 |
guilty, he said "not guilty." To Dr. Wurster, however, these two
words "not guilty" mean more than a mere legal formula; they mean genuine
assertion of his complete innocence. They are the words of a man who, as I hope
I shall prove, deserves credence. He is convinced, and so am I, that no blame
can be attached to him in this trial, either from the legal or the moral point
of view.
The prosecution is inclined to take the easy way out. In the
indictment, as well as when submitting evidence, the statement occurs time and
again, that "all defendants" had done such and such a thing. But the
prosecution does not take the trouble of examining or proving the guilt of any
individual defendant. There is no appreciation of the character of the person
concerned or of his ability to commit the crimes with which he is charged here.
The examination of the individual, which must form the basis of jurisdiction in
law more than anywhere else, is sacrificed to a mechanical collectivist
juggernaut which makes its violent and destructive path across everything and
everybody. There is not a trace left of the theory of the value of the
individual, and of his right to be assessed and treated as such.
Judging from the attitude of the prosecution in this trial, that great
country which represents the last hope of all men standing for the freedom of
the individual in the world seems to have been induced to throw all these
principles overboard. If this were true, the only thing left would be despair,
but fortunately there remains good hope for all who know from long personal
experience in the United States that American judges, with their proud and
great tradition, always and everywhere safeguard these principles of freedom of
the individual.
Anyone who examines the charge brought against Dr.
Wurster as a whole, or individual points thereof, in the light of his
character, is bound to realize that the charges against him are baseless.
The prosecution is not at all bothered by the fact that in 1932 (when,
as the prosecution alleges, an alliance between IG and Hitler was concluded
which constituted the origin of the alleged conspiracy), Dr. Wurster was one
chemist among hundreds in the Ludwigshafen plant who had not the slightest idea
of the business transacted in the higher spheres of the IG, and was not in a
position to have any knowledge at all of these matters. It is true that as a
young chemist, 31 years of age, he had already made a strong impression in 1932
by dint of his inventions, a considerable number of patents both at home and
abroad, and the new processes he had developed. But he had just as little
influence on the I.G. Farben Konzern as any other chemist, a fact which nobody
will be able to deny. The fact that |
345 |
. 
