The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1945-10-22
By WALTER LIPPMAN
The Nuremberg Trial

There were three ways OF deal
ing with the master minds of the
Nazi regime. One was to do no.
thing, taking the view that under
international law the rulers of a
sovereign state cannot be held per-
sonally accountable to other nations
for their official acts. The second
was to condemn them without a
hearing by a decree of the victors,
the procedure used against Ma
poleon Bonaparte. The third was
t, arraign them before an interna-
tional tribunal, established for the
purpose, to set forth in detail the
offenses with which they are
CT rged, to submit the evidence in
support of these charges, and to
permit the accused with counsel
to defend themselves. This is the
procedure, inspired chiefly by Mr..
Justice jackson, which has been
adopted.
There is no doubt that, at least
in modern times, this is new pro-
cedure, and there are many who
have qualms about it. Having
shared these qualms, having be-
lieved in the beginning that the
Napoleonic precedent would be
better than the formalities of a
trial. I should like to set down
some Of the reasons why I have
become convinced that Mr.. Justice
Jackson momentous choice is
the right choice.
The most serious objection to
the trial is that it appears to VIC
late the ex post facto rule in law
1t has been argued that there were
no international laws making il
a specific crime with specific pen
alties to commit the deeds with
which these men are charged, anc
that therefore to try them under
the forms of law is itself lawless
and arbitrary proceeding.
! Lawyers have pointed out to me
that, properly understood, the e.
post facto rule prohibits legisla
ton which makes an act done
before the passage OF the law
criminal, which was innocent wher
done, If, for example, Congress ir
l945 passed law making it :
crime for a physicist to talk abou
atomic energy, no physicist wht
had talked about atomic energy
! in 1914 could be punished under
that law. But these men are
.. charged, among other things, witt
the murder of civilians, the en-
slavement of civilians, and loot
ing. These were never innocen
acts. They were crimes under al
laws in all countries, including
Germany, when these men tool
control of the German state. Ii
charging Goering, Hess, ct al will
murder, the Allies have not in
vented a new crime which wa
an innocent act before the muir
ders were committed.
There is a case in English law,
2 have been told, which illustrate
J. the problem. I cannot vouch TO
+ the details, but the substance 0
it is as follows: once upon time
a it may have been in the eighteenth
century or even earlier, the law
of English did not specifically pre-
e vide for the punishment of murde
Y If it was committed aboard a shil
e on the high seas. A ship set sal
= from England on a long voyag
s during which one Of the crew mu1
y dered another member of the crew
When the ship returned to port
;. the murderer was indicated an
brought before a court. His lawye
e pleaded immunity on the groun
i that to punish him would be to If
r woke ex post facto law. The judg
k ruled against him, holding that h
b never had the right to suppos
!. that the indubitable crime Of Inu1