16601.

respect - they would appear to Toe an attempt merely to

suggest that one Ray Alexander or the K&cjb&ration was

communist, which we say with respect, My Lord, had nothing

to do with the case. My Lords, four pages further on,

there is a passage at page 14211 where Your Lordship

asked, "At this Conference was there ever a resolution

adopted lauding the women of China or any othur communist

country".

BY MR. JUSTIC3 RUMPFF s

I think in terms of my record this was Mr.

Adams' question.

BY MR. FISCHER s

I beg Your Lordship's pardon, that was

Adams' question. I wished to re er to that. And the

reply was, "No, My Lord, the resolutions are really

condemnatory resolutions on certain acts and views,

a resolution on peace, a resolution deploring the

brutal acts committed against innocent women and children

of Kenya". And then, I am sorry, My Lord, this is the

passage to which I wished to refer. Your Lordship asked,

"Whose acts were those? My Lords, the resolution does

not specify, it merely protests against the brutal acts

committed against the innocent women and ch ldren of

Kenya. I understood that as referring to any women

and children who had suffered in Kenya." " I t refers

to brutal acts? My Lord, as I remember there were

allegations of brutal acts on both sides. I understood. . "

"Was this in j ant to cover both? I understood it so,

because it doesn't specify, i t merely says the brutal

acts committed against the innocent women and children . :

In that context I would assume, My Lord, that women and

16602.

children, no matter what racial groups, would be con-

sidered as innocent'"'. "You have in mind the allegations

that there were "brutal acts "by the troops and by the

Mau-Mau? I would understand it to include any brutal

acts" . "Obviously it referred to either of the two or

both, and then i t says 'we demand the withdrawal of

troops' , what is that for? My Lord, it was felt that

the troops in Kenya were aggravating the position. That

is how I understood that part of i t . " "Were they not

there to deal with the brutal acts of the Mau-Mau?

My Lords, that might havebaen the intention. " "And i f

they were to be withdrawn, wouldn't the brutal acts

continue then? My Lords, I would say that there was

an equal possibility of the brutal acts ceasing on both

sides i f they were withdrawn". "To the knowledge of the

people at this conference, were the brutal acts by the

Mau-Mau committed against the troops or against the

civilians in Kenya? My Lords, according to newspaper

reports at the time, which would be our source of informa-

tion, atrocities were being committed by both sides and

included women and children, both European and Kikuyu".

"My question was, according to what one knew from news-

paper sources, were the brutal acts by the Mau-May

committed against the troops or against civilians? —

There were reports of them being committed against

civilians . I drn 't remember a specific reference to

atrocities against troops." "According to the news-

paper teports, were the troops brought into deal with the

Mau-Mau acts against civilians? I wouldn't say that

that was their specific purpose, that would be a matter

of opinion I think, My Lord. My Lord, it would depend

16603.

on which newspaper one read" . "You were dealing with

this particular resolution and you may proceed then,

whether there was any resolution lauding communist coun-

tries , I think? My Lord, yes I think the final resolu-

tion was a support for the Congress of the People. " I

*

don't know, My Lord, something seems to have gone wrong

with the record there, My Lord.

BY ME. JUSTICE RUMPFF s

That last question was a reference back to

the f irst question asked.

BY MR. FLCH^R :

But the answer appears to have no relation

with the question.

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF s

The question of Mr. Adams was, "Was there

ever a resolution adopted l a u d i n g . . . " , I think I came hack

to that.

MR. FISCH.R s

But the answer to the last question appears

- doesn't answer the question, there seems to be something

left out. Now My Lord, with respect, one suggests that

Your Lordship was joining issue here with the witness,

and Your Lordship was entering into the arena, Your Lord-

ship was, w§ say in an unimportant manner here taking

part ina debate which would prevent a fair assessment of

the witness. That will be illustrated , we submit more

forcibly presently. My Lord, women's passes were being

dealt with in a passage at page 14233. I think there was

talk of the demonstration to the Union Buildings, that

was extra-parliamentary action, My Lord, it may be

16604.

described as unconstitutional, this is merely the end of

the answers on page 1^233, and then His Lordship Mr.

Justice Bekker said, " I n what language did y o u . . . ?

Just gave a summary of what action the women should take

i f it became law that passes should be carried . " "What

terms didyou describe it? As a matter Congress would

have to decide on. It is about ten or twelve lines,_ My

Lord, may I read it?" His Lordship said "Yes, please" ,

and she then read a portion of this document, "Facing

this grim threat the African men and women have determined

that the indignity of the pass system shall not be exten-

ded to African women, their determination is clear. The

question is not shall we carry passes or not, but what

action shall we take when we are told to take out our

passes" . And then lower down, "This article was written

shortly before that, that was January the 6th " , and she

«a id , " I said this question demands an answer from the

liberatoiy movement. The struggle against thepass laws

is not a matter for African women alone, it is not a

matter for the African people alone, it is part and par-

cel of the struggle for l iberation . " And then His

Lordship Mr. Justice Kennedy asked, "What do you mean

by saying that this question demands an answer from the

liberatory movement? — It was a question which I felt

women alone could not answer. It was not fbir them to

decide on any act of defiance, it was a question which

would have to be answered at some time, but not by the

African women alone but by the whole Congress." And

then, My Lord, at the next page, Your Lordship asked a

question, and again His Lordship Mr. Justice Kennedy said,

16605.

"And was it not a settled decision arrived at not to

carry passes by women? To, My Lords, we have said

women don't want passes, that was our cry, women don't

want passes. " "Not that 'we will not carry passes'?

My Lord, that may have been said on occasion, I wouldn't

deny that in a mood of resentment that may have been

expressed, but that was not a policy statement, we were

restricting ourselves to 'women don't want p a s s e s ' . "

And then Your Lordship with respect proceeded to what we

submit is a cross-examination ; "What is the meaning of

the phrase you have referred to if i t was not a question

of carrying passes or not? Yes, I sjg it here My Lord."

"Would you just read that again? Yes. 'The question

is not shall we carry passes or not, but what action shall

we take when we are told to take out passes" . "Yes,

well, what does that mean? Doesn't that mean that no

passes shall be carried? That is not the question at

all£ don't carry passes? Yes, My Lord." "What does

it mean then? The question whether or not women shall

carry passes? They had not got as faras that My Lord,

they are saying what action shall we take when we are

told to carry passes . " " Is that your construction of that

sentence? I am trying now My Lords to think over

clearly what I had in mind then, and I think I am correct

in construing it in this wa^" . "You construe it as

meaning that at that stage there was no need to carry

passes? — There was no need to carry passes then."

