MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: Of course the affidavit is admissible; of course, the affidavit part of the exhibit is admissible any how.
MR. KING: Yes. The only proof I have is what we have already offered, and there is, unfortunately, no official stamp on the document because it was a mimeographed copy circulated to various members of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: We will not immediately rule on this matter; after the morning recess we will take it up again.
MR. KING: May I suggest then that the document retain its exhibit number?
THE PRESIDENT: My statement was that we will not rule upon the admissibility of this indictment at this time, but will rule on it immediately after the morning recess. We are prepared now, to say, of course, that the affidavit of this affiant will be admitted, and it is requested to have it admitted without the indictment.
MR. KING: In view of the fact that the affidavit is admissible in any event, may I suggest that the document, as it has been handed up, retain its Exhibit Number of 465?
May I ask if the Secretary General has sufficient copies of the Document NG-610 in English and German for distribution to the Court, and the translators and transcribers?
SECRETARY GENERAL: May I ask how many pages there are in this document, approximately?
MR. KING: Quite a bundle. I think time re are 28 pages in the document. May I suggest that the search continue, and I shall proceed.
SECRETARY GENERAL: I have sufficient copies.
MR. KING: You do? Alright.
JUDGE BRAND: I observe already that these are loose sheets.
MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: And I do not think the Tribunal should have the menial task of fastening all of those exhibits together.
Who ever has the responsibility for binding them together in some way, I think, should do it.
MR. KING: I appreciate the fact that it imposes a considerable burden on the Court to do this. I do not think, however, that the fault lies with anyone except the Prosecution -- by the nature of things we have to distribute certain documents which cannot bo bound in books -- something should be worked out; I will try to see what can be done.
Document NG 610, which will be, when received in evidence, exhibit466, should be placed as the last document in the supplement 1. The document is offered for only one purpose, and it is far more bulky than the single purpose for which it is offered or should warrant. The document is concerned with the appointment of several individuals to the Ministry of Justice, promotions and appointments. One of those promotions and appointments is that of the defendant Klemm, and the material relating to him constitutes only a small part of the whole; however, here, again, is a case of a document which contains material that we want to offer, that we do not wish to offer in part, because of the possibility we might be accused of editing to fit our own purpose and needs. And, so, for that reason the document of 28 pages is offered at this time, when actually only three or four pages are of interest. We will not summarize further except to say that we are interested only in the portions relating to the defendant Klemm.
The document NG 610 is offered as exhibit 466.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and Defense Counsel to turn now to document book, supplement 3-A. The first document in document book 3-A is NG 291, which will, when offered, become exhibit 467. The document is unsigned, but it is a captured document. The original of which is now in Berlin, and it does refer to former members of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and, at least, among the present defendants, to Lautz. It is a document concerned with the treatment of treason and high treason cases by the local courts. We want to point out the instructions contained in this directive for treatment of prisoners who are being held under charges of treason or high treason. On page 2 of the document book, at the top of the page we find the statement that: "The defendant was to be kept in solitary confinement in a cell day and night."
And a little further down, as a matter of fact, the beginning of the second paragraph from the bottom of that page we find: "The defendant is to be excluded from common religious services."
A And, on page 3, at the beginning of the first full paragraph on that page in the English, it is to be noted that: "The defendant is to be excluded from common exercises in the fresh air and from common bathing."
Then, on page 4 of the English, in the middle of the page, opposite the number 8, we see that: "The selection of a defense counsel must be approved by the president of the competent division (Senat) of the People's Court." Followed by the statement: "Until this is granted, the attorneys have absolutely no defense rights and with regard to correspondence and personal contact with the accused they are subject to regulations set up in Nos. 6 and 7."
The document, in addition to the few sentences I have pointed out, is a directive to officials in the local courts for the treatment of prisoners and the conducting of the trial of people accused under the counts of treason and high treason.
We offer the document NG 291 as exhibit 467.
