16481.

'The authority of the A .N.C . prevailed and the work

of the A.N.C, and its volunteers created a situation'.

What situation was that?— (A) I would interpret this

as a situation where the people were behind the A.N.C.

( "Q) But if it had been the policy of the A.U.C. to

tell the people all along 'You must not move, but when

the police come you mustn't resist? why should the

Government anticipate the date; what was the situation

which made it necessary for the Government to anticipate

the date? IJm asking you in regard to the A.N.C?—

(A) That was the policy of the A.N.C. It was explained

to the people that they must not move but when the

police come they must move. " I f that was the policy why

did the Government have to anticipate the date?— (A)

The Government had a different view of the plans of the

A.N.C. They did not think of our policy, that we were

not asking people to move voluntarily. That was why

there were statements circulated that we had gunpowder,

dynamite, guns*," ( "Q) When was that statement made?—

(A) I can't remember". ("Q) After the removal or be-

fore the removal?— (A The statement was made when the

date was changed," ( "Q) When was that statement made?—

(A) When the date wasannounced by the Government to change

the date".

Then I skip a page, my lords, and I deal

with the questions at page 11384. ("Q) Why does this

then say, because the A„N.C, that it was the A.N.C.

that caused all this?— (A) I t ' s a political body, my

lords. It so worked on people politically that they

followed our lead and the Government did not say it

was the other body. It was always the African National

16482.

Congress who were intending to burn Indian shops, who had

all these things." " I t did not direct attention to this

other body, it w as always the A .N .C . who had an armed

resistance." ("Q) I only want to know, is this paragraph

correct or incorrect, as it stands, beginning with the

words 'The authority of the A .N .C . prevailed'?" Then

there's a very lengthy answer. And at the top of page

11386, my lords, the question reads, ("Wow you say that

the policy first of all was to tell the people to resist

or not to go voluntarily, but if and when the police came

to go peacefully?— (A) Yes." ( "Q) Thereafter it was

decided to put the volunteers into action to remove

families ?— (A) Prom the areas where they had to be

removed from". ("Q) That was a change of policy"?—(A)

Just prior, my lords, it says there, 'Just prior to the

actual removal.

Then it goes on, Plans have been made for

A . I . and for nationwide support in various forms."

( "Q) What does A e I . mean?— (A) Industrial action".

C"Q) What is meant by industrial action?— (A) (Explained".

And at the foot of the page, my lords, ( "Q)

Well, it saje here in the face of the situation which ob-

tained, and the unpreparedness of the people, it became

apparent at this stage that these had to be abandoned

at the last minute"-- (A) Yes." ( "Q) Did the A.N.C.

in its campaign, when it addressed public meetings, did

it advise the "oopulation of this industrial action that

it proposed to take?— (A) I think the plans were not

really properly put forward; it might have happened that

in some cases a hint was dropped."

( "Q) Yes; is it correct to say, Dr. Conco, that in

this period that we are concerned with, it was the

policy of the African National Congress eventually to

take over the Government", then the witness asked a

question, (In other words, to take power?).

("Q) Yes?— (A) TO just take over the Government for

the A.N.C? ( "Q) Yes?— (A) Well, my lords, the policy

of the African National Congress was really not that we

would eventually take over the Government as a government.

The policy was step by step to achieve our a ims . . . . "

And then, my lords, although we rely on the

whole passage, I turn to page 11389 where the question

is asked at line 21, ( "Q) Well, did you in any communica-

tion to the United Nations at all indicate that the A.N.C.

wanted to have the Government of this country?— (A) It

might be there but I don't r emember, my lords, I don't

remember that. The A.N aC. fights for full citizenship

and stands for all the people in South Africa, white or

black," ("Q) There's a reference in the evidence to

a document alleged to have been compiled by Mandela,

'No Easy Walk to Freedom'". Then, my lords, there were

a number of questions asked on that document, and on

the following page there were questions on the possibility

of a punishment of whipping for v/omen. Then the question

is asked at line 24s ( "Q) Why I am asking that is because

there happens ':;o be also a reference to that in a document

apparently published by the WoI.D.l? in 1954, not on the

same basis, but in that document which is Exhibit E.149.

It 's a brochure entitled "That they may live, African

women arouse"?— I 've heard it , my lords.

16484o

( HQ) Alleged to be published by the Womens International

Democratic Federation in Berlin in February 1954. There

is a passage in the brochure which says - also dealing

with the Defiance Campaign - 'As a punishment for anyone

who has incited or encouraged there is a fine of £500

5

ten strokes or five years imprisonment, or two of these

penalties. The question has been raised in Parliament

as to whether women can be sentenced to be whipped.

The Minister has replied in the affirmative'." The

witness says, " I t might be the sa'® incident." 10

Now, my lords* the questions proceed on

various documents, particularly in these two pages 11391

and 11392 - on the document Be24 and the article in that

document by Lionel Forman, and then at the top of nage

11393 there is this question: ( "Q) What in your opinion ^

would be the difference; XTm just trying to find out

according to your view; what would be the difference

between the State achieved in terms of the Freedom Charter

and the Government in China„ The Stase of China is for

instance referred to b3r this writer?— (A) I'm not well 20

informed, my lord, about the democracy in China; really

I find it difficult to say" ,

("Q) Have you never made a study of that?— (A) My lor

16485.

to 1956 r more particularly perhaps towards the end of

that period, were there people in the A .N.C . criticising

the introduction of Communist theories in the A .N .C ,

policy", and the witness deals with that at some length.

The next question is;

( "Q) Well, after 1952 and up to the Freedom Charter,were

there criticisms by members of the A .N.C . that certain

plicies of the A„N,C„ appeared to be Communist?— ( A ) . . . .

that form of criticism came from people; I could mention

one chap I knew very well in Natal, John Jordan Nkubane

who was very emphatic on the question that the A.N.C.was

becoming influenced by Communism".

( "Q) Well, at that time did the A .N .C , consider it neces-

sary at all tc discuss the question, whether any of their

policies appeared to be something like Communism, or not,

or was the A.N.C. just proceeding on its way?— (A) It

was proceeding on its way, my lord, it had a basic policy

in 1944.

("Q) Yes, but after the Freedom Charter had been formulated

was there any criticism that the Freedom Charter was a

Communist document by members of the A.N.C?— (A) What

criticism; my lords? If I may add here, my lords, new

features appeared in the Freedom Charter, just one feature

which probably night have not been discussed in the A.N.C"

and he deals with nationalisation of the mines.

( "Q) Where did that come from?. In the Freedom

Charter ?— (A) It came from the Congressof the People".