" I am not asking that, I am asking is that the meaning

of the phrase, to indicate that at that time there was

no need to carry passes? — There was no requirement for

16606.

J

women to carry asses . Is that the meaning which you

put on that? My Lord, I think I was taking i t into

the future, "but what I did intend here, My L o r d s . . "

"As you read it here, Mrs. Joseph, the impression that I

got from listening to it was that this was an exhortation

telling women, look it is not a question whether we shall

carry passes or not, that has been finally disposed of,

we won't carry them. I am now reading into i t , we don't

carry passes, but what exactly we will do when the time

comes, that it is made law, well that will have to be

decided, "chat is the impression I got? I can see, My

Lord, that it is capable of that impression - interpreta-

tion, I must concede that it is capable of that . " Now

My Lord, undoubtedly Your Lordship was probably correct,

but it is a demonstration at an early stage, with respect

My Lord, of something which we submit unfortunately became

much stronger later, Your Lordship endeavouring to get the

witness to interpret documents in a different way from

the witness' own interpretation. The witness at th^ end

comes back to this, at the end of this question - answer,

comes back to this, line 19 of page 14237, " In fact my

article was intended, My Lord, to be a challenge to the

Congress movement to face this decision, because it

appeared then as if the compulsory taking of passes was

likely to come within a short time." My Lords, I turn

to page 14250. I think that the witness had dealt with

People's Democracy in the Freedom Charter, and her view

was that it meant nothing more than universal franchise,

and at - yes, My Lord, she had in fact said so quite

distinctly. I turn to line 24 on page 14250. " I t does

suggest that changes must be reached and certainly it

16607.

refers to a People 's Democracy as "being the ideal state

which th^re should be, but the lecture itself explains

what is meant "by a People's Democracy, and it is avery

broad statement relating entirely to the representative

system. There is certainly no suggestion of a communist

state, although it does most certainly suggest thatt

the changes in the freedom charter will "bring about a

democratic state or a people's democracy, a people's

democratic government which would solve the problem in

South Africa. My Lords, may I just ask, I think I was

asked also i f these lectures would be in conflict with

the policy of my organisation". And Adams asked, "Yes,

Mrs. Joseph, the Federation of South African Women and the

Congress of Democrat®?", and His Lordship Mr. Justice

Kennedy asked her to "answer yes or no?, and she answered

"Yes, My Lord, the answer is that they are not in conflict

with our policy . " Then Your Lordship asked, "Have you

come across a reference to a People 's Democracy in any

of your own organisation's publications, or the African

National Congress publications, as meaning a country like

Great Britain " . Now that question, My Lord, we submit is

a direct challenge to the w i tness . . .

BY MB. JUSTICE RUMPFF :

You will bear in mind, I think, just for

completeness of your argument, that I think this witness

had said that in her view Great Britain was like a People's

Democracy.

BY MR. FISCHER ;

That is correct, that was her view and that

was how she accepted it . She says, " I do not remember

specific comparisons of tha^nature, My Lord, it is a l ittle

"IT • i

16608.

difficult to give a very very definite answer there, I

don't remeber". Your Lordship repeats the question,

"Have you ever come across a reference to a People's

Democracy as meaning any country in the West? In other

words is there any document referring to a non-communist

country as a People 's Democracy? Is there any reference

in any document of the African National Congress or your

own organisation which you can think of?" Now My Lord,

v with respect, our submission is that these two questions

demonstrate what a cross-examin/er does, and it would be

a cross-examiner endeavouring to demonstrate that a

People's Democracy as used by the Congress movement meant

something different from universal adultfranchise. She

doesn't recall a document. And then Your Lordship

proceeds "Well, in political jargon you have two phrases,

a democracy and a people's democracy", Your Lordship

insists on going further on the question of people's

democracy. "They are used, " she says, "interchangeably.

I don't distinguish between them". "Why? Why should

you use them interchangeably? Why add to the word

democracy a people's democracy, and what other democracy

could it be? -- My lead, when I speak of a democracy I

might add here in South Africa, I might well add a

people's democracy because South Africa claims to be a

democratic governm nt - a lemocratic country, but our

argument is that it is not a democratic country. I

would suggest that it is necessary here to be specif ic . "

Your Lordship proceeds s " I have said so, yes - you have

said so, yes, you have explained what you regard as a

people's democracy, that is really why I ask, seeing that

i

16609.

this document refers to the people's democracy and it

gois further than mere representation, universal franchise,

it goes further. Whether you have any reference, any

document, to a people's democracy that dojs not go further

than mere universal franchise. Do you follow what I mean?

There is in the documents that we have had or at least

some of the documents, whenever the-re is a reference to

a people's democracy, th re is something further than

mere universal franchise, there is an additional element

of socialism?" Now, My Lords, I pause for one moment,

and submit very respectfully that one of the questions

which this Court may have to decide is what the documents

of any organisation do mean, whether they do in fact go

further than when they speak of a people's democracy, go

further than meaning universal franchise, and Your Lord-

ship here is putting a question from the extremely impor-

tant and weighty position Your Lordship occupies as the

Presiding Judge, a question which the witness might find

diff icult to res ist , a witness might find difficult to

suggest to Your Lordship that it might be a mistaken view

of the document, at any rate at this stage of the case.

Your Lordship's next question i s , "You have not conveyed

it I say in the documents or in most of the documents

that I have seen in this case in which th^re is a

reference to a people's democracy, a democracy to which

that document refers is a democracy with an extra

something beyond universal franchise, and that extra

always seems, in the documents I have seen, to be a

touch of socialism. I call it that in that vague manner

because some don't go further than that?" My Lord,

that may w^ll b ,̂ so in view of the conditions in South

16610.

Africa, it may well be so.1' Apparently My Lords, there

is some agreement that came from the witness, and Your

Lordship asks, "Why should you then personally have that

view that a people's democracy is exactly the same as a

democracy meaning universal franchise?" My Lord, with

respect, that clearly suggests to the witness that the

- that Your Lordship is not accepting the witness, does

not believe the witness, it seems, My Lord, with respect,

to be putting the proposition that the witness should not

be entitled to hold th&t view. My Lords, on the next page,

Your Lordship continues with these questions as follows ;

" I n terms of your usage of the word, is Western Germany

a democracy today? I am trying to think, My Lord."

" I s France today a people's democracy? Yes, France I

would answer moreclearly on, France, I think it is Atrue

also to say that Western Germany is styled a democratic . . . "

"My question is if you were on a platform and addressing

your Federation, would you call Western Germany a people's

democracy? I think I would yes, I think so because

as far as my knowledge goes I would.'' "Would you call

China a people's democracy? Yes, I would, My Lord."