DR. GRUBE (for defendant Lautz): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecutor has stated before that this document was to be used against the defendant Lautz. May I emphasize that this memorandum does not show who has issued it. This document does not show who has issued it. It is impossible to find the author or to establish who the author was nor the office. I believe for this reason the document cannot be considered complete. If it is to have probative value against any one of the defendants, then, at least, it should be seen who wrote this directive and issued it; therefore, I object to the submission of this document.
MR. KING: I think Dr. Grube misunderstood me. I did not say it was to be used against any particular defendant. I said that among the names mentioned in this document, of the present defendants, Lautz's name appeared.
JUDGE BRAND: Where is that, please?
MR. KING: On page 6, and 3 in the German under III, under Roman III. It states: "If the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court has passed a case on to an Attorney General" and so forth. That is the reference. Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that Lautz's name appears, although Lautz was, at the probable date of this document, the Chief Reich Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document been examined by the Defense Counsel?
MR. KING: I believe it has, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is purely admissible as a capture document. Whether it has particular application to the Lautz or not depends upon the reading and construction of the document.
I take it for granted from Dr. Grube's silence that he does not dispute the proposition that the defendant Lautz was, perhaps, the officer named -- the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court, at that time. February 21, 1940, to be more accurate.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, I do not deny that the defendant Lautz was the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court at that time. I only wanted to point out that it cannot be seen and that actually Lautz was not the author of that memorandum.
MR. KING: Excuse me, has the previous document been admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Document NG-291 is admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. The next document is NG-371, to be found beginning on page 8 of the English text and on 6 in the German, and will be, when received in evidence, Exhibit 468.
This document concerns the arrest, trial, and execution of the defendant Schmidt before the Special Court Nurnberg, in a trial presided over by the defendant Oeschey. On page 8 we find the statement that the defendant had been executed; beginning on page 9, an appeal for clemency by the attorney representing the defendant; beginning on page 11 the Indictment, which we will not read at this time. On page 14 we note that the presiding judge was Ocschey, and that is the beginning of the opinion verdict, and there follows, through page 18 inclusive, the opinion. We do not wish to read extensively from this, but would like to read a paragraph or two. On the bottom of page 16, in the English, opposite the number "3", we find the following statement:
"The defendant admits the theft of the fly-papers and cardboard boxes and asserts that the fly-papers had been surplus and the taking of cardboard boxes was permitted.
"This statement is nothing but a laughable subterfuge. The flypapers were the property of his employer and have now, in war-time, a much higher value than they had formerly. Just as little as he could lay hands on the property of his employer could the defendant take the cardboard cartons which were transport goods. Of this he was fully aware, for it is self-evident."
On page 11 in the English, which is near the end of the opinion, we would like to read the paragraph beginning:
"It is the task of the Administration of Justice to protect the people's community from this type of incorrigible anti-social, and dangerous major criminal. This can only be attained by destroying the defendant in order to be sure that he will not be a menace in the future. It does not matter in this respect that his latest crimes are of minor importance as compared with his previous ones; these offenses, too, prove that the defendant is past improvement.
For this reason, any measures of protection are else not in order. Towards such elements one must rather act with ruthless severity, particularly in the present war when it is a question of the existence of our nation and where our best men sacrifice their lives and health. The need for a just atonement also demands the extermination of the defendant."
The opinion is signed by Oeschey and two others.
We offer the case Schmidt as document NG-371 and Exhibit 468.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-380, will be the Exhibit 469 when admitted in evidence. It is to be found in the English text beginning on page 20, and in the German on page 19.
This is a note dated 15 May 1944, which is signed by Lautz, and concerns the prosecution of offenses against the Reich or the army of occupation in the occupied territories. It can be seen from the contents of the document that it is particularly applicable, if not entirely so, to Belgium and Northern France. I would like to read a portion of it, beginning approximately in the middle of the note with the sentence:
"On the other hand, the cases in which I usually take over the prosecution are, as a rule, of such a serious nature that both factual conditions and intent as demanded by Article 91-b of the Penal Code are present and the death penalty is fitting."
