TREASON TRIALS DEFENCE FUND

PRESS SUMMARY • * V fif> .. ... — -• ' > -

4 This is the nineteenth issue of a regular "bulletin:; , giving a factual resume of the proceedings of the Treason Trial. -rf T' "" - --

Period Covered: October 15th - 16th 19th - 22nd

iViiUboow- :/o

f U NOV 2 z. 1959

THE EXPERT ON COMMUNISM

On October 15th Professor Andrew Murray began his evidence-in-chief, led by Advocate de Vos, the new leader of the prosecution team. Prof. Murray stated that he had been Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town since 1937, held the degrees of M.A. Stellenbosch, and doctorates of Literature and Philosophy of Oxford University. He had been responsible for work in political science and political philosophy since 1935. these studies included the study of Communism. He maintained contact with over-seas associations, corresponded with them and once in a while met and talked with them. He had also had talks with members of the Communist Party in South Africa when it was still in existence.

As Professor Murray answered the first question on the study of the phenomenon of Communism, Adv. I. Maisels. for the Defence, objected that the witness was reading from notes. These notes were withdrawn, but at a later stage Adv. de Vos asked the witness to give evidence from "a note on the phenomenon of Comnunism", submitting that the witness had constructed the notes merely to refresh his memory of his vie\i?s as the questions were led.

After discussion between the Crown and all three judges, Mr. Justice Rumpff protested that the Crown had quoted no authority and that this was an entirely novel procedure. Mr. Justice Bekker asked what recollections an expert would need to refresh: "If he's an expert, then he's an expert 111 Adv. de Vos then withdrew the notes from the witness, and Prof. Murray con-tinued his evidence.

The Elements of Communism

Replying to a series of questions by the Crown, Prof. Murray described the elements of Communism as

(a) the philosophies of dialectical .and historical materialism. (b) a social philosophy which had to do with Society (c) a theory of economies, involving criticism of certain systems

and proposing other systems.

The theory of Communism was not merely a scheme of thought, but was related to actual happenings, a system of organisation which demanded that philosophy be translated into practices. The underlying doctrine was known as Mar::ism-Leninism and was based on the works of Marx and Ereels followed in more modern times by those of Lenin and then Stalin and, later, by those of Mao Tse Tung. Prof. Murray then gave an explanation of dialectical and historical materialism, referring to various philosophical works by Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

The Theory of Classes

Dealing with the Theory of Classes Professor Murray explained that according to Communist theory two main classes had emerged as a result of the development of the conditions of production, the proletariat class which had become dissociated from the tools of production and could only sell its own labour power, and the capitalist class which had got hold of the instruments of production. The struggle between these classes constituted the "j lacs struggle" which would only cease at the stage of history when Communism would

Page 2/,... be achieved

-2-be achieved and there would be no provision for profit or individual owner-ship of instruments of production.

Theory and Practice

Theory and Practice were so closely united in Communism, as really to he identical; in order to achieve the desired changes, it was neces'sary that the proletariat should "be informed and politically self-conscious. Communist theory held that at the present stage capitalism had come to the end of its historical development and was approaching the stage of final disruption vrhere the revolutionary stage would take over. The moral objec-tions of Communism against capitalism lay in the production of a state with an oppressed class and an oppressor class; the capitalist system also produced, colonial and semi-colonial nations; the worker~was reduced to a commodity, and could not share in the value of his product hut could only sell his labourc According to the Communist theory the bourgeoisie or capitalist state must ultimately disappear and make way for the Communist state.

Imperialism marked the end of the.capitalist period of history, it came into existence when capitalism became international and penetrated othe r parts of the world for production and exploitation. The world was divided into two main camps, the Communist bloc, presented as the peace lovir^ bloc and the imperialist or war-mongering bloc xvhich wanted to protect capitalism and must therefore promote war. Peace could only be achieved on the Communist system, i.e. when the profit motive for production had been abolished, for the competition of capitalism could only mean war. Stalin had made the point at the 19th Congress that for peace, imperialism must be destroyed.

Fact and Foundation

Adv. Maisels objected that no foundation had been laid for this piece of evidence ; it could not be given unless the witness had himself been present at the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or could produce some other original information. The foundation must be laid initially, not subsequently, "No super-structure \irithout sub-structure!" concluded Adv. Maisels, referring to Prof. Murray's own exposition of the Marxist theory of capitalist development.

Replying to the question.on "fascism" Prof. Murray said that Communists used the term to indicate the stage of capitalism where individua-lism and liberalism were destroyed,

(From time to time during the leading of Professor Murray's evidence the Court insisted that it must be put on the. basis of communist theory, and not stated as fact.)

In the last stages of communism, the state would becfestroyed, but in the stage known as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, following the resolution the state power would still be necessary to destroy all elements of bourgeois society, after which it would itself wither away and the final stage of communism, the classless society, would be achieved, in which people would receive according to their needs, and not their labour. This dictatorship of the proletariat was based on revolution and would use tactics of force and militarism, and would be led by the Communist Party which would prescribe the policy to eliminate the bourgeois element in the state.

South Africa was commonly referred to as a semi-colonial state.

HCVJ TO ilSTAIiLISH A COMMUNIST STATE

Discussing technical procedures for the establishment of the Communist State, Prof. Murray stated that in Communist theory all means could be used, according to the situation in the country. "hen the revolutionary tide was in flow, tactics would be suited to? that situation, strikes and so forth which might lead to armed insurrection; there must "be action both inside and outside Parliament, Vhen the revolutionary tide was ebbing milder tactics and transition slogans would be used. Communists rould be instructed to make

Page 3/.... use of

-3' use of the day to day problems of the people,trade unions , united fronts in which the Communist Party would co-operate with other bodies, such as national groups, women's and youth organisa-tions,religious, cultural and educational bodies; Communists would also be instructed with organisations not directly Communist, not publicly Communist , but which would act as tr ang&i s si on . agents.

Prof. Murray then explained that the term "liberation move-men tnoccureT^ariy in Communist theory as applied to movements of oppressed groups in colonial and semi-colonial countries, working for their own improvement and ultimate freedom. Communists were instructed to co-operate with such movements,which were of their nature anti-.imperialist. The oppressed people in colonial countries were the counterpart of the proletariat in the industrialised countries,

-According to Communist• heory, Liberation was regarded as international, because imperialism was international and CommUn:LS-fcs would be expected to support liberation movements on an internation-al basis •

Replying to questions on the Communist Theory of Revolution, Prof, Murray stated that Communists taught that the capitalist state would not disappear unless a revolution by force and vio-lence were created • Foreign Policy

Dealing with the principles of Communist foriegn policy, Prof.. Murray stated that Marxist-Leninist foreign policy was essentially a theory of internationalism. The proletariat was an international class and must support the proletariat in other areas and revolutionary activity and policy in other countries. National boundaries were no longer significant ; the world was divided into two camps . Communist theory taught that the Soviet Union,being the first communist country, must be the motherland of and give the lead for further developments in other countries.

-According to communist doctrine , the capitalist system , especially at the imperialist stage, must inevitably bring war. Peace would not be achieved when classes were destroyed , but this could not be until imperialism was destroyed. Anti-imperialist war was therefore justified. The.Communist Party

Prof."Murray stated that the Communist Party formed the adva-nce group in proletarian action, leading the industrial working people and the peasantry to the revolutionary stage, and making the masses and the small bourgeois classes or groups politically conscious. Theory and practise must go together, hand in hand , and practise must be based on well understood , well propagated theory. The Communist Party was organised on the basis of demo-cratic centralism, consisting of a hierarchy of bodies, elected with the power very much centralised at the top and the lower bodies under the orders of the higher bodies. Communist theory insists on iron discipline in the Party ; members must follow the party policy

Reverting to revolution^ Prof. Murray explained that there were three aspects to the one revolution, the first being the bourgeois democratic revolution when the capitalist elements would be destroyed *, followed by or telescoping with the revolution leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat, still a revolutio 'by force" and controlled' by force".' ihe third stage of the revolu-tion would be the withering away of the State.

Replying to a question on "Socialist" revolution, Prof. Murray explained that in Communist theory socialist revolution merely aimed at the nationalisation of banking and big finance and the expropiation of land; there were many theories of how the means of production should be controlled. The socialist revolution did not

go as far as the Communist revolution aimed to go,but Marx-ism-Leninism was inclined to use socialism very much indentically with communism in the first stages of the revolution

Page k/,... At this

At this stage Adv. de Vos indicated to the Court that he had intended proceeding to the Communist Party of South Africa, "but the Court's attitude towards evidence on national and international organisational forms of Communisih demanded an initial "basis of documents or sources, therefore he would leave that portion of Professor Murray s evidence until later.

Mr. Maisels: "My lord, may I make my position clear? The witness is not qualified as yet, on the evidence, to give evidence as to facts."

State and Revolution

Professor Murray then proceeded to the notion of a people's democracy as advanced "by Marxism-Leninism. The people's democracy was the type of political organisation which arises immediately after the bourgeois revolution has taken place, followed "by or telescoped with the dictatorship of the proletariat. When fully developed it would he the same as the dictator-ship of the proletariat, involving a form of government hased on force to achieve the final dissolution of the capitalist elements. The socialist revolution, na tional democratic revolution and bourgeois revolution all aimed at the same purpose and were really the names used for the first part of the condition under which the people's democracy would he established. The Communist Party must support this revolution to the fullest extent, and must co-operate at first with the bourgeois elements still present in the population, but the policy must be to gradually push out the bourgeois elements economically an&'isocially until ultimately the Communist party dominates the government of the country and the dictatorship of the proletariat is established. Prof. Murray added, in reply to a question, that the theory of violent revolution was clearly incorporated in the theory of a people's democracy.

In semi-colonial and colonial countries the first stage of the Communist Party should be to co-operate with the liberatory fcercement to brir^ about the bourgeois or national democratic revolution and thereby to break the back of capitalist domination and institutions. The immediate aims for Communism would be to smash fascism, which was identified with the capitalist element ixi the State, secondly, to expropriate and redivide the land amongst the peasants, and thirdly, to break down finance monopoly and put the financial machine tinder the control of the people.

Prof. Murray then defined the term Communist State as referriiigL'both to the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to its full-blooded working, and concluded this portion of his evidence by stating that the first loyalty of the Communist is to Communism: "The Communist must support the ultimate aim of Communism, which involves the violent revolution, before his loyalty to his countr and any existing institution."

A Reading List

At the conclusion of Professor Murray's exposition of the theory of Communism, he proceeded to read extracts to the Court from numerous works in support of his evidence. Amongst these works were the Programme of the Communist International and the Communist Manifesto. Prom Lenin's works, passages were read from State and Revolution. The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky: Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder: Tasks of the Youth League and Imperialism. Amongst the works of Marx quoted were Das Xapital. Extracts were read in from Engels on Dialectical and. Historical Materialism , from the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and also from the modern writer, Maurice Cornforth.

Referring to the principle of democratic centralism, on which he read in a quotation from the History of the Communist Party, Prof, Murray stated that this term was used only by the Communist Party; he had never seen it used dleewhere.

Adv. Maisels, for the Defence, objected to the introduction of the Programme of the Third Communis t International. "It is not a classic and the witness knows itj It is a programme of an organisation to which he does not belong."' Professor Murray explained that he regarded it as a classic;

Page 5/...-it contained

-5-

it contained a concise statement of tko Marxist Leninist doctrine which was finally accepted in 1928 "by the Third Communist International; the Programme was accepted "by allpolitical science authors.

Opinion and Backing

During the second day of Professor Murray's evidence, the Defence objected to the reading of an extract from a speechoby Dimitrov contained in the Report of the Seventh ForId Corgress, asking whether the Crown was trying to prove that Dimitrov actually made that speech.

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "That is obviously NOT the object of the evidence]"

He agreed, however , with the contention by Adv. Nicholas that the witness must produce references from authoritative sources on vhich he relied in support of his opinion. Adv. Nicholas then submitted that a speech made by an individual in 1935 v/as not a standard work, Mr. Justice Rumpff then insisted that all evidence must be put on a proper basis, and continued, addressing Adv. de Vos: !"How must the Court approach this? I asked questions, but I can't lead the evidence for you."

Professor Murray then stated, in reply to a further question by Mr. Justice Rumpff. that the document was a genuine copy of the Report of the 7th Congress, he had known it for a long time, the whole policy of the Report i*a.s in tune with Communist policy, and he "could see no reason to regard it as a hoax." It vsqe accepted by political scientists who all made -use of it.

Further passages were read in from works of reference which included the Comintern Programme and ixrorks by Lenin and Stalin. After listening to an extract from the Comintern Programme which Professor Murray quoted in support of his statements on the 'Africa' policy of the Communist Party, Mr. Justice Runrpff complained that this reading iras not directly concerned with the 'Africa' policy. If it was to be inferred, the Crown should have said so. Prof. Murray replied that the passage had been read because this analysis of the situation in relation to colonial and semi-colonial countries followed the Communist line and included South Africa.

The Purpose of Evidence

On the resumption of the trial on Monday 19th October, at the beginning of the eleventh week, Adv. de Vos continued to lead Prof. Murray on the sources on which he relied for his evidence on the theory of Communism.

Continuing with the attitude in Communist theory to colonial and semi-colonial countries, including South Africa, Prof. Murray referred to the Resolutions of the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International, readirg from a certified photostatic copy of a document in the Washington State Library. These resolutions formed part of the Comintern programme accepted in 1928, of which he had already read extracts. Prof. Murray referred to this document as one of the modern classics "referred to by scientific writers on both sides of the Iron Curtain", The book copy was called Theses and Resolutions and was quoted in a work by Bochensky and Niemeyer. Adv. de Vos then requested the witness to explain who Bochensky was.

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "Why?"

Adv. de V os: "The witness has referred to Bochensky."

Adv. Maisels: "Is not the Crown calling Bochensky as a witness?"

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "Are you asking me?"

Adv, Haisels: "The Tefence has been told so, and if it is so, then this is an improper way of introducing him."

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "How is it improper? The Crown can ask why Bochensky is considered by Professor Murray as an authority,"

Page 6/.... Adv. de Vos

-6-Adv. de Voe then stated that he would not press the matter any

further and requested the witness to read from the photostat copy. The Defence asked to see the photostat copy and then enquired whether the Crown was tendering the document to prove that the resolutions had "been adopted, to which Adv. de Vos replied that the document was tendered to show how the witness arrived at his opinion that Communist Theory adopted a certain point of view in relation to colonial and semi-colonial countries.

Mr. Justice RumpfT: "Not as proof that the theses and resolutions were in fact adopted?"

Advl de Yos: "No".

Adv. liaise Is then informed the Court that the Defence had its own ideas as to the value of this evidence, and requested time for consideration, suggestii^; that similar documents should he left over in case of cross examination which might destroy the foundation of the evidence.

Prof. Murray then read a passage from a speech hy Molotov at the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, relating to imperialism and colonialism as a threat to peace and the struggle for socialis

Dealing with the "united front'" Prof. Murray read from the Report of the ?th Congress of the Comintern and then from the works of Stalin and Lenin.

Objections to "Keesings"

Prof. MurrayT-Kl'dn turned tepaagpe^cbKhy gjbeidh fewnlfclDMvia-latreport ®f[etMeSfceSotys est ad oRefch luftiar® r&t ttBec* i<Hh:-:Ct>fcerSeB:iof "Hbi PfSiH published inpEefcaiii&a.anaThoif^c&a&c^ a fortnightly publication, emanating from Great Britain, which republished importatt statements by leading statesmen and reports of important political events. It was used by university and government departments and published under the guidance of experts. Prof. Murray was an adviser on South Africa and the Rhodes ias.

Rising to object to the document, Adv. Nicholas, for the Defence, submitted that the position of a reported speech was quite different from the submission of acknowledged authoritative sources of communist theory. Keesings was the equivalent of a "digest" and could not prove a speech by Stalin. Mr. Justice Rumpff suggested that the vritness was not there to prove that Stalin made a speech but only to say that he as a political scientist had worked on data obtained from text books, political publications, etc,

What is the Legal Role of &h?*Expert?

Adv. Nicholas protested that that might be permissible in a univer-sity, but not in a Court of Law. The Defence submission was fundamental; the role of the expert was to give evidence on his opinion inferred from certain facts, but he could not refer to facts not proved in evidence or acceptable as common knowledge.

Mr. Justicej'Bumpff: "What is the difference bet\i;een this and Lenin's Selected Works?"