( "Q) Not through the African National Congress?— (A)

Well, there were different views, my lords, within the

African National Congress itself on nationalisation.

1648 6.

That is why we felt discussion should be held on i t . "

Some were in favour of nationalisation and some were not".

And then, my lords,, at page 11396, the question

is asked;

( "Q) You say there was criticism in the A .N.C . of portions

of the Freedom Charter?— (A) Well, some people criticised

certain portions."

( "Q) And did the A,N.C. not worry about that?— (A) Well,

even though there was criticism the majority prevailed."

That is the longest passage on which we rely, my

lords, and our submission is , with great respect, that

it constitutes cross examination of the witness.

We make a similar submission in regard to the

passage 11397 to line 2 on page 11402, line 28 , my lords,

that this passage includes the question that was put on

11399» ( "Q) Dr. Conco, there is an extract from an article

which I want to read to you, and I want you to give your

opinion on it ; it is exhibit PJ.104; the portion I want

to quote is as follows: 'That the disease is more dread

than the system. It has been called a Police State, it ' s

been called a Dictatorship and a Fascist State. ' Call

it what you wish, the name is not important, 'There is

a grave disease in our political life that has eaten

deeply into the living tissues of our . . . . it has

undermined the Acts of Union and imperilM the honour

of our cause. (reads on) . ' I 'm putting this

medical term to you, as a medical practitioner, - ' It

is time for a new epoch but even now the surgical opera-

tion will be far from easy' - - there is further quota-

tion - - then the question follows ("Q)What would you say

16487

the writer or author of this document had in mind when he

says 'The Fascism in our country is incurable unless it

is surgically removed'." Then, my lords, there is a

lengthy discussion on that0

Now, my lords, those are the two passages

which I rely on in the argument on evidence of the wit-

ness Conco. There are three passages which I rely on in

my argument from the witness Luthuli.

KENNEDY J: Mr. Fischer, in regard to those

two passages, is your objection that they constitute

cross examination?

MR. FISCHER; Yes, my lord.

KENNEDY J; It falls under heading 2 of the

four points you make?

MR. FISCHERS Principally under heading 2 .

KENNEDY J; Are any of the other headings in-

cluded?

MR. FISCHER; Yes, my lord, they also fall

under heading 3.

KENNEDY Js 2 and 3?

MR. FISCHER; 2 and 3> my lord,

RUMPFF J ; That'3 the last passage you re-

ferred to?

MR. FISCHER; Yes, which we describe in

our argument as coming under 'political debate'.

RUMPFF J; Yes.

MR, FISCHER; My lords, it 's not always easy

- I had hoped to separate these passages and label e ach

one; it 's not possible to do that, my lords", your

lordships will realise that I covered there about 26

pages which in a sense brings the objection also under

20

25

30

16488o

1 heading No . l .

KENNEDY J: Oh, well perhaps it mightn't be fair

to expect you to classify them under each heading.

MR. FISCHER; I don't think it is possible, my

lords.

5

KENNEDY J; No0 Well, if you just say they

fall under one or other or some or all of the headings.

MR. FISCHER t I shall endeavour to do so, my

lord. Now, ny lords5 the next passage to which I wish

to refer is a passage in Volume 62, page 13234, line 14 10

to page 13237, line 18 . The questions are as follows -

( U Q) I don't understand your evidence at a l l . The first

article referred to by the Crown apparently was an article

by Mandela, ard he deals there with the parties in the

Union. He deals with the Liberal Party and he criticises 15

the Liberal Party for taking a middle course?— (A) That

is s o" .

( U Q ) A middle of the road course?— (A) That is so."

( "Q) And in dealing with that he says 'You can't achieve

anything by that?-— (A) That is correct," 20

( "Q ) He refers to a des peraS e resistance that will have

to be overcome?— (A) That is soa"

( "Q ) Now apparently in reply to that article PCW. Price

wrote and said that they - presumably the Liberal Party -

that they did not want any violence. He didn't use the 25

word violence but he said 'We don't want any storming of

bastilles, tattered banners, tombstones. We don't want

that '?— (A) I appreciate that, my lord,"

( "Q) Obviously meaning that the Liberal Party don't want

any clashes of violence?— (A) Quite correct, my lord,," 30

16489«

("Q) Now again in reply to that article Ruth First wrote

an article and listening to the passages which were quoted

from that she says1. 'That is nonsense'; she criticises

Price?— (A) Quite so, my lords-"

("Q) For being afraid of violence? That is one's first

impression when one reads t h a t . . , . ? — (A) My lord, did you

say criticises for being afraid?" .

("Q) She criticises Price for advocating peaceful means?—

(A) Peaceful means?"

( "Q) And she suggests that you can't achieve anything with-

out violence; that is what she suggests?— (A) Well, my

lords, I ' d better leave that with the Court."

(UQ) Yes, that is what I say is the impression I get from

her answer?— (A) Yes."

( U Q) She ridicules peaceful means; she is sarcastic about

it and she quotes ?— (A) My lords, would the peaceful

means be connected for instance with constituional means?"

( n Q) Well, you've heard the passage, I'm just giving you

my impression* The urima facie impression, listening to

this view, is that she suggests that a struggle without

the possibility of a clash is ineffectual, it will not

serve?— (A) My lords? just to clear my own mind in that

regard, is that any different from the attitude of the

African National Congress?", "What I have already said

in Court, namely that our programme of action for example

might result in the State taking action."

( "Q) That is the question asked by Counsel?— (A) That

I accept, my lordc I may not have made myself clear."

( "Q) I just want to ask you this; did you read these

articles at the time when they were published?— (A) No, my

16490

lord, I don't really recall. I must say that one reads an

article, but I am not a general reader - that I must say " .

( "Q) But didn't this present an interesting difference

between a man whom you knew well , Mandela, and Price,

and Ruth First?— (A) I must say, my lord, I am not a

general reader of these journals".

( "Q) But this is a magazine called 'Liberation*; did you

get it regularly?— (A) Not regularly . ."

( "Q) Were you not a subscriber to i t ?— (A) No, I 'm not a

subscriber." "But I get it fairly regularly when I 'm in Town.."

( "Q) Was it not sent to you?— (A) I cannot answer no or

yes, because one gets so many of these articles that I

can't remember, but I do get them - - I do generally get

i t . "

( "Q ) At this time were you President-General of the A.N.C

?-- (A) That is correct." 2 0

( n Q ) Were you doing any other work at the time, or was this

your full time occupation?— (A) No, Congressis part time.

