Acquittal of Slevin: Judge's Decision that the Machines Were not Built for War Tu the United States Court for China, on Tuesday, Judge ©. S Lobingier gave a written judgment acquitting the defendant, James Slevin, on the charge of running munitions of war (aeroplanes) into ina. His Honour's ruling in part follows:—There is no competent evidence from which the Court can find that the aeroplanes in question were intended for military purposes. The nearest approach to such evidence is the following from the testimony of the ship captain who conveyed the planes from Shanghai to Han-ko Q.—You stated to the Boarding Officer on Sunday that these aeroplanes were destined for use in the Chinese Army under General Wu Pei-fu? A.—No. I did not say so. I stated that T heard so. *Q.—From whom did you hear this? A.—From the compradore.
Q.—This one (pointing to Mr. Li, present)?
A—Yes.
Shortly afterwards, and at the same hearing, the compradore referred to was called as a witness, but the statement in question was not. mentioned, nor did the compradore give any evidence tending to support it. In any event, it seems to have been pure hearsay and could hora no basis whatever for conviction, Much is sought to be made of the deflection of the aeroplanes from Foochow, the original destination, te Hankow. Defendant's explanation of this is that the outbreak of civil war in Fukien Province rendered it impracticable to undertake flying operations there for commercial purposes and that, inasmuch as the purchasers, or one of them, was also interested in business at Hankow, it was decided to initiate the enterprise near that point instead of in Fukien. Defendant is corroborated in this by certain Chinese witnesses who are share helders in the purchasing company, one of whom states that ground had been leased between Peking and Hankow for landing purposes. All of these witnesses deny any intention or knowledge of any plan to use these planes for military purposes, or any connexion with military leaders. Defendant's testi-many was, moreover, given in a frank and straightforward manner and bore the stamp of truthfulness.
It must also be remembered that the offence with which defendant is charged is "exportation to China," and that would seem to have been completed upon the landing of the planes at Shanghai. The word "export" as used in the statute has a Well defined meaning in American law. It signifies transfer from one country to another. Transhipment between points within the same country is not "exportation." The Supreme Court has even found "it impossible to say that goods carried from New York to Porto Rice can be considered as exported from New York within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution." Tt follows that whatever part de fendant may have taken in effecting the shipment from Shanghai to Hankow, it did not constitute. "exportation" and could not have been a violation of the act.
DEFENDANT NOT RESPONSIBLE, Again, it seems clear that the defendant was not the responsible party in the original exportation, but wag little more than an inter-me diary between the vendors, the Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Corporation, and the purchasers. Besides, that act wag effected, as we have seen, under the sanction of the Secretary of State.
Furthermore, the resolution penalized only the exportation of "arms or munitions of war." It is clear, therefore, that in order to support a conviction the prosecution must establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the machines in question are "arms or munitions of war." Now, it is obvious that many articles might be used for military purposes which are capable of perfectly pacific uses. There are, indeed, certain instruments, such as artillery and poison-gas, which for practical purposes might be termed exclusively military, but aeroplanes are not of this character. They are quite as often used for commerce or other purposes as for warfare. The prosecution offered no evidence whatever to the effect that these particular aeroplanes were of a military type, or were designed or constructed for use in warfare. On the other hand, no less than three witnesses, all of testified that the planes in, question whom were experienced in aviation.
were not warplanes, that they were too slow for bombing purposes and were built entirely for commercial use.
It seems clear, therefore, that an essential ingredient of the offence charged has not only not been proved, but has actually been disproved, and this fact has an -important bearing upon the question of intent; for if the planes were not of a military character, the probability of the defendant, or any one else connected with the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.