Adv. Nicholas; "That is accepted - by Prof. Murray, and we accept it,"

Adv. Nicholas then submitted that a report of a speech in Keesings could only be hearsay evidence, second, third, or fourth hand. The acceptance of Keesing as a scientific publication was entirely irrelevant in Court on matters of fact. Fact must be proved.

Replying to questions, Prof, Murray stated that the speech of Stalin was taken from a Pravda report, and Mr. Justice Rumpffthen admitted that if that were so, there might be substance in the Defence argument,

l&ge 7/..,. In the

-7-In the legal argument which followed. Adv. de Vos submitted that

Prof. Hurray had been called as a political siientist, and was entitled to indicate the "basis for his conclusions. It would "be for the Court to weigh up the reliability of that "basis.

Mr. Justice Bekker: "Are there no limits to the sources for the expert? Supposing he relies on improper material, according to the rules of evidence?"

Adv. de Vos then quoted an authority to prove that hearsay evidence could "be exceptionally admitted, submitting that this should apply in th? present case in view of the enormous scope of scientific data, and the necessity for the expert to accept facts known to him only from other authorities. To obtain technical evidence would "be impossible. "The true solution is to trust to the discretion of the trial judge."

Mr. Justice Bekker Objected that the a uthority quoted did not suit the present case. Experts had "been allowed to quote on past facts, because if those facts had not "been correct they would have "been challenged. But in the case of recent events, that was not so.

Adv. de Vos then questioned Prof. Murray further in order to establish fuil^Qjbhe position of Keesings, which took extragts from various sources such as the Times, Manchester guardian, etc. He had been under the impression that Stalin's speech had been taken from Pravda,

Mr. Justice Kennedy; "Would Praeda put any extra weight on the evidence?"

Prof. Murray replied that Pravda, as the official organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, would publish the speech in full, but admitted that he had not checked whether the portion of the speech which he wished to read emanated from the Soviet Union. Adv. de Vos then withdrew this document.

Extracts from Eruschev's Report to the 20th Cor^ress of the Soviet Union and the Comintern Programme xvere read in support of Prof. Murray's evidence on the liberation movement and the acknowledgement of Russia as the "motherland". The conclusion of the Communist Manifesto was quoted in rela-tion to the concept of world revolution as known to communists, while various works of Stalin were quoted to support the statement by the witness that Marxist Leninism was a living and a contemporary doctrine, also that the practice of Communisih must be carried out in non-Communist countries.

Proceeding to the existence in Communist Thegry of irfront" organi-sations, or transmissions, Prof. Murray stressed that these fronts were to be used by Commjnists without being professedly communist.

In reply to questions on the People's Democracy, Prof. Murray stated that this was a new name for the Soviet State, not a new type of state. The People's Democracy was a post-war phenomenon, examples of which were Bulgaria, Hungary, Czec hoslovakia, Rumania, China, the German Democratic Republic, V iet Nam and North Korea.

Technical Defence Objections Upheld

Adv. Maisels objected first to the reading of an extract from "An Introduction to Marxism" by Emil Burns as being an interpretation of events and therefore inadmissible, and then to a work by Seton VJatson, T'Ba.ttern of Communist Revolution", on the basis that facts which had not been proved were beii^ brought through this document. Adv. de Vos submitted that this passage wguldle read to support Prof. Murray's analytical interpretation of certain events, and not as proof of happenings, but Mr. Justice Rumpff upheld the defence objection on the basis that facts must be proved before proceeding to an opinion, and the document was withdrawn.

The next authority on People's Democracy which the Crown sought to introduce was from a work by A.I. Sobolov, published in Moscow, but this was

Page 8/..., left over,

left over, following an indication of objection "by the Defence. On the following day, Octobe 20, Ady. de Vos referred to passages from, speeches "by Mao Tse Tung on the People's Democratic Dictatorship and The Correct Handling of Contradictions of the People.

Mr. K« - Unknown?

The Defence allowed these passages to pass unchallenged, merely indicating that objections would be made during cross examination, but further challenge arose over a quotation from a speech by Kruschev, when Adv. Maisels protested "The Court has not been told who this gentleman is and has no judicial knowledge of himi"

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "T he Court has judicial knowledge that there is, a Mr. Kruschev who is a Soviet leader, but the Court does not know if this is the same Kruschev".

• Reverting to "fronts and transmissions", Prog. Murray referred to a passage already read in, and read a new passage relating to the duty of Commu-nists to resprt to illegal devices, subterfuges etc. to penetrate trade unions and to remain there.

Fact or Theory?

During the leading of evidence on the First and Second Communist Internationa]^ the Third International or Comintern, and the Cominform, leng+.b-" legal arument arose on the admissibility of this portion of Prof. Murray's evidence, with particular reference to the Comintern and Cominform. Adv. Maisels stated that the Defence did not object to statements concerning the First and Second Internationals, which might possibly fall into the limbo of history, to be supported by reference to history books, but the witness could not give evidence of recent facts.

Advl de Vos replied that the Crown had not attempted to prove the existence of the Cominform as a fact, but that the existence and the role of the Cominform was the accepted view of Communism, which was important. With reference to evidenoe being given in the form of fact, he submitted that the expert did not as yet understand the legal niceties; he had a difficult task and must be offered the opportunity to state correctly his position and vievrp "'

Defective Foundation

Mr. Justice Rumpff then gave the Court ruling that the evidence on tbr organisation of the Communist Internationals had been given in a form from which it had been inferred that it was intended to be evidence of historical facts; dates of establishment and. other facts had been mentioned. The Crown had admitted that it had not been intended to lead this evidence as fact, and had suggested that the evidence should be read as if it had been given in terrcn of Communist doctrine, but if the Crown wanted the witness to give an opinion on Communist doctrine, so far as historical facts were acceptwa, the Crown mus+. lay a proper foundation. This foundation had not been laid and the Court ruled that all the evidence relating to the Communist Internationals and the Cominform was inadmissible.

The Crown proceeded next to deal with evidence in support of Prof. Murray's statement on front or transmission organisations, taking first the World Federation of Trade Unions and requesting the witness to reed from a speech by L. Sailland in 1953 on behalf of the W.F.T.U. Adv. '"elsh objected to any inference being sought from a document published in China, found in the possession of a co-conspirator, and containing the report of a speech. Before the \?itness could be invited to.draw any inference, the Crown must establish that the W.F.T.U. iasa body and that the speech was made.

This was followed by discussion on the necessity for the witness to testify to the existence of the W.F.U?*W..

Page 9/.... Mr. Justice Rumpff:

Mr. Justice Rumpff: (to the Crown): "If the defence argument is correct, you must prove the existence of the W.F.T.U., or else the evidence may be inadmissible."

Adv» de V os submitted that the evidence to "be given "by Prof. Murray xjas "based on the assumption of the existence of the W.F.T.U., the Crown was for practical purposes unable to adopt any other procedure.

Plenty of Time

Mr. Must ice Rumpf f: "The difficulty is that we are not here for a week or two, nor have we been here for a week or two. As far as I can see, the end of the trial is not yet in sight. Why should we embark on 'this procedure of assuming something which the Crown may not be able to prove?"

Adv. Welsh submitted that unless the C-rown undertook to lead direct and admissible evidence, the document relating to the W.F.T.U. must be excluded, othenvise it would be merely a hearsay report of a speech made in China and found in the possession of a co-conspirator0

Adv.de Vos argued that at this stage the Crown had proved against the accused the existence of the W0F0T.U. and the acceptance by the accused of the organisation to mean what would be reflected by the evidence. The re was a mass of evidence showing the contact of the accused with the vr.F.T.U.

Mr. Justice Rumpff then asked what evidence would be led in support of the allegation that the W.F.T.U., was Communist sponsored and that the World Peace Council operated through the W.F.T.U.

Adv. de Vos replied that the Crown would lead the witness on a selection of documents and would ask his expert opinion. These documents would give the qualitative tag to the W.F.TSU. The Crown then listed eight documents, six of which were published by the W.F.T.U.

Imprint and Proof of Publication

Replying to a quary by Mr. Justice Rumpff concerning the rules of evidence relating to a formal imprint, Adv., de Vos stated though without authority, that the document purported to issue from the W.F.T.U. and it could hardly be assumed that the document was counterfeit unless there were some indication of it.

Adv. Welsh then submitted that the statements on allthese documents relating to publication were clearly hearsay, since they were si 1 statements by persons neither parties nor \iritnesses, T he only evidence which connected these documents with this cause was that Ltc Hugo had found them either in the possession of co-conspirators or accused or at the offices of the Congress of Democrats or of the S.A„ Congress of Trade Unions, and this did not prove that they we re published by the WOFOTPU,, etcD The Court ruled that the Crown could not put these cbcuments to Prof„ Murray „

The Crown then indicated that curtain documents would be put to Prof. Murray one by one. These d ocuments had been found in the possession of the organisations or of the accused and indicated Communist influence. The documents had been studied by Prof, Murray who had made notes concerning the indications of Communist influence. Adv., Welsh submitted that the witness covild not refer to his notes; this would not be a case of refreshing his memory on facts. He could only 'flag' certain portions of the documents for reference.

Mr, Justice Rumpff agreed that the witness could not refer to notes other than reference to pages. Adv., de_Vqs then protested that he could not proceed because the notes were more than page references and. it was finally agreed that Adv. de Vos should take over the notes from the witness, but on the discovery that the Croira and the witness did not have identical copies of the first document led, the Court adjourned until the followir& morning.

Bage 10/.... The Crown

-10-The Crovm "began "by endeavouring to lead evidence supporting Prof,

Murray's statement that Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union were expec-ted to support the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R. Prof. Murray quoted the example of Xorea, "but Adv. Welsh protested that a foundation vrould have to be laid "before the witness could give any evidence on Korea, Russian foreign policy towards Korea was fact and must "be properly proved. The witness was only a Professor of Philosophy at Cape Town, and not qualified to speak on Russian foreign policy.

Adv. de Vos Replied that it was merely a question of opinion, which the expert could give. 'The Court would judge the evidence. Prof, Murray then gave further exposition of Communist doctrine relating to the division of the world into two camps, the war- mongering and the peace-loving; peace could only "be achieved with the disappearance of the class struggle, When, in referring to the opposition of Communisiu to military "blocs, th$ vritness referred to the S.E. Asia Treaty organisation, Adv. Melsh objected that the witness was trying to get in a statement of fact!

Faith and Fact

During the legal argument which followed, Adv. Welsh quoted authority to show that the expert cannot merely state his opinion; he must give the sources. Expert opinion m Lst be capable of testing,

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "If you are correct, the witness must rely upon authority for every statement,"

When Mr. Justice P-umpff suggested drawing upon Christianity as an analogy, Adv. Welsh declared it to be an apt analogy. "The witness must show that Communists have a belief in Korea similar to the belief of Christian-ity in the resurrection of Christ...."

Adv. S. Kentridgo. for the Defence, continued the argument by submitting that the witness was not an expert on anything else in the Court except Communist doctrine. He has not given and could not give evidence on any particular body of people who believed in that doctrine; he could not say that people who believed in this doctrine take certain views. That would be fact, not doctrine.

Adv. de Vos stated in reply that Communism was more properly a phenomenon. To have the expert merely expound the basic dogma would be to present a fragmentary view of Communism,

gfc.ja cad the U.S.S.R.

Mr, Justice Rumpff then requested the Crown to re-state the question which had given rise to the argument: "In terms of Communist doctrine is it accepted as a fact that the U.S.S.R, assisted North Korea in the Korean \ r?" Ihe witness, Prof. Murray, was asked to leave the Court during thtisdtlis cussion as to what answer was expected by the Crovm. Adv. de Vos then indicated that he wanted the reply that the U.S.S.R. had consistently supported North Korea in the struggle, but he wanted the reply not in fact, but as an accepted fact in Communist theory.

Mr. Justice Rumpff pointed out tixat the 1 basic difficulty was the manner in which the Crown questions were put, so that the witness was invited to state in t rms of Communist Doctrine that a fact had occurred, Adv.Welsh submitted that although the Crovm had said that in Communism, theory and practice were linked, the witness could not tell the Court about the practice of Communism,

The witness was then recalled and the question put again. Prof, Murray replied that to be true to theory, the U.S.S.R. had to support Korea. There was a body of information to support this statement, taken from standard government reports from both sides and responsible news sources.

Rage ll/....Adv. Welsh

Adv. Welsh drew the attention of the Court to the Summary of Pacts, one of the schedules to the indictment, which stated that the object of the World Peace Council was to promote the policies of the U.S.S.R. and also defined the policies of the U.S.S.R. re international matters. One of the facts, therefore, was that the U.S.S.R. had certain policies, and it was clear "both from the question of Adv. de Vos and Prof. Murray's replies that issues of pure fact relating to these policies were involved. The witness could not give this evidence. Adv. de Vos protested that there was no attempt by the Crown to get proof of fact in this matter. He submitted that the expert could tender opinion which would then "be evaluated "by the Court; the grounds on which the opinion was based would either add to or subtract from the value of the evidence.

Mr.. Justice^umpff_ then dealt with the replies by the witness and stated that Prof. Murray had jiot produced grounds for sayirg that it was accepted in Communist Theory that the U.S.S.R. consistently supported North Korea, (other than his orn conclusions from experience). The evidence._on this point was therefore not .admissible.

The Commie Line - Dpad-End

The Crcr.m then proceeded to the examination of Prof. Murray on certain documents, commencing with a statement on the Significance of t'orld Xoufch._Dc.y_a_ Prof. Murray informed the Court that his procedure had "been'to study these documents in full; his remarks on the portions referred to would relate to the phenomenon and the theory of Communism. Dealing with this particular document, he commented that many phrases used reflected the Communist line, quoting inter alia "shackles of feudalistic "bondage","routing of imperialist bandits". Almost every phrase reflected communist writings.

Adv. Nicholas protested that this evidence was inadmissible. The witness had equated the idea of peace in the world with Communist propaganda,, The fact that Communists mr.de propaganda for peace had not been proved and could not be proved by this witness, A similar example in this evidence was "the Communist theory that the U.S.A. was a war mongering country." The witness must quote authority to prove this.

Mr., Justice Rumpff: "Mr. Nicholas, you are going much too far!"

Adv. Nicholas, however, insisted that there could be no interpretation before a foundation had been laid and submitted that two other comments by the witness were inadmissible, that the document was "in line with current Commu»~ nist statements" and that there were "many phrases in the document which follow the Comi'Tunist line." The Defence submitted that the witness must establish these Communist statements as proven facts and that current political atti-tudes leading to "the Communist line" must be established "ty admissible evidence.

After considerable legal aliment on this aspect, the Crown agreed to withdraw the comment on the Communist "line", but indicated that a foun-d.atlon would be laid for the statement relating to the U.S.A. as a war-mo tiger-ing nation.

i'j „J] .s.tice_ Rumpff emphasised that the foundati n must be laid properly and warned the Crown not to go on when there was a darker that an objection would be raised and only then to offer to call further evidence. Adv. de Vos stated that he would endeavour to conform to the Court's ruling, but did. not accept the validity of the Defence argument. H e referred to the difficulty of the witness who had no time to formulate his answers infallibly and did not know all the details of admissible evidence, Mr. Justice Kumpff assured the witness that he was not expected to give his answers "in the strait jacket of legal requirements."

The Crown then asked Prof. Ifurray to recommence his opinion on this document,. The Signifi^jice. of World Youth Day. Once again the witness selec-ted v rious phrases and evaluated them in terms of Communist doctrine, as explained in his evidence and supported by the sources from which he had etuoted.

Page 12/'.... On the

-12-

On the f olio-wing day, the sixth day of Prof. Murray's evidence, the crown returned to the position of the U.S.A. sis accepted in Communist doctrine as a war mongering power. Prof. Murray quoted from Kruschev's speech to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and from Stalin on T he Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. and from a speech by Molotov to support his statement that the U.S. was regarded as a war mongering povrer. Prof, Murray then dealt with other points in this document, such as references to the murdering of youth by imperialists in Malaya and Kenya, and also the relentless struggle against reaction and fascism in our land, claiming that this reference to fascism and reaction was typical of Communist doctrine. When Prof. Murray concluded his comments on this docu-ment, Mr. Maisels, for the Defence, stated that by keeping quiet he had not waived his right to object; the Defence would submit later that what the witness had said was Communist doctrine was NOT so.

Red China and the African National Congress

The next document dealt with by frlofj-J^urra^ w a s the constitution c" the People's Republic of China, from which extracts were read in from the f Preamble and also a number of the Articles. This was followed by the Const! tution and Programme of the African National Congress, on which Prof. Murray commented, inter alia, that it v/as part of Communist strategy and tactics to organise woHon'3 sections under control of a central body in order to promote the ideas of the central body. A similar comment was made on the establish-ment of the Youth League. The functions of the National and Provincial Executive Committees and afeo the recommendation for political education, were similarly compared to Communist strategy and tactics.

