I intend to pass very briefly over matters of medical ethics, such as the conditions under which a physician may lawfully perform a medical experiment upon a person who has voluntarily subjected himself to it, or whether experiments may lawfully be performed upon criminals who have been condemned to death. This case does not present such problems. We refined questions confront us here.
None of the victims of the atrocities perpetrated by these defendants were volunteers, and this is true regardless of what these unfortunate people nay have said or signed before their turtures began. Most of the victims had not been condemned to death, and those who had been were not criminals, unless it be a crime to be a Jew, or a pole, or a Gypsy, or a Russian prisoner of-war.
Whatever book or treatise on medical ethics we may examine, and whatever expert on forensic medicine we may question, will say that it is a fundamental and inescapable obligation of every physician under any known system of law not to perform a dangerous experiment without the subject's consent. In the tyranny that was Nazi Germany, no one could give such a consent to the medical agents of the Stake; everyone lived in fear and acted under dur** I fervently hope that none of us here in the court room will have to suffer in silence while it is said on the part of these defenants that the wretched and helpless people whom they froze and drowned and burned and poisoned were volunteers. If such a shame less lie is spoken here, we need only remember the four girls who were taken from the Revensbruck concentration camp and made to li** naked with the frozen and all but dead Jews who survived Dr. Rascher's tank of ice water. One of these women, whose hair and eyes and figure were pleasing to Dr. Rascher, when asked by him why she had volunteered for such a task, replied:"rather half a year in a brothel than half a year in a concentration camp."
Were it necessary, one could make a long list of the respects in which the experiments which those defendants performed depart from every known standard of medical ethics. But the gulf between these atrocities and serious research in the healing art is so patent that such a tabulation would be cynical.
We need look no further than the law which the Nazis themselves passed on the 24th of November 1933 for the protection of animals. This law states explicitly that it is designed to proven cruelty and indifference of man towards animals and to awaken and develop sympathy and understanding for animals as one of the highest moral values of a people.
The soul of the German people should abhor the principle of more utility without consideration of the moral aspects. The law states further that all operations or treatments which are associated with pain or injury, especially experiments involving the use of cold, heat, or infection, are prohibited, and can be permitted only under special exceptional circumstances. Special written authorization by the head of the department is necessary in every case, and experimenters are prohibited from performing experiments according to their own free judgment. Experiments for the purpose of teaching must be reduced to a minimum. Medico-legal tests, vaccinations, withdrawal of blood for diagnostic purposes and trial of vaccines prepared according to well-established scientific principles are permitted but the animals have to be killed immediately and painlessly after such experiments. Individual physicians are not permitted to use dogs to increase their surgical skill by such practices. National Socialism regards it as a sacred duty of German science to keep down the number of painful animal experiments to a minimum.
If the principles announced in this law had been followed for human beings as well, this indictment would never have been filed. It is perhaps the deepest shame of the defendants that it probably never even occurred to them that human beings should be treated with at least equal humanity.
This case is one of the simplest and clearest of those that will be tried in this building. It is also one of the most important. It is true that the defendants in the box were not among the highest leaders of the Third Reich. They are not tho war lords who assembled and drove the German military machine, nor the industrial barons who made tho parts, nor tho Nazi politicians who debased and brutalized the mines of the German people. But this case, perhaps more than any other we will try, epitomizes Nazi thought and the Nazi way of life, because those defendants pursued the savage premises of Nazi thought so far.
The things that these defendants did, like so many other things that happened under the Third Reich, were the result of the noxious merger of German militarism and Nazi racial objectives. No will see the results of this merger in many other fields of German life; we see it here in the field of medicine.
Germany surrendered herself to this foul conjunction of evil forces. The nation fell victim to the Nazi scourge because its leaders lacked the wisdom to foresee the consequences and the courage to stand firm in the face of throats. Their failure was the inevitable outcome of that sinister undercurrent of German philosophy which preaches the supreme importance of the state and the complete subordination of the individual, A nation in which the individual means nothing will find few leaders courageous and able enough to serve its best interests.