"And Western Germany? Yes, I would, My Lord." That

I think is the third time Your Lordship has asked about

Western G .rmany, and one suggests My Lord that a question

of that kind repeated three times clearly conveys Your

Lordship's scepticism to the witness, it clearly would

have an effect upon the confidence of the witness to

present her case. My Lords, the next passage is twenty

pages further on, at 14274. Your Lordship says in lines

five to ten, the witness had b:,en asked w h t h e r it was

also a fact that the South African Peace Council considered

16611.

that the existence of the rale of foreign nations over

colonial peoples was a threat to peace in the world, and

her answer being "Yes, My Lord, the South African Peace

Council held that view and expressed i t . " Then the

examination proceeded, "Why would it be regarded as a

threat to peace in the world? — My Lords, because it was

the view of the Peace Council that as long as thera was

foreign rule over colonial countries, there was a possibility

of violent conflict which might in turn lead to the exten-

sion of that conflict , possibly between the major powers

which could result in a very extensive war." Now My Lords,

from here on we submit that with respect a political

debate commenced, and I say i advance so that Your Lord-

ships will realise why I am reading the passage, that it

suggests to anyone listening to it that the learned

Judge's design was to show that this view held about peace

was either unsound or not honest. Your Lordship will

notice that the question "Thy?" is asked three times.

"Why would it be regarded is a threat to peace?" And in

the next paragraph at l inj 20, "Why should, on the assump-

tion that there is one country which in i t s own borders

had a situation of a governing class and an oppressed

class, on the assumption of ono country having that,

why should that cause world powers to start a world war?"

The witness answers that, giving her reasons, and then

Your Lordship s&ys at the top of the next page "Reference

to the last war, might that be an illustration of

principle? I am a f t . r the principle? My Lords, I

think the principle is t h a t . . . . " " 1 s therv. in the

view of the Peace Couhcil less chance of war when all

rations are completely independent and self-governing?

Y.-;s, My Lord, that is definitely our view. "

16612.

"Why should that be? — Because My Lord is eliminates

one source of conflict which may drag others into its

orbit " . My Lord, there ayiin there is - three times over

Your Lordship was pressing the witness for an explanation

of a belief which she holds or says she holds, and which

the repeated questioning appears to query. Now My Lord,

we say that this political debate about which we complain

appears more strongly even in the next passage, a passage

which I read yesterday from page 14282, and I don't wish

to read it again, My Lord, it relates to the possible

difference in an attitude towards the Protectorates and

and attitude towards Malaya.

BY I.IR. JUSTICE RUMPFF :

This is starting with the question at the to

of page 14282, "By mr. Levy, : Did the Peace Council ever

express the view that British control of the Protectorates

is a threat to peace"?

BY ME. FISCHER :

The witness had apparently not considered,

as Your Lordship would see later on on that same page,

whether th.re was a difference or whether she had a dif-

ferent vijw about Malaya as compared with the Protectorate

in this country.

BY MR. JU3TIC..J RUMPFF :

I think the topic starts earlier.

BY ~R. FISCHER 2

I think that is so, My Lord, I think the

topic i s . . . .

BY LIE. JUSTICE RUMPFF s

When it comes to Malaya I think the topic

starts at page 14281, where Mr. Levy put the question,

"Now would you p.0ree that in the broad sense of the term

16613.

imperialism, tht British control of the Protectorates and

Malay was both imperialist in nature" , and the answer,

" I n regard to Malaya I would say that it was imperialist

and also in the Protectorates".

BY MR. FI3EPLR :

Thjfcis so, My Lord, from there on the witness

is more hesitant about the Protectorates as being colonial

countries, as being objectionable in the eyes of the Peace

Council in her view. Now My Lord, then in lines 15 to 20

she recognises that she feels some difference, but does

not know that it was the view of the Peace Council, and says

" I have nev^r heard it discussed by the Peace Council . "

Now My Lord, thereafter, with gr^at submission, Your Lord-

ship makes a direct suggestion to her that it might be

different if a Communist P irty had existed in Swaziland

and was fighting for liberation. My Lord, there had been

no question in the previous examination as to whether the

communist party or the existence of a communist party

had anything to do with the matter. That then was intro-

duced by Your Lordship and with respect, My Lord, bearing

in mind what role is given to the communist party in the

length state summary of facts, it would a pear as if Your

Lordship werebringing in something additional.

BY MR. JUS II C.J RUMPFF s

Lxcept I think it was common cause that in

Great Britain the communist party is not an unlawful party?

BY MR. FISCHER j

I assume that is common cause, My Lord.

But this was a question of a communist party in Swaziland,

making the whole diff .rence to the witness' view of

whether Swaziland was an oppressed country. Your Lord-

ship will see thcxt Malaya is treated as a colonial country

16614.

which is a danger to world peac . The witness was hesi-

tant about saying the same about Swaziland, and Your

Lordship suggested that at such time the difference was

the non-existence of a communist party in Swaziland.

BY MR. JUoTIC^ RUMIFF ;

Well, I don't - the witness mi^ht have-

but her answer i s , " I t might, My Lord, or any party that

was agitating . "

BY MR. FISCHER 2

In other words, My Lord, Your Lordship has

successfully obtained part of the confession, but Your

Lordship has suggested that the fundamental difference

between Mrs. Joseph's view on Malaya and her view on

Swaziland is th t in Malaya a communist party exists, and

in Swaziland it doesn't .

BY MR. JUSTIC J RUMPFF s

Yes, well one has to look what previously

was asked.

BY HF. FISCHER ;

My Lord, our submission here is that this

is with respect in fact a hostile question, which we might

well have obj-ct^d to if it had come from the Crown.

There has been no evidence as to any partic lar role

played by the communist party in Malaya, or any evidence

My Lord as to the Peace Council 's view on the operation

of a communist party in Malaya or anywhere else. And

then, My Lord, in all those circumstances, the suggestion

is that the witness Joseph must concede that it would be

different, that the Peace Council 's views on Swaziland

would be different i f there were a communist party

agitating for independence in Swaziland. My Lord, the

16615.

next passage is at 14305. My Lord herethe topic I think

can be picked up from lines 15 to 20 . H.re Mr. Levy was

cross-examining andasked her, "Would you say that an

advance of the national struggle for independence streng-

thens the cause of «vo rid peace because it eliminates a

source of conflict between peoples of all nations? — Yes

My Lords, I would say so. I think I have expressed my

view on that. " Then the question proceeds by Your Lord-

ship : "Does it matter whether that struggle for indepen-

dence is a violent struggle or not? My Lords, the

Peace Council would be concerned not only with actual

violent struggles but with potential violent struggles

and since the Peace Council did regard foreign rule in

a country as a potential source of conflict, I think

that would be correct, it would regard every advance,

even i f not ending in a violent conflict, it would regard

every advance as being in the interests of peace."