That is , of course, you've got to do your own personal

work for a living. "

( "Q ) What work did you do at The time?— (A) I am a 25

peasant farmer." ''Then, too, my lords, as I say, I »

think it also depends upon one's pay how many journals

one receives . . . "

There is then a lengthy answer, my lords, and

the last question is ; 50

( "Q) Did you know members of the Liberal Party at the

time who were prepared to go the full way with your orga-

nisation?— (A) No, my lord. What I do know is that

since that time the Liberal Party has in many respects

16491

been considering the question s and revising its own con-

stitution."

Now, my lords, the next passage is at page

13445, line 12 . . .

RUMPFF J ; The same witness?

MR. FISCHER; The same witness, my lord, to

page 13446, line 16;

( M Q) Well, the difficulty is this, Mr. Luthuli, Counsel

asked you if the A aN 0C. visualised the possibility of

reduced government forces available for the removal by

industrial action. Why did it think that a reduced

government force would assist the people, the people who

were about to be removed?— (A) My lords, in this whole

general picture I find it difficult to - -

("Q) Well, I suppose the argument will be "

My lords, I understand this to be the argument

for the Crown -

"The argument will simply be that the A0N„C. wanted to

reduce the forces of government in areas concerned? they

were expecting violent action, and the smaller the Govern-

ment foree the less chance of the Government scoring

a success by violent action. May I put this to you:

have you got any other reason why the A.1T,C, wanted

the Government forces to be reduced?— (A) Well, my

lords I think that it is correct; I think that the

observation of my lordship there would be correct , ."

( "Q) I 'm saying, i f you say you don't understand the

question then the Crown may leave it at that, and it may

argue at a later stage that the only reason why the

A,N.C. wanted a reduction in the forces was because it

expected a violent clash; it didn't want the Government

16492.

forces to be concentrated in that area. That will be

the a rgument?— (A) My lords, I was going to say this,

that in a situation like that several factors may come

into it " and there is a lengthy answer, my lords.

Now, my lords, I am omitting some of the pas-

sages and I read from page 13724, line 15. The question

at line 16 starts as follows;

( "Q) I just want to ask you, Mr. Luthuli, about the so

called peace. You say that the African National Congress

is favourably inclined towards Russia insofar as she

sought peace, as she purported to seek peace?— (A) That

is correct, my lord." "And the other things that I have

mentioned 0"

( "Q) Now what was the peace of Soviet Russia as the

African National Congress understood it? What is meant

by peace?— (A) Well, my lords, I cannot be specific but

I think at UNO her pronouncers were in favour of peace,

and I think also, my lords, that the general pronouncements

of the Russian leaders were to that effect"e

" (Q ) I know that they may have been in favour of peace,

but what was the peace that Soviet Russia aimed at? What

was peace? What do you understand by peace? As far as

the African Naticnal Congress is concerned?— (A) I think,

my lords, we would understand it as a stage where there

is co-existence, commonphrase co-existence; each country

living peacefully and working out its own destiny in its

own way. We'd understand it that way."

( "Q) My question was, how did the African National Con-

gress understand the peace that Soviet Russia wanted and

propagated?— (A) I don't know that I follow, my lords."

16493.

( "Q) Well, you've indicated that insofar as Soviet

Russia explained itself to be in favour of peace, the

A .N .C . supported their point of view?— (A) Ye3, and

I thought, my lords „ , . »"

( W Q) I want to know from you what is the meaning of the

peace that Soviet Russia explained to be in favour of,

in the minds of the African National Congress? What did

the African *Titicn£l nongres° understand by the word

peace?-* (A) I'm afraid . . . . . "

( "Q ) l ' l l tell you why I ask . . ." and lower down -

("Q) Is it jufst that Russia didn't appear to be desirous

of engaging in battle?— (A) Yes, I would say so."

( "Q) Or is it something more?— (A) No, I think we were

thinking more in terms of world war" „•

( "Q) Why I ask you is because if my memory serves me cor-

rectly, there have been references to certain conditions

for instance that there can be no peace without libera-

tion?— (A) Yes, that is correct, my lord,"

Then? my lords, there is a considerable dis-

cussion on that 5 and in the last paragraph of page 13726

the witness is asked"

( "Q) Now i f that is so;; and that is really what I want to

enquire into, inoo the meaning of peace, is it correct to

say that peace as the African National Congress sees it

is not a mere state of non-war, not the mere state of

parties not fighting, it is a state in which a certain

political change has taken place throughout the world?—

(A) My lords, I think it would cover that, but I think

that generally in regard to the earlier questions of

your lordship, I think it 's more thinking of actual war

when we say peace„

16494.

Then I skip two questions, my lord, and thens

( "Q) NOW I take it that - is it correct to say that the

African National Congress did not worry about other coun-

tries which expressed themselves in favour of peace?—(A)

Well, my lords . . . . . "

( n Q) I ' l l tell you why I 'm asking you that question, be-

cause it knew or it thought that the peace suggested by

Soviet Russia was a peace based on the absence of oppres-

sion. In other words, if a Western power without any

Colonial possessions or interests let us take Denmark?

i f Denmark had expressed itself as a peace loving nation

and in favour of peace, that would not really have been

of interest to the African National Congress, because

that type of peace was an obvious type of peace - the

absence of war; but when Soviet Russia " and the

witness says, "Repeat about Denmark, my lord, I didn't

follow", and the question is repeated:

("Q) I say if Denmark had expressed itself in favour of

peace the African National Congress would not have been

concerned with that?— (A) We would have been glad, my n ord"

("Q) If you would have been glad, it would be because

ofr:a people expressing a desire forpeace, but now the

African National Congress did not go out of its way to

quote Denmark as a country in favour of peace?— (A) That

would be correct, my lordo"

("Q) Except Russia?— (A) That would be correct."

( " 0 ) Not I'm trying to find the reason".

Then there are some questions which follow;

I shall skip intermediate questions;

("Q) Did the AtN.C

16495

exists oppression there can't be peace."

( "Q) So that unless and until the world picture is such

that there is no oppression in any country of the world

true peace cannot exist?— "

I again skip a questions

("Q) Well, is the view then of the African National Con-

gress or was the view that until and unless there is no

oppression in any country in the world, true peace cannot

exist ?"

And then I take the three questions on page

13729, my lords:

( "Q) Would tha result be of that attitude that one would

require a political change throughout the world to re-

move oppression before true peace could exist?" Next

question:

( "Q) Would you agree with the Communist point of view

that if every country in this world became a Communist

country there would be true peace?" and finally:

( "Q) I'm not suggesting that you should; I'm merely

asking you whether you agree with the Communist point

of view that until every country in the world is Commu-

nist there can be no true peacec"

My lords, the passages which we rely on stop

at the 12th line 0:1 page 13730, and I wish to refer

only to one farther passage for the purposes of this

argument. That is the passage in Volume 67, page

14282, my lords, line 6 to start with. I 'm sorry, my

lord, that completes the portions from the witness

Lithuli and I'm now dealing with the evidence of Mrs.

