The Evening Star (December 19, 1945)
Editorial: The ‘Tiger’s’ respite
Upon learning that the Supreme Court had ordered a stay of execution for Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, Japan’s “Tiger of Malaya,” one Filipino is reported to have commented: “The trouble with the United States is that they are too soft.” And another indignant resident of Manila said: “Yamashita should have been hanged without trial in the first place.”
In all probability these comments reflect not only the prevailing sentiment among the Filipinos who suffered so grievously at the hands of Yamashita’s troops, but the attitude of many, if not most, Americans as well. Theirs is a point of view, however, which must be based on a misinterpretation of what the court has done.
Actually, the decision to grant the stay implies nothing more than that the justices have not yet decided whether they should review Yamashita’s case. And even if the ultimate decision should be to give him a hearing, that would be motivated, not by any softness or sympathy for the Japanese general, but by a proper desire to insure appropriate judicial consideration of the one important issue which has been raised by the conviction of Yamashita by an American Military Commission.
In asking the Supreme Court to intervene in his behalf, Yamashita, or his counsel, raised some questions that are trivial. It was contended, for instance, that the proceedings before the military commission were invalid on the ground that there were no active hostilities in the Philippines at the time of the trial and no military government of occupied territory. Another equally trivial ground was that no notice of the impending trial had been given to Japan’s protecting power.
There is small likelihood, however, that either Yamashita or his counsel are basing their hopes on such inconsequential complaints as these. What is undoubtedly the main basis of his appeal to the Supreme Court, and the contention which may cause the justices some concern, is set forth in this language: “The petitioner (Yamashita) believes that his petition should be entertained by this court for the additional reason that the trial of a general of a vanquished nation by the victor nation, on a charge that presupposes that he is the guarantor of all actions of all of his troops is a novel concept, and that any such trial by a purported agency of the United States should be carefully scrutinized by the courts, and any attempt to avoid such judicial consideration should be circumvented.”
This appeal is predicated on Yamashita’s principal defense, namely that he did not know what his troops were doing in the Philippines and that, lacking knowledge, he cannot be held responsible for their acts. Whether this claim is worthy of belief, or whether, even if true, its acceptance as a valid defense would meet with popular approval, are matters that are beside the point. The important thing is that the principle sought to be established here apparently is a novel one, and it is at least conceivable that, once established, it may react to our embarrassment in the future. In this situation the Supreme Court is not properly subject to criticism for taking time to consider whether it ought to intervene, and, if so, what the nature of its intervention should be.