".Svonif such advance is accompanied by a military clash?

I am sorry My Lord I did not get your f irst point.

My Lord, I think on balance the P e a c e Council would take

the view that it would deplore and regret the violence

but would accept the result that might come as an advance." in

"Well , i f /the philosophy of the I-eace Council a particular

case an advance to national independence would be the

strengthening cf the cause of world peace, would it

matter in the philosophy of the Peace Council whether

that advanceto national in Impendence took place by

violence or not? Oh yes, it would matter very much,

very much indeed, I cannot see that the Peace Council

could approve of any violent struggle. " Now My Lords,

our submission is with respect, My Lord, that the conclu-

sion which any listener must draw from this , is that

Your Lordship was suggesting th t it was immaterial to the

Peace Council whether it supported violent action or non-

violent action. Your Lordship will remember that some of

the evidence is to show that the Peace Council supports

liberation, the idea of liberation everywhere, including

South Africa. My Lord, the next passage is at page

14470, and we submit My Lord that this is a questioning

which had the effect , with respect, of furthering the

Crown's theory which I think Your Lordship will find at

14469, where my learned friend Mr. Liebenberg ut this

question in line 23 . 'The question is do you or did your

organisation hold the view that the possession of a theory

of socialism by the working class led to the strengthening

of the national liberation movement? My Lords, I don't

recall that our organisation ever formulated such a view.

It would be d i f f icult for me to say whether it held that

view or wh th^r it d idn ' t . I simply do not recall adis-

cussion. " Then the question was taken up by Your Lord-

ship i "Broadly put in a more simple way, was the Congress

of Democrats not of opinion that in order to assist the

liberation of oppressed people in the colonial countries,

it v/as important for the workers in those countries to be

politically conscious? Yes, My Lords." "And in

order to make them politically conscious one should

present them with a theory, they should know what their

position ought to be? Yes . " "As workers and as

oppressed people? Yes, My Lord, that is so . "

"Of necessity was i t not the case then broadly speaking

if oii6 is opposed "to imp 6 rial ism and "bho disadvantages of

16617.

capitalism that one would natuially be favourable to a

school of thought or a political school of thought for

the workers. That would amount to socialism in the

broad sense, I am not narrowing it down to communist

socialist , but in the bourgeois socialism sense". Now

My Lord, once again bearing in mind the importance which

the Grown places upon th.. rolewhich socialist theory

plays, Your Lordship with respect will be seen here to

be advancing that case in what we submit is a systematic

manner, by f irst of all suggesting that people should be

politically conscious, that for this purpose they require

a theory and that the bestpossible theory suggested by

your Lordship is the theory of socialism in a broad

sense. No doubt, My Lords, my learned friends would

follow that up by trying to narrow it down. But My Lords,

one does suggest with great respect that there is the

f irst step towards an admission. At - the f irst step, My

(Diord, which in fact with respect my learned friend Mr.

Liebenberg hadn't been abli to obtain from the witness.

My Lords, at page 14471- my learned friend put to the

witness in line 7, "May I put it to you on a broad basis,

Mrs. Joseph, that - is China a form of state today where

there is no exploitation of man by man?-r—My Lord, that

really is not a very broad statement, it is av. :ry specific

statement to say there is no exploitation of man by

man. I would not be able to give it beyond saying that

to the best of my belief the exploitation of man by man

is being reduced, but I am really not in a position to

make a categorical statement." And Your Lordship

followed on ; "Would you say it is being reduced? —

That is what I understand My Lord, because the people

16618.

have got more rights than they had "before. It is an

assumption." "Would the complete elimination of the

exploitation of man by man be achieved in China at a

later stage of its development? I really do not know,

My Lords, I only see it as a goal towards which people

work". "Under what type of state would the complete

elimination take place? My Lords, I wish I knew."

And then Mr. Lifebenberg followed that up, again My Lord

taking the steps in their order, with respect, and said

" I s that not the object of the communist theory, Mrs.

Joseph". My Lord, at the next page the debate returned

to the question of a people's democracy. Once again Mrs.

Joseph in the paragraph between lines 10 and 15 says,

that she thinks that she would regard Great Britain as a

people's democracy, "Yes, I myself would to the extent

that people have got the universal franchise" . "Only

in that limited sense do you regard it as a people's

democracy? My Lords, I don't regard that as a limited

sphere." And then at the foot of the page Your Lordship

says, "Would that be a people's democracy in capital

letters? No, I don't know, My Lords, I have never

thought of it in terms of capital letters. I suppose I

ouldn't put it in capital letters . A people's democracy

to me ig a general description of a state in which every-

body has the right to decide what form of government they

will have. " "A people's democracy, a People's Democracy,

i f the f irst M t e r s are capitals, would that make a

difference to you? I doubt i t , My Lord, I don't

think that it would. I haven't really considered i t ,

as I s .y I didn 't really think My Lords in terms other

than generally a s pe ople 's democracies. I know that

16619.

countries like Rumania and I think Czechoslovakia and

Hungary are styled People's Democracies in capital letters . "

"Why would they be styled like that with capital letters?

As a label which has been attached to these countries,

My Lord, People's Democracies in capital letters, I have

heard them spoken of as the eastern Democracies." Once

again, with respect, My Lord, for the second time in

this evidence Your Lordship is questioning the witness'

belief in what a people's democracy is , a matter no doubt

My Lord which the Crown would challenge and did challenge.

With respect, in our submission it is not something

which Your Lordship should challenge. Now that takes me

over a considerable number of pages to page 14503- My

Lord, I think the situation was that in Mrs, Joseph's

possession at the time she was raided, therehad been

found one volume of Marx' Capital, and two other books

of a socialist or leftist character. At the top of this

page she mentions in her evidence, line 1, "No, My

Lords, I acquired them, I had them in my possession for

a very short time. -hey w-re taken by the police and I

have actually nev^r opened the pages.1' That refers not

to Capital but to the other two books. She had in fact

My Lord, ^iven this evidence before, but had been

challenged about i t , whether sh- had read them. At the

foot of the page, My Lord, Your Lordship investigates

the problem. Your Lordship says, "You say you didn 't

read either of the two books? I think I once read

the f irst two chapters of Das Kapital , My Lords','.

"But the other two books? No, My Lord." "You

didn 't read them? No, My Lord , ! must confess there

are several books on my shelves I h ven 't read . " My

16620.