Joseph. This is her evidence in volume 67, page 14282.

16496.

She was being cross examined by, or led by Lrvy ae fol-

lows s

( "Q) NOW did the Peace Council ever express the view that

British control of the Protectorates was a threat to

peace?" — (A) No, my lords, as far as I know the Peace

Council never expressed that view." 1 0

And then the question from the Bench:

( "Q) Why not, why didn't you?— (A) I don't think I can

give the answer why, my lords, I can only say that I don't

recall that it ever did."

("Q) Should it have done so?— (A) I 'm trying to think ^

that out, my lords. May I postpone the answer."

Then Levy asks; (Q) On the other hand, it is

correct, is it not, that the Peace Council had a differ-

ent view about the British control of Malaya", and the

witness answered 'For me to ascribe to the Peace Council 2 0

the view that it had a different view of Malaya - - I

find myself thinking along different lines "

"But I would not be correct if I said that was the view

of the Peace Council; I 've never heard it discussed by

the Peace Council. It 's merely my own view." Then 25

from the Bench:

( "Q) Would it be correct to say that in terms of the

Peace Council's view? if in Swaziland there weie a

Communist Party agitating for independence of sovereignty

than the British rule might constitute a danger to world

peace".

My lords, to try and keep this application

within limits I propose to rely on two other passages

from Mrs. Jsseph's evidence, one of them unfortunately

16497

is somewhat lengthy; I ' l l try and abbreviate it as far

as I can.

KENNEDY J ; Mr. Fischer, I 'm sony , I missed the

page where you ended in regard to the first portion.

MR. FISCHER; I ended, my lord, page 14282, line

6 to 11, and line 22 to 30, my lord, on the same page.

The next pasage is page 14512, line 14, and this, my

lords, we rely on the whole of this up to page 14527 -

line 2. My lords, this we submit constitutes something

like fifteen pages of continuous questioning during the

cross examination of the accused Mrs. Joseph. It starts

as follows; "Mrs. Joseph, may I put a hypothetical case

to you. If you had a country with a Fascist Government

using the organs of the State and the amE d forces to

govern, you have a majority of the people oppressed by

the Easist Government, a big majority of the people com-

pared to the minority who exercise the Government

what would you put as of prime importance; the achievement

of liberation, or the methods of the achievement?— (A) I

think I would find it difficult to separate the two, my

lords. I myself would not support a violent method to

achieve liberation."" If that is what my lord implies".

("Q) Not isctually what you would support; what would

you put as of primary importance, the liberation of an

oppressed people from a Fascist government, or the me-

thods of such liberation?-- (A) My lord, I cannot separate

them.

(MQ) I f you had a country where the oppresses masses have

no weapons and have no arms and couldn't employ violence

successfully, except by exercising couldn't make

their presence felt except by extra-parliamentary activities

16498,

- that would be one thing. It might in those circum-

stances be very foolish to encourage them to run up against

machine guns. What would your attitude be if you had a

oountry where a mass of people were governnd by a 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 of sacrifice as far as they are

concerned."?— My lords, there would never be a minimum

sacrifice in such a situation."

( "Q) What would your point of view be?— (A) My point of

view, my lords, would be and has always been that even if

it means a longer time to achieve liberation always sup-

port the non-violent means,

( "Q) Would you condemn an armed conflict in these circum-

stances? Even if you might not support i t? " .

The next question but one:

( "Q) Would you condemn the oppressed masses for using

violence? Would you condemn all use of violence? In

throwing off the Fascist government?— (A) My lords,

my lord presupposes the situation in which the ie ople

themselves have taken the decision that they are going

to achieve their liberation because they had arms and

they could through war achieve it . I would condemn it ,

( "Q) You would condemn it?— (A) If it came as the con-

scious decision on the part of these people, I would, my

lords

Then the next question is as follows:

" ( Q ) Well, assume you had a Fascist government which in

order to entrench itself as a government passed measures

to oppress that part of the population of its country 35

16499.

which it governs - - in other words, as you put i t ,

there was a movement in that hypothetical case by the

Government of that particular country, and if the people

had arms, would you then condemn the use of those arms

by the people in an effort to shake off that government

- and if the people wanted to establish a Peoples Demo-

cracy?— (A) My lords, the aims would then to me by less

important than the fact that human life could be lost

in the suffering entailed. . .

( n Q) Yes, but assume that the position was such that the

majority of the people oppressed as they are could by a

short violent clash get rid of the fascist government,"

( "Q) Would you condemn i t " . Next question:

( "Q) Why I'm asking you this is this: would that be the

attitude of the Congress of Democrats?— (A) There, my

lord, I 've been speaking for myself." " I don't recall

that we've ever had an a ctual discussion of this nature."

( "Q) Knowing as you do the Congress of Democrats, knowing

as you do the leadership, what is your opinion about the

view of that leadership concerning this matter which we

have been discussing? ~ 11 Next questions

( "Q) I 'm asking you this because of the evidence that

is before the Court. Have you ever in any document or

speech condemned the violence used by an oppressed

people to throw off their oppressive government?— (A)

Not as far as I can recall, my lords."

("Q) NOW if that is your personal opinion, and if you

are wedded to the principle of non-violence, why did

you not do so?— (A) My lord, I don't recall any specific

instance of oppressed people themselves initiating armed

conflict.

16500.

( "Q) Well , let 's take the case of Kenya and Mau Mai .

Did you ever condemn the use of violence by Mau Mau".

Next quest ion:

( "Q) Mrs. Joseph, are you putting this to us now, that

we as a Court of Law should find that there were no Mau

Mau?— (A) No, my lords, I'm not saying that there were

none - - as I know it they have been denied."

C"Q) Well, let'sput it on the basis of what appearedin

the papers, then you and I are I think able to meet on

more or less equal grounds. You read the papers, I read

the papers. Do we read the same papers? We don't know

that. There have been complaints against the MauMau's

brutal acts against innocent womenand children and farmers.

There were also complaints afterwards when the troops

occupied - against the Mau Mau - - some brutal acts by

the British troops. I'm putting that as a basis. Did

you on that basis ever condemn the Mau Mau,using the

word 'condemn' in a speech or a document?— (A) Do you

mean me myself, my lord?