The witness then applied the same methods to various paragraphs in the Preamble to the Declaration on Basic Policy and Programme of the African National Congress, cuch as that referring to the national liberatory movement as an anti-imperialist movement, and another expressing "full confidence in *v ultimate triumph of Africa", and identifying them with Communist doctrine. The sections of the Preamble on lane1-, industry, and the cultural policy were dealt with in a similar manner. Resolutions taken at the A.N.C. Conference in 1954 called for the end. of the emergency in Kenya, the release of Jomo Kenyatta and all other political prisoners and the withdrawal of military force; another condemned Atom and H, B ombs; a third called for co-operation with Trade Unions. These were all labelled by the x^itness as reflecting Communist strategy and tactics in one way or another, either from the phraseo-logy used or from the content of the resolution.

The rest of the day was taken up with comment by the witness on the Report of the 42nd Conforcnce of the African National Congress in 195^. Extracts were taken from the openii^ address of Dr. S.M. Naicker, President of the S.A. Indian Congress, referring to the approaching end of imperialism and the progress of the forces of peace a nd freedom, to the liberation movement as a movement against those who had formerly exploited Asia; to freedom and democracy as opposed to oppression. All of these references were interpreted by the witness as direct reflection of Communist doctrine. The use by Dr. Naicker of the words "fascism" and "reactionary" called for special comment,.

Further ir.'.umont

At the beginning of the afternoon session of the Court, Mr. Justice Rumpff referred to the two rulii^s given by the Court on the previous day on statements made by Prof. Murray, and stated that, after further consideration the Court v/as of the opinion that the ruling imposed a duty on the witness whic. might not be reqiired by law, requested further argument for the beginning of th/ following week.

The Crown then returned to the A.N.C. Conference Report, and Prof0 Murray subjected the Presidential Address of Chief A.J. Luthuii to the same treatment as that accorded to the opening address, making specific reference ti-the paragraphs dealing with the need for closer co-operation with the Trades Unions and the establishment of a united front "to challenge the forces of reaction." This phrase was classified as Communist and the content of these paragraphs compared to Communist policy.

Page 13/.... Then Prof, Murray

i

When Prof, Murray was dealing in• .the same v/ay with the Political Review contained in the Report, A^v. Maise3.s protested once again that the witness-Trias making a statement of fact® The Crown defended the witness "by saying that he meant to say "in Communist theory", "but Mr, Maisels reiterated that the witness had made a statement of fact, and wanted to know if he would "bo going on in this way. "We find it incredible."' Replying to a question "by the Crown, the witness stated that his method in studying these documents was "to watch out for certain sentences a nd phrases" and then understand them in terms of the whole document; he could not work "anatomisticaliy"u Special attention was paid by the witness to the section of the Political Review dealing with the exiling and banning of leaders and the presence of armed police at meetings, as being indicative of the Communist theory of that particular stage of capital development when dictatorial methods were used by the ruling class to suppress opposition and entrench themselves. The discussion on fascism was similarly treated;, and also the section on Congress and the Rural areas and on. the International Situationc

Issued by THE TREASON TRIALS BEEEJH6! FUND (W„0, 2092) P.O. Box 2864, Johannesburgo Phone: 33-5901o

TREASON TRIALS DSrElICE HTIvD "'* 20 * «

PRESS SUMMARY

This is the twentieth issue of a regular "bulletin giving a factual resume of the proceedings of the Treason Trial,

Period Covered: 26th October - 29th October, 1959

EXPERT OPINIONS. AMD. SOURCES

When the Covrt resumed on Monday, October 26th, for the twelfth week of the trial, Mr,- o u s t R n m n f f asked for the additional argument on the ruling (given the previous week) that, apart from historical statements, when the witness makes a statement as to Communism accepting a fact, historical or otherwise, he must produce his source, irrespective of his qualifications as an expert on Communism,,

Adv. Maiselr stated that the Defence could not usefully add anything to the argument submitted already* The Court was entitled to reconsider any interim ruling given during the case,

Mr. Justice Pumpff explained that the Court was experiencing some diffi-culty over this ruling, on the analogy of a medical practitioner who might be asked to describe the ph enomenon of pneumonia and then would state that from his examination of a patient, he diagnosed pneumonia. He had laid the basis for his opinion on evidence when he had ,r;iven evidence on pneumonia in general.

Mr» Justice Brisker commented that this rulinr applied to replies to such questions as "Does Communist doctrine accept as a fact ?" and asked if it would be correct that if a witness said "I am an expert and political science accepts this" he must give his sources. Adv. Maisels replied that the Court must be satisfied, irrespective of cross examination,that it could place reliance on the evidence of the witness. Prof. Murray was not a Communist and was not givirg first hand evidence, but merely telling the Court what to read in order to draw conclusions*

Mr.. Justice, Rurrpff: "The expert evidence of a witness is first hand evidences"

Mr. Justice Ruopff referred to the Defence objection, after the ruling, to the question "In Communist doctrine is it accepted that the U.S.S.R. gave support to North Korea?", on the ground that it was an inadmissible question without sourceso

Uhen Advy Maisnls submitted that the expert evidence given by the witness had been based on a study of the masters, Mr, Justice Rumpff srid that the witness had not confined himself to the classics. I-ir. Mais els re-iterated that the questio related to fact: the Defence was unable to see how Communist doctrine could include something which had happened in the last few years.

Adv. dn Vcs argued that the expert w s entitled to give his opinion on the view taken by Communism cn certain mc.tters, and to quote cases in support of this argument, Text books need only to be indicated as amongst the foundation of the expert opinion* V.t must rest with the expert to make use of his reading over many years and his contact with other scientists* In English lav; cases there "ere examples where text "books had actually been excluded. Expert opinion was founded on diverse sources which could not fully be conveyed to the Court. The approach should be that, the opinion of the expert was admissible, but the.i.dght of his evidence would have to be decided by the Court,

Mr* Justice Rynp:ff interrupted the Crown argument, pointing out that the difficulty lay, net in scientific opinion, but in whether, in the introduction of fact as accepted by Communist doctrine, the Defence could object on grounds of inadmissibility, or must wait until cross examination*

z/.... Adv. Maisels

Adv. Haisels submitted that whether support for Korea was part of Communist doctrine was a question of may "be and therefore must "be established* The Defence was concerned that if doctrine were to "be used to slip in contem-porary fact, reasons should "be given. This matter was left for the consider of the Court.

PROFESSOR ilTKRAY. FASCIST I AMD COCUNISM

The Crown then resumed the leading of Prof. Murray c documents and passages selected by him. Co eluding his comments on the 195^ A.N.C. Conference Report, Prof. Hurray drew attention to the linking of the struggle for liberation with the struggle against imperialism and the struggle for pea stating that this concept of peace was derived from Communist doctrine. The proposals relating to the organisation of the A.N.C. under the conditions "of the fully fledged police state in which we live," to the need for political training of Congress members, and. to the "building; up of the Women's and 7a !:r. Leagues were alldescribed by Prof. Murray as part of Communist strategy and tactics. The allusion to South Africa as a 'fascist state' was identified with CoLjminist interpretation of fascism, which was associated with far more than the original Italian term, of reference. The document as a whole accop the Communist interpretation of the situation in South Africa and showed a knowledge of C ommunist teaching on method.

The next document was the Presidential Address to the 1954 A.H.C, Transvaal Conference; the comments by the witness followed a pattern simile to those relating to previous documents. Dealing with the three lectures., Kio_Wgrld "e Live In. The Country ire Live In, and A Change is Heeded, the witness described them as containing the doctrine of Marxist Leninism re-stat in a popular way. The lectures reflected the writings of Karl Marx and Engo adhering closely to their survey of the class struggle. The Marxist labour-Theory of Value had been incorporated in a simplified form a nd also the development of imperialism and. its relation to i-jar. The role of Parliament as an instrument of the ruling or capitalist class was discussed on lines of standard Communist theory. Special attention was paid ty Prof. Murray to the passages on "A People's Democracy" which he claimed were closely linked with the Communist doctrine of the People's Democracy, emphasising equality of franchise and redivision of land. The third lecture, taken as a whole, explained the rise of a people's democracy in terms of the Communist inter-pretation of the political situation.

Mr. Justice^Rumpff stated that the trial had now reached the stage vAitre the whole pattern had been fixed in broad terms. The Court would at this stage know broadly the pu rpose for which each document was put in.

It was then agreed thft the Cro\«i should proceed only with documents that had already been read into the record, and hold over other documents to see what could be done.

On the following morning, Prof. Murray commented extensively on a docrac entitled "Notes on Lecturing", drawing particular attention to the notes on capitalism and imperialism, all of which were said to be in line with Marxist theories. The notes for the lecture on fascist dictatorship were said to be a direct r statement of the Communist analysis of fascism. The explanations of feudalism and of revolutionary capitalism in these notes were compared "ty the witness to the Communist Manifesto.

I'To Easy Walk to Clarity

The booklet "No Easy Walk to Freedom" by Nelson Mandela was dealt with very fully "by Prof. Murray and severa.1 comparisons drawn with tenets of Communist doctrine and interpretation,

When Adv. liaise Is objected to the evidence by the witness as being a mixture of doctrine and. fact, Mr, Justice. Rumpff stated that he had listened, carefully; it was easy to see what was doctrine and what was fact.

3/.... A booklet

-3-A "booklet on the Tenth Anniversary of the Transvaal Indian Youth Congress

arnd the .Agenda Book of the S.A. Indian Congress 195^* Conference were dealt with by Prof. Murray on similar lines as containing political analyses and concepts in line with Communist doctrine. Adv. Maisels objected that it could not "be for the Court to decide whether a document showed "knowledge" of Communist doctrine. When giving; his opinion on the 1955 Conference Report of the Katal Indian Congress, Prof. Murray referred to a statement on the refusal of the United States to recognise the People's Republic of China as indicative of the role of the United States according to Communist doctrine. Mr. Justice Rumpff. following the Defence objection to this evidence, asked the witness if he could fortify fais statement "by reference to any authority. The Witness replied that he had already done so, and it was a matter or inference that Communist doctrine would hold that the U.S.A. would not recognise the People's Republic of China.

"Da Capo"?

Mien Adv. de Vos estimated that possibly another week might be taken for Prof. Murray's opinion on the selected document®, iir. Justice Kennedy asked if it were necessary for the witness to give each time the evidence he had already given on so many recurrent points, e.g. that according to Communist doctrine, the world is divided into camps, etc, "It must be \vearing on Prof. Murray as well as on a 11 of usl"

Dealing with the document "Symposium on the National Question" containing papers by L. Forman, X.A. Jordaan and Dr. H.J. Simons, Prof. Murray indicated the influence of Marxist-Leninist theories on Mr. Forman's contribution and on the expressions of Standard Communist doctrine. The paper by K.A. Jordaan was compared with Stalin on Revolution, Several passages from a document Political Organisation were examined by Prof, Murray and parallels drawn with Communist doctrine on method.

Hiic iesj Doctrines and Fp.cts

Adv. de Vos raised the difficulty of questions on the acceptance of policies as part of Communist doctrine, which might bring in fact and be affected by the Court ruling still under consideration. He quoted some examples, such as the role of the U.S.S.R. in relation to non-Communist countries, and Communist opposition to military blocs such as the European Defence Community. The Court considered these points and stated that the sources would, have to be supplied by the witness for a statement that Communism objects to defence organisations since it involved an allegation of fact which might not be historical fact.

What Soviet Foreign Policy Should Be

Whe"- 'r^f. Murray quoted from a report of speeches by Bulganin and Molofrov, Adv. We loll objected that the Crown was trying to prove Soviet foreign policy, but that the witness had not said that he was qualified as an expert on this. Soviet foreign policy meant two things; What the Soviet Government did and what it said.

Mr. Justice Rumpff ruled that the document must be admissible if the witness said it was an accepted authority. The Defence could, destroy it in cross examination.

Adv. Maisels then asked Prof. Murray: "Are you an expert on Soviet Foreign policy?", and. when Prof. Murray referred to the aspect of Soviet foreign policy which flows from Communism, continued "You mean what Soviet foreign policy ought to be and that is the total extent of your qualification?" Adv. Welsh followed with "This witness is not qualified to say what Molotov and Bulganin saidJ" Prof. Murray replied that Soviet leaders had said that they applied the principles of Marxism to practically everything in inter-national affairs.

Mr. Justice Bekker: "Do you. profess to be an expert on present day Soviet foreign policy?"

m P

Prof. Murray: "On that one aspect of it approximately as expounded "by the classics."

Mr. Justice Bekker: "You claim to "be an expert to say what Soviet foreign policy should "be. Can you say what it is?"

Prof. Murray; "No, except what they say and I rely on that."

Adv. de Vos indicated that he did not wish to take the matter any further, "but the Court questioned Prof, Murray on the adherence of the U,S.S.R. to Marxist Leninism. On the admission of Prof. Murray that this might always not "be so, Mr. Justice Rumpff asked what was the significance of the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R, if it was not necessarily "based on Marxism Leninism? He ruled that the question was not admissible until the Court judgment had "been given.

On the following day Mr. Justice Kennedy renewed his objection to the repetition of expositions "by Prof, Murrey and asked why this was necessary where phrases were almost identical in context and meaning. Adv. de Vos replied that the comments might "be similar, "but the selection differed. Iir. Justice Kennedy asked if Prof. Murray could not say in such cases "For reasons I've already given...." T he Crown was presenting repetitions matter in sixty per cent of the evidence. T here was "not one tittTe of difference "between the evidence given "by Prof. Murray on China today and previously!"

The question of deleted portions of documents arose sharply when the Crown asked Prof, Murray for his opinion on a document as a whole, "but without any reference to portions deleted. Prof. Murray stated that he paid more attention to undeleted portions, "but made his comments on documents as a whole, Mr. Justice Rumpff said that it must "be m?de cfeir that deleted portions were not "before the Court, and therefore the witness could not give evidence on the whole.

Two documents Situation in Hungary and The U.S. S.R.. Poland and. Hungary were then examined "by Prof. Murray who commented on the Communist doctrines stated in these articles.

Defence Questions rhole Procedure

Adv. I!aj._sels_ raised a point concerning the whole of Prof. Murray's evidence. He had "been considering whether the witness could stigmatise any documents, "but ought not rather to inform the Court of the phenomenon of Communism and point to certain phrases and passages. It would then "be for the Court to say Whether or not this was Communist doctrine. The present procedure was "burdensome and not in accordance with rules of evidence. The witness was intevpreting and did not give the actual words; his evidence should "be confined to drawing the Court's attention to phrases unless new points were raised,

Mr. Justice Rumpff pointed out that the Crown's attitude might "be that as the expert was there, passages could "be pointed out to him and his opinion sought. In lav; the Crown would "be entitled to do so. Adv. i-Iaisels disagreed; the whole purpose of Prof, Murray's evidence was to equip the Court with Communist doctrine. It was for the Court to decide v/hether the docu-ments contained Communist doctrine. The witness could not interpret the English language. The Defence had waited to see whether the Crown might suggest the use of "Aesopism" or double talk, "but this had not occurred so farP The Crown ought only to lead the witness on documents on which the Court had not "been instructed.

Mr. Justice Rumpff said that he had thought about this aspect at the "beginning of this part of the evidence.

Adv. Maisels exclaimed: "r'e thought about it last year when the case was supposed to starti"

Bage 5/.... Adv. de Vos

-5-Adv. de Vos requested time to prepare the Crown's reply to this argument

and the examination of documents ves resumed. irhen Prof. Murray made the comment on a resolution on peace adopted at a Congress of Democrats Conference that it was taken directly from Communist doctrine on the nature of world peace, Mr. Justice Rumpff interjected that this was exactly the sort of evidence referred to by Adv. Maisels; the Court was already in a position to judge. Adv.deVos explained that it was difficult to judge up to what stage the witness should take the explanation; the documents had teen prepared on a different "basis.

Replying to Adv. de V os1 question on a document, entitled "The Immediate Programme of Action", Prof. Murray stated that there were no new concepts con-tained in the document. Mr. Justice Kennedy: "That's the way to do it!"

The following morning, October 29th, Adv. de Vos "began his reply to Adv. Maisele1 argument "by stating that the legal position was clear. Expert evidence was excluded if superfluous but admitted when arising out of the peculiar skill of the witness. In the present case, the option of the witness on every portion of the documents was of value. He and he alone had knowledge of the full phenornenc" of Communism; it would have been impossible to put the full exposition of Coimru-nism before the Court.