Individual Germans did indeed give warning of what was in store, and German doctors and scientists were numbered among the courageous gew. At a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists hold in Munich in 1931, when the poisonous doctrines of the Nazis were already sweeping Germany, there was a discussion of mercy killings and sterilization, and the Nazi views on these matters, with which we are now familiar, were advanced. A German professor named Oswald Bunke rose and made a reply more eloquent and prophetic than anyone could have possibly realized at the time. He said:
"I should like to make two additional remarks. One of them is, please for God's sake leave our present financial needs out of all these considerations. This is a problem which concerns the entire future of our people, indeed, one may say without being over-emotional about it, the entire future of humanity. One should approach this problem neither from the point of view of our present scientific opinion nor from the point of view of the still more ephemeral economic crisis. If by sterilization we can prevent the occurrence of mental disease then we should certainly do it, not in order to save money for the government but because every case of mental disease means infinite suffering to the patient and to his relatives. But to introduce economic points of view is not only inappropriate but outright dangerous because the logical consequences of the thought that for financial reasons all these human being who could be dispensed with for the moment should be exterminated, is a quite monstrous logical conclusion: we would then have to put to death not only the mentally sick and the psychopathic personalities but all the crippled including the disabled veterans, all old maids who do not work, all widows whose children have completed their education, and all those who live on their income or draw pensions.
That would certainly save a lot of money but the probability is that we will not do it.
"The second point of advice is to use utmost restraint, at least until the political atmosphere here in this country shall have improved, and scientific theories concerning heredity and race can no longer be abused for political purposes. Because, if the discussion about sterilization today is carried into the arena of political contest, then pretty soon we will no longer hear about the mentally sick but, instead, about Aryans and nonAryans, about the blonde Germanic race and about inferior people with round skulls. That anything useful could come from that is certainly improbable; but science in general and genealogy and eugenics in particular would suffer an injury which could not easily be repaired again."
I said at the outset of this statement that the Third Reich died of its own poison. This case is a striking demonstration not ???? of the tremendous degradation of German medical ethics which Nazi doctrine brought about, but of the undermining of the medical art and thwarting of the techniques which the defendants sought to employ. The Nazis have, to a certain extent, succeeded in convincing the peoples of the world that the Nazi system, although ruthless, was absolutely efficient; that although savage, it was completely scientific; that although entirely devoid of humanity, it was highly systematic -- that "it got things done." The evidence which this Tribunal will hear will explode this myth. The Nazi methods of investigation were inefficient and unscientific, and their techniques of research were unsystematic.
These experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use. It was, indeed, ascertained that phenol or gasoline injected intravenously will kill a man inexpensively and within sixty seconds. This and a few other "advances" are all in the field of "thanatology." There is no doubt that a number of these new methods may be useful to criminals everywhere and there is no doubt that they may be useful to a criminal state. Certain advances in destructive methodology we cannot deny, and indeed from Himmler's standpoint this may well have been the principal objective.
Apart from these deadly fruits, the experiments were not only criminal but a scientific failure. It is indeed as if a just deity had shrouded the solutions which they attempted to reach with murderous means. The moral shortcomings of the defendants and the precipitous ease with which they decided to commit murder in quest of "scientific results", dulled also that scientific hesitancy, that thorough thinking-through, that responsible weighing of every single stop which alone can insure scientifically valid results.
Even if they had merely been forced to pay as little as two dollars for human experimental subjects, such as American investigators nay have to pay for a cat, they night have thought twice before wasting unnecessary numbers, and thought of simpler and better ways to solve their problems. The fact that these investigators had free and unrestricted access to human beings to be experimented upon misled then to the dangerous and fallacious conclusion that the results would thus be better and more quickly obtainable than if they had gone through the labor of preparation, thinking, and meticulous pre-investigation.
A particularly striking example is the seawater experiment. I believe that three of the accused -- Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, and Beiglbueck -- will today admit that this problem could have been solved simply and definitively within the space of one afternoon. On May 20, 1944 when these accused convened to discuss the problem, a thinking chemist could have solved it right in the presence of the assembly within the space of a few hours by the use of nothing more gruesome than a piece of jolly, a semipermeable membrane and a salt solution, and the German Armed Forces would have had the answer on May 21, 1944. But what happened instead? The vast armies of the disenfranchised slaves were at the beck and call of this sinister assembly; and instead of thinking, they simply relied on their power over human beings rendered rightless by a criminal state and ment. What time, effort, and staff did it take to get that machinery in motion! Letters had to be written, physicians, of whome dire shortage existed in the German Armed Forces whose soldiers went poorly attended, had to be taken out of hospital positions and dispatched hundreds of miles away to obtain the answer which should have been known in a few hours, but which thus did not become available to the German Armed Forces until after the completion of the gruesome show, and until 42 people had been subjected to the tortures of the damned, the very tortures which Greek mythology had reserved for Tantalus.