( "Q) Yes?— (A) My lord, I think at that time the real

truth is that I didn't actually make any speeches or

write any documents; but in the Federation Conference

there was a resolution . . . ." Then there is a lengthy

answer, which is followed by these two questions:

("Q) That is why I am asking you the question. Having

regard to your personal stance and your acceptance of

certain principles in regard to violence, whether in

pursuance of those principles you ever condemned violence

used by any particular group". Then -

("Q) Having regard to the position in Kenya, to which I

referred just now, and you dealt with it , did you or did

16501.

you not at that time attempt to allocate blame." The

witness answered at the top of page 14518, ( I think I

must have expressed horror, my lords, ;)ust as I did

with the other, the killing of the European farmers and

the ir f amilie s ).

( "Q) I 'm asking these questions to ascertain whether you,

either you or the Congress of Democrats, ever treated

both parties on the same basis, because the impression

that I have is , looking at the documents published,

that the entire blame in regard to all the issues that

were mentioned in the documents - various clashes between

the oppressed and the government - in various parts of

the world - in every case the blame was squarely put

on the government?— (A) My lords* I think that that is

undoubtedly so because of the feelings of the liberation

movement," and the violence adopted by the government in

each case, whatever it may have been, was condemned.

( "Q) And in no single instance that I can think of - that

is why I am putting it to you - in not a single instance

is the violence adopted by the oppressed people condemned"

and the next question was;

(MQ)Would it be right to say that the condemnation of

violence in the opinion of the Congressof Democrats de-

pends on the situation".

Then I skip several questions, my lords, 5

and come to the foot of page 14519:

( "Q) You see, Mrs. Joseph, what I am asking you is this:

that we have a particular set, or we had a particular set

up in this country; we had the fact that people who

were being called the oppressed people did not have arms.

We had a government which was called a Fascist Government.

16502.

It had the power of the State behind i t , the police -

using the words in the document - the Courts, and even

if necessary, the army. So for any organisation to make

any headway amongst the masses it would be essential to

propagate a policy of non-violence, not so? Because

it would be suicidal to propagate violence in those cir-

cumstances. It depends on the situation where you are,

and that is why I'm asking you the question, to test the

real approach to the problem by yourself and by the Con-

gress of Democrats. I 'm putting to you the difference

between expressions of non-violence in this country, and

the failure on the face of the documents at least, the

failure to condemn violence in other countries where

circumstances existed more or less , shall I say, the same

as here, and where the oppressed people actually were said

to have used violence. You see the conflict?— (A) I see,

my lord, but that would suggest that non-violence is

purely a matter of expediency in South Africa. I 've never

seen it here, my lords."

( "Q ) That is my difficulty; that is why I am putting it

to you."

Then the next question was th ,

( "Q ) Now I think we can assume the fact that the libera

-tion of China did not take place in a non-violent man-

ner?— (A) That is so."

("Q)Now did the Congressof Democrats ever, in putting up

China as an example of 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 that took place in China?— (A) No,

my lords, it did not, any more than we specifically

16503.

condemned the violence in the French Revolution, hut

nevertheless we hailed the principles that emerged."

( "Q) Yes; and it is for that reason that I am really-

asking you the question. Did the view, the point of

view regarding non-violence, was that not a point of

view which depended on circumstances." Next question:

( "Q) Again on the question of shall I say a relative

violence, did the Congress of Democrats support the

principles of the African National Congress, that in

order to achieve its aims it may be necessary to engage

in a unionwide struggle?— (A) In a Unionwide peaceful

struggle, yes, my lords."

( "Q) A Unionwide stay at home?— (A) Stay at home, yes".

( "Q) I didn't say struggle, I saidstrike?— (A) Sony ,

I thought you said struggle".

( "Q) A Unionwide strike?— (A) Yes, my lord."

( "Q) Did it support that?— (A) Yes."

("Q)

I skip a question, my lords:

( "Q) Did the Congress realise that in the case of an

ultimate strike which would be an indication of the

failure of any negotiation prior to the strike, that

there might be violence used by the State to break up

the strike?".

And, my lords, I skip page 14524, where

the previous questions had been on 14523*

( "Q) Well, I 'm putting it to you on the basis that once

there is a Nationwide strike it must have apje ared to

the Congress Alliance that nothing else could do anything,

could achieve anything. It would mean, it would pre-

suppose a situation of the Government being as hard as a

16504.

rock?— (A) Yes, my lords."

( "Q) And the Congress Alliance being as determined as

anything?— (A) Yes."

( "Q) That situation must be presupposed before one thinks

of a nationwide strike?— (A) Yes."

( "Q) NOW in that atmosphere, having regard to the fact

that the government of the day is hard as a rock, 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?". The end of the

10

answer, my lords, is as follows: "Our people might have

had to suffer during that time, but the pressure would

be on the population as a whole because the country would

not be able to continue. Therefore negotiations would

be the result,, That is how we saw it , that people might 15 have to suffer imprisonment. That is true,"

( "Q) And blood flowing?— (A) Yes, we made that clear,too,

to our people0"

( "Q) And if the strike is on a nationwide scale, would

you exclude violence completely by the masses against 20

the authorities? If there were arrests?". .

Then I turn to page 14526, line 7» my lords,

( "Q) I 'm asking you these questions to see how your evi-

dence regards the fundamentals of your policy can be

reconciled to the hard facts of l i fe?— (A) My lords, 25

the fundamentals of our policy were reconciled to the

hard facts of life in India; it took a long time, but

they can be reconciled. I believe in that."

( "Q) Yes, but there may be this difference. In India

- between India and this country - - that the very xq

16505

idea of non-violence as propagated by Ghandi is an idea

which accordingto the evidence has not been propagated

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

(A) It started here, my lords."

I don't think I need read the balance of this

passage, my lords. The next passage, my lords, is a

passage at page 14690 of the record, line 6 , and the

whole passage - although I shall abbreviate it as much

as possible - extends to page 14699, line 22. The ques-

tions relate to mass action, my lords, and Mrs. Joseph

said any action involving a large number of people . . .

( "Q) I 'm afraid I don't follow this at all . I f the object

of the Congress Alliance has been to instruct and encour-

age people not to go voluntarily, but to submit themselves

to go under compulsion - that is how I understood your

evidence to be - - ?— (A) Yes."

("Q) What possible need could there be for mass action

in the sense that there has to be strategy explained to

volunteers, and in the sense that methods should be adopted

to prevent them from being isolated by the police cordons

etc? I don't follow this at all. Unless something much

more than mere submission to compulsion is envisaged.

