Paris Court Hears Why Schwartzbard Expressed Joy; Prosecution and Defense Will Call Noted Personages as Witnesses (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
The reason for Sholom Schwartzbard’s expressed satisfaction at the death of Petlura, the question of Petlura’s responsibility for the anti-Jewish massacres and the doubt as to whether Schwartzbard fired the last two shots at Petlura after he was dead were the three points around which the counsel for the defense and the prosecution centered their arguments on the second and third days of the trial of the avenger of the anti-Jewish massacres before the Court of Assizes here.
M. Henri Torres, Schwartzbard’s counsel, and M. Campinchi, head of the Petlura civil party, engaged in a long discussion on these points, while the testimony of the witnesses both for the defense and the prosecution concerned not so much the person of Sholom Schwartzbard and his slaying of Petlura as the question of guilt for the anti-Jewish massacres.
Campinchi asserted that Schwartzbard expressed his satisfaction because he had killed Petlura, While Torres argued that the reason for Schwartzbard’s satisfaction was relief from the apprehension that he might have harmed an innocent bystander.
The testimony of Reginald Smith, an English teacher who was an eye witness of the shooting, made a tremendous impression on the court. Referring to Schwartzbard as a Biblical Goel Ha’dam (avenger) he declared that Schwartzbard, while shooting Petlura, had the appearance of a serene, sorrowful man. He was deeply impressed, he said, when he saw the man consciously committing an act of higher justice, avenging his nation, just as the Belgian soldier shot Edith Cavel’s murderers.
A moving bit of tragedy was enacted when Mrs. Anna Schwartzbard, the wife of the accused, was called to the witness stand. At the suggestion of the presiding judge both parties agreed not to interrogate her. Schwartzbard smiled encouragingly to his wife who was very nervous.
The atmosphere in the courtroom reached the highest tension and the case really began when the first witness called by the Ukrainians took the stand. It was Prince Tokary or Tokarzewsky, former Ambassador of the Attamans Skoropodski and Petlura. The memories of the pogrom years between 1918 and 1920 gripped the court as pictures of the terrible massacres were recalled when the activities of the Ukrainian army were depicted. Tokary glorified Petlura’s personality as a leader of the army and Ukrainian statesman. He replied to the question of M. Torres whether the witness took a part in the Petlura government during the German and Austrian occupation of the Ukraine in the affirmative.
“Had Petlura real power as the head of the state?” Torres questioned the witness.
“Yes, at one time,” Tokary answered.
“Was he the real head of the army?”
“As every head of the state is,” Tokary said. The witness added that Petlura endeavored to protect all minorities.
Concluding the interrogation of the witness Torres, in a moving address described the massacres for which Petlura was responsible as the head of the army. ” He neither suppressed the disorders nor did he punish the guilty,” Torres exclaimed, showing a thick volume which he stated was not a complete report of the pogroms but merely contained a list of places where the pogroms occurred.
When Schwartzbard’s counsel described the pogroms and added that all the leaders of the massacres were promoted to higher rank in the army, the court was deeply stirred. Schwartzbard buried his head in his hands.
“Petlura’s proclamations expressing indignation over the pogroms were mere blinds,” Torres said. “While murdering Jewish men, women and children, he had to maintain a straight face before the opinion of the world. He also wanted money from Jewish bankers.”
Torres said he did not intend to defend Schwartzbard on political issues. “My client,” he declared, “avenged his race, in which there are persons of many political beliefs. This isn’t a political crime.”
M. Campinchi, replying to Torres, declared that he understands the feeling of his opponent but he must insist that Petlura was not responsible for the pogroms. The Jewish population suffered from Denikin’s army, from the Bolsheviks, anarchists and others. Campinchi pointed to a volume which he stated contained in 200 pages Petlura’s proclamations and orders in defense of the Jews.
“These orders were issued after the pogroms for consumption abroad” Torres interjected. “Where were your court martials if you intended really to stop the pogroms? I was a soldier myself and the jury knows how severely French generals acted in the war when soldiers were accused of the smallest act of larceny.”
The second witness, Nesterenko, formerly president of the Ukrainian military court at Proskurov, asserted that all possible measures against the pogroms were taken. When asked by Torres what kind of measures, what punishments, the witness was silent, but he had to admit that no one was punished. He added that after the pogroms in Proskurov 20 Jews and one Ukrainian were court martialed on the accusation that they were Bolsheviks.
“During the Proskurov pogrom the rabbis wired to Petlura many times, but he made no reply,” Torres declared. “These terrible murders were not condemned there. You must do it now,” the counsel for the defense exclaimed turning to the jury.
Mikola Sharoval, an officer in Petlura’s army, declared that Petlura was against the pogroms. “Both Jews and Ukrainians had one enemy, the Czarist regime. The pogroms were a result of the peasants revolt against Bolshevism, Petlura was sorry to realize his aim through the Jewish pogroms,” he stated.
Dr. Paul, who made the post mortem examination, called as prosecution witness, testified that two bullets entered Petlura’s body after he was dead. Sholom Schwartzbard protested against this assertion, declaring that he did not shoot after Petlura was down. His pistol was an automatic.
A long argument followed between Campinchi and Torres concerning the direction of the bullets.
Suddenly Torres drew an automatic revolver from beneath the folds of his black lawyer’s robe. Leaping past his colleagues, Torres faced Dr. Paul. Spectators gasped, not knowing why Torres was brandishing the revolver. Aiming at a chair, Torres snapped the trigger. There were more gasps, but no explosion. Torres’ demonstration was to show that bullets fired into Petlura while he was down would have taken a course different from that revealed by the autopsy.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
