Evening star., 1944-06-15
Eicher 10 Study
Admissibi|ity Of
'Bund' Matter
Sedition Defense
Charges Documents
Seized Illegally
By CARTER BROOKE JONES.


the admissibility of certain COM
mands" issued to members of the
German American Bund. The court
also took under advisement defense
demands that judicial inquiry be
made into the charge that the docu-
ments were seized illegally by Treas
ury agents at bund headquarters in
New York few hours before the
japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Indicating that these issues would
not be decided during the day, JUS
tice Eicher directed the Government
to take up other evidence for the
rest of the session.
The bund commands. read into
the record in the absence of the
jury, included instructions to bund-
lists to do everything possible to
avoid military duty under the selec
tive service law.
Plans Outlined.
The documents offered by the
Government also outlined bund
plans between 1899 and 1941 to keep
America out of the war, to fight
Jewish profit making war agi-
tators," and to spread propaganda
against aid to Russia and against
debtor nations of the World War.
Justice Eicher heard extensive
arguments over whether the ex-
hibits should be admitted in evil
dence, particularly on the charge
OF several defense attorneys that
the documents were confiscated
illegally.
The defense maintained 1t was
up to the Government to prove
where, how and under what cir
cumstances the exhibit came into
its hands.
A Government witness, William
Luedkte, national secretary of the
bund when it was liquidated by
Treasury and FBI agents early in
December. 194l, identified a copy
Of the commands" issued by ma
tional leaders, including Gerhard
Wilhelm Kunze, defendant.
Raid Is Described.
Luedkte said he was present when
Treasury agents raided the national
headquarters and took papers, but
he did not know, he said, whether
the Federal officers had a search
warrant or other legal process.
There was no testimony before
the court on where the copy the,
witness identified came from, and
the Government contended it made
no difference SO long as it was
identified. The defense took issue
with this view.
Defense attorneys also contended
the bund commands were mad
missible on other grounds.
Lawrence Dennis, defendant |
representing himself. said the bund
orders had no bearing on this case,
adding that ''the Government
charges" one thing and proves an
other"
Prosecution Assailed.
Harry A. Grant, a defense at
torney. called the Governments
case like a jigsaw puzzle" adding:
Some of the pieces are missing.
! call on the Government to find
the missing pieces and put the
puzzle together so we can know
what issue we are called on to
meet"
Replying to defense arguments
against admissibility of the bund
evidence, Special Prosecutor Joseph
W. Burns argued that 1t was one of
4 series of exhibits which show the
attitude and designs of the or
sanization.
There has been no proof that the
bund commands were seized IL
legally, as charged by the defense,
Mr.. Burns contended.
The Government charges that the
bund was the spearhead OF a con-
spiracy Matched in Germany to in
cite disloyalty in the American
armed forces and to set up a Nazi
government In this country. The
20 defendants are alleged to have
Joined in the conspiracy.
Objection Raised.
kunze's attorney, P. Bateman En-
mis-, objected to the introduction of
this command on the ground that
1t placed the defendant in legal
jeopardy for the second time, since
he was convicted in a New York
Federal Court of obstructing the
draft and sentenced to five years
entirely through this document"
The bund was ordered to OBJ
serve two holidays-the birthdays of
Washington and Hitler. But on
July 4 Bundists were to make every
effort to march in parades with
the American Legion. The date on
which Horst Vessel, the Nazi hero,
was killed should be observed as
memorial day the order said