That is why I ask you what mass action, in the sense

that you said 'yes' to the question. What is mass action'

Tnere is a lengthy reply, my lords. I skip some ques-

tions, and I come to the questions on page 14691

( n Q) Now if that is so, then I have great difficulty in

following both this document and also the document

which I put to you yesterday. I don't know whether you

want to think about it again, the report in which it was

16506.

suggested that there has "been a failure on the part of

the people to show a more militant action?— (A) Yes,

my lord, I did think about that document again ; I

wanted to come back to i t . "

( n Q) Wow if I may ask you to do that, having regard to

this evidence with which we are dealing now, I think the

document is C.41; the passage that I put to you yester-

day appears at 1547. It says: 'But in the final stages

of

at the time/the actual removal, the Congress message

did not prove effective enough to draw into militant

action those who "were to be removed'. First of all we

have a reference to Congress message which did not prove

effective enough; it assumes that there had been a

message put across to people to do something, because it

says that that message did not prove effective enough to

draw into militant action those who were to be moved.

Now, having regard to this passage, the one with which we

are dealing now, at page 18113, what is the meaning of

this? What was expected of the people to be moved?—

(A) My lord, it was expected that they would display

their unwillingness to go,"

( "Q) Then we come back to the ouestion of yesterday;

were they not in fact on the day in question legally

compel]e d to go by the presence of thousands of police

men armed with sten guns?— (A) My lords, I'm not clear

as to whether they were in fact legally compelld."

I skip a question:

("Q) May I just clear it up. Assume that they had not

even proper notice in terms of the Act, what did the

Congress expect them to do on the day of removal?— (A)

I think Congress definitely expected them to remain"

16507

" I f they had not been given a legal order to go" .

I skip two questions, my lords;

( "Q) Did the Congress expect them to resist or to get

on the lorries?" Next question -

("Q) Did the Congress Alliance then not decide how it

should conduct a campaign in this respect; did it tell

the people precisely what they should do? Did it keep

the order up its sleeve until the order became imminent?

— (A) My lords, that is what I do not know; I can only

assume that discussions would have taken place."

( "Q) Now that is the case then of a possibility of there

being no legal order and no order served on the people

who were about to go. What would the position be in the

event of the requirements of the Act having been complied

with?—"

That is debated, my lords, and I turn to

the s eventh line on page 14694: It relates to people

demonstrating their unwillingness:

(MQ) In what manner?—- (A) My lords, by not being ready

to- gO". "By not being packed up with everything ready -

by not themselves actually perhaps voluntarily loading

the'ir goods."

("Q) NO, I'm talking about what the Congress envisaged?—

(A) My impression of what they had in mind".

( n Q) In other words, to remain completely passive?— (A)

Yes, my lords."

( "Q) Not to assist in the loading, is that it? Not to

collaborate in any way?— (A) Yes*"

("Q) But if after the legal requirements were complied

with, and the policemen ordered the people to get on to

the lorries, did the Congress expect them to obey?--

16508,

(A) My lords, I would understand so, because this was

not conducted as a defiance campaign."

( "Q) Now then if that is so, what is the meaning of

this passage which we are dealing with, and which we

dealt with yesterday, 'The Congress message did not

prove effective enough to draw into militant action

those who were to be removed'".

My lords, I skip several questions and I

read from the middle of page 14-696:

("Q) Now then if also the people were expected to remain

completely passive and un-co-operative, what is the mean-

ing of this passage which has been put to you this morn-

ing, 'The organisation of volunteers should be improved

to ensure that the people have leadership at all times,

that they cannot easily be isolated by police cordons'.

What is the object of that?— (A) My lords, I would say

the object of this means that on the day of the removal

it appears to r& that because of the large numbers of

police that the volunteers who were expected to be there

to guide and advise the people, must have got cut off

by the large numbers of police."

( "Q) Why shouldn't they be cut off? If all the people,

i f the requirements in regard to all the people is that

they should remain passive until they get the order to

move, why was it necessary for this not to happen?— (A)

My lords, I would consider that even - - I do not know,

of course, how effective the Congress message was, but

I would expect that it would be accepted that the volun-

teers should be there on the day of the removal in order

to guide and advise people, to stop them from panicking."

16509.

( "Q) To assist the police?— (A) No, my lords, not to

assist the police, but to advise the people."

("Q) Either to assist the police, I take it , or to ob-

struct the police?— (I don't think so, my lords".

( "Q) What else?— (A) To be there to advise the people."

("Q) To do what?— (A) To behave calmly, to be calm and

not to panic."

( "Q) Not to be provoked?— (A) Yes."

("Q) In that case they would assist the police?— (A) My

lords, i f the police were provoking and the volunteers

were calling upon the people not to be provoked, that

would not be assisting the police."

On the next page, my lords, I read these ques-

tions :

( "Q ) In your opinion the presence of the police on that

occasion constituted acts of provocation? Do you de-

sire that provocation in your Congress or not?" The

last question was: Just above that it says:

( "Q) The immediate task in the Western Areas wasthat

of ensuring that this resistance grows, that nobody

collaborates with the authorities and that those who

are removed are removed by force, and that the 'M'plan

is put into operation. The aim should be to make it

necessary for the authorities to employ more and more

force to effect removals. Well, you've given your

answer."

(COURT ADJOURNED FOR 15 MINUTES)

16510.

ON THE COURT RESUMING:

MR. FISCHER: My lords, I have not much more

illustrative reading to do, but perhaps this is a

convenient moment at which to indicate to your lord-

ships what the fifth, ground is upon which we rely. a

Your lordships will see that/considerable

volume of passages has been relied upon; as I in-

dicated I shall hand in a typed l ist of further re-

ferences, but the fifth ground in our submission is

that these passages constituted an irregularity in

that the cumulative effect of the said interventions

by the learned Presiding Judge have created the im-

pression that he has not approached the Defence

evidence with an open mind, and has given rise to

a reasonable fear in the minds of the accused that

they are not obtaining a fair trial .

Now, my lords, I hope that I have read out

enough to indicate that there is a cumulative effect

of these interventions which in any event we submit

are mostly individual irregularities in themselves,

but to give your lordships the real impression of

the cumulative effect created by these passages, I

do want to mention that we shall in the result rely

on 119 passages taken from the questioning of eight

witnesses. Those are all the witnesses, my lord,

who have been called for the Defence up to the pre-

sent .

Now, my lords, to try and complete in as

short a time as possible the remaining passages

I refer first of all still to the evidence of Mrs.

Joseph, at page 14735, line 5.