Mr. Justice Runrpff said that if the Crown was correct, the witness could be asked whether a document reflected any Communist doctrine, although the Court would eventually have to decide. There would hpve been no trouble if the docu-ments had been few.

Adv. de Vos conceded that the Crown should examine the remaining documents from a more restricted angle and l ax? the evidence only on the main points or on complexes of points not covered previously by the witness.

A Hew Procedure Mr. Justice Rumpff then suggested that the Crown prepare a list of all

remaining documents xrhich had been read in, to which must be added the exhibit number and the paragraph relied on. The list could then be "iven to the wit-ness who could be asked whether he had read them and what broadly was his opin-ion on the paragraphs indicated. His evidence would be confined to what he had already given, and any other documents, not covered by his previous evidence \70uld have to be produced. The Crown indicated that this procedure would be acceptable and the attention of the Court was then directed to the documents which were not yet on the record, which the Crown estimated might take 1 - 2 days to read in. Adv. MaiseIs then suggested that the Crown should give the references and then the unread matter could be typed in by consent without being actually read to the Court, but would be deemed to be read,

A short adjournment was granted for the Crown to consider a proposal that the Crown should proceed with the loading of Prof. Murray on another selection of documents by other members of the Crown team, while Adv. de Vos prepared the remainder of his documents on the new basis suggested, j.dv. de Vos then ask;d for an adjournment until the following week, for the Crown to prepare the evi-dence; it vould not be possible for the other members of the Crown team to take over immediately.

Adjournment Granted Adv. Maisels protested that the proposals had been made to save time, but

it seemed as though it might not be a saving, and he suggested that the Crown should ,• o on in thy old way. Adv. de Vos indicated that in view of the argument of the previous day, the witness had not b^en given the usual number of documents to prepare, but Mr. Justice Rumpff conceded that the witness could read such documents in the witness box. This procedure howerer, slov; d down the leading of evidence to such an extent that eventually Mr. Justice Rumpff dismissed the Defence objections to the delay and granted the Crown the requested adjournment for the preparation of the evidence.

U&6

Issued by THE TREASON TRIAIS DEFENCE HJHD (W.O. 2092) P.O. Box 2864, Johannesburg. Phone: 3"-5901.

TREASON TRIALS DEFENCE FUND

PRESS SUMMARY No. 21 •

9

This is the twentflrst issue of a regular "bulletin giving a factual resume of the proceedings of the Treason Trial.

Period Covered: 2nd - 6th Bovember, 1959

PT0FESS02 MURRAY'S FINAL EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF

When the trial resumed on November. 2nd, Adv. de Vos explained that the remaining documents to be put to Professor Murray for comment had "been classi-fied into two parts: those which were covered by the d octrine already expoun-ded by Prof. Murray, and would therefore not need any further explanation; and those which required some further comment. In reply to Mr. Justice Rumpff, Prof. Murray made the general comments on the first group that he had come to the conclusion that they were derived from Communist doctrine and were an expression of that doctrine.

THE SEMANTICS OF FREEDOM

Dealing with the second group of documents, Adv. de Vos "began with a lecture on the International ™rade Union Movement, asking the witness whether, from this document, he wouldhbe able to say anything as to the nature of the World federation of Trade Unions on the basis of Communist doctrine. Adv. Maisels objected to this question on the basis that the witness would "be interpreting the document to the Court. Mr. Justice Rumpff stated that the Court's view was that unless Professor Murray wanted to set out some new doctrine, it was not desirable for him to rely upon doctrine previously expounded "which we can do ourselves."

The Freedom Charter

After commenting on a nur.bor of other documents, and assessing them variously as following the Communist line or as restating Communist doctrine, Prof. Murray was questioned closely on the Freedom Charter. He pointed to the statement in the preamble, "our people have "been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace", as expressing a part of Communist doctrine (but to be found also in other doctrines), and to the criticism of the present form of government and the desire for a change as indicating Communism.

The Meaning of Democracy

Dealing with the "democratic changes" referred to in the pledge in the preamble to the Freedom Charter, Prof. Murray explained that the word "demo-cratic" could have two meanings, the one used in Communism and the other used by the "Western Camp", There was nothing in the clause "The People Shall Govern" that could not be interpreted in either a liberalistiff or a Communist way, "The People shall share in the Country's Wealth" could be interpreted in either a Socialist or a Communist way, according to the type of controls envisaged.

Liberalism, Socialism and Communism

Replying at this point to a request from Mr. Justice Runpff for his meaning of Socialist, Prof. Murray explained th-t he hrd meant left wing socialism, which was not Communism, although references to "socialism" occurred in Communist doctrine. Asked by Mr. Justice Rumpff for the distinction between

Page 2/.... "Left Wing

-2-Left Wing Socialisn, Liberalism, and Communism, the witness explained, that

. liberalism was based on free trade and the equality of people, the removal of all barriers and as little State control as possible. Socialist doctrine proposed different degrees of control of production by the people, while the Communist doctrine held thrt all production should be owned and run by the people, and that the function of government w.~s merely the administration of production and its distribution. The "left wing" in socialism stretched from the people who wanted a certain amount of control right to the extreme form, i.e. anarchism, or complete Communism. Left wing socialism contained all shades of control of production. The clause "The land shall be shared amcngst those who work it", could be related to the Communist policy of expropriation of land, which formed part of the Communist doctrine of the peoples' democracy.

Cops and Robbers

The clause "All shall be equal before the law" elicited the comment that liberalist doctrine did not teach that the Ccurts should be representative of all people, but that the function of the Courts was to represent and to maintain the law. This clause could be associated with Communist doctrines, particularly the section maintaining that the police force and the army ought to be the helpers of the people; a Communist interpretation could be put on this paragraph.

Of the clause "All shall enjoy Human Rights" Prof. Murray stated that there was nothing here which could not come into Communist policy. "There shall be work and security" contained nothing thrt could not be left wing socialism or Communism. The State was recognised as a force for the benefit of the people, and this section suggested partial State control of trade, etc., therefore could not be classified as liberalistic. The following clause "The Doors of Learning and Culture Shall be Opened" could be taken as expressing both liberal snd Communist policy. Dealing withtthe section "There Shall be Houses, Security and Comfort", Prof. Murray stated that the clause must be related to the implications of the rest of the Freedom Charter, from which it appeared that it ought to be interpreted as Communist doctrine. The last clause "There shall be Peace and Friendship" contained nothing that could not be either liberal or Communistic.

Mr. Justice Runpff: "Consistent with both, inconsistent with neither?"

Commenting on the Freedom Charter as a whole, Prof. Murray declared that there were no points which chould not be interpreted according to Communism; there were many which could also be interpreted according to liberal doctrine, but also some which could not.

The People frtio Spoke

Adv. Maisels objected to the handing in of the next document which crnsisted of notes of speeches mode at the Congress of the People (at which the Freedom Charter was adopted) on the ground that these were merely notes on which witnesses giving evidence refreshed their memory. Prof. Murray read and commented upon some of the passages^ and particular phrases and words from speeches on the various clauses of the Freedom Charter, evaluating them as either in line with Communist doctrine, part of Communist doctrine, or as using Commmnist language, e.g. the terra "Comrades" was commonly used in Communist language. Adv. de Vos then indicated that, pending the Court rulirg on the scope of the testimony of the witness, the Crown was unable to take this section of its case any further.

A Flood of Communism?

Adv. van Niekerk then put to Prof. Murray some 400 documents, upon which the Crown relied as showing possession by the accused or co-conspirators of documents which were Communist classics or contained Communist matter or propaganda. The Crown explained that the relevant portions of these documents, other than standard text boosk, would have to be read in to meet the question whether any part of a book could be directed against the accused if it were not part of the record.

ii ii nit mi M 11 ii n mi nit tin n ii mi ii n n it ii n it ii n ti Rage On the

On the following morning, agreement was reached between the Crown and the Defence that the remainder of these documents, as scheduled on a list compiled "by the Crown, should "be taken as read. When these documents had all "been put to Prof. Murray for his comments, the Defence informed the Court that these documents would take several days to c~nsider. Soon after the Crown had embarked upon the next part of Prof. Murray's evidence, which related to various journals and publications, "beginning with Liberation, it was suggested by Mr. Justice Rumpff that, since the passages to be read in were all covered by previous statements by Prof. Murray on dogma, these passages and articles could be read in at some other time; Adv. de Vos then agreed that these selections might be abbreviated.

"Front" Organisations

The Crown then proposed to put to the witness certain material relating to "front organisations" for evaluation as to whether they contained Communist dogma.

Adv. de Vos asked the Court whether in the case of facts recognised by Communist doctrine, it would be necessary for the sources to be divulged. Mr. Justice Rumpff gave as the Court's opinion at thrt stage (pending judge-ment) that if the fact were accepted in Communist doctrine according to the classics, it might be put to the witness without the sources being first supplied.

Sobolev Left Out

Adv. de Vos informed the Court that he would be dealing with certain authorities on the People's Democracy, and commenced with a pamphlet by Sobolev^ to which objection hrd been taken earlier by the Defence, entitled "People s Democracy, a new form of political organisation of Society." Adv. Maisels objected to the evidence on the contents of the book and proceeded to cross examine the witness on the admissibility of the book. Replying to questions, Prof. Murray stated that he hrd obtained the book about three years from a police officer of the Security Branch, and not from any scientific source. He had discussed the book with two political scientists overseas and had also been told by Prof. Bochensky, a Crown consultant, that he knew the book; the witness regarded Sobolev as an authority on the contemporary situ-a tion. Mr. Justice Rumpff stated the difficulty of the Court with regard to the work of Sobolev arising frcm the demarcation of authority, Prof. Murray admit tod thrt he hrd not seen this bock referred to in Communist literature, and could not say whether or not his opinion had been accepted as part of Communist doctrine.

Following the submission by Adv. de Vos that the witness was entitled to give his opinion supported by what he considered to be authoritative sources, A dv. Maisels protested that it was necessary to prevent all sorts of paper being put before the Court to support the witness1 dogma: "Strictly speaking it could be said that the whole of Prof. Murray's evidence is inadmissiblel He is really the librarion for your lordships 1"

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "In a criminal case with consequenoes - possible consequences - the Court may require a stricter test than an ordinary scientist."

II II II II II II II II II II LLLL II II II II

When the Court resumed next morning, 4th Nov. . Mr. Justice Rumpff gave the ruling that the reasons advanced Dy Prof. Murray for regarding this book as an authority were insufficient.

The Crown then read in passages from a book "People's Democratic Dictator-ship" by Mao T s 0 Tung as a further authority on People's Democracy, and also passages from various classical sources on the Third Communist International. Adv. Maisels objected to the introduction of the photostat copy of the Theses and Resolutions of the 1928 Congress and cross examined the witness on the

Page authenticity

authenticity of the original of the photostat copy, establishing that it was a manuscript in English of what was assumed to "be the Theses and Resdutions of the Congress. Replying to questions "by Mr. Justice Rumpff, the witness admitted that the contents of the document had not "been reproduced "by any authority, hut Adv. de Vos submitted that to the extent that any document could he vouched for scientifically, this document had been so vouched for. The Court ruled that this document could net "be admitted.

DEFENCE CROSS -EXAM INAT I ON BEGINS Curricula Vitae

Adv. Maisels then "began his cross examination of Prof. Murray, dealing first with his qualifications and his scientific studies of Marxism Leninism. Prof. Murray, who is Professor of Philosophy in the University of Cape Town, had originally studied at the Afrikaner University of Stellenbosch, and had gained his higher degrees at Oxford for work unconnected with Communism, He claimed that he had "been engaged in systematic and intensive study of this subject long before he had been engaged by the Crown, for this case. He had written "odd articles11 for the "Huisgenoot", a popular Afrikaans-language weekly. His writings had all been in this popular form except for one publi-shed letturc "Kommunisme." He did not read Russian or any Eastern language, and had not visited Russia or any Communist country. He did not consider the Cape Town University Library adequately equipped with Marxist Leninist books. His own library did not contain complete editions of the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin; he knew about Soviet scientific journals. He had read many classical texts on Communism and some modern texts, and kept up to date with his studies by reading Keesings and books by people on the western side -"Western journals are not always pro-westerni" He kept up with modern political trends in South Africa by newspapers, journals and by meeting people. He did not agree that all his sources of current information were completely second-hand; articles in Western journals could be more reliable than those emanating from Russia. His own writings consisted mainly of articles written for Die Huisgenoot and his book on the Parliamentary system "Die Beginsels van Volkraad". published in 1938* He had contributed an article to "Economics" on the principles and theory of economics; his main interest was the study of pluralism in politics, the racially plural state.

Prof. Murray stated that he had also done some work for a correspondence college in the early '30s and had prepared some notes, purely scientific, on political theory for a summer school of the Nationalist Party during the war -it might even have been for the Jeugbond (the Nationalist Party's youth organi-sation). It was not political indoctrination, but a survey of his treatment of Parliament.

Fascism and the South African Government

Replying to a question on the term 'fascism1 as applied to the South African Government, Prof. Murray said that he personally was not at all affec-ted by what the government was called; the use of Communist jargon would not show that an author was Communist, but would show that he was acquainted with Communist jargon; the use of the term 'fascist' indicated that probably the author knew it was a Communist term, and that he might very well be a Communist. Prof. Murray agreed that it would be difficult for a layman to understand dialectical materialism without instruction; he had had no experience of translating these terms into Zulu or Sesuto; it might be difficult to explain these terms to uneducated people.

Following the question "would it be fair to say you are not a Communist?", Mr. Justice Rumpff asked whether the witness need answer, and Mr. Justice Bekker quoted the law "The question shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be answoredi" Prof. Murray explained that he was a "one man party, chiefly centre," and had been so for most of his life.

Questioned on such Acts as the Suppression of Communism Act, the Bantu Education Act, the Riotous Assemblies Act, and the Public Safety and Criminal Laws Amendment Act, Prof. Murray stated that he accepted the first as inevit-able with possible modifications, but the others as on the whole unnecessary.

Page 5/.... He considered

- 5 -

He considered apartheid sound as a policy.

Fascism equals Connunisn?

Replying to questions on the use of the tern fascism, Prof. Murray admitted after hearing his own evidence Son the record, that he had said that the use of the tern 'fascism' implied that a document fell in line with the Communist doctrine of fascism, and the Communist interpretation of the situation. He had not said anywhere that a man who used the phrase was a Communist, although he might have indicated that such a person understood Communism. He did not accept that 'fascism' could "be correctly used in a wider sense than to indicate the form of government associated with Mussolini, hut the left wirg adopted a wider interpretation. He had not used it so himself. Confronted with his article written for Die Huisgenoot in 19^1, Prof. Murray admitted that he had then adopted the 'left' way of interpreting the phrase 'fascism', hut would not agree to retract his statement about the use of the term 'fascist:' "by ordinary people. At the close of the day's proceedings, Prof, Murray stated that the general popular conception of a Communist was one who "believed and understood a certain number of the principles of Marxism Leninism and had to a.ct accordingly,

v it mi ii n mi II

On the following morning, November 5th, Adv. Maisels gave Prof. Murray ten minutes to study the second instalment of his article for Die Huisgenoot. and then asked "When you referred to the existence of 'fascist forces in all "big industrial states' did you mean Mussolini's agents?" The witness replied that he had referred to the tendency to copy Mussolini and to control the Trade Unions. After further close questioning, Prof. Murray agreed that in that article, which represented his own views at that timer he had himself used the Communist interpretation of fascism, and had adopted the Communist analysis of the situation. "For the moment, I gave this analysis but I criticized it later." He could not say when he had changed his mind about the Communist views he had expressed in the article: "Insight and argunent develop as one grows older," He accepted that many people in Western Europe who were not Communists had described South African policies as fascist. "I accuse no one of Communism. I merely analyse the meaning of the term fascism,"

Communist Jargon - Mot Quite, Not Yet

Adv. Maisels Questioned Prof, Murray on the use of the term fascist, as applied to South African policies, quoting from a speech in Parliament by Mr. J.S.N, Strauss, former leader of the United Party, giving what Prof, Murray described as "a Communist interpretation of fascism almost in Communist words," The witness replied that this analysis of fascism could be taken as a corollary of Communist doctrine, although not the Parliamentary motion itself. Referring to "The Guide to Communist Jargon" by Carew Hunt, Prof. Murray agreed that Hunt was a distinguished scholar, but said that he did not know that the word fascism was omitted from his guide. He admitted that Bertrand Russell, an anti-Conmunist, had used the term 'fascism' in the wider sense, in the same way that he himself had done in 1937 and 19^1, and in the same way that the accused ha.d used it in many documents. A^v. Maisds questioned Prof. Murray on the use of the word'fascism by the well known non-Comnunist writer John Gunther, author of "inside Africa" where he said in reply to a question as to whether South African legislation was fascist "Not quite; not yetJ" Prof. Murray replied that this author night not have relied on the Communist interpretation.