In short, this conspiracy was a ghastly failure as well as a hideous crime. The creeping paralysis of Nazi supersition spread through the German medical profession and, just as it destroyed character and morals, it dulled the mind.
Guilt for the oppressions and crimes of the Third Reich is widespread, but it is the guilt of the leaders that is deepest and most culpable. Who could German medicine look to to keep the profession true to its traditions and protect it from the ravaging inroads of Nazi pseudo-science? This was the supreme responsibility of the leaders of German medicine -- men like Rostock and Rose and Schroeder and Handloser.
That is why their guilt is greater than that of any of the other defendants in the dock. They are the men who utterly failed their country and their profession, who showed neither courage nor wisdom nor the vestiges of moral character. It is their failure, together with the failure of the leaders of Germany in other walks of life, that debauched Germany and led to her defeat. It is because of them and other like them that we all live in a stricken world.
JUDGE BEALS: The prosecution has now consumed all of the time allocated it for its opening statement. Is the Prosecution prepared to proceed with the introduction of any evidence this afternoon?
GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the document book for Mr. McHaney's first part of the evidence was not ready until yesterday, which was a Sunday, and if agreeable to the Tribunal, it would be more convenient for us, and I think for the defendants, to resume tomorrow morning when we have had more time to look at it.
JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
"The Tribunal adjourned until 10 December 1946, at 9:30 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 10 December 1946, 0930-1430, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The honorable judges of Military Tribunal. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court-room.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Secretary-General, will you note for the record the presence of the defendants in the courtroom.
The prosecution may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: May it pleas the Tribunal:
Before any evidence is presented, it is my purpose to show the process whereby documents have been procured and processed in order to be presented in evidence by the United States. I shall also describe and illustrate the plan of presenting documents to be followed by the prosecution in this case.
When the United States Army entered German territory it had specialized military personnel who duties were to capture and preserve enemy documents, records, and archives.
Such documents were assembled in temporary documents centers. Later each Army established fixed document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation where there documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
When the International Military Tribunal was set up, field teams under the direction of Major William M. Coogan were organized and sent out to the various document centers. Great masses of German documents and records were screened and examined. Those selected were sent to Nurnberg to be processed.
Those original documents were then given trial identification numbers in one of five series designated by the letters: "PS", "L", "R", "C", and "C", indicating the means of acquisition of the documents. Within each series, documents were listed numerically.
The prosecution in this case shall have occasion to introduce in evidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some of these documents were introduce in evidence before the IMT and some were not. As to those which were, this Tribunal is required by Article XX of Ordinance No. 7 to take judicial notice thereof. However, in order to simplify the procedure, we will introduce photostatic copies of documents used in Case No. 1 before the IMT to which will be attached a certificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of our Document Control Branch, certifying that such document was introduced in evidence before the IMT and that is a true and correct copy thereof. Such documents have been and will be made available to defendants just as in the case of any other document.
As to these documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan which were not used in the case before the IMT, they are authenticated by the affidavit of Major Coogan dated 19 November 1945. This affidavit served as the basis of authentication of substantially all documents used by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the IMT. It was introduced in that trial as U.S.A. Exhibit 1. Since we will use certain documents processed for the IMT trial, I would not like to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 1 the Coogan affidavit, in order to authenticated such documents. This affidavit explains the manner in and means by which captured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trial. I shall not burden the court with reading it as it is substantially the same as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a moment.
I have thus far explained the manner of authentication documents to be used in this case which were processed under the direction of Major Coogan. I now come to the authentication of documents processed not for the IMT trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. These documents are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which I offer in evidence as Prosecution exhibit 2. Since this affidavit explains the procedure of processing documents by Office of Chief of Counsel for war crimes, I shall read it in full:
"I, FRED NIEBERGALL, A.G.O. D-150636, of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:
1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "CCC") on 2 October 1946.
2. I have served in the U.S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the U.S. of America. Based upon my experience as a U.S. Army Officer, I am familiar with the operation of the U.S. Army in connection with seizing and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for CCC form 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and Translation Division of CCC as assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, CCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel.
3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "IT") a great number of original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nurnberg, Germany. Major Coogan's affidavit of 19 November 1945 describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I received custody, in the course of official business, of all these documents except the ones which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nurnberg.