16511

A document was being referred to which

says: as the question stated: 'But the final victory

for the people which means the end of the cheap labour

system in South Africa can only be finally achieved

by the overthrow of the ruling class, and by the

achievement of the Freedom Charter as the ruling policy

of South Africa. 1 This document, I think you said,

emanated from the National Consultative Committee?—

(A )• Yes, my lord. "

( "Q) Would it be correct to say that that body was a

class conscious body?— (A) I don't think I ever

thought of it as such. I thought of it as a racialism

conscious body, i f I may put it that way."

( "Q) Looking at this document - I haven't looked at

the rest of it for the moment - but look at this

passage in this document. Would it not be correct to

say that the author of this is a class conscious man".

There's a long answer and the next question was:

( "Q) Not the Government, the ruling class, you say,

are the white people?— (A) I don't think in terms

of classes; that would be synonymous with the fact

that the white people are in fact the people who rule . "

( "Q) Would it be correct to say that the Congress of

Democrats is a class .conscious organisation?— (A) No,

my lords."

( "Q) Would you say that the Congress Alliance is a

class conscious alliance?— (A) No, I wouldn't say so".

( "Q) I 'm just thinking about this; isn 't there a dif-

ference between an African National Congress before

say 1952 and after5 in this way: That before 1952

- maybe 1951, I 'm not certain about the date - but

more or less that time, before that day the African

16512.

National Congress was racial conscious, but afterwards 1

with the Congress allianc3 it became class conscious."

Next question:

( "Q) You say the Freedom Charter is free from class?—

(A) As I understand it , my lord.,"

( "Q ) I 'm entirely relying on my memory, but the impres- 5

sion that I have atthe moment - that is why I am putting

it to you - is tt>at the African National Congress as

such became class cons'-nous after 1952 - - what I want

to put to you is that having regard to the documents

emanating from the Congress of Democrats, whether the 1 0

class consciousness of the African National Congress

after that was not due to the Congress of Democrats?—

(A) My lo.-'de, no; my answer would be very firmly no

on that. "

( "Q ) I sn ' t the kernel of the approach to the Congress

of Democrats This very thing, that the Europeans

in this country must bo brought to realise that the

evil in the system is ,- ot racialism but the economic

set-up.r And I .k ip two questions, my lords.

( "Q) Anyway, I cau 51 rof'd.: to a particular document, 2 0

but there arc doc jrr r, -c jurp^rting to emanate from the

Congress of Democrats, or purporting to have been draft-

ed by persons who occupy leading positions in the Con-

gress of Democrats, which set out that particular approach.

You would disagree with that?— (A) My lords, I would

disagree with that i f they are alleged to be documents

setting out attitudes and points of view of the Congress,"

The next questions are;

( "Q) Those members at the time when the Congress of

Democrats was formed, a number- of people Joined who

16513v

were formerly members of the Communist Party . "

Next qusstion:

(*Q) I understood from you, I think yesterday, that not-

withstanding the fact that you allowed individual opi«*

nions to be expressed in the Congress of Democratsf

in regard to Hungary, you observed the feelings of

those who might be from shall I say the Communist

Party?— (A) My lords, the feelings of both - there

were strong feelings and we felt that it would be in-

correct for us to issue a statement as an organisation

when there was disagreement in our ranks."

( "Q ) Was there serious disagreement?— (A) There was

fairly sharp disagreement."

( " Q " ) When did it appear?— (A) My lords, it appeared

at the branch level, particularly with my own branch."

( "Q " ) Was the matter ever brought to a higher level

than branch level?— (A) My lords, I discussed this

matter in my branch on the 4th December and I was arrest-

ed on the 5the It wpp just at that time."

( "Q) Was this out of deference to those people who did

not want to cri+-,ois'- Tfcissia?"

Then the next question:

( "Q) On the bap-is of non-violence being an integral

part of the policy of the organisation, and having

regard to the expressions of condemnation of the

violence used by Imperialists, in these documents and

speeches, would it not have been expected of the orga-

nisation to hive expressed its condemnation of violence

used in Hungary by the Soviet Union?— (A) My lord,

I 'm trying to recall now exactly what took place."

( "Q) Be that as it may, the point is that the opinions

16514.

of those who were not enjoined to condemn the Soviet

Union were observed?"

Next question -

("Q) But for the sake of their views, the organisation

itself did not make a declaration?", and tShe next

question -

("Q) Yesf the question of Egypt and Israel of course

was peculiar; i f you have Jews in your organisation;

that is very peculiar indeed, but when it comes to

the position of Hungary there was no such problem at

all , was there"? Next question -

( " Q ) I t ' s merely a question of principle, not a question

of nationality".

Next question but one -

("Q) Anyway, the Congress of Democrats as such did

not stop the members of the former Communist Party

to propagate their own views at any time, did it?"

( "Q) So that those members could ha- e propagated class

consciousness throiigh the various magazines and organs

that were published!-— (A j) Yes, my lord, they could have.

Then, my lords, follows a series of questions

on the Leftist ascendency alHoged to have been gaining

ground in the African National Congress.

My Dords, I now turn to the witness Cachalia?

KENNEDY J; Where does this conclude?

MR. FISCHER: This concludes, my lords, at

page 14743, line 1 0 I now turn to the witness Cacha-

lia and I propose to read a fairly short passage at

page 15155, line 2Q, The passage extends to 15158

line 16, my lords„

16515.

The questions are:

( "Q) You say there is no penalty attached to a 1 day

strike? Let us put it the other way. You say that if

you called a strike, or caused a strike to appear for

a long time that may bring the country to ruin?— We

don't visualise that at all , my lords."

( "Q) I know, but you say that that is a possibility if

there is a long strike?— In a one day strike this

country won't become ruined."

( "Q) NO, so you draw a difference. You see the way

the question is coming, 1 stage, 2 stages - you are

preparing the community in such a way that the whole

machinery of The country will close down and it won't

function at all and a time of destruction will be ?

That is not the attitude with us; it cannot go that

far . "

( "Q) Why not? — My lord, you see you take a military

action for instance . . , . "

( "Q) No, no, don't worry abort military action. I just

want an answer here now, if you can give it . Why don't

you want a strike for eight days if it paralyses the

country?— People can't sustain that, you see; we don'

want to bring so [nucr. t^a. ffering on the people either."

And there is a lengthy answer after that. "That particu

lar action cannot go on for a very long time."

