News Brief

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

The trial of Sholom Schwartzbard, slayer of Semion Petlura, will end today or tomorrow due to a decision of Henri Torres, Schwartzbard’s defense counsel, to cut short the number of witnesses and proceed to the summing up of the case.

This suggestion made by M. Torres was one of the most dramatic turns of the internationally famous trial. Cesare Campinchi, chief counsel for the Petlura party, was greatly embarrassed at the sudden suggestion of the defense counsel. He finally agreed, however, to the suggestion which will spare the Ukainian party the presentation of the crushing evidence of eighty-five witnesses who were ready to testify for the defense that Petlura was responsible for the anti-Jewish massacres in the Ukraine during 1918-1920. This arrangement also leaves out twenty-five witnesses called by the prosecution.

It was declared here that Torres acted on his own behalf and without previous consultation with the Schwartzbard Defense Committee in Paris.

“For seven days,” Torres addressed himself to presiding Judge Flory, “witnesses for the prosecution have been heard. By an extraordinary accident those who have appeared in the last two days have been extremely favorable to the defense. I had cited eighty-two witnesses, among whom were fifteen soldiers who could testify as to Schwartzbard’s bravery at the French front during the World War. I will give up these witnesses. I believe the jury has already made up its mind. I am ready for summation.”

Before this decision was taken a number of prominent European Jewish leaders appeared as witnesses for the defense. The witnesses were Vladimir Tiomkin, A. Tcherikover, author of a book on the anti-Jewish massacres in the Ukraine, Dr. Leo Motzkin, and a Karaite, Jacob Safro, a resident of Kiev, whose son was killed in the Kiev pogrom with thirty other Jewish young men.

Continuing his testimony of the day before, Mr. Tiomkin declared that Denikin was less responsible because he was a tool in the hands of his staff while Petlura was the acknowledged leader of the army.

Campinchi quoted the opinion of Dr. Arnold Margolin, former ambassador of the Petlura government in London and now in New York, according to whom Denikin was responsible for the pogroms, while Petlura was not.

M. Torres replied that Dr. Margolin’s evidence is valueless in the case because he was Petlura’s ambassador. Tiomkin added that Dr. Margolin’s opinion on the Ukrainian pogroms is not one of authority since his book was compiled on the basis of newspaper statements. “Dr. Margolin,” he stated, “is a man without will power, though he is honest.”

When, during the argument, Campinchi made the statement that “Denikin was a murderer,” Torres quickly retorted that he notices this statement of the civil party. Campinchi then challenged Schwartzbard to give the reasons for his statement that he had “killed Petlura because he provoked the pogroms.” “Let Schwartzbard give the reasons for his statement,” the civil party counsel demanded.

Schwartzbard arose and declared: “I repeat that I killed Petlura for the pogroms which took place in 1918, 1919 and 1920.”

A. Tcherikover, a historian, declared that he lived in the Ukraine during the regime of Petlura and as a Jew and a historian he had taken particular interest in the history of the pogroms. “I consider Petlura responsible for the massacres because it was impossible to persuade him to take measures against his lieutenants who organized the pogroms.” Tcherikover collected thousands of documents and fled from the country, which was under Bolshevik rule, in order to save the evidence. He studied these documents and has the deep conviction that “Petlura was the all powerful head of the army and government and it was on his example that the other members of the government neglected to stop the pogroms. He had rejected the creation of a control committee proposed at that time by the Ukrainian labor congress.

“He had conducted negotiations with the foreign powers. Only in the matter of the pogroms he pretended to be powerless. It is true that not all the Ukrainian leaders were responsible for the events. Many of them went to Petlura to urge him to take measures against the massacres, but they were not even received by him.

“During the pogrom in Zhitomir a delegation came begging an audience with Petlura. This delegation, however, was not received, having been told to ‘return tomorrow’.”

Interrupted by Schwartzbard’s exclamation, “And the pogrom lasted?” Tcherikover replied, “Yes. The delegation returned once more but was not received. Later Petlura declared that the pogroms strengthened the army discipline,” the witness declared.

This statement called forth a roar of wrath in the courtroom, Schwartzbard exclaiming, “There you are!”

“The orders issued by Petlura against the pogroms were given out at a time when they were valueless,” the witness continued.

Addressing himself to the jury, Tcherikover exclaimed; “I ask you, gentlemen of the jury, if Britishers were being massacred in China over a period of two years, would not the chief of the army be held responsible?” The witness called by name Petlura’s lieutenants, Semosenko, Volinetz, Struck, Anghel and others who were the pogrom perpetrators. When asked by the prosecutor whether it was not true that Petlura had published orders against the massacres, the witness declared that these orders were issued for foreign consumption as his ambassadors reported to him that the pogroms made a bad impression abroad.

Great excitement prevailed in the courtroom when the Petlura lawyer, Campinchi, compared the anti-Jewish pogroms with the events of the French revolution.

“You insult me when you compare our revolution with these murders,” Torres declared.

“Your client is a murderer,” Wilm of the Petlura party counsel cried.

The three lawyers shouted at the same time. “The French revolution is mine as well as yours,” Campinchi told Torres.

“Petlura killed women and children,” Torres retorted. “Petlura paid his soldiers with money robbed from the murdered. It is indecent to compare Petlura with Carnot. Carnot did not leave France in a German carriage as Petlura left Kiev. Massacres of Jews never bring any good to a country. During the French revolution robbers were shot. Petlura sent diplomats abroad while his soldiers robbed and massacred,” Torres declared.

He then read a letter from Mme. Apollinaire Katchoroffsky, widow of an Orthodox Russian priest who was killed while defending Jews during the pogrom. The priest, according to the letter, left his bed when he heard the screams of victims. He went out to investigate and returned home when warned by Petlura’s officers, but went out again when he could no longer endure the horrible sounds that accompanied the massacre. He met death, the letter said, at the hands of soldiers shouting Petlura’s name.

Jacob Safro, a Karaite, a citizen of Kiev who was at one time a well-to-do merchant and politically influential, testifed that his sixteen year old son, Boris, who was not a member of any political group or party, was killed on August 31, 1919, together with thirty other Jewish young men.

“My son was brought before a military court with the other thirty Jewish young men. The judges asked which of the young men were Jews. My son, who could have denied being a Jew as he was a Karaite and the Karaites were not identifed as Jews in Russia, was too proud to desert his Jewish friends. When he declared he, too, was a Jew, he met his death with his comrades.”

In a trembling voice the father testified that on the next day when he and other parents came to inquire as to the fate of their children, they found the corpses lying in the street, stray dogs wandering among the bodies.

The witness declared that he had wanted to kill Petlura, but he thought “murder was not sufficient punishment for him. I would have liked him to go through torture all his life.” The witness stated that he is now a resident of Vienna, where he has a furniture factory and he had voluntarily offered to testify. He was glad, he stated, that Schwartzbard had succeeded in doing what he would have done. He is in complete solidarity with Schwartzbard and is willing to share the responsibility with him.

The general impression in the courtroom was that the Petlura party is looking grand and in its attempt to white## Petlura’s name it was changing its arguments. Completed declared that ## did everything to avoid the pogroms. In support of this contention he presented a letter by Ossip Berpalke a member of the Ukrainian government from April 1919 to 1920.