Lord, that is a v^ry short passage, but with respect

again it c^n create only one impression in the mind of

the witness, and that is My Lord that the Court is

challenging her statement that she did not read the two

books. It must in our respectful submission, My Lord, be

read as a challenge, because there was nothing here which

required elucidation. She had said what she had to say,

about the two books. She had been challenged by i t , - on

i t , and had repeated that. So although i t is a very short

passage, it is a passage of s me significance. And then,

My Lord, I come to page 14512. This is a passage, My Lord,

which I read at considerablelength yesterday, and I do

not propose to read the whole of the passage again, but

as this is probably the most important passage in the

whole of the evidence of this witness, it will have to be

examined in detail in order to ascertain what impression

it would have made on the witness in particular and on

the Accused. My Lord, may I say that our submission, with

respect is that these fifteen pages, in the middle of

the witness' cross—examination by the Crown, constitute

f ifteen pages of close and systematic cross-examination,

something which should have been undertaken, and no doubt

would have been undertaken by the Crown, but with respect

should not have come from the Bench. My Lord, this can

be divided into different topics, but I pause in the

beginning to point out that the questioning starts with

an entirely hypothetical case, and I want to say before

I deal with this hypothetical case which forms the first

topic of the cross-examination, that in our respectful

submission the Accused could not come to any other

conclusion but that the Court with respect, My Lord, was

16621.

endeavouring to get Mrs. Joseph to say that if fascist

oppression could he got rid of "by armed violence, where

a minimum of bloodshed would be required, then Mrs.

Joseph would approve of that armed violence.

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF S

This flows from a phrase at the beginning

of page 14512, "there must be a deeisive action to defeat

fascism in South Afr ica " . I think that is where it

emanates from.

BY MR. FISCHER ?

That is so. And our respectful submission

is that taking that together with the cross-examination,

makes it clear that there can be no otha^ object in this

passage but to endeevour to obtain from Mrs. Joseph a

confession that she would in the circumstances approve

of violent armed action, and I would ask the Court, My

Lords, to observe the metnod in which, with respect,

this is built up. Now, Your - the question starts,

" I f you had a country with a fascist government using the

organs of state and the armed forces of the government,

.and you had a majority of people suppressed by the

fascist government, a big majority of the people compared

with the minority who exercise the government, what

would you put as of prime importance, the achievement

of liberation or the method of achievement". Now that

in itself is a Very diff icult question and must with

r.spect have had the witness wondering what was coming.

That of course, My Lord, is apart from the fact that the

witness must have been wondering why hypothetical ques-

tions were being employs. She queries that, My Lord,

and then the next question is , "$ot actually what you would

16622.

support, what would you put as of primary importance, the

liberation of an oppressed people of the method of such

liberation? — " She replies that she cannot separate

them, liberation through peaceful methods. Now My Lord,

the next question advances to a clearer statement, and

its gist appears from lino 6 on page 14513? when these

words follow s "What would your attitude be if you had a

country where a mass of people were governed by fascist

government, but they had arms and if they wanted to, they

could by means of those arms in a very short clash get

rid of the fascist government and its authority and its

oppression with a minimum sacrifice as far as they are

concerned?" My Lords, we submit there can only be one

object with respect in asking a question like this , and

that is to endeavour to establish that the witness and

possibly the organisations to which she belongs, would

in certain circumstances favour a violent revolution.

Your Lordships will bear in mind that by this time of

course the witness had stated over and over again that

she was in favour of non-violent methods. Her answer

is , "My Lord, there could never be a minimum sacrifice,

in such a situation". But Your Lordship presses her,

in order first of all to obtain a point of view on a

hypothetical case, "What would your point of view be?"

She tries to answer that, and for the thiatd time Your

lordship asks the same question, but g ves is a different

form, " ould you condemn an armed conflict in thosecir-

cui.stances even if you might not support i t? " . My Lord,

can there be any doubt that this is an effort to extract

a smaller confession than the first question was designed

16623.

to extract. The witness ' answer is " I would regret it ,

I am not sure if I were actually asked to express an

opinion then, My Lords, I think I would because I condemn

all wars, all armed conflicts" . And Your Lordship presses

it again, "But would you in those circumstances? Yes,

My Lord". For the f i fth time, "Would you condemn the

oppressed masses for using violence?" My Lord, with

respect this gives it a different flavour again, "Would

you condemn all use of violence in throwing off the

fascist government". And in the next question at line 6,

for the sixth time, "Would you condemn it " and the witness

answers, " I f it came as a conscious decision on the part

of the people I would, My Lords" . My Lords, with respect,

Your Lordship was not satisfied even with six questions

of this nature, because at line 15 Your Lordship returns

to the hypothetical position, this is on page 14514, and

with respect theprocess starts again s "Well, assume you

had a fascist government which in order to entrench itself

as a government passed measures to suppress that part of

the population in the country which it governed. In

other words, as you put it , there was a movement in that

hypothetical case by the government of that particular

country, and i f the people had arms, would you then

condemn the use of those arms by the people in an effort

to shake off the government." My Lord, I remind Your

Lordship that this is the seventh time this question

has been asked.

BY :ffi. JUSTICE FJMPFF t

Except tha you will see the answer to the

question just before, which presumably gave rise to this

question, and the answer.

16624.

BY MR. FISCKoR :

Your Lordship is referring to the answer

at line 6?

BY MR. JUSTIC -i RUMPFF ;

14514, "You would condemn it? If it

came as a conscious decision on the part of the people

I would, My Lord. I make that distinction My Lord because

th^re are other situations in which there has been a move-

ment on both sides, a movement forward of the people and

a movement simultaneously from the forces of authority.

In those circumstances, My Lord, let me say I deplore it

and I regret i t , I might not say I would condemn one

side or the other in such a case" , and then follows the

question a g a i n . . .

BY MR. FI30H^R s

But My Lord, with respect was Your Lordship

then trying to get t h e . . .

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF ;

The witness hex'e quoted the possibility of

a case where th. re were two movements.

BY m . FISGHeR s

Whiere th-remight be an attack from the so-

called ruling class.

BY MR. JUSTICE FJMIFF;

A simultaneous movement she says, then she

would deplore i t , " I might not say I would condemn one

side" , and then the further questioning went en.

BY MR. FISCHER :

Your Lordship will realise that this all

flows from a hypothetical question, and that at any rate

to the outsider, My Lord, this must appear to be the

16625.

precise procedure and method which the cross-examiner

would adopt. My Lords, in the next question, it is again

repeated. "Yes, "but assume the position was such that

that majority of people, oppressed as they are, could by

a short, violent clash get rid of their fascist govern-

ment and establish a people's democracy". My Lord, I

think with respect this is a double question, and she is

asked, "Would you regret i t " , and she says " Y e s 1 . Your

Lordship does not rest with that, YourLordship repeats

"Would you condemn it? I would both regret and con-

demn any movement by the people to start and armed con-

f l i c t , no matter for what purpose, My Lord." Now My

Lord, Your Lordship then proceeded to demonstrate or to

explain to the witness why Your Lordship had asked these

questions. Your Lordship said, "Why I am asking you is

this , would that be the attitude of the Congress of

Democrats." Now My Lord, the very essence of the indict-

ment is that the Congresses held a policy of violence.

