BY MR. SUTTON (Continued):


Q: Yesterday you testified that the defendant MUTO gave you directions with respect to the protection of foreign interests. Did you report to him the complaints received of violation of foreign interests in Nanking?


A: Yes, I did.


Q: Did MUTO mention to you the complaints which he received concerning violations of foreign interests in Nanking?


A: Colonel MUTO never informed me of any reports which he himself received directly. However, what I said now concerns only what happened immediately after our entry into Nanking. In other words, I am speaking of what happened during 1937, after our entry into Nanking.


Q: Did MUTO accompany you on your inspection tours in and around Nanking?


A: He never accompanied me once.


Q: Do you know whether or not he made inspections in and around Nanking?


A: I do not know.


Q: How long was MUTO in Nanking in December 1937?


A: I believe it was from the 15th of December to the 20th of December.


Q: Was he not there for ten days?


A: As I have just said, he was in Nanking from -- Since he was in Nanking from the 15th of December to the 20th of December, that would be six days altogether. By Nanking I mean both the outskirts of Nanking and that part of Nanking which is inside the walls.



Q: In his interrogation, exhibit 255, MUTO stated that he remained in Nanking for ten days, leaving there on December 24 or 25. Does that refresh your memory?


A: Immediately before the capture of Nanking Colonel MUTO arrived at Kuyang Air field, together with General MATSUI, on the 15th, and I believe it was on the 21st or 22nd that he left Nanking by train, together with us.


Q: MUTO further stated, exhibit 255, that Chief of Staff TSUKADA told him of incidents of stealing, killing, assault, and rape by Japanese soldiers in Nanking. Did you learn of these incidents?


A: First, concerning murder, I have never heard of any such incidents. Next concerning theft, I don't know whether theft would be the appropriate word. However, I believe there were a few cases of that.


THE MONITOR: I don't know whether you could call it stealing or not, but I believe there were a few cases of looting.


A: (Continuing) Third, concerning assault against women, I believe there may have been a few cases on some days to a limited extent.


Q: In Section 18 of your affidavit you mention the so-called poor-people's quarters administered by the Nanking Safe Area Committee. Is this the same as the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone?


A: I think they are the same.


Q: You stated that soldiers were not permitted to enter these quarters without special permits. Did not soldiers repeatedly enter the safety zones in the daytime and night time and carry off women and girls to be debauched?


A: I don't think that is true.


MR. SUTTON: This question is based upon the testimony of Mrs. Tsen, Director of Dormitories of Gingling College, transcript or proceedings pages 4465, 4466.


THE WITNESS: The neutral zone or the refugee safety zone was protected by our troops, and sentries were posted at the entrances and exits to this zone, and soldiers were not permitted to enter that zone without permission from their superior commander. Therefore, I believe if soldiers did enter the neutral zone it was for purposes of -- it was because they were on guard duty.


Q: You further state in Section 18 of your affidavit, "Later we heard that the Committee had protested against the atrocities committed by the Japanese troops within these quarters."When did you hear that?


A: After the conclusion of the war.


Q: Consul General HIDAKA testified, exhibit 2537, that the reports from the foreign residents in Nanking on the wrongful acts of Japanese soldiers were sent by the Consulate General to the Foreign Office in Tokyo and to the army in Nanking, and that the Foreign Office in Tokyo gave notice of these reports to the War Ministry. Did the authorities in Tokyo inquire of the Central China Expeditionary Forces concerning these reports?



A: According to my recollection no such thing happened. However, one month after the fall of Nanking Major General HOMMA was sent to the Central China Expeditionary Forces, and I believe he complained to the Chief of Staff on whether military discipline had not been somewhat lax. However, this complaint was merely a question of military discipline and had nothing to do with such things as massacre or looting.


Q: In Section 19 of your affidavit you mention prisoners of war in Nanking. Were captured Chinese Soldiers treated as prisoners of war?


A: They did. They were accorded such treatment.


Q: Here prisoners of war camps established?


A: Yes, they were later.


Q: MUTO stated in his interrogation, exhibit 255, that it was finally decided in 1938 that because the Chinese conflict was officially known as an incident the Chinese captured would not be regarded as prisoners of war. Do you agree with that?


A: The Sino-Japanese conflict was a very unfortunate affair, and it was very complicated. And, therefore, although we were not able to officially give prisoners treatment as prisoners of war under international law at the front line, I believe in actuality prisoners were accorded such treatment in accordance with the provisions of international law. Therefore, what Colonel MUTO has stated concerns merely the aspects of the problem as it relates to international law, and the actual situation was that in Central China prisoners were accorded fair treatment as prisoners of war. Not only that, but those among the prisoners who grasped a true understanding of the Sino-Japanese conflict were later recruited for the regular troops of the Chinese Army, that is to say, the army which was under the Wang Ching-wei Regime.



Q: Why were prisoners of war camps established in Central China in 1937 and 1938?


A: I am not aware of the details. However, I do know that there were two or three camps on the outskirts of Shanghai.


Q: Was it not the policy of the Central China Expeditionary Forces to seek out disarmed Chinese soldiers and when found to shoot them?


A: The Central China Expeditionary Forces never adopted any such policy. General MATSUI, the Commander of the Central China Expeditionary Forces, from the standpoint of the fundamental situation between the Japanese and Chinese peoples, was sincerely convinced that the Japanese and Chinese must unite in peace. This is the fact. When I think of the efforts which General MATSUI made concerning this point during the advance of the Japanese troops to Nanking I cannot help but feeling very much impressed.