Adv. Maisels; "We hope to establish at the end of this cross examination that you are about the only person who uses the word in

this special fasion." The witness sr.id tha.t he would allow a student to use the word fascism only if he used it in this special sense. Adv. Maisels then read from the opening paragraph of the section on fascism in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, pointing out tha.t this note wa.s diametrically opposed to what Prof. Murray had said.

The Nationalists and Fascism

Turning to South Africa, Adv. Maisels referred to various supporters of Page 6/ .... the Nazis,

-6-the Nazis, including the Ossewa Brandwag, which had "been overtly fascist. Prof. Murray interjected "Overtly dictatorial!" He did not remember the description faeaist.'1 He did not agree that the Nationalist Party had sympathised with Germany, stipulating that this had applied to leading members; he did not kiow if the Party had done so, hut agreed that it was a common thing that members might say and do things which might not he in line with the organ-i s a t i o n . Replying to questions on "infiltration" of the Nationalist Party hy the Ossevja Brandwag, Prof, Murray differentiated between people who might find some other party more suitable and join it, but would not necessarily convert the new party to their way of thinldi^, and the Communist for whom Communist doctrine must be applied in practice. He agreed that there was a tendency for the left wing to call the right wing "fascist" and for the right wing to call the left wing "Communist." Confronted with a quotation from a speech by "Sailor" Malan, leader of the Torch Commando "The leopard has not changed its spots. They are fascist," Prof. Murray stated that there were two possible interpretations of the word, the Italian and the Communist; if that quotation had been put to him, he would have said that the author accepted Communist doctrine. He knew "Sailor" Malan to be the leader of the Torch Commando, an ex-servicemens1 organisation.

Smuts and Communism

Adv, Ma is els then quoted from a speech by General Smuts in v M c h he referred to the Broederbond as a "dangerous cunning political fascist organi-sation" and then put it to the witness that he had said in evidence that the wider meaning of the term fascism was only used by extreme left wingers,

Prof. Kurjray: "May bo .used by,,..

Adv. Mais els: "You said "only". Now you say "may","

Prof. Murray: "Others may adopt a different interpretation. T he source is Communist."

Dealing with the term "Police State" on which Prof, Murray had given evidence, Adv. Maisels requrested him to point out even one reference to the police state as enshrined in Communist doctrine.

Trade Unions and P o l i t i c s _ C o c r a d e equals Communism

The cross examination was then directed towards Trades Unions and Prof, Murray's evidence that Communist doctrine taught that Trade Unions should take part in cultural and political activities of the people and not limit them-selves to purely wage problems and conditions of labour. Prof. Murray had referred to this approach in the Presidential Address by Chief Lutuli to the A.N.C, Conference, and had said it w as in line with Communist doctrine.

Adv. Mais els: "Have you ever taken up that attitude? 11

Prof. Murray admitted that he had taken up that attitude during the attempt to establish a "Befor m Movement" in the Trade Unions, and had probably ex-pressed the same view in articles at the time of this agitation. Adv. Maisels pointed out that this was the same view as that expressed by Chief Lutuli and in many other documents. Further questions were addressed to Prof. Murray on British Trade Unions, in answer to which he referred to the support there for both the narrow and the wide view of Trade Union activities, but insisted that the idea of trade unions taking part in politics and political parties interesting themselves in trade unions emanated from Communist doctrine. Questions on the use of the word "comrade" in the trade union movement drew the reply that this usage say occur overseas, but not in South African trade union circles. Referring to the use of this expression by the Chairman of the British labour Party at the 1959 Trades Union Congress in England, the witness suggested that Mr. Gaitskell might want to be popular; policy had to consider the left wing movement.

Adv. Maisels: "I am going to suggest that this reply is due to.tiredness on your part."

Rage 7/.... Prof. Murray

Prof. Murray: "On the contrary, it is due to experience and knowledge I"

Questioned again on the "S.A. Reform Movement", Prof. Murrayqgreedthat the Nationalist Party, as it was entitled to do, had tried to draw the Mineworlcers' Union into its ranks, hut stipulated that in Lutuli's speech the meaning would depend upon the context. It could he quite in order, but must he interpreted in the light of other remarks. In many parts of the world, it would he a result of Communist doctrine.

"I was not Asked"

Adv. Mais els; "And in many parts of the world also non-Communist doctrine')

Prof „ Murray: "That is so."

Adv„ Mais els: "Why did you not make that distinction in your evidence in chief?"

Prof. Murray: "I was not asked".

Adv* Maisels: "You are here to tell the Court what it ought to know, hut you expected the Court to know that this was also in line with non-communist doctrine7"

Prof. Murray: "I expected the Court to know that it might he in line with Communist doctrine and it might not he.1"

Questioned again on his article "Wat is liheralisme?" Prof. Murray agreed that he had said that the "second revolution" demanded an economic revolution.

Adv. Maisels: "This "Second Revolution" - you were not thinking of a violent revolution?"

Prof. Murray: "Not necessarily".

Adv. Maisels: "Not at all, surely?"

Prof. Murray agreed that the word "revolution" did not necessarily connote violence.

No Withdrawal of Stigmatlsation

The following norning, November 6thf Adv. Maisels asked the witness whether he now wished to withdraw the stigmatisation he had placed on the speech of Chief Lutuli, hut the witness replied that his comments had been made on the speech as part of the whole Conference Report. Adv. Maisels suggested that Prof. Murray was taking this view only because he had been unable to find any trace of Communism in the document by itself.

Mr. Justice Bekker: "Did you try to assess Lutuli's speech by itself?"

Prof. Murray replied that the words did not hang in the air; their meaning depended on the situation.

AdVn Maisels asked the witness whether where he had said "is" he actually meant "could be". Prof. Murray replied that there were sometimes alternatives.

Adv. Maisels: 'When did you mention alternatives, except with reference to the Freedom Charter? Never!"

He then invited the witness to draw the attention of the Court to any word, phrase, sentence or paragraph of Chief Lutuli1s.speech which was in any way indicative of the political doctrines or beliefs allegedly to be found in the document or of the political belief of the author.

Page 8/.... The Court

The Court adjourned for 20 minutes at this stage.

Fata1_ Fhr a s e s - "Hot Onel"

After the adjournment Prof. Murray pointed to expressions relating to the liberatory doctrine and active policy, the united freedom front, the theory of co-operation "between trade unions and political parties, and to comments on the world scene. Further comments which he could make were covered "by his previoie evidence. Adv. Maisels reminded the witness that he was giving evidence on a capital charge, and asked again what he had found in the document. The ii/itness repeated his previous statement. Adv. Maisels then asked Prof, Murray what indications there were of "characteristic and exclu-sive Communist doctrines - if any?" and replied himself to the question: "NOT ONE i" He added that with reference to Christian beliefs, it was one of the plainest contra-indications t> Communism that one could ever hope to get,

Christianity No Counter Indication of Communism?

When Adv. Maisels suggested that an impartial reader would see a strong religious streak running through Chief Luthuli's speeches, Prof, Murray replied that he had not examined the speeches of Chief Luthuli in that connotation; he had examined them for signs of Communist influence or doctrine so as to report whether those elements were present or not. He had watched out for contra-indications "but had not included religion, "because he had not considered the references to Christianity so strong as to affect the significance of Communist phraseology, Asked if he had ever found any positive contr-indica-tions, Prof, Murray replied that if he had, they would have "been pointed out; they might have occurred in documents not "before the Court. Mr. Justice Rumpff asked the witness if he could remember any document which had contained a positive contra-indication of Communism or any in which Communism had "been criticised, "but the witness was unable to refer to any specific document. Replyirg to Adv. Maisels, the witness admitted that the policy of non-violence had been mentioned, but stated that it was a neutral phrase and not incompatible with Communism, since it might at some stage be regarded as an expedient measure. His evidence was to indicate Communist influence, but he would have noticed strong positive contra-indications, e.g. where violence and, non violence occurred in one document, but he would heve made no reference in a case where only non violence was mentioned.

Reverting to religion as a contra-indication, the witness asserted that although religion had no place inpire doctrine, it was allowed at some stages on the passage towards Communism.

The Court then adjourned.

Issued by THE TREASON TRIALS DEFENCE FUND (¥.0. 2092) P.O. Box 2864, Johannesburg. Phone: 33-5901.

TREASON ggjfclg DEFENCE FUND No. 22

PRESS SUMMARY D E C / i. 1 9 ^ { J — •• » » • • ••!•!• . ^ I • • . . . • • • I L L I •

This is the twentysecond issue of a regular *\" * "bulletin giving a factual resume of the proceedings of the Treason Trial,

• j • /

Period Covered: 9th - 12th November, 1959 ^ J'~ * it i ,'ii ^Zjfr

FAS9I5K W ETON3I0

Mr, I.A. Maisels, Q.C., resumed his cross examination of the Crown expert witness, Prof. Murray, at the beginning of the fifteenth week of the trial. Returnii^ to Prof. Murray's explanation of the "extended use" of the term fascism. Adv. Maisels quoted passages from eminent historians and statesmen, inter alia Prof. Eric Walker, Adlai Stevenson and Winston Churchill; the witness agreed in most cases that the quotations contained the term in its extended sense, that these eminent persons were not likely to "be influenced "by Communist propaganda or to have accepted the Communist interpretation of a situation.

Mr. Justice Rumpff asked Adv. Maisels whether in the works quoted, he had come across any application of the term fascist to a particular state, or to any existing state, e.g. any reference "ly Winston Churchill to Great Britain as a fascist state. Aav. Maisels answered that he v/ould have to look up this particular reference.

He then askod the witness whether left-wing and non-left-wing writers in Great Britain and in South Africa referred to "fascist elements" in Britain. The witness agreed that this was so. Adv. Maisels continued with examples of the extended use of the term "fascist" "by such persons as President Truman, the violent anti Communist writer Douglas ®eed, and also of its use in standard history "books in use in South Africa. When a quotation from Prof. Mclver, "one of the most eminent living sociologists", had "been put to the witness, he replied that this use of the term "fascist" could have a Communist interpretation. Occasionally the witness asked to see the texts quoted "before expressing an opinion on the use of the term fascist. Adv. Maisels continued putting quotations to the witness, suggesting at one stage that on this question of the use of the term fascism "You're the only man in the regiment in stepi"

Mussqlinl - et alii?

At one point, Mr. Justice Rumuff suggested that the cross examination should return to the narrow issue. The witness had said that the term fascism applied to the system of government in Mussolini's Italy, and had then explained that Communism applied it to a type of "bourgeois capitalist state at a certain stage of development. He had then admitted that the term fascism is, used in an extended sense and may he used so "by non Communists (wittingly or unwittingly) if they apply it to a "bourgeois capitalist state, using it in its Communist interpretation. The difference "between Nazism and fascism which the Defence was "bringing in was not really the point at all. The point was that people may use the term fascism, using the Communist origin and giving it the meaning arising from the Communist origin.

Adv. Maisels "The point is whether or not it showed Communist influence. The witness claimed the use of the term as a "Communist characteristic."

Adv. Maisels then asked Prof. Murray: "You meant that what was Communist usage is now unwittingly often used "by non Communists?"

Unconscious Sin?

Mr. Justice Rumpff then asked Prof, Murray whether he admitted that the term fascism had acquired an extended meaning. The witness replied that it was used occasionally as a term of abuse, or as a swear word, hut he vras not convinced-' that the usages quoted could not he ascribed to Communist interpretation; the extended use of the word implied the particular interpretation v.hich had developed from the Marxist Leninist doctrine. Right wing writers could adopt this inter-

Rage 2/,,,.tation

pretation, knowingly or unknowingly; this could only be decided by examining the whole chapter. He agreed that the right wing writer might use the term with the obvious intention to use it in its Communist sense, but not necessa-rily v/ith the object of propagating Communism, but insisted that in order to ascertain the sense, it was necessary to look at the scope of the book. Assuming the general use of the word by popular writers, such as John Gunther, he would say that if it ware applied to Spain, he would say that it was asso-ciated with the original meaning of fascism; if it were applied to any other country he would say that the user had either consciously or unconsciously adopted the Communist interpretation or had picked up the phrase; he then qualified the express "picked up the phrase" by stating that it did involve a certain attitude,

A Dirty Word?

Adv, Maisels then referred to the largS number of writers, political, learned and popular, whom he had quoted, all of whom appeared to use "fascist" in the extended sense.

Prof. Murray admitted that the word could have two extended senses; it could be used in the Communist extended sense or as a term of abuse.

Adv. Mais els: "In many of the documents (of the accused) before the Court, it is clearly \ised as a term of abuse?"

Prof. Murray: "In some cases."

The witness agreed that in the works quoted by the Defence the term fascist had been applied to Germany, Spain, France, Britain, U.S.A., Poland, Austria,.Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Japan, Belgium and others.

Adv. Maiselst " Surely you agree now that the extended usage may not be in any way indicative of Communist belief or adherence

to or advocacy of Communist doctrine?"

The witness agreed, but added that the term might bue used in the Communist interpretation.

The Crime of the People

Prof, Murray then produced aithorities on the Communist attitude to religion \i?hich had beon requested by Mr, Justice Bekker at an earlier stage of the cross examination, and read from Lenin an<jl Stalin to show that there was no such condition as that members of the Communist Party must be atheists; on the contrary, they could hold religious views, An attitude towards religion was not proscribed, even priests could be members of the Party provided they were not reactionary.

Perverting the Young;?

Adv. Mais els began his cross examination of Prof,Murray on youth organi-sations with the United Party and the Nationalist Party youth movements, sugges-tirg that the relationship of these youth organisations to the parent organi-sation could, on Prof, Murray's evidence, also be said to be "in line with Communist method and tactics." Prof, Murray replied that, as both the Nationalist Party and the United Iferty differed from the Communist Party, it was reasonable to assume a difference in the jOuth movements, which would be more of an integral part of a Communist parent organisation. He dismissed the opinion of G wendolen Carter in 'Politics of Inequality', quoted by Adv. Maisels, as that of a "hostile critic", and taken too often from nevrspaper sources. Adv. Maisels put a few questions to the witness on youth and organisations and then, asked "Can we now forget about the African National Congress Youth league and the Transvaal Indian Congress Youth League indicating Communist influence?" Prof, Murray conceded that the references he had quoted were usually fcrund=.in a context with possible Communist influence - but might not be so foundj

Page 3/.... United We Stand

United We Stand

Turning to the reference to the United Front, contained in Chief Luthuli's speech, which Prof, Murray had claimed as an indication of Communist theory, Adv. Maisels quoted the passage again; the witness replied that the indication of Communist influence was not only there, "but in other parts of the document. Adv. Maisels asked the witness to say what in the whole document induced him to Mieve that the reference to the United Front contained in Luthuli's speech had any possible Communist interpretation. Prof. Murray replied that the President of ail Association did not speak in isolation, and that this speech must "be considered together with the address bjr Ii*. Naicker and also the Secretarial Report. The Court then adjourned for 20 minutes to give the witness an opportunity to study the documents.

After the adjournment Prof. Murray stated that the phrase "united democratic front could "be shown to have associations with the Communist line; there were Communist items in other parts of the document with which luthuli's use of the phrase could be associated; there might "be a stronger connection between this suggestion of a multi racial democratic front and Communist associations, than with non Communist theories.

Prof. Murray admitted that the A.N.C. represented people with no voice in the government of South Africa, that the Coloured people at least had no vote in the Transvaal, that the Congress of Democrats was a body of sympathetic vhite people, and that on his own evidence a united front could be an alliance between Communists and non Communists, but interjected that it would be for the purpose of breaking the Government so that thg Communists could get power. Adv. Maisels then indicated several forms of a united front, which had at different times been adopted by both Communists and non Communists, illustrating the latter with the alliance of the Nationalist and Afrikaner Parties and the electoral alliance between the United and Labour Parties, and also the bhroe cornered allianpe in 1952 between the Torch Commando, the United Party and the labour Party, referred to as a- Tmerful _fl.emocrr.tic united front in "The Friend", issue of 17.^.52®

After Prof, Murray had admitted that he knew of the non-Communist use of the term united front in South Africa, but differentiated between this term, and united democratic front, Adv. Maisels put it to him that the term, whether of Communist origin or not, whether used by Communists or not, was used every day.