Your Lordship is here with respect, and that perhaps

quite unconsciously, taking up the cudgels for the Crown

in order to endeavour to establish this essential and

crucial feature in 'the Crown's case. My Lord, i f the

Crown had asked nine times over the question, the

hypothetical question about the approval of violence, I

have l ittle doubt that Your Lordship would have inter-

fered. The Crown might well have taken up the question

on the policy of the Congress of Democrats, but with

respect, My Lord, it was not for the ^ench to make the

suggestion that the Congress of Democrats might approve

of violence if there could be success in ashort, sharp

clash. And the witness replies, "There, My Lord, I have

16626.

been speaking for myself. I don't recallthat we ever

had an actual discussion of this nature. This is the

f irst time perhaps that I vocalise my own th/oughts

towards i t . I know that what I have said does reflect my

own personal point of view . " Then Your Lordship with

respect goes further, and Your Lordship asks the witness

to express an opinion - in the f irst question at line 5

Your Lordship had asked what the attitude of the Congress

of Democrats was. The witness, not having defined that

attitude, Your Lordship then asked what her opinion was,

knowing the Congress as she knew i t . "What is your opinion

about the view of that leadership concerning this matter

that we have discussed." ^er answer is , "My Lord, I think

that we are so wedded to the non-violent method and the

fact that they must ultimately prevail , that I feel that

the people in the leadership of the Congress of Democrats

would agree with me." Now My Lord, our submission is that

the next question is with respect a very serious question

in the light of the departure from the usual rule, because

Your Lordship says, " I am asking you this, because of the

evidence that is before us. Have you ever in any document

or speech condemned the violence used by an oppressed

people to throw off their oppressors". Now My Lord,

f irst of all that suggestion, with all the weight that

pertained to it because it comes from Your Lordship, that

the evidence suggests that in fact the Congress would

approve of violence - of a violent short sharp c l a s h . . .

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF :

N No, no, if I may interrupt you. You mean

" I am asking you this because of the evidence that is

before the Court".

16627.

BY MR. FISCHER ;

That is so, My Lord. I regret My Lord, at

the moment I cannot r e a l l y . . .

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF ;

That must be bound up immediately with what

follows, the condemnation issue that has immdiately gone

before this , whether there would be condemnation, and

that appears in line 3> there is a reference to the condem-

nation, and this is followed immediately "Does any document

or speech - is there any document or speech in which you

condemn the violence by an oppressed people to throw off

the government".

BY MR. FISOHeR :

My Lord, I say this with respect, the gist

of this question was to ascertain whether Mrs Joseph or

the Congress of Democrats would approve of violence i f it

were to produce a victory after a short sharp clash. Nine

questions were devoted to that theme.

BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF s

Yes, well that is your submission.

BY MR. FISCHER ;

That is my submission, My Lord. Then on page

14515 Your Lordship approaches it from a different point

of view. Afterall M7 Lord, the question as to whether

someone would condemn it is only a subsidiary question

as to whether the person approves, it is only a different

way of establishing the main problem which was posed by

the hypothetical question at the beginning. With respect,

My Lord, the presence of absence of condemnation of

violence is only relevant because the indictment alleges

the existence of a violent policy, otherwise My Lord no one

16628.

would ask about the presence or absence of condemnation. i

So that is a subsidiary or corrolary question to the

question of whether Helen Joseph or the Congress itself

approves of violence, and therefore our submission is My

Lord that anyone hearing the 24th line of this page, " I

am asking you this because of the evidence in this case, "

must come to the conclusion that there is evidence that

the policy is violent, and that conclusion must be forti-

fied , must be fortified by the reference, the suggestion

which came from His Lordship that there was no document

or speech which ever condemned violence. Again that

tecomes quite irrelevant, unless it is related to the

central question as to whether there is a policy of

violence. Again, My Lord, something with respect that

would be legitiEte in cross-examination by the Crown, but

not My Lord coming from the Bench. Now My Lord, I want to

examine the last four lines of the past passage mentioned

a little more carefully. Following on the statement about

the evidence, the sentence roads, " uavc you ever in any

document or speech condemned the violence used by an

oppressed people to throw off their oppressive government".

iN|ow with respect, My Lord, we say that in addition this

is - amounts to a direct effort to get the witness to

contradict her statement about her belief in non-violence.

This is her statement, " I don't agree with violence, I

believe that the strug le should be non-violent," and

from the Bench comes the question, "But have you ever

said so in any document or speech". The only inference,

with respect, is that the Bench either does not believe

the witness, or is giving the witness an opportunity

of changing her previous statement. And in the circumstances

16629.

of this case, therefore, My Lord, with great respect,

it becomes pressure put on the witness to get from her

an admission directly relating to the - to her own

hostile intent in terms of the indictment, or the hostile

intent displayed by the policy of any of the organisations

to which she belonged.

CASE REMANDED TC THE 24TH AUGUST, I 960 .

COURT ADJOURNS.

16630 2 4 /8 A 9 60

1 MR. FISCHER; May It please your lordships, at

the adjournment yesterday I was dealing with the passage

at the foot of page 14515. I was pointing out, my lord,

that your lordships having asked the series of questions

relating to the possible desire ®f the Congress of Demo-5

orats to use violence, then your lordship proceeded to

ask whether violence had ever been condemned, and your

lordships will notice that that question is asked three

times, once at the foot of page 14515 , and then again

at the top of page 14516 - it actually starts on the 1

previous page, "Why did you not do s®"; then your

lordship illustrates that from Kenya, and your lordship

says: "Well , let ' s take the oase of Kenya and Mau Mau.

Has it ever condemned the use of violence by the Mau Mau

people?— (A) I don't know, as far as the Mau Mau is ^

concerned, my lord, there is a great division of opinion

whether there was in fact Mau Mau."

Then your lordship said; Our submission, my

lord, is that this is a rebuke which was not really jus-

tif ied : "Mrs. Joseph, are you putting this to us now, £

that we as a Court of Law should find that there were

no Mau Mau". My lord, then the question proceeds in

the next paragraph on the basis of what appears in the

papers. Your lordship says then your lordship and the

witness might meet on more or less equal grounds there.