The note goes on to refer in other respects to 91-b, but we will not read further from the document. It should be noted that on the second page of the document, page 21 in the English text, which refers to the note from which I have just read, it is initialed by the defendant Mettgenberg. It is also noted at the bottom of that page that a copy is to be routed to Mettgenberg, and the copy we are offering is apparently the one that went over his desk, at least his initials appear on the copy which we are offering the Court at this time as Exhibit 469.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the author of the document?
MR. KING: The author of the document on page 20 is obviously Lautz.
THE PRESIDENT: I am thinking about page 21, where it states that it was submitted to the defendant Mettgenberg.
MR. KING: It is difficult to tell who is the author of that note.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder whether the letter "M" indicated Mettgenberg?
MR. KING: That initial, that letter "M", may be the initial of the defendant Mettgenberg, but it is not characteristic of his usual initial. The one at the bottom of the page, which I believe is not clearly indicated on the mimeographed copy, is definitely that of Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that it is to be submitted to him would indicate that he was not the author of the document, would it not?
MR. KING: Yes, I think that is clear. No, we do not claim that the author of the second letter is Mettgenberg. It was either the defendant -- well, no, I am not prepared to say.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-431, and will be, when admitted in evidence, Exhibit 470. It is to be found beginning on page 23 of the English text, and on 21 of the German. This document is a situation report from the President cf the Court of Appeal in Danzig to Secretary of State, or former Secretary of State Schlegelberger. The second paragraph in the document we wish to read, in which the President of the Court of Appeal in reporting to Dr. Sphlegelberger, says the following:
"A close watch on the Polish population is still necessary. In the district of Neumark fourteen hostages had to be shot at the end of November 1941 because cf arson committed by Poles. At Seeheim, in the district of Nirsitz, a barn had been set on fire the night after a Pole had been evacuated and a Bessarabian-German installed. The Polish perpetrator was publicly executed by hanging upon the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, while the local population, as a warming, was forced to march past the body."
III That's all of this document which we specifically call to the Court's attention at this time, and we therefore offer the Document NG-431 as Exhibit 470.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next Document, NG-432, begins on page 26 in the English, and 23 in the German, and will be, when received in evidence, Exhibit 471. It, also, is a situation report from the president of the Court of Appeals in Danzig to Dr. Schlegelberger. He call the Court' s attention to the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 28 and extending on to the next page. We will read part of that.
"At the end of May a Pole escaped from a prison run by the Gestapo, at Bromberg. When being seized he stabbed the official arresting him and hurt him considerably, whereupon the official shot him in self-defense. In retaliation, the Gestapo hanged ten Poles - relatives of the offender and five more persons who had been acquitted in the Drzewiecki case dealt with in the Bromberg Special Court. The Chief of the Chief Office of the State prison Bfomberg, when asked, declared expressly that the hanging of the five acquitted persons did not mean a disapproval of the Special Court's sentences, but was carried out under orders and on grounds of directions laid down by the Chief Security Office of the Reich and, that it was in no way connected with the sentences of the Special Court."
We offer the Document NG-432 as Exhibit 471.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, which is NG-439, III beginning on page 30 of the English Document Book, on page 28 of the German, will be Exhibit 472.
This is a note dated 19 January 1943 from an SS-Sturmbannfuehrer to State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger, in which he says:
"I informed the Reichsfuehrer-SS of your request that in cases where a regular court did not have sufficient legal evidence to pass a death sentence, but where the execution of the defendant was considered necessary by the offices concerned, there should be no publice announcement of this execution in order not to lower the authority of the courts."
The note goes on to state what disposition had been made of this request by the defendant of Rothenberger.
We offer the Document NG-439 as Exhibit 472.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-533, beginning on page 32 of the English, 29 of the German, will be Exhibit 473. This document is a sworn affidavit of the defendant Rothaug. There are certain portions of this affidavit which we want to call specifically to the attention of the Court. On page 33 I would like to -- on page 29 or 30 of the German -- I would like to begin reading from the English text beginning with the second paragraph from the bottom of the page. The paragraph begins:
"From 1939 until 1943 I was the head of the Special Court in Nuremberg. During the spring of the year 1943 I was transferred to Berlin in the position of a Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court. I entered this position on 1 May 1943. I was active in the position of Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court until the end of the war.
