I must see my solicitors about it," answered Lord Ellingham, "and I arranged to meet them here at one o'clock today. They quite agreed that that was the proper thing to do, and went away. Then—you and Mr. Viner called."

"With, I understand, another extraordinary story," remarked Mr. Carless. "The particulars of which His Lordship has also told me. Now, Pawle, what do you really say about all this?"

Mr. Pawle smote his clenched right fist on the palm of his open left hand.

"I will tell you what I say, Carless!" he exclaimed with emphasis. "I say that whatever the papers and documents were which were produced by this man to Methley and Woodlesford, they were stolen from the body of John Ashton, who was foully murdered in Lonsdale Passage only last week. I'll stake all I have on that! Now, then, did this claimant steal them? Did he murder John Ashton for them? No—a thousand times no, for no man would have been such a fool as to come forward with them so soon after his victim's death! This claimant doesn't know how or where or when they were obtained—he doesn't sus-


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/181

 pect that murder's in it. Now, then—where did he get them? Who's at the back of him? Who—to be plain—who's making a cat's-paw of him? Find that out, and we shall know who murdered John Ashton!"

Viner, glancing at Lord Ellingham and at Mr. Carless, saw that Mr. Pawle's words had impressed them greatly, the solicitor especially. He nodded sympathetically, and Mr. Pawle went on speaking.

"Listen here, Carless!" he continued. "Mr. Viner and I have been investigating this case as far as we could, largely to save a man whom we both believe to be absolutely innocent of murder. I have come to certain conclusions. John Ashton, many years ago, fell in with the missing Lord Marketstoke, then living under the name of Wickham, in Australia, and they became close friends. At some time or other, Wickham told Ashton the real truth about himself, and when he died, left his little daughter—"

Carless looked sharply round.

"Ah!" he exclaimed. "So there's a daughter?"

"There is a daughter, and her name is Avice—a name borne by a good many women of the Cave-Gray family," answered Mr. Pawle with a significant glance at his fellow-practitioner. "But let me go on: Wickham left his daughter, her mother being dead, in Ashton's guardianship. She was then about six years of age. Ashton sent her to school here in England. About twelve or thirteen years later, he came home and settled in Markendale Square. He brought Avice Wickham to live with him. He handed over to her a considerable sum, which, he said, her father had left in his hands for her. And then,


text:
Page:The Middle of Things - Fletcher (1922).djvu/182

 secretly, Ashton went down to Marketstoke and evidently made certain inquiries and investigations. Whether he was going to reveal the truth as to what I have just told you, we don't know—probably he was. But he was murdered, and we all know when and where. And I say he was murdered for the sake of these very papers which we now know were produced to Methley and Woodlesford by this claimant. Now, then—"

Mr. Carless suddenly bent forward.

"A moment, Pawle!" he said. "If this man Wickham really was the lost Lord Marketstoke, and he's dead, and he left a daughter, and the daughter's alive—"

"Well?" demanded Mr. Pawle. "Well?"

"Why, then, of course, that daughter," said Mr. Carless slowly, "that daughter is—"

A clerk opened the door and glanced at his employer.

"Mr. Methley and Mr. Woodlesford, sir," he announced. "By appointment."