My lords, our submission about this kind of questioning

is that it represents in our submission what has been

described in relation to cross examination as a duel

between minds.

I f your lordships wil l now turn to page 14517 ,

16631. 2,

your lordships will see that the question returns to the

problem of the condemnation of violense, and the exact

question is asked another three times, on page 14517 at

line 13 , at line 24 and on the next page, and again in

the next page 14518 at line 1 8 . But there your lordship

puts it in a somewhat more forceful way because your

lordship relies upon your lordship's memory of the evidence.

Your lordship puts it to the witness, "And in not a

single instance that I can think of - that 's why I am

putting it to you - in not a single instance was the

violence adopted by the oppressed people condemned".

That your lordship had done earlier at line 5 in a

slightly different respect by saying : "That to ascertain

whether either you or the Congress of Democrats ever

treated both parties on the same basis, because the

impression that I have - that is looking at the documents

published - - it was squarely put on the Government "

My lords, our submission is that after this

repetition of the questions, your lordship will not re-

gard it as unfair i f the submission is made that at the

foot of page 14518 your lordship in fact questions the

bona fides of the witness' acceptance of the policy

of non-violence. "Would it be right to say that a son-

demnation of violence in the opinion of the Congress

of Democrats depends on the situation". Now, my lord,

that is developed, and your lordship suggests that it

might be merely an expedient because at the present

stage it might be suicidal. In other words, my lords,

with great respect, as we read this, the suggestion is

that i f it were expedient to use violence, then violence

16632.

would be uaed, and consequently, my lords, the inference

is that your lordship was questioning the bona fides of

the witness' be l ie f .

Your lordship will see that in the last para-

graph on page 14-519 - half way through the question, there

is the sentence, "So for any organisation to make headway

among the masses it would be essential to propagate a

policy of non-violence, not so, because it would be

suicidal to propagate violence in the circumstances.

It depends on the situation where you are. That is

why I am asking you the question, to test the real approach

to the problem by yourself, and by the Congress of Demo-

crats. I 'm putting to you the difference between the

expressions of non-violence in this country, and the

failure on the face of it - - on the face of the documents

at least - the failure to condemn violence in other coun-

tries where circumstances existed more or less shall I

say the same as here."

My lords, we offer a further criticism of that

question. There is no evidence before the Court of the

circumtances in any one of these countries referred to

being more or less the same as here. There is indeed,

my lord, no evidence that violence was used, because

there is no evidence about those countries at all , and

with great resnect, my lords, we therefore offer the

criticism that what your lordship did was to make an

unwarranted assumption of fact, a judicial knowledge of

facts, not before this Court - and facts on which a

judicial assumption should not have been made, in order

to face the witness with a problem. Your lordship

mentions that as a problem, because your lordship goes

16633.

on to say "Whether oppressed people actually were said

to have used violence5 you see the conflict?— (A) I

gee, my lords, but that would suggest that non-violence

is purely a matter of expediency in South Africa "

the witness takes the matter up, my lords, " . . . . I have

never seen it here, my lords. " And your lordship

says, "That is my difficulty" .

Now, my lords, the next question - the next

answer is of significance. Your lordship said ; "That

is why I am putting it to you" , and the witness says:

" I can see where your lordship is leading, but, my lords ,

I have never seen it as a matter of expediency". So,

my lords, with great respect, your lordship has there

created the impression to the witness that your lordship

is leading to a point.

Now, my lords, notwithstanding that, the

same problem is pursued by your lordship by referring

immediately thereafter to China. ( "Q ) Well , now, take

the case of - - if I may go one step further - China,

which is a country which has been referred to in a num-

ber of documents. That ought to be admired. Now I

think we can assume that the liberation of China did not

take place in a non-violent manner".

My lords, I suggest that again the Court has

gone outside of the facts and has in fact got a conces-

sion from the witness; the witness, your lordships will

realise was defending her belief , in a policy of non-

violence, and it may be that it was this long strenuous

examination that caused the witness on this day to break

down when she reached the gaol on the evening of that

day.

16634

Then your lordship p r o c e e d s N o w , did the

Congress of Democrats ever in putting up China as an

example to the constitution to be adopted - I 'm putting

it squarely in that form in the interests of the oppressed

people - did it ever in the same breath . condemn the

violence?"

My lords, I 'm not Raking your lordships to

take any judicial knowledge of China now, but there were

very complicated circumstances of civil war, international

war, which would all have to be debated i f one were to

draw some comparison, but, my lords, to the best of my

knowledge there was never any suggestion in any Congress

of Democrats document that the Chinese constitution

should be put up as an example to be adopted in this

country. Again, my lords, this must have had a very

great impact on the witness who, after all , would be

looking to your lordship as expressing authoritative

balanced views. It would be very difficult for a witness,

my lords, as indeed it is for Counsel; to suggest that

a learned Judge is erring in putting evidence, or the

effect of evidence, to witnesses„

And, f inally , my lords, the question is re-

peated for the third time, "Then it is for that reason

I 'm really asking you the question; did the view, the

point of view as regards non-violence - was that not a

point of view which depended on circumstances?"

BEKEE R J% Where is that, Mr. Fischer?

MR. FISCHERs That's at page 14521 , my lord,

line 5. My lords, from that page, line 25 , there

follow six pages up to page 14527, of what, with respect,

16635.

I submit I am entitled to term a debate on the problems

of a nationwide strike. Now your lordship started "by

questioning the witness on a conception termed 'relative

violence ' . "Did the Congress of Democrats support the

principle of the African National Congress, that in

order to achieve its aims it may be necessary to engage

in a unionwide struggle"5 that is on the question of

relative violence.

Now your lordship will see that your lordship

assumed throughout this discussion that the State might

use violence; for instance at line 10 on page 14522 your

lordship puts it in this form: "Did the Congress realise

that in the case of an ultimate strike , which would be

an indication of the failure of any negotiations prior

to that, that thece might be violence used by the State

to break the strike?"

Now, my lords, the witness resisted the sug-

gestion that - - a s I remember - - violence was necessary

or an essential part of this , and your lordship will see

on page 14523? halfway down the page, that the question

then took this form: "And in that case, i f there were

ever a strike on that scale and there were arrests on a

large scale, did the Congress of Democrats envisage the

possibility of violence?" The witness, having been un-

willing to say that she thought so - your lordship asked

whether the Congress envisaged that possibility, and

when the witness resisted that your lordship followed

that up in the last paragraph but one on that page by

asking "Was there a likelihood of this happening".

My lords, I say, with respect, that your

lordship in re-reading these pages, that is pages 14523

16636.