III "At the peoples Court in Berlin I was given a division dealing with high treason.
According to my recollection Reich Prosecutor Barnickel was given this division, and I was entrusted, from 1 January 1944 on, with the revision of all criminal cases in connection with 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength.' This Department was act divided up according to geographical areas but dealt with all cases of 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength' arising in the entire Reich.
"Toward the end of the war about 2,500 denunciations were submitted to this Department in the course of one month. This meant a yearly total of 30,000 cases for the entire Reich. I might be mistaken about these figures. At any rate, there was such an overflow of work that the Department had to be divided up, during the middle of 1944, between myself and Reich Prosecutor Franzki. I got the even, and he the odd, numbers - or vice versa.
"Naturally, we tried to relieve our burden by handing over cases to the Criminal Senat and the Special Courts attached to the various Courts of Appeal. Of the total monthly inflow of cases we kept only about ten percent. During the course of the year 1945 the inflow became smaller since, due to a failure of the postal connections, fewer cases came in."
I would like now now to turn now to page 36 of the English, and either 32 or 33 of the German, beginning with the second paragraph from the bottom in the English text.
"As the war situation became noticeably more tense the tendency to view such cases severely under the aspect III of 'Seditious Undermining of German Defensive Strength' became more and more pronounce.
"People were sentenced to death when it was proven that they had made utterances hostile ot the State of an inner readiness to damage the State whenever the opportunity arose. This general readiness to cause damage to the State could be con eluded from the general attitude of the culprit and from the circumstances surrounding his deed. If, for instance, a man remarked to a woman, who had to fill out a labor draft questionnaire, 'Don't you know that every woman who works sends a soldier to his death?' - it was possible to conclude from this that this man was generally inclined to do damage to the State. It is possible to draw the conclusion that the was ready to do damage to the State from the circumstances of the dead since they showed that his inclination to do damage to the State was so lille controlled that even a trivial opportunity could already provoke a defeatist utterance on his part."
We turn now to page 38 of the English text, 34 or 35 in the German, and I would like to begin reading from the last paragraph on page 38 from the English text:
"Lautz, as Chief of the Prosecution, was responsible for the entire office. All cases passed through his hands before they were delegated to the respective Department. Until shortly before the end of the war Lautz himself signed all indictments and all quashings. Only as late as March 1945 indictments of lesser significance could be signed by the Department Chiefs. Copies of the indictment had to be submitted to the Chief Reich Prosecutor."
We turn now to page 43 in the English text, page 39 in the German and begin reading from the last full III paragraph from the bottom of the page in the English text;"The extermination of 'habitual criminals' was, in my opinion, not a National Socialist innovation.
The definition of the 'habitual criminal' on the other hand was mainly determined by the National Socialist ideology. When I was transferred to Nurenberg on 1 April 1937 the laws which were used in the Special Court were hardly known to me by name.
"I was, however, aware of the fact that, through application of these laws, the underlying National Socialist ideology was realized. I also know that, under normal circumstances, i.e., independent of war and of the National ideologies and laws, dozens of people who were sentenced by the Special Courts would now still be alive. I deny that the case Katzenberger, who had been accused of race defilement and was sentenced to death and executed, was a clear instance of judicial murder. For it happened not in a single case that we acted against our convictions and opinions, but we were, of course, not free of that psychosis which dominated the entire life of the people and the State. We became aware of this only now under the impression of the great disaster. Since our verdicts were based on our convictions we identified ourselves with the National Socialistic laws, with the result that many of our verdicts bore the stamp of National Socialism. Another way was not open to us since we had taken the oath to apply the full intent of the law."