Adv. Maisels opened the following mornirg with the term police state, recalling the request for Prof. Murray to produce evidence of any use of this term in Communist classics as indicated in his evidence in chief. The witness replied that the concept bad not occurred as that phrase in the earlier classics, but there were references to a similar type of state, the stage at which the state became what was now called a police state.

Class Struggle

The cross examination hen turned on the phrase "class struggle" and the view that the working class was exploited by capital. Prof. Murray agreed that this view was held by a number of people and that he himself had held it at one time, admitting under pressure that he had consistently expressed it in his writix^s, even up to the period covered by the indictment.

Adv. Mais&lo continued by quoting passages from the various articles written by Prof, Murray, and from his book, Die Volksraad. referring, inter alia.to united trade union action, to the relationship of capitalism, imperialism and war, the history of the class struggle, Mr. Maisels suggested that if these passages had been found in documents of the accused they would have been labelled by Prof. Murray as "in line with Communist teaching," Prof. Murray admitted that such things might have been said and had been said by non Communists, but added that he wouldsuspect a Communist analysis.

Clarification from the Bench

Mr. Justice flumpff, addressing himself to Prof. Murray, referred to his evidence in chief on the doctrine of Communism and certain exhibits which had the appearance of being in line with Communist doctrine. Ho had the difficulty

Pago V.... that he

that he had not understood the witness to say in the majority of cases that the word or concept represented Communism exclusively, "but that it was either in lino with typical Communism, used in Communist literature, or an asalysis as seen through Communist eyes or in terms of Communist doctrine, e.g. fascism, trades unions, the class struggle. "Is your evidence that in any particular document any of these Communist analyses of the situation may have "been taken over by a political movement or philosophy which is not Communist, e.g. a "bourgeois socialist? You do not say that the author is, Communist hut that it contains matter consistent with Communism? Do you purport to say "broadly that all are exclusively part of Communist doctrine or that they show a Communist a nalysis, "but one that may he applied "by people not adhering to Communism?"

Prof, Murray replied "Tha$ is the position!" The ideas in the documents were predominantly Communist, and fell in line, hut others might use them too. He conceded that many of the Communist analyses had "been adopted "by bourgeois socialism, although often in a modified form.

Mr. Justice Eumpff: "That was the way you intended to give your evidence? The terms used might or might not represent Communism

or might represent the extreme form of socialism? You did not intend to call any man a Communist or label any document Communist?" The witness agreed and then stated, in answer to another question, that the fundamental difference in theory "between Communism and the extreme form of "bourgeois socialism lay in the ultimate theory of capitalism. It centred round the attitude of the revolution, which was regarded as inevitable by Communism, whilst bourgeois socialism accepted.the principle of reformism.

Adv. Mais els indicated that the questions put by Mr. Justice Rumpff v/ere questions that were to be put later by the Defence unless the witness would concede at least that these phrases were in no way indicative of Communism,

Prof. Murray: "I accuse no one of Communism",

Adv. Maisels: "No , not one, except where you said "straight from the shoulder" Communism, We are concerned with a number of

people t;ho have been on a capital charge for a long time. We are not here to play around with highly skilled professional meanings, but with the meaning of the ordinary man in the street, Was your task to smell-.out Communism?"

Mr. Justice Bekker: "What was your mandate?"

Prof, Murray: '.'To report on the documents, to read them in full and to indicate where I thought there Communist association,

or attitudes of mind," Adv. Maisels: "You mean it was no more than that? To be found in

Communist literature?"

Prof. Murray: "Characteristically, but not exclusively Communist."

Alternative Sources.:- Used by Coianunists....and Non-Communists

Mrf Justice Rumpff commented that matter characteristically but not exclusively Communist might also be characteristic of bourgeois socialism, Adv, Maisels pointed out that when commenting on the Freedom Charter, the witness had gone out of his way to suggest an alternative source, but had done this on only one other occasion in the whole record.

Adv. Maisels: "I want to show the Court that substantially the phrases you've pointed to are the small change cf political

discussion in South Africa, and in the western world, Communist or non Communist!"

Mr. Justice Rumpff asked the witness whether, when he used the phrase "accepts a Communist interpretation of the situation" he meoni/that the author had knowingly applied the Communist analysis or that it coincided or was consistent with the Communist analysis. The witness replied that it could be either, depen-ding upon the document.

Page 5/.».. Adv. Maisels

-5-Adv. Mais els pointed out that the witnessin his evidence in chief had not

made it clear that a view was not exclusively Communist, hut could be held others. Why should the witness have assumed it to "be common knowledge that the term fascism was used elsewhere?

Prof. Murray replied that he had thought that everyone concerned with this sort of thing knew that fascist? had two meanings. He had thought that people of experience would know that it could "be used also "by non Communists,

Byceeding with the cross examination, Adv. Maisels referred to Prof. Murray s view of Jferxism as expressed in his article written in 1935; the witness agreed that he was not a Communist in 1937 and that he had said that no one could understand contemporary \irorld events unless he had read Marx, He conceded that there was a lot of Marxism in that article.

THE FACTS OP SOUTH AFRICAN LIFE

Adv. Maisels then referred to the statement in the Crown's opening address that the accused were inspired "by Communist fanaticism, ftintu Nationalism and racial hatred and indicated that he would, "by the presentation of objective facts, look for a simpler interpretation, the right of the human being to be treated as one.

Adv. Maisels then put Prof. Murray various statutes relating to differeiv-tiation and deprivation of rights based on race and colour, beginning with the franchise position and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population had no direct representation either in Ihrliament, on local bodies, or on statutory bodies. Prof. Murray stressed "consultative" facilities but even-tually conceded the lack of direct representation and admitted that separate and unaqual amenities for different races could create bitterness "if badly a pplied", that the elementary right of Africans to bargain through tra&d unions had been removed, and that even on wage boards, which affected the very stomachs of African weekers, they had no representation. The very right of the individual to live was denied to non Europeans by statutes and regulations governing skilled employment in urban areas, in trades and even in professions. Property rights were denied to Africans through the Land Act and the Natives Urban Areas Act and to Indians through various statutes. Forced labour, child labour, farm prisons, imprisonment for failure to pay rent, conditions of labour, deportation without trial, pass and permit raids, influx control and forced movement of non white populations, and other harsh realities of the life of the non white were put to Prof. Murray, with the suggestion that echoes of all these were to be found in the Freedom Charter.

Asked whether it would be correct to say that the feeling against the pass laws was very violent, Prof. Murray conceded that this was so "in some areas. In other areas there is sympathetic administration." He admitted that between 193$ and 1956 the position had become worse. When Adv. Maisels referred to statistics relating to the unequal distribution of the national income between vMtes and non whites, Mr. Justice Sumpff asked what was the object of putting these statistics to the witness. "Where will it stop?"

Adv. Maisels: "Where did the Crown ease stop?"

Mr. Justice Sumpff:"Assuming a reasonable man would expect dissatisfaction on the part of the noiwvihites, where does it get you in so far as the charge is concerned?"

. Adv. Maisels; "V ery far, because the Crown has allied that the accused were inspired in varying degrees by Communist fanaticism,

etc., whereas the real inspiration of the accused was the miserable conditions. Political speeches must be seen in the context of the situation. If a worter in England says he is "oppressed", it may be due to Communist influence, but in South Africa you don't have to look for foreign influences."

Page 6/.... Mr. Justice Rumpff

-6-Mr. Justice R-umpff commented that he had not understood that the Crown

case was that the accused protested without justification. Jdv. Maisels pointed out that the Crown had stressed the violent language of criticism of the government. Continuing the exposition of discrimf-natory legislation Adv. Maisels paid particular attention to the Bantu Education Act, the Group .Areas Act and the Western Areas Removal Scheme, involving the total loss of freehold rights, and the onerous and harsh location regulations.

The White Man1 s Iawr On the following morning Adv. Maisels put to Prof. Murray that the laws mad^ the wMte m a (Jn Nationalist and preceding governments) wore such that they controlled for the African, Lilian and Coloured, where thejjr should live, where they ,tight work, what work they might do, what wages they should earn, to vhat schools they should go and what kind of education they should receive, and where and how they should travel.

Prof. Murray objected that the so were "bald statements which did not give a "balanced picture, and pointed to the discretionary powers given to the autho-rities, Asked whether he would agree that the African might very well regard this government as reactionary, fascist (in the extended sense) Nazi and undemocratic, Prof. Murray agreed that it could he so, depending upon the interpretation of the situation. Adv. Maisels put to the witness that the African might, with regard to the restriction of his liberty and the interference with his privacy, well say that he lived in a police state, and that in fact all the epithets stamped Communist could in the eyes of an embittered non-Communist be considered applicable, and also by unembittered objective white persfflCBj. Prof. Murray replied that it would depend upon the meaning given to the words used.

Adv. Maisels said that he wanted to show that Prof. Murray's basis v.t.s fundamentally wrong, and put it to him that if a Charter of Rights were to be drawn up, it could not be expected to reflect the future withnut the present grievances, to be linked with campaigns such as those against Bantu Education, the pass laws and the Western Areas Removal. It would be expected that any opposition party would link grievances with opposition to the government.

Adv. Maisels referred to the acknowledged tendency in South Africa for the use of strong language in political debate, referring to the judgement in the. Star libel case, which evaluated intemperate language as the small change,of political discussion "But this is a treason case and not a libel c fle!" Prof,. Murray agreed that struggle denoted intense political effort, as in In&iagt and not physical combat, that the political use of military metaphors such as fight, enemy, forces of nationalism or liberation etc, was a commonplace, that sacrifice was not connected with bloodshed, and tint politicians were prone to say to their followers "Our cause is bound to triumph,"

Imperialism Eq-unls Communism?

Adv, Maisels then put a number of quotations and references to imperialism to the witness: "I want to destroy this myth of an attack on imperialism, capitalism and war being Communist.11 Prof. Murray conceded that the Communist lino on the effects of economic imperialism was a common line.

When Mr. Justice fiurapff protested that the witness had said time and time again that non Communists sry such things, Adv. Maisels pointed out that the witness had not said this in his evidence-in-chief.

Mr. Justice Rumpff stated that the issue between the Defence and the Crovm on the concept of imperialism was that Hhere in a document a situation was analysed and called imperialism, the analysis was to be considered as more than consistent with Communist doctrine. JWiv. Maisels replied that the witness had gone further and had said with regard to the concept of imperialism that the writer had accepted Communist doctrine by using this phrase, It could not, be

' allowed to stand* If he had said consistent with Communism and six or ten other "isms" it would be a different situation.

Pa&e Page 7/«*.»« If the witness

If the witness would say that what he had called the Communist doctrine of imperialism was not a Communist doctrine at allbut more likely to he non Communist then Communist....? Mr» Justice Bekker put the question to Prof, Murrey viho replied that he was not prepared to make that statement. Adv. Mais els asked the witness whether he w ould agree that it would he quite unsafe and unscientific to "base any inference of Communism on the criticism of imperia-lism in these documents, reminding him of the same type of criticism made hy many safe non Communist sources. Prof. Murray replied that it might "be so, hut it did not mean that certain criticisms of imperialism might not he associated with Communism. He conceded that such criticism could he used hy liberals (who also read communist bo&ks) hut it would still "be a Communist analysis,

Mr. Justice Ruiapff; "It has the stigma of "being part of Communist doctrine hut could also he a part of liberal or leftist doctrine?"

Prof. Murray replied that the test would "he \*hether Communist principles were involved. No exclusive conclusion could "be drawn. Mr. Justice Bekker put again to the witness Adv, Maisel's question, hut the witness replied that it would depend upon the criticism of imperialism; he did not look at single points, "but al\<*ays took other points into consideration,

ft*t "Oocrffltrtely Bfop^" Adv. Mais els indicated, in reply to a further question from the Bench,

that the purpose of the cross examination was firstly to sho\* that the witness was not qualified to give evidence "by virtue of his ignorance of significant factors, and secondly tfcoA his opinions given in his evidence in chief might deceive the Courts "If roly a aid la your evidence in ohief that it. m e Communist theory, hut not only Communist theory, hut you studiously refrained from this,"

Prof. Murray denied this and Adv, Maisels exclaimed that he could go on for days hut would put only four more examples to the witness. Returning to Chief Luthuli's speech, Adv. Maisels pointed out that far from dealing with the whole document, Prof. Murray had prefaced his remakrs "This paragraph speaks..,." "Your answers, Prof, Murray, have heen less than candiil, (and that's putting it euphemistically!) and show that you are completely hiassed in your approach to this case."

After a few final questions en imperialism, Adv. Maisels turned to the concept of democracy and handed in to the Court a copy of the Declaration of Human Rights adopted hy the United Nations as a statement of ideas accepted by non Communists as democratic ideals, accepted hy all Western nations, "but not hy South Africa or the U.S.S.R, Adv. Maisels teex* the attention of the witness to the close resemblance between the freedom Charter and the Declaration of Human Sights, pointing out that there were only three matters in the Freedom Charter that had not close parallels in the Declaration, the nationalisation of industry, the re-distribution of land, and the clause relating to peace and friendship between nations, the latter, however, was in fact implied in the Declaration as a fundamental starting point. In some countries the Declaration of Human Rights coincided iirith the constitution; its ideals were common to every nation. The witness agreed upon the close similarity of phraseology between the Declaration of Human Rights and the Freedom Charter, and admitted that the nationalisation of industry was not necessarily Communist.

Nationalisation and Human Rights

On November 12th, the eighth day of the cross examination of Prof, Murray, Adv, Maisels continued to examine the witness on the nationalisation of industry, pointing out the many different schools of thought in this matter and also on . the redistribution of land. The witness admitted that in non Communist thought the provisions of the Freedom Charter might be considered as a democraticcstep.

Rige 8/.,.. In reply

In reply to the queetion whether a state based on the Freedom Charter would "be more democratic than the present state of South Africa, Prof. Murray stated that this v/ould depend upon the interpretation of present conditions. He -considered.that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights could not "be applied with a special type of population; democracy would not work under such conditions. This was not only the Nationalist view "but was held "by others. He doubted if either the Freedom Charter of the Declaration would work out practically, Even taking the right to the universal vote as the final form of perfect democracy, a racially plural state, even without the full vote, might "be more democratic than e.g. Englaal or France; he agreed, however, that this view was open to dispute, and that different views from his need not be Coomunist Prof. Murray denied emphatically that it ivas reasonable for some non Communists to "believe that the majority of voters in South Africa could not remove the minority givernment from office; the view that there was a tendency in South Africa for the government deliberately to entrench itself could not be defended, but he agreed that the criticism of the United Party's lukewarm opposition was not a specifically Communist view, but was held by the Liberal Party, the Labour Party and also by a section of the United Party.

Dealing with extra Parliamentary activity, Adv. Maisels suggested that there were many non-violent forms of pressure outside Parliament, and referred to mass processions, strikes, and economic pressure, all legitimate extra Parliamentary ,-ctivities. Prof. Murray agreed that full political rights would have to be given to the blacks in South Africa, and that it would be a bold rnn who would say whether or not it would happen in our lifetime or that it could ict happen entirely by peaceful means.

Passive Resistance to Provoke Violence?

Adv. Maisels then turned to the cross examination of the witness on passive resistance, which he suggested might consist of non co-operation, actual breaches of law or passive acts, such as fasting and days of prayer, but in all cases implied the renunciation of the use of force as an instrument of change. Prof, Murray suggested that there was a difference between non violence and passive resistance. He agreed, however, that the independence of India and Ghana could be said to be partially a victory for non violent resistance taken in the wide sense, although he maintained that the passive resister might suffer violence in order to create a violent situation, even if he were not actively violent himself. On the question of the attitude of Communism to non violence, Adv. M aisels referred to Prof. Murray's quotation from the Comintern that Ghandhism is more find more becoming an idoology directed against revolution and must be strongly combated by Communists.