Some have been screened, processed, and registered in accordance with Major Coogan's affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining have been screened, processed, and registered for us in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below.
5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals. Lawyers and Research Analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German speaking analysts, either at the document center or in Nurnberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.
6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these document, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification number in one of six series designated by the letters: "NC", "NI", "NM", "NOKW", "NG", and "NP", indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents were listed numerically.
7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the Photostat Room, the original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the Document Room.
In the case of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.
8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are new located in safes in the Document Room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the Prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.
9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above states, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.
Signed: FRED NEIBERGALL".
The Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan affidavit which was accepted by the International Military Tribunal as sufficient authentication of documents used in Case No. 1. However, in addition to these affidavits, the prosecution in this case will attach to each document submitted in evidence, ether than self-proving documents such as affidavits signed by the defendants, a certificate signed by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows:
"I, Donald spencer, of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the attached document, consisting of one photostated page and entitled, 'Letter from John Doe to Richard Rod, dated 19 June 1943' is the original of a document which was delivered to me in my above capacity, in the usual course of official business, as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records and files captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force.
To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the original document is at the Berlin Document Center".
So much for the authentication of documents to be presented in this trial I turn now briefly to the distribution of documents which we will use. The prosecution made available to the Defendants' Information Center approximate a week ago three photostatic copies of the great bulk of the documents which will be used in our case-in-chief. These documents are of course in German. In addition, the prosecution has prepared document books in both German and English which contain, for the most part, mimeographed copies of the document arranged substantially in the order in which they will be presented in this court. Each document book contains an index giving the document number, description, and page number. A space is also provided for writing in the index number.
Twelve official copies of the German document books will be filed in the Defendants' Information Center at least 24 hours prior to the time that particular material will be introduced in court. In addition, defense counsel will receive seven so-called unofficial German document books, which will contain mimeograph copies prepared primarily for the German Press.
Five official copies of the German document books will be presented to the tribunal -- that part should read 6, your Honor -- one for each of the Justices on the bench and one for the Secretary General. Two of such document books will contain photostatic copies in order that the Tribunal may from time to time refer to the original. Document books will also be made available to the German interpreters and court reporters.
The English document books will contain certified translations of the documents in the German document books. The documents will be numbered and indexed identically in both the English and German versions. The Defendants' Information Center will receive four copies of the English document books at the same time the corresponding German document book is delivered. A representative group of the defense attorneys have agreed that four of the English document books is sufficient to meet their needs.
The Tribunal will receive six English document books and sufficient copies will also be made available to the interpreters and court reporters. Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will thereafter be made available to the Press.
The prosecution will sometimes have occasion to use documents which have just been discovered and are not in document books. In such cases we will try to have copies in the Defendants' Information Center a reasonable time in advance of their use in court. Now, I must point out to your Honors, and I do so without any embarrassment, that there will surely be some instances during the course of this trial when the prosecution falls to comply with one or the other of the court's rulings in view of the fact that few of our personnel were here to obtain experience and training in the technicalities in the course of case No. 1 before the International Military Tribunal, but be that as it may, we shall constantly endeavor to present our case as fairly, a clearly and as expeditiously as is humanly possible.
The prosecution, when presenting a document in court, will physically hand the original, or the certified photostatic copy serving as the original to the clerk of the Tribunal, and give the document a Prosecution Exhibit number.
In the IMT trial, the usual practice, to which there were many exception was that only those documents or portions of documents which had been read aloud in court were considered to be in evidence and part of the record. No this was due to the fact that the IMT trial was conducted in four (4) languages and only through that method were translations in all four (4) languages ordinarily available. However, the IMT Tribunal ruled several times, for example on 17 December 1945, in the original English document at pages 1054 and 1055 that documents which had been translated into all four languages and made available to defense counsel in the Defendants' Information Center were admissible in evidence without being read in full.
The prosecution believed that, under the circumstances of this trial, which will be conducted in German and English only, and will all the prosecution's documents translated into German, it will be both expeditious and fair to dispense with the reading in full of all documents or portions of documents. The prosecution will read some documents in full, particularly in the early stages of the trial, but will endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when possible, or otherwise calling the attention of the Tribunal to such passages therein as are deemed important and relevant.