( "Q) Why not?— I t ' s not possible;" "Even in India it

never happened*"

( "Q ) YOU say that your organisation is prepared to

organise a Unionwide strike, a stay at home?— Yes 0 "

( "Q) Of all people possible?— Yes . "

( "Q) Of all those who work?— Yes . "

16516,

( "Q ) The organisation is prepared to cause a strike

to last for a day?— Yes. :

I skip a question -

( "Q) But you say that your organisation is not prepared

to organise a strike to last5 I 'm putting it a bit high

for a month, i f that strike may paralyse the country?—

My lord, for a month it may not paralyse the country,

( "Q ) Well, make it three months, just for argument's

sake; you don't want to paralyse the country?— It

can 't come about, we don't want to do that . "

( "Q) Not you rre putting cwo things. You say it can't

come about, ard you don't want to do it.1 '

( "Q ) I 'm tslking to you now purely on the theory; assume

that it is possible in theory to have a national stay at

home of 90$ of the workers."

( "Q) Why not?" - - that was after he had said it won't

function after that.

The lasT- question in this passage -

( "Q) IS the position that you do not want to force the

government on its knees?— Nos we want change of heart. .

My lords, I tarn next to the witness Lollan

and I refer to page 15456, This is a passage at 15456,

line 13, to 15459, line 23s

( "Q ) I just want to ask you, when Counsel put you the

question whether or not the Congress alliance considered

its position ia the event of South Africa becoming em-

broiled in an Imperialist war with another Imperialist

country. I think you said the Congress Alliance, being

an alliance based on non-violence, it would continue its

struggle on that basis?— That is correct,"

16517.

( M Q) Would you say why? Why is the Congress Alliance a

non-violent organisation?— Well, my lord, that is the

policy of the Congress, the policy it has adopted."

( "Q) Why?— Because they believe in non-violence."

( "Q) You believe that violence should not exist?— No."

( "Q) And I think you have also suggested that the Con-

gress Alliance is working for peace?— That is so . "

( "Q) Would you say that in terms of the evidence that

we have heard here that China is one of the countries

working for peace? Let's start off with the Soviet

Union. Is the Soviet Union your view of a country that

is striving for peace?— I think so, my lord. It has

been expressed that the Soviet Union is striving for *

peace."

( "Q ) I f I 'm not mistaken it has been expressed that

it is one of the leaders in the peace movement?— I

wouldn't know about it being the leader of the peace

movement, but it is a country striving for peace,"

( "Q ) Would you say that China is also one of the coun-

tries striving for peace?— I would say that it is natur-

al that China would be, my lord; a country that has

emerged from so many years of war should strive for

peace."

( "Q ) In its struggle for peace could it become neces-

sary to use violence?— I don't see how it could become

necessary to use violence in the struggle for peace,"

("Q) We have read, I think, that on the occasion of

the recent visiu of President Eisenhower to Formosa,

that China sent quite a number of bombs on....?®-: £

don't know that President Eisenhower had visited

Formosa, my lord . "

16518.

( "Q ) Have you not read that? You haven't heard about

it because you are detained?— No . "

( "Q ) Assume on the occasion of a visit recently by

President Eisenhower, that the Chinese mainland sent

thousands of bombs on Kramoi, do you regard that as

a non-violent act in the pursuance of world peace?—

I t can't be non-violent, my lord . "

( "Q) That is why I 'm asking you? why exactly do you

regard non-violence as necessary in the struggle for

world peace?— My lord, in the struggle for world peace

you struggle to eliminate violence, so you cannot have

violence in order to eliminate violence."

( "Q ) Why not?— It doesn't follow, my lord . "

( "Q ) It doesn't follow that you must, but is the use of

violence excluded?— To my mind, yes, my lord . "

( "Q ) And the use of arms? (q) Let us put i t this

wayiwould a country striving for world peace, as you

and your organisation see it , would such a country be

entitled to use arms to defend i tsel f?— Yes, my lord,

that is why even in India G-liandi' s policy was rejected

because Ghandi's policy was that India should not even

have an army."

( "Q) I 'm not imterested in India at the moment. As

far as your organisation goes. , . .?— Well, a country is

entitled to defend i t s e l f , "

( "Q ) And defend itself by force, by arms and force?—

That appears to be the only way, my lord . "

( "Q ) Not i f it is entitled to defend itself , why should

it not be entitled to seek after world peace by for

instance the destruction of a single country which stands

16519.

in the way of peace?— The world peace we seek after

is a peace where no human life is destroyed."

( "Q) I know, but principally if you are entitled to

defend your country by aras, why principally in your

view should you not be entitled by force to destroy

a country, a single country, or that particular country

that stands in the way of world peace?— No, my lord,

the means do not justify the end."

( "Q) Is that your organisation's view?— That is so. "

("Q)Would you say that that is the view of all coun-

tries that struggle for world peace?— I would not be

able to say."

( "Q ) I f they do not, why should there be a difference?—

I said that was in my view, my lord,,"

( "Q ) Assume that that is not so; assume there are coun-

tries, just for argument's sake, in a.struggle for world

peace they are prepared to use force . . ? — My lords,

it would be illogical to my mind for people to be pre-

pared to wipe out a country for the very ends which

they are trying to prevent„"

( "Q) We've had evidence here of the occasion when Russia

is alleged to have sent armed forces into Hungary; do

you remember that?— That I remember."

( " O Would that be in accordance with your view of a

non-violent policy of the struggle for world peace?—

I did not agree with that action."

) My lords, there is a short passage at page

15492, line 28. The whole passage is from page 15492,

line 29, to page 15495, line 21. It starts as follows:

( "G ) Except that that would be the case of a father who

says 'You must never go and sit on a stone'; your example

16520.

example would be a good example if the father was also

at the same time the father who told the son that he

must under no circumstances ever sit on a stone, and

he required discipline to the extent that if he was

told to sit on a stone he never had to sit on a stone.

Surely that is a good analogy, because here you have

an organisation ®ho says 'Under no circumstances -

violence, and the discipline is demanded to such an

extent that the speaker says ' I f violence is ordered

you must commit v i o l e n c e ' T h a t is answered, and

then follows the following questions : -

("C)Has it been explained over and over again, or has

it merely been mentioned casually in a speecn? You

see that is the difficulty that one has here, trying

to reconcile the two. You have documents and you have

speeches in which the phrase is used 'We are non-violent'

-a von-violent army, That is why I asked you this

morning, has the ideology of non-violence and its im-

plications, its practical implications, has that been

fully explained and if so, where? I may give you

another example. We've had the evidence here that

before the Defiance Campaign for Unjust Laws, volunteers

were carefully instructed as far as their duties were

concerned, and they were tested; they were not to commit

violence under any circumstances?— That is correct.

( "Q) Thereafter, on the evidence before us - and I 'm

giving you my inpression of the evidence - the use of

the phrase 'We are non-violent', and no more." That

is answered.

( " O Luring the evidence of these witnesses there hasn't

been a single suggestion to a witness that he left

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.