Prof. Murray argued that despite this, Communist theory also made a place for passive resistance which might lead to other things. He agreed with the suggestion by Adv. Maisels that passive resistance could have a profound effect on public opinion, and could moke the task of governing more difficult, resulting in a change of policy, but maintained that not paying taxes would be a positiv e action rather than passive resistance, although not violent. ftrDf. Murray also agreed that many people other than the accused and their organisations, had thought in terms of extra Parliamentary action, but excluded the Torch Coanando and the Black Sash on the g rounds that their demonstrations v/ere permitted constitutionally; such demonstrations were only extra Parliamentary because they did not happen in Parliament; he agreed tha t 'extra Parliamentary1 had therefore two meanings, legal and illegal; neither was essentially violent but might lead to violence.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Bekker. A^v. Maisels described Parliamentary pressure as the franchise, while extra Parliamentary pressure \iras pressure by the unenfranchised. The Defence was tryirg to clarify the meaning of extra Parliamentary activity as used in the indictment. Prof. Murray agreed with reservations that Parliamentary activity could run the whol e gaCttt from the letter in the newspaper to the person who lay down on a railway line. Cross examined by Adv. Maisels on the distinction between constitutional and unconstitutional, Prof. Murray classified as constitutional the Torch Commando, the Osse\«i BrancHsag (until it started performing certain actions),

Page 9/.... UNESSA,

and the Black Sash, "but stated that he knew very little of the Broederhond, Disfranchising of all English speaking persons through a mjority in Parliament, would "bo against the spirit of the constitution, "but not unconstitutional. It was a "basic concept thr.t an ujy.gn-rful act could never "be constitutional, "but he rgroed that an unconstitutional act was not necessarily unlawful, and that there was not a direct relationship "between unconstitutional activities and the use of force and violence. Adv, Maisels suggested that 'extra Parliamentary activity' was a modern word relating to political change, and asked the vritnsss whether there was no middle course "between the gaining of a Parliamentary majority on election day and the.starting of a violent revolution; he suggested that ordinarily there was a middle course. The witness ngreed that there could ta fact "be a middle course,

The Freedom Charter - The Crown "Out of Step"

Adv. Maisels then cross examined the witness in detail on the Freedom Charter, stating that it was part of the Crown case that drafting and adopting the Freedom Charter was an overt act of High Treason laid ogainst seventeen of the accused and that it was part of a plot to overthrow the State "by violence. The Crown argued that the use of violence was derived from the desire to toe the establishment of a state in line with the demands of the Freedom Charter, He proposed to read statements from various sources and to ask the witness for his comments in order to show that the aims in the Freedom Charter had commended themselves throughout history to people other than Communists,

After a number of statements had "been put to the witness on the Preamble and the first.sections of the Freedom Charter, Mr. Justice Bunpff asked whether it were necessary to quote any more seeing that the witness did not dispute this point. Adv. Maisels replied that his object was to persuade the Court that the Crown allegation of Communist fanaticism, Bantu nationalism and. racial hatred was without foundation, and more particularly the suggestion that the Freedom Charter was part and parcel of a Communist plot for revaltuioy, The diversi-fication of the reference was vital to the Defence argument, to show that far from the accused "being cut of step, it was the Crown that was out of rtop with the world. The Defence was not allowed to wait until the argument stage; those references had to "be placed "before the Court. Asked whether he really expected any expert to disagree with the references quoted, Adv. Mair.;^ replied "I don't "but I have had a lot of surprising answers in my cross; examination,1"

Issued by the TREASON TRIALS DEFENCE FUND P.O. Box 2864,, Johannesburg.

(W.O. 2092) Phone: 33-5901

TREASON TRIALS DEEEI-TCE FUND

PRESS SUMMARY No. -73

This is tho twenty t^LW issue of a regular "bulletin giving a factual resume of the proceedings of the Treason Trial.

-Period Covered: 17th - 24th November, 1959

THE SIXTEENTH riElK

When the trial entered the sixteenth week on November l?th, Prof. Murray referred to his agreement at the end of the previous week to the suggestion put by Adv. Maisels that there was a "middle road be Ween thebrllot "box and armed insurrection to change the government", stating that he had not at the tine thought clearly about his answer. Mr. Justice Rumpff informed the witness that he would be given an opportunity for reconsideration during re-examination. Adv. Maisels drew attention to Prof. Murray's distinction in his evidence in chief between socialism and Communism; the witness agreed that he had referred to bourgeois socialism but added that bourgeois socialism could be a part of Communism.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRKZDOM CHAPTER

Wealth and the People

Returning to the comparison of the concepts contained in the Freedom Charter with similar concepts stated throughout history, Adv. Maisels quoted from the fifth century writings of S. Ambrosio "Nature creates for the common use of all.... God makes everything grow .... for the common property of all". Prof. Murray suggested that the theory at that time was that God owned everything and lent the land, etc. to people. Adv. Maisels pointed out thrt the idea expressed in the Freedom Charter ".The people shall share in the country's wealth11, was an idea that had appealed to people throughout the ages, and Quoted from the speeches of Nehru, the works of John Stuart Mill, Pope Bus XI, the 1946 French and the South Korean Consititutions, The Iscor and Sasol enterprises were quoted as modern examples in South Africa of the control of the mineral wealth by the people through the State, despite partial private ownership.

Trade and Industry

Prof. Murray disagreed that the clauses of the Freedom Charter dealing with control of trade and manufacturing presupposed private ownership and private industry with some degree of state control, and suggested that this could equally vrell be iit erpreted as a type of socialism in the early stages of Communism.

Charter of Human Rights - MOT Constitution

Adv. Maisels emphasised that the Freedom Charter was not a constitution but a Charter of Human Rights, the expression of the aspirations and hopes of the people, and pointed to the similarity of the clause relating to the right of all people to trade, manufacture and enter all trades and professions to the policy of the S.A. Liberal Party, adding that most Constitutions embodied this principl e of equal opportunity.

Pope and Peasant

The Freedom Charter clause "The Land shall be shared among thos« who work it" drew several questions from Hr. Justice Rumpff. Pi-of. Hurray agreed that a quotation from Pope Leo Xlll in 1891 concerning the need for the results of labour to go to those who have bestowed their labour vas "good solid non-Communisml" Clauses in this section on rights of movement and occupation were accepted by the witness as arising from specific conditions in South Africa, and. it was conceded they were at least a3 much non-Comunist as Communist]

Page 2/ .... law and thei Courts

-2-Io.y; and the Court3

The principles in the section "All Shall Be Equal Before the Law" were suggested by Adv. Maisels as being those adopted "by civilised countries throughout the centuries, from the Magna Carta to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The clause reading "The Courts Shall Be Representative of all the People" drew questions from Mr. Justice Rumpff. Prof. Murray suggested that it had historical links with the French Revolution, and the modern concept of people's courts in the U.S.S.R. hut conceded in reply to Adv. Maisels that there were Supreme Courts and Judges to try cases in the U.S.S.R.

Crimes Against the People Equals Communism

When Prof. Murray suggested that the theory of crimes against the people was part of Communist theory, Adv. Maisels pointedout that this had not "been commented on in his evidence in chief, and quoted from the Magna Carta and from the 19^7 Italian Constitution.

Mr. Justice Rumpff: "Have we a concept of crime against the people? Is it a crime in any other country?"

Adv. Maisels referred to the concept in the American Courts "The People versus...

Communist aa well as Non-Communist?

Dealing with the section ''All shall enjoy equal Etiman Rights".Adv. Maisels pointed out that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights contained the same concept. Prof. Murray hcd commented in his chief evidence that there was mothing in this section which could not come into line with Communist policy. AdVo Maisels asked whether it would not have been more correct to say that there was nothing vrhich could not come into the policy or constitution of any non-Communist State. Prof. Murray referred to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, but conceded that this concept could obviously also be found in the constitutions of most non Communist states. He had, however, compared the Freedom Charter only with the Constitutions of the U.S.S.R., China and the former Communist Party of South Africa. Prof. Murray agreed that the United Nations Declearation of Human Rights contained the provision that everyone had the right to teducation, but added "as an expresdon of rights."

Adv. Maisels: "That is what the freedom Charter isi"

Several clauses in this section relating to police raids, passport and permit restrictions, and pass laws were put to Prof. Murray as arising directly

, from conditions poculiar to South Africa,

Trades Unions. Politics and Communism

Examining Prof. Murray on the section dealing with trades unions, Adv. Maisels suggested that this presupposed the existence of employer/employee relationships, a basically capitalist concept, and was in fact anti-Communist as a.charter for the future. Commenting tfeat the concept of equal pay for all races was understandable in the South African scene, Adv. Maisels suggested that Prof, Murray had been unjust to himself when he had said that this section clearly suggested state control of trade, commerce etc., aid was therefore not liberal, but in line with Communism, The witness conceded that equal pay for men and women was a part of ordinary socialist doctrines.

Open the Door - Comrade? Sir?

To the suggestion by Adv. Maisels that the reference to scholarships in the section "The doors of learning and Culture shall be opened" should more properly be associated with non-Communism, since it implied fees, Prof. Murray replied that the concept of scholarships was common to both Communist and non-Communist countries, but conceded that the concept of universal equal education was accepted in civilised non-Communist countries.

Page 3/»».. The sections

The sections on housing, health end medical services, food, rent, pensions, abolition of slums contained concepts recognised as "basic human rights; Adv. Maisels quoted Bismarck "Work when healthy, medical care when sick, help when old". Prof. Murray agreed that Bismarck was not a Communist, hut thought he had "been influenced "by Communism.

Mot a Single Exclusively Communist Clause _

Taking the Freedon Charter as a whole, Adv. Maisels put to the witness that there was no single case in which the aim could not he non Communist, Prof. Murray replied that it could he non Communist in the sense of Socialist. Adv. Maisels said he agreed that some sections were socialist and not liberal, hut there was not one that could be said to be only Communist, or could not be said to be bourgeois socialist. The witness agreed, but suggested that Communism starts with bourgeois socialism.

Prof. Murray agreed that the Freedom Charter could be the natural reaction of the Non-Europeans to conditions in South Africa and that the Freedom Charter contained no mention of class or of the proletariat, and laid more emphasis on franchise rights and civil liberties than on anything else. T0 a suggestion by Adv. Maisels that the Freedom Charter was not likely to be put forward by Communists, Prof. Murray replied that, on the contrary, it could be put forward by Communists.

Religion, Communism and liberation

Adv. Maisels then examined the witness on the reports of the speeches made at the Congress of the PeopZ.e at which the Freedom Charter was adopted. The witness agreed that he had commented on parts of only six or seven speeches out of a total of some forty speeches. Asked whether he had found in the other speeches anything but a desire for liberty, equality and the abolition of discriminatory laws, Prof. Murray replied that the general tone was liberatory; he agreed that the abolition of discriminatory laws was the main theme of these speeches, and conceded that certainly in some of the speeches, he could go no further than to point to words and expressions which might also be used in Communist terminology, and thus might give rise to suspicion of Communist influence. He stated, in 3P,9ply to Adv. Maisels1 suggestion that generally the tone of the speeches was moving, touching and humanitarian, that it v/as a liberatory humanitarian Charter.

Prof. Kerr ay disagreed with the suggestion that it v/as unheard of for a Communist meeting to open with a prayer, as in the case of the Congress of the People and A.N.C. meetings, on the grourd that there was nothing to stop a professing Christian from belonging to the Conar/unist Party.

Do-it-Yourself Communism

Asked who would interpret a certain speech in a Communist way, Prof. Murray replied: "The listeners. They are asked to choose between the forces of democrat and those heading tov/ards dictatorship; this phrase in relation to the Freedom Charter suggests a contrast between the bourgeois stato and this Communist state.

On the use of the term police state in one of the speeches, Adv. Maigls reminded Prof. Murray that whereas in his evidence-in-chief he had said the term •was used in Communist theory, in cross examination he had said that it was not so used. Prof. Hurray admitted that his evidence-in-chief had been wrong. He conceded also that the term re:ctionary was used by the Democratic Party in the U.S.A. to describe the Republican Party,

Adv. Maisels: "To base anythii^ on the expression "the tide of reaction" and the "police state" would be going t.cr.v far?"

Prof. Murray: "It doesn't lead one to a final conclusion."

Adv. Maisels; "It doesn't lead one t_nywhoreJ 1"

Page 4/.... Prof. Murray agreed

Uw.

Professor Murray agreed that the term "comrade" occurred only twice in a particular speech.

Adv. Maisels: "Twice nothing makes nothing.' Professor Murray, this is really scraping the "bottom of the "barrel."

Prof. Murray: "There is sometimes quite a pungent smell at the "bottom of the barrelJ"

Adv. Mais els: "And also quite a smear at the "bottom of the "barrel".

Asked whether he agreed that many Coloured people in South Africa were entitled to feel thet they \:ere discriminated against on grounds of colour, P r a g r e e d to the discrimination, "but said that the ground of colour should "be left out.

Adv. Maisels: "By Jove, you're not overstating it, are you, Professor?"

No Middle Way?

Finally, A.dv. Maisels returned to consideration of Professor Murray's answer on the middle way. "Cant it not reasonably "be said thrt there are middle ways "between the exercise of the vote and armed revolt to achieve political changes?" Prof. Murray replied that minor political changes could be achieved "by the third way, "but the moment the change was serious a different situation arose. Adv. Maisels statedthat the question of major or minor was merely a question of degree, depending upon the amount of pressure, and with this comment informed the Court that he would stop his cross examination at this stage and that Adv. Kentridfie would continue.

Guess V-Tio?

Adv. Kentridge "began "by reminding Prof. Murray thf t during his cross examination at the Propantory Examination, a number of unidentified quotations had-been put to him and he had agreed that they were the sort of things that a Communist would say or thrt he would expect a Communist to say; these quotations had turned out to be from speeches by President V'ileon, President Lincoln, Dr. Malan and. even from the writings of the witness himself. Apart from this Adv. Maisels had put the phrases to the witness which he had conceded might be Marxist, but were now the common property of others. Prof. Murray agreed that the extent to which Marxist thought had reached our time could not be solved by pointing at phrasec or passages, but only by consideration of a whole document and even then he could not be certain. His comment on a passage from Das Xapital read by Adv. Kcntridge was "Das Kapital is a dull work on "bad economics{ "and he agrt^O. that it was difficult and more talked about than reed. Prof. Murray agreed also thet many people and countries had been affected by Marxism but were not necessarily Marxist and that the use of words contained in Marxist jargon had become commonplace, though they mi&ht have a Marxist connotation.

Anti-Communist. -Colonialist - and- Imperialist

Confronted with extracts from the All Indian Congress Election Manifesto, the witness conceded that he had already agreed taat Nehru and his perty were non-Communist. Prof, Murray agreed also that the tone of the Afro Asian Conference in 195" was not only socialist but definitely anti-Communist, although both anti-colonialist and anti-impeiiflist.

The following morning after studyiig the reports of the Afro Asian Conference, Prof, Murray said he had nothing to add to his comments. After a number of questions had been put to him concerning the British Independent Labour Party, Prof. Murray agreed that despite the attitude bythis party towa-ds capitalism and colonialism, and the fact that it spoke of itself as a Revolutionary Party and believed in the class struggle, it would be unsafe to conclude that it was a Communist party, although he thought that it might have communist tendencies. Adv. Kentridge put to the witness that he himself had selected from Marxist Leninism what he thought good and left the rest; the witness agreed that if a person accepted only some parts of Marxism Leninism he might be described as left wing or socialist, but not as Communist.

Page 5/ .. •. Left. Lefter....

Left. Lefter. left Behind

Mr. Justice Bekker put a number of questions to Prof, Murray on the stage at which a "left" person crossed the "border and became Communist. Prof. Murraypointed out that no hard and fast line could be drawn, an overall picture would have to be drawn; a person could be a good Communist without fully-understanding all the points of the doctrine suggested by Adv. Eentridge as essential to Communism. He would think that if a person accepted say five or eight of some fifteen points of the Marxist Leninist doctrine he might be a Communist, and if more, then he would say that person was a Communist.

Adv. Kentridge then proceeded iidth the cross examination of the witness on various pints of Communist doctrine such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the role of the Communist Party, and violent revolution, suggesting finally that unless the attitude of a person towards these principles were known it would i»ot be possible to say whether he were a Communist or not. Prof. Murray agreed that a "thoroughbred" Communist must accept these principles.

Mr. Justice Bekker: "Unless a person believes in violent revolution and/or the dictatorship of the proletariat and/or the role of the Communist Party, you can't call him a Communist? Assuming he accepts the doctrine of Communism but rejects these principles, can he be called a Communist?