With respect to the order of trial, the prosecution intends to follow, to a large degree, the order in which the various experiments are set forth in the Indictment. There will be some exceptions to that; for instance, we will present the Sea Water Experiments, the proof of Sea Water Experiments following the Malaria Experiments, which will be third in order, and in time we will move to the proof of reading the Lost Gas Experiments because of the overla ping of the testimony of certain witnesses. In so far as possible, we will deavor to present all f the evidence relating to a particular experiment at the same time. This will be impossible, of curse, where the testimony of witness overlaps several experiments.
Before proceeding to the introduction of evidence on the substantive crimes charged in the Indictment, the prosecution would like to admit proof the positions held by the defendants. For this purpose we have secured affidavits from the defendants giving their personal histories. During the curse of the presentation of these affidavits, there will be occasion to discuss the organizations within which certain of the defendants were active, such as the medical service of the Armed Forces, the Luftwaffe, or the SS. In order that the Tribunal may more easily comprehend these rather complicated organization we have had charts prepared and signed by certain of the defendants who held an important office within the particular organization. These charts have been enlarged for use in the court room and with the Tribunal's permission they will be placed at the appropriate time on the screen behind the witness box. One of them is now there. The court room charts are reproductions of charts which will be submitted in evidence except that they do not show the certification by the defendants or any notes which may be on the original. This matter is, of course, included in translations, which your Honor, has been received. Mr. Horlick-Hockwald, one of our associate prosecutors, will assist in the presentation by using a pointer to indicate the particular part of the chart under discussion. I shall discuss together those of the defendants who were active in the same organization and the chart of that organization will then be before the Tribunal.
I would first like to take up the defendants Karl Brandt and Restock who worked together in the Office of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Services. I offer Document No.165, as Prosecution Exhibit 3, which is the chart of organization of the Office of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Services. Karl Brandt was the Reich Commissioner and he has drawn this chart for us.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution offered in evidence the two documents which he refers to as Coogan and Niebergall?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir; the Coogan affidavit went in as Prosecution's Exhibit 1, which authenticates all documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, it has been formally offered in evidence?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir; the procedure is that I will give the particular evidence an identification number such as the one I just called out, which is document number No. 645. That is the identification number which was given this document in the Document Control Branch. I then call off this as Prosecution's Exhibit such-and-such.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood you to refer to them by identification numbers, but I did not remember that they had been formally offered in evidence.
MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir; we certainly intended to do that, both the Coogan affidavit and the Niebergall affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume, as in any court, they must be admitted by the court in evidence. They have been offered but not admitted; is that correct?
MR. MCHANEY: That is very correct, your Honor. However, the procedure has normally been that in offering them, unless there is no objection raised at that time they will be considered to be admitted. In other words, at least, before the International Military Tribunal, the Tribunal did not make a formal ruling on the admissibility of each document as it went in.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a new procedure to me.
MR. McHANEY: Sir, that is a new procedure as far as I am concerned but it was so during the last time. In the Prosecution's identification, if any defendant has any objection to the admission of documents in evidence, that the objection may be stated at that time.
If no defendant registers any objection to the admission of a document in evidence it will be assumed that there is no objection.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, in the trial before the International Military Tribunal such a procedure was used as the representative of the Prosection has been saying. It has led to some difficulties because nobody knew when an objection should be raised to a document such as No-645, which has now been presented as Exhibit 3. I have no objections to raise against it now, but I do not know when I should raise then.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first dispose of Exhibits 1 and 2, Coogan and Niebergall affidavits, which have not yet been admitted in evidence. Is there any objection on any part of the defendants to admitting in evidence Exhibits 1 and 2?
(No objection raised)
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no objection, Exhibit 1 and 2 will be received in evidence. Now, you are offering Exhibit 3?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, Your Honor. And, to say a few words on this point for the Prosecution -- The Prosecution will have no objection whatsoever to any Defense Counsel coming in at any time and objecting to the admissibility of any document which we will here present. In other words, I am not inclined to take the position that any Defense Counsel waves his right to object to any of our documents simply because he does not do so at the time it is offered.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but it might be much easier if the objections were argued at the time the documents were offered rather than go back an hour or two hours and pick out some document which has been passed.
MR. McHANEY: Yes, sir; I understand, your Honor. I think, however, we will find that relatively few objections will be raised, certainly as to the authenticity of the documents, which in my opinion, is the substantial point. Any other objection would run to the materiality of the documents as against a particular defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The objections are, of course, equally important as to the authenticity?