Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1919-06-11
ny JAY JEROME WILLIAMS.

loN, juno lN.--onc DN one,
the skeletons in the closet OF the peace
conference stalk forth. Today the
complete report of the commission on
the responsibility OF the authors of
the war which has never been pub
lished came into possession Of Uni
vcrsal Service.
II establishes practically without
doubt that the former Emperor of Ger
many VIII never be brought TO trial.
chiefly because Of the dissenting views
taken by the reports OF the American
and japanese peace delegations. The
American members of the commiss ion.
Brown Scott, a New York lawyer
declared there were only two classes
of responsibilities - those of legal
nature and of a moral nature. The
crimes of the ex-Kaiser were listed in
the latter category, and the American
delegates refused to consent to the
TO try him. 4 similar view was en-
pressed by the Japanese delegates.
Germany and her allies are directly
charged with the commission of thirty
amples is set forth in the REPORT. One
Of its odd features is the fact that
AS prelude to the list OF offenses,
IN" commission has this to say:
ren As mas "a, aireaa beer been stated: in the
crimes) does not by any means pur-
port 10 be exhaustive or complete. The
object is simply TO give a number OF
typical examples. The crimes input-
able to the central empires and their
allies run into the thousands. The list
under each OF the heads given below
could be very greatly extended Here
follows the list:
!. Murders and massacres; systematic
terrorism.
:. Putting hostages to death
g. Torture of civilians.
= Deliberate starvation of civilians.
nc
I. Deportation of civilians.
). lnternment OF civilians under inhu-
s. Forced labor OF civilians in CON
nection with the military operations of
the enemy and otherwise.
10. USurpation of sovcrei Enty during
military operations.
II. COMPULSORY enlistment of soldiers
among the inhabitants OF occupied ter
IL. Attempts 10 denationalze the in
habitanis OF occupied territory.
IL. I'illage.
II. Confscation OF property.
-. EXaction of ilIegtimatc or OF en-
orSitant contributions and reauisitions.
lG. DebaSenlcnt Of Currency and issue
OF spurious currency.
u. Imposition of collective penalties.
-. Wanton devastation and destruc-
tion OF property.
10. Deliberate bombardment of unde-
Tended places.
30. The wanton destruction OF religi-
Gus. charitable, educational. and his
toric buildings and monuments.
II. Destruction Of merchant ships and
passenger vessels without. warning and
without provision for the safety OF
passengers and crew.
-. Destruction Of fishing boats and
relief ships.
%. Deliberate bomba rdmcnt of hos
pitfalls.
"a; Attack on and destruction of hos
%. Breach of other rules relating to
the Red Cross.
&c. Use of deleterious and asphyxi-
ating gases.
=. Use OF explosive and expanding
bullets. and other inhuman appliances.
~. Directions TO give no quarter.
80. Employment Of prisoners OF War
on unauthorized works.
~. Misuse Of flags of truce.
%. Poisoning of wells.
In am I .,,;., Of their stand
lansing and Scott set forth the fol-
lowing views:
The AMERICAN representatives ad-
that the head OF state. he he termed
Emperor. King or chief executive, is
Responsible To mankind but from the
legal point OF view they expressed
themselves as unable 20 see how any
member OF the commission could claim
that the head Of a state. exercising
hut those who have contided those
or implied,
legal argument. They appeared TO he
fixed in their determination to try and
punish by. judicial process the ex
Kaiser OF Germany. That there might
he no doah; about their meaning, they
insisted that the jurisdiction OF the
high tribunal whose constitution they
recommended should iuc!ude the heads
OF states, and they therefore inserted
prov ision 10 this effect in express
words in the clause dealing with the
Jurisdiction OF the tribunal.
q 20 M
uncertain law TO be applied, varying
according 10 the conception OF the
members Of the high court as to the
laws and principles of humanity. and
in view also of their objections to the
extent Of the proposed juri9diction of
that tribunal. the American repre-
sentatives were constrained to decline
TO be a party to its creation. Ncces-
sari!y they declined the proffer on be-
half OF the commission that the United
states should take part in the pro-
ceedings before that tribunal. or to
have the United States represented in
the prosecuting commission charged