14525» will find that considerable efforts were made to

get the witness to agree that in a nationwide strike both

she and the organisation to which she belonged must have

envisaged that violence would occur and therefore that

that was the Congress of Democrats' policy. I just take

a few of the questions, my lords: Your lordship had

asked whether they envisaged it and whether there was a

likelihood of it happening, and at 14524 your lordship

said:

(MQ) Now, in that atmosphere, having regard to the feet

that the Government of to-day is as hard as a rock, and

the Congress Alliance is determined to carry on, what

would the Congress of Democrats - or you for that matter -

what would you envisage might happen".

My lords, I emphasise this passage because two

pages later I shall return to this when your lordship dis-

cussed the possible reconciliation of the witness1 policy

with what were called the hard facts of l i f e . But the

witness is pressed here about envisaging violence in the

next paragraph . . .

RUMFF? J; Just before you go on, in regard

to the repetition of the questioning, i f I may call it

that, have you also noticed the answers?

MR. FISCHER; Yes, iqjr lord, I realise that

very often the answers are profuse, a nd I would ask your

lordships to make allowances for that; I 'm not criticising

in any sense your lordship's repetition of a question

which is required to clear up the answer.

RUIEFFF J; Yes, well , the impression that

is gained readi.ng from the record as it stands is that

16637*

in a few cases the answer appears to "be an answer to

the question directly; there may be an answer and then

a question on that answer . . .

MR. FISCHER: And, of course, I'm making no

point of that, my lord. I f I have erroneously included

such questions then your lordship will forgive me.

But your lordship wi l l see . . here it is "What did you

envisage" and " I f thestrike is on a nationwide scale

would you-exclude violence completely" . . .

RUMPFF Js Where is that?

MR. FISCHER: At the foot of page 14524 , my

lord. Your lordship will see that that is a case in

point; in the second line of 14525, "What do you envi-

sage to resist provocation" - - I think that, my lord,

might not be an answer to your lordship's question.

Your lordship repeated that, "What do you envisage in

that, if I may call i t , final plan"?— (A) My lord, I

envisage it this way, that we woulc not embark upon

something of this nature which would be of such a vast

character unless we had good reason to believe that our

people would be disciplined. We would not go into it

rashly, my lords. " Then your lordship says: "That

must be the hope?— (A Yes, it would b e " . " ( Q ) But

what would the expectation b e " . Our submission, my

lord, is that that surely, with respect, would be an

indication to the witness to the witness that your

lordship thought that the expectation should be that

there would be violence and bloodshed.

RUMPFF Well , here is also an example -

looking at the question and answer of the original

question, what she would envisage - "What do you envisage"

16638. 9

at the top of page 25, 14525, "What do you envisage to

resist provocation". The a the question is repeated,

"What do you envisage in that - i f I may call it - final

plan" . Then she says, "My lord, I envisage it this way,

that we would not embark upon something of this nature

which would be of such a vast character unless we had

good reason to believe that our people would be disciplined"

"We would not go into it rashly." Now, so far the

answer has not been given, what would she envisage.

Then the question comes from me, "That must be the hope",

in terms of that answer, and she says "Yes . " Now,

switching over from the word 'envisage' , the expectation

- that the expectation, what would the expectation be.

I am referring again to these questions, to point out

the fact that from the record it appears that no direct

answer was given, and that there was an attempt to get an

answer.

MR. FISCHER; Your lordship wi l l also, I submit,

take into account a very full answer which the witness had

already given at page 14524, when your lordship had asked

what she would envisage, and she had said, my lord - -

and perhaps this is not expressed in such a way as one

would i f one were writing it down and studying the words,

but this did give a very clear picture. " I envisagethat

there might be , as you say, arrests, but I saw i t , and

I think others do, that if that situation could be

brought about it would not be of long duration. Our

people might have to suffer during the time that the

pressure would be on the population as a whole; it

would not be of very long duration. Our people might

have to suffer during that time,that the pressure would

16639. 10

be on the population as a whole, because the country would

not be able to continue, and therefore negotiations would

result . "

RUMPFF J ; Yes .

MR. PISCHERs Then at page 14525, my lords,

your lordship returns to the idea that a short sharp clash

would be acceptable to the Congress of Democrats. You

say,my lords , ''Assume that the position would be that the

Congress Aliance had reached that stage where it was de-

termined to carry on with a nationwide strike, knowing

that the Government were adament, and realising also that

the clash would be short because of the organisation of

the Congress Alliance, and if I may put it also, realising

that although there may be some blood it would be small

compared to a nationwide clash, and it would be a very

short duration before the victory would be a cthieved,

would that be in line with the Congress policy11.

Our submittion, my lords, is that the inference

is unmistakable and cannot be escaped, that the witness

must have assumed by this time - and that the accused must

have assumed by this time - that your lordship was endeavour

ing to get the witness to accept as her, and as the Congress

policy, that on a lesser scale, not on a scale of great

magnitude, but that on a lesser scale,that is the short

sharp clash with little blood spilled, the Congress of

Democrats had a policy which included the use of violence.

And, my lord, from there I passto what perhaps i

is the most important part of my argument, because your

lordship proceeded, if there were any doubts about the

previous passages that were put on page 14-525, your

lordship proceeded to explain why the question was being

16640. 01.

asked. Your lordship said, " I ' m asking these questions • . . " 1

RUMPFF J: Where is that?

MR. FISCHER; At page 14-526 - the second paragraph,

my lord. " I ' m asking these questions to see how your

evidence about the fundamentals of your policy can be

reconciled to the hard facts of l i f e " , and the witness 5

answers*. "My lords ; the fundamentals of our policy were

reconciled with the hard facts of l i f e in India; it took

a long time; they can be reconciled. I believe i t , my

lords . " Your lordship then put quite a different situa-

tion, "Except that there may be this difference in India, 1 0

between India and this country, that the very idea of

non-violence as propagated by Ghandi is an idea which

according to bhe evidence as such has not been propagated

to the S8me extent and in the same particular manner?—

(A) It started here, my lords " . ^

Now, my lord, i f your lordships will bear

with me I will, endeavour to analyse this br ie f ly .

RUMPFF Ji Yes.

FISCHER; It suggests, my lord, that your

20

lordship knows what are the hard facts of l i f e , although

there is no evidence about that. It suggests further,

my lords , , . „

RUMPFF J: Fnat do you suggest it meant, in

the question?

MR. FISCHER; I suggest, my lord, that i f

your lordship refers back to page 14524 , " I f the Govern-

ment is hard as a rock". The whole debate, my lord,

after all turns - and really this case turns - on the

question of whether one can expect to change European

opinion in this country,

J

Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812

PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2011

LEGAL NOTICES:

Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.

People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.