We offer the Document NG-533 as Exhibit 473.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG 627, begins on page 46 in the English text and on 42 in the German text and will be when received in evidence Exhibit 474. The document, briefly, is a review of recent sentences passed by the Court of Appeals in Hamburg immediately preceding the date of the letter, which is i March, 1945 and an admonition that these sentences were to lenient, with a request that in the future the sentences be made more severe. The letter is signed by the defendant Klemm. It is concerned in a large part with what should be not regarded as mitigating circumstances, and we find on page 49 some of those standards which apparently the Hamburg court was using that Klemm denies should constitute extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Here are some of them:
"Especially hard life." "Uprooted by the Russian revolution." "Let himself go frequently because of his rather surly nature." "He has been a good comrade," "People with a disorder of the stomach, as we know from experience, are inclined to be disgruntled," "He may have been annoyed about a certain phrase in the radio talk in question." "He had to suffer under the Jewish Boycott movement during his activities abroad," and so on.
The letter from Klemm concludes with this statement, which is found on page 49 of the English text, 46 of the German:
"Please discuss the sentences as well as my opinion about them in the proper way with the judges and public prosecutors in question and see to it in all cases of undermining the defensive power that the required severe punishment will be meted out in your area, too."
Then there follows on page 50 and 51 a statement or rather a summary of a conference of the National Socialist Lawyers' Association of the Gau Hamburg on 17 March 1945, the last paragraph of which refers to the Klemm letter which I just summarized. That last paragraph is found in the English text on page 51, in the German on page 48.
We offer the document NG 627 as Exhibit 4747.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG 644 is found beginning on page 52 of the English, 49 of the German and will be Exhibit 475 when received in evidence. This document is the sworn affidavit of the defendant Cuhorst. The English copy that appears in the document books is effective to the extent that the oath is not shown as having been administered The original does show that the oath was given by Mr. Selky of the OCC organization on the 16th of January in Nurnberg. He would like to read as in the case of the affidavit of defendant Rothaug, somewhat more extensively from this than has been our practice. May I ask the Court to turn to the first page, 52 in the English text, and I would like to read beginning with the first, or rather the second paragraph from the bottom of that page. That is page 49 in the German text.
"From I October 1937 until 20 November 1944, in other words, for seven whole years, I was Presiding Justice of the Special Court for the. Area of the Stuttgart Court of Appeal. My real job, however, was that of President of the First Penal Senate of the Court of Appeals, Stuttgart.
"During those seven years, about 2600 cases were tried before the Special Court. Of these, I presided over about 1200 cases. In about 120 cases, a death sentence was pronounced. The Special Court was instituted during 1935 for political cases and for capital crimes. In 1939, war-time economic offenses and cases resulting from a series of new special war-time laws were handed over to the Special Courts, The measure of punishment provided for by those laws went far beyond that of ordinary peacetime laws. Beginning about 1940 the task of the Special Courts was to exterminate criminals as a matter of principle, that is to exterminate major, non-political, professional, or habitual criminals. Intimidation has always been one of the purposes of punishment, and I personally have the impression that intimidation theoretically achieves its purpose.
"I am a man who stands by what he has done. I stand by the sentences passed in Stuttgart in which I participated, to the extent to which I participated in them."
May we ask the Court to turn now to page 54, 50 in the German text. I would like to call attention to two sentences in the middle of the page, beginning: "I participated in the meetings of judges in Kochem in 1944; but I myself take full responsibility for all of my sentences. The Public Prosecutors could not influence me. In cases in which a death sentence was pronounced, I did not argue about it with the Public Prosecutor; I would also not know in such cases that the Public Prosecutor had asked for the death sentence in agreement with the Ministry in Berlin."
May I ask the Court to turn to Page 56. That is page, either 52 or 53 in the German. I would like to read the first part of the beginning of the seconds paragraph on that page:
"By the phrase 'Healthy feelings of the people' I understand the thing that is commonly called 'healthy common sense'. I could not give clear definition of the National Socialist term 'healthy feelings of the people'. I can only say it is the same as 'healthy common sense'."