Prof. Murray: "No, not according to doctrine,"

The Negation of the Negation

Adv. Kentridge proceeded to cross examine Prof. Murray on further aspects of Communist doctrine, such as the unity of theory and practice, and the law of the negation of the negation, pointing out that the latter was subject to differing views. Prof. Murray replied that there could be no dialectical materialism without the law of the negation of the negation and disagreed that Stalin had denied this principle. Dealing with the principle of violent revolution, Prof, Murray agreed that there was no time table in Communist doctrine for violent revolution, that there was nothing in Communist doctrine to say that the external features of the people's democracy could only come through violent revolution, and finally that there was nothing in Communist theory to support the idea that the Freedom Charter, as it stands, could be obtained only by violence,

African Nationalism

On the question of African nationalism, Prof, Murray agreed that it wa3 generally accepted that it was the natuiel reaction against white domination in Africa and also the expression of the desire to participate fully in democratic and economic rights; the rank and file membership were inexperienced in politics; there was a difference between this congress type of movement which tended to be broad and national and pciitical parties with sectarian programmes. To a suggestion by Adv. Kentridge that Congresses might include various ideologies, Prof. Murray replied that the difference between Congress and political parties was a difference of degree, and although he agreed that there would be temptation for both congresses and politicalparties to use the language of Marxism to arouse public emotion, he insisted that it would nevertheless involve a knowledge of Marxism,

Prof. Murray agreed that strikes and agitation, boycott of European goods and the withholding of domesticl&bour from European households would be regarded as goodexamples of passive resistance, but stipulated that all passive resistanc e should not be associated with Gandhi; there were other forma. He admitted the existence of general non-white solidarity, but said he would not even call it Pan Africanism; he thought it was not a natural phenomenon but was spread by leaders.

On Thursday 19th November, the last of Prof. Murray's 23 days in the witness box, he admitted that he hfd not studied the foreign policy of India and could not therefore deny Indian support of Indonesia, Malayan Independence,

Page 6/.... North Korea,

North Korea, UNO recognition of Communist China and a negotiated settlement in Kenya, nor Indian dislike of the NATO and SEATO alliances; he admitted that although he had labelled such statements in the documents "before the Court as beirg "inline with Communist doctrine", they might have "been following on Indian policy. Adv. Kentridge put to the witness a list of 29 countries represented at the Afro Asian Conference in Bandoeng; Prof. Murray descriged 23 of these as non Communist and agreed that in so far as the Bandoeng Conference had "been used by Communist countries to establish a Communist Block, it was regarded largely as having failed. The Conference resolution had nevertheless condemned colonialis in all its aspects.

The Uses of Literacy

The use of the word Liberatory was put to the witness as occurring only in the documents before the court taken from the accused and their organisations; Adv. Kentridge suggested that Prof, Murray had picked up the word and had used it uncousciously in relation to Coirmunist doctrine; the witness egreed that the word liberatory did not appear in Communist classics, but would not conced that it did not appear in Communist writings. He did not suggest that the term "national liberation movement" was a peculiarly Communist phrase, and agreed that it occurred in both the French and Italian resistance movements, and that the reference in the Election Manifesto on Dr. Nkrumah1s Party to the aim of the Convention Peoples' Party as a national liberation movement to redeem the whole of Africa dhould not be taken as seriously but rater as a "grandiose political idea without much content."

Religion and Communism

Adv. Kentridge then reverted to the attitude of Marxism Leninism towards religion, which he suggested was definitely hostii, referring to a number of writings by Lenin on religion. Prof. Murray stated that he would not care to conclude that a speech by a man of religion could not be Communistic; the Communist Pa rty promoted atheistic activities but allowed religion. Vhen Adv. Kentridge quoted Lenin's statement "Religion is the opium of the people", Mr. Justice Rumpff commented that in the witness' view the Russian State allowed its people to suck the opium pipeI

After replying to many questions on this point of doctrine, Prof.Murray drew a distinction between the attitude towards religion as contained in Communist doctrine and the tactical policy of religious toleration for practical reasons. He agreed that the doctrine was resolut«ly atheistic and vrould not d.low any dilution by religious idsas. Prof. Murray oaid that the presence of religious phrases in a document did not exclude the possibility of a Marxist-Leninist interpretation, but depending on the nature, say, of a statement on imperialism, a religious statement would modify a communist interpretation. Suggesting to Prof. Murray that his attitude wqs that nothirg pointed away from Communism except anti-Communism, Adv. Kentridge said that this recalled a comment by a leading official of the U.S.S.R. that the Empire Buildirg in New York reminded him of Communism "because everything reminds me of Communism!"

On the relationship between the language of Afrfcan nationalism and Marxist Leninism, Prof. Murray agreed that even an expert on African nationalism, which he was not, would find it difficult to establish a clear distinction. When Mr. Justice Rumpff asked whether African nationalism was a doctrine, Prof. Murray replied that in his opinion it was more of a policy than a doctrine.

Adv. Pl3wman then took over the cross examination, quotir^j extensively from statements by Nehru on the struggle for the independence of India and obtained the agreement of the witness on the similarity of the phraseology and the ideas contained in the documents of the accused.

Adv. Maisels concluded the cross examination by the Defence with questions relatiig to the statement by Prof, Murray at the time of cross examination on the admissibility of a book by Sobolev. that he had discussed this book with a certain Dr. Smith when he met hi" in England. Prof. Murray confirmed his previous statement, and when confronted with the statement that the Defence had information through South Africa House that Professor Smith had denied discussing the book with Professor Murray, and had first considered it after an urgent

Page 7/....enquiry

-7-enquiry of the Cro wn during evidence, he repeated that he was sure that he had discussed the "book with him and suggested that Dr. Smith might have forgotten.

In Principle

Adv, Maisels informed the Court that the Defence had considered questioning Prof. Murray on all the d ocuments on which he had commented, but had decided that these had all been covered in principle; the Defence would argue them in due course.

At the conclusion of the Defence cross examination, Adv, de Vos informed the Court that the Crown intended interviewing Prbf, Murray in order to obtain his opinion on various points arising from the cross examination, Mr, Justice Kennedy asked if these were new point3 apart from contentious natter. "As I understand it, the witness has said that all the documents are subject to two or more interpretations. If so, your cross examination must of necessity be restricted," Mr. Justice Rumpff commented that Prof, Murray's opinions could be obtained in Court, but Adv. de Vos dejected that this procedure would be cumbersome. Adv. Maisels protested that it would be nrost undesirable for the Crown to be told by the witness whether or not to pursue a line "because the Defence might be right". The Court agreed to an adjournment of one day to permit the Crown to prepare the cross examination and consult the references quoted, but did not agree to any further Crown consultation with the witness,

ii n n ii ii it it ii ii ii ii ii n it ii ii ii ii ii ti ii

THE E 7 M T TflTMBSS EE-EXAM IKED

The Key Question of Violence

As the trial entered the sixteenth week, Adv. de Vos opened the re-examination of the Crown witness, Prof, Andrew Murray, by referring to the Defence suggestion that Stalin had ignored or rejected the principle of the negation of the negation in his attitude to the theory of dialectical materialism. Prof. Murray explained in reply that thjs; would not in any way affect the theory of violent revolution, as this aspect of dialectical materialism referred to the period after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Following a request from Mr. Justice Rumpff for a restatement of this principle, Prof. Murray explained that the theory of the negation of the negation held that the thesis must provide its own antithesis, e.g. the capitalist system produced the proletariat (the negation), which mu^t inevitably eat \ip the capitalist state and thus destro y itself, fulfilling the principle of the negation of the negation. The violent revolution occured only in the first negation; there was no such concept in the negeMnri of the negation. If the actual formula of the negation of the negation were not used, it would not affect the basic process; there would still be thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Adv. de Vos then referred to the judgment of Mr, Justice Evatt in the Australian Courts from whioh Adv, Maisels had quoted. The relevant passage was one in which Mr, Justice Evatt had indicated that there was much to suggest that the Communist Party wanted the Parliamentary system revolutionised so that power would be in the hands of the working- class, but that it was probable that the dispossessed would not acquiesce in such a change without resistance by force; there wa3, however, no answer to the question "when?" Prof, Murray replied that this quotation did not in any way contradict the Marxist Leninist theory of violent revolution; it merely stated that there was no fixed time for the revo-lution in the growing decay of capitalism. It had not in any way affected his opinion on the Communist doctrine of violent revolutions

Soft-Pedalling the British Revolution?

The next point raised by Adv. de Vos referred to the pamphlet issued by the Communist Party in England, "The British Road to Socialism", which the Defence had clai ed envisaged a peaceful revolution. Prof. Murray read in a further passage from this book which suggested that although the achievement of the aims of Socialists in Great Britain could only be by the united action of all sections

Page 8/.... of the

-8-

Of the labour movement to win a Parliamentary majority and f w « e» j^xvpla'a government, it would "be wrong to believe that the capitalists would voluntarily give up their profits. Prof. Murray expressed the opinion that this document soft-pedalled the possibility of violent revolution bfct did not rule it out, and ascribed this to the weakness of the Communist Party in Ex^land and the general feeling against violence. This document too, did not affect his attitude on the Communist doctrine of violent revolution. Prof, Murray then confirmed bis statement under cross examination that certain statements i n the Repfcrt by Kruschev to the Central Committee of the Communist Party should not be taken at their face value. The Communist Party aimed At the overthrow of the State, in all circumstances and at all costs, even with violendo. I f . through weakness, there were not sufficient opposition to cause violence, this did not affect the case*

Replying to questions by Mr. Justice Bekker. Prof. Hurray agreed that if there were to take place a bourgeois socialist revolution, it might involve violence, but violence would not be considered inevitable. Bit if it coincided with the proletariat revolution, it would probably be violent. By bourgeois socialist, he meant non-Communist socialist. The important difference betv/een extreme left wing socialism and communism was fundamentally the difference between reformism and revolution.

Trade Unions and the Class Stru^g&e

Replyiig to Adv. fle VPs' qu3stions <a Trades Unions, Ppof. Murray again stressed the difference between bourgeois socialism and Communism, in that the former accepted that trades unions could co-operate with capitalists and at the same time oppose them, while Marxism pointed out that trades unions could become reactionary and therefore a strong revolutionary party was necessary to lead the proletariat to revohtion.

Dealing with the class struggle, Prof. Murray distinguished between bourgeois socialism which admitted the class struggle but tried to reform it whilst Marxism saw it purely as a dialectic. Bourgeois socialism worked much less closely with the trades unions than Communism did.

When Criticism of "Imperialism" becomes "Communist"

Prof. Murray stated that the concept of imperialism was criticised both in bourgeois socialism and Communism, but with a different interpretation of the concept. Replying to a suggestion by Adv. de Vos that the Communist criticism of imperialism was consistently linked with lauding of the Soviet Union, Prof. Murray gave it as his opinion that signs of Communist influence and support of Communism could be discerned according to the extent that open or implied criticism of imperialism involved support of the U.S.S.R.

The concept of imperialism and capitalism as the cause of war recurred in both bourgeois socialism and Communism, but in the former doctrine, this concept did not play as big a part, whereas in Communism, although imperialism was not necessarily alleged to be the sole cause of war, it was accepted as the inevitable result of imperialism.

Re-examined further by Adv. de Vos. Prof. Murray said that there were no Soints in either the Constitutions of the U.S.S.R or that of the Peoples' epublic of China that were not reconcileable witfi the freedom Charter, with the exception of certain references to local conditions.

Either and Or....

Mr. Justice ^umpff pointed out that the Constitution of thte Peoples' Republic of China WFS silent on the point of the form of government; the Freedom Charter wes also silent, except by inference. He then suggested that if there were inserted in the Freedom Charter a reflection of Parliamentary government, it could be interpreted as bourgeois socialism, whereas if it reflected the dictator-ship of the proletariat, it would be communist socialism. Adv. de Vos asked the

Page 9/.... witness

9-witness. whether he would say that the Freedom Charter could "be consistent either with a peopled democracy, or with a boxirgeois socialist state, Prof. Murray replied that this was possible, in relation to theearly stage of a people's democracy. In the full people's democracy, the Communist Party would be the leading group, whereas in tho bourgeois socialist democracy the vote would still be general although the labouring people would be in the majority,

The Communist. Programme for South Africa

Adv. de Vos then called upon Prof. Murray to compare the Freedom Charter with the Constitution of the former Communist Party of South Africa, Prof. Murray pointed out that the institution was more of a programme, but there werd no contradictory differences. He then pointed to the similarities in a number of sections, including inter alia those on workers 1 rights and collective bargaining-, education, the army and police force, old age and sickness, and political rights. Mr. Justice Rumpff asked whether this document reflected the Communist concept of a one party system; Prof. Murray replied that the document might have been intended for public consumption; he was not sure of the relation-ship between the Communist Party and this constitution.

Dealing with the policy of the former Communist Party of South Africa towards the liberation movement, Adv. de Vos referred to a book published by the organisation in the l$40's, "Economics and Politics; a Communist Course for South Africa," Prof. Murray read a passage from this book to show that Communists supported the lberation movement as a struggle for tho removal of colour discrimination; it was the policy of the Communist Party to join groups fighting for better conditicas.

Prof, Murray said, in reply to a question by Adv. de Vos. that he did not know of any political body in the Union up to 1956 other than the Communist Party which would take tp the same attitude to national liberatory movements.

Communist Pioneers?

Referring to the same document, the Course of Economics and Politics. Prof, Murray agreed that a certain pass&re indicated by Adv. de Vos would be a fair reflection of tho former Communist Party of South Africa. According to this document, the chief aims of the Communist Party was to set up a people's government, but certain demands were also set out. These included a real democracy, free and compulsory education for all children, equal pay for equal work, redistribution of land, state medical service, old age pensions and unemployment insurance. All of these wore contained in the Freedom Charter, Prof, Murray stated that he did not know of any other political body up to 1956 whicL r/ould have put the policy in relation to fascism as it was in this document. The document was a popular re-statement of Marxism Leninism with local reference.

United Front against Fascism equals Communist Usa^e

Prof, Murray stated that the formula of a united front against fascism was a typical Communist usage; although it might have been v^ed by other parties, he did not know of any. Referring to an extract from the former South African Communst F&rty journal "Freedom", derling with the need for links with the World International Federation of Democratic Youth, the World Federation of Trades Unions, and women's organisations, Prof. Murray said that these were Communist views, even if they were put forward by any other body.

Prof. Murray expressed the opinion that the Freedom Charter as it stands in relation to local conditions, could have been sponsored by a Communist Party or by the Communist Party of South Africa, if still in existence and added that there was a statement that the Freedom Charter had been sponsored by Communists I n South Africa, After objection by the Defence as to tho admissibility of this statement, and questions by Mr. Justice Rumpff as to what the Crown wanted from the witness oa this poin*?, Adv. de Vos stated that he had not expected this reply from the witness, and did not take the matter further.

Page 10/.... The next

-10u The noxt question put by the Crown, was whether Prof. Murray considered

that the Freedom Charter could have originated from any other known political "body in the Union, tfc viiich the witness replied "N ot official political bodies »..li and agreed to the Crown suggestion that it could not have come from any body not inside the national liberation movement,

Vhen Adv. de Vos referred to Prof. Murray's statement duriig cross examination that Communist jjargon did not necessarily indicate Communism and suggested patting an authority to show a more positive view on the existence of Communism in Africa, Mr. Justice Rumpff asked: "Are you cross examining your own vritness?"

Mr. Justice Kennedy; "Do you want him to alter his views?"

After further discussion on this point, Adv. de Vos indicated that he would not take it any further. At attempt by Adv. de Vos to obtain from Prof, Murray an explanation of what he meant by "Communist matter" in relation to certain documents put to him, was halted by a decision by Mr. Justice Rumpff that this did not arise out of tho cross examination.

Ballot or Revolution

When Adv. de Vos put to him the quotation from the judgement of Mr, Justice Schreiner relating to the "third" or "middle" way between the ballot box and violent revolution, Prof. Murray replied ho could see a government considering adopting a different policy under pressure of strikes, etc., without going to the people for a vote, but this method was limited. If the chaige of p>licy was fundamental, then it must be ither the ballot box or revolution.

On the following morning, November 24th, Adv, de Vos requested the witness to read the ten principles from the Charter of the Communist Party of Thailand. For all except the last principle, which concerned diplomatic relations with other democratic countries, Prof. Murray indicated thrt these ideas could be found in the Freedom Charter.

The final question put by the Crown to the witness related to the possibility of these being more than one political party in a peoples' democracy. Prof. Murray replied that at the beginning of tho development of a peoples' democracy, various parties co-operated, but finally the Communist Party would lead the workers and peasants to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

ADJOURNMENT TO JANUARY 18TH. I960

'-lv. de Vos informed the Court that the re-e::amination by the Crown s&d completed and ths Court adjourned until January 18th 1$60, when a new and entirely different stage of the Crown evidence would begin with the testifying by further witnesses to the finding of documents.

Issued by the TREASON TRIALS DEFENCE FUND (W.O. 2092) P.O. BOX 2864, JOHANNESBURG. Fnoner 33-5901

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.