That is all of this document from which we will read at this time, and therefore offer NG 644 as Exhibit 475.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-647, and begins on Page 59 in the English, 54 in the German. It will be, when received in evidence, the Exhibit 476. This is the affidavit of one, Wilhelm Hoffman, who was, as the affidavit indicates, First Public Prosecutor, in Nurnberg until 9 December 1943. He held that position for a number of years, as is indicated in the first paragraph in the affidavit.
I would like to read just several portions of this, beginning with last line on Page 60 in the English text, that is on Page 56 in the German:
"The manner in which Rothaug conducted a trial very often did not have my approval. He occasionally used sessions to make great public speeches and he often treated defendants in such a way as I had not see from other presiding judges. He abused the defendants and did not make any secret of the verdict to be expected. I knew he used the expression: 'We will put your head in front of your feet.' I noticed also that he used to choose, as officially appointed defense counsels, men who would not cause him any trouble. I know too that various lawyers in Nurnberg -- I do not remember their names -- refused to plead before the Special Court of Nurnberg because Rothaug used to restrict considerably their rights as defense counsel."
On Page 62 in the English, 57 or 58 in the German, beginning with the fifth line down from the top of the page in the English text:
"He had excellent connections with the "Gauleitung" of Nuernberg, especially with "Gauinspector" HABERKERN, and he took advantage of this to carry out his wishes through the Gauleitung if he could not do it otherwise. I know that he had many discussions in this respect in HABERKERN's Hotel, "Blaue Traube".
"I do not know quite so well his successor, OESCHEY. But the latter was generally considered a docile pupil of ROTHAUG. Colleagues told me that OESCHEY's way of conducting a trial was very much like ROTHAUG's, but OESCHEY used still stronger expressions than ROTHAUG to abuse the defendants."
We offer the document NG-67 as the Exhibit 476.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence, and there will be a recess at this time for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning the exhibit which was under discussion this morning, we admit that portion pf the exhibit which is the affidavit but we do not admit the annexed indictment. The matter is open if something further is offered; we will take it up at that time, but we will retain the exhibit number of the document which we admit.
MR. KING: May the record show that we now offer as Exhibit 465 the Document NG-1253 which consists only of the affidavit of one Witzigmann, which affidavit is dated 11 April, 1947. This offer is being made subject to the conditions that an indictment, which was originally a part of this document, if proper identification can be made, may be offered later.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted upon those conditions and subject to those further proofs.
MR. KING: The next document in the document book, Supplement 111-A, NG-661, we do not offer in evidence. It is an affidavit of Dr. Dorfmueller, who has appeared already before this Court as a witness, and his testimony, we believe, encompasses the statements made in the affidavit.
The next document we will offer in evidence is the Document NG-663, beginning on page 67 in the English text and also 67 in the German text, and will be, when offered, Exhibit 477. This document is a sworn affidavit of one Bernhard Kassing, who was, as stated in the affidavit, a medium civil functionary in the District Court, in Nurnberg. I would like to read just a small portion of this document, beginning with the fourth line down of the first principal paragraph, on page 67 in the English text, with the sentence:
"I shall always remember on case before the Special Court of Nuernberg because of the brutality of its verdict, Two Polish women, DURKA and STRUG were accused of alleged arson. Just before the beginning of the trial I went into the court room to have a look at the two defendants, because I knew that the two very young girls were probably going to be sentenced to death.
They were really two very young girls who made a very good impression. I was very much shocked that these young persons should pay with their life for a trifle. The sentence as based chiefly on racial and not on legal points of view. The death sentence was carried out a few days later.
"After the execution I received the farewell letters of the two girls which I submitted to ROTHAUG for approval before mailing them on. I read both letters and secretly save them to attorney KERN to read, because we both had previously discussed this case and had been shocked by the verdict. In these letters both defendants took leave of their parents in moving terms and expressed their innocence."
We offer the Document NG-663 as Exhibit 477.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document NG-668 begins on page 69 in the English, also on 69 of the German, and is NG-668, and will be, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 478.