Whom did he help? And so he stayed; stayed with his unbearable protest."
Is it true that this quotation from your article was published in your pamphlet?
A Yes.
DR. FROESCMANN: Then I have no further questions.
JUDGE SEBRING: The Court would like to direct a suggestion to counsel who has just been interrogating the witness that perhaps for the sake of the record the title and the authorship of the book which has been referred to should be read into the record.
DR. FROESCMANN: Your Honor, I am glad to comply with this wish. The book is published by the witness who has just been examined, Werner Leibbrand, with the collaboration of five other men and women. The title is the Human Rights of the Insane, "Um Die Menschenrechte der Geisteskranken." The book was published by the publishing company, "Die Ecke," in Nurnberg in 1946. Does the President want any more information about this book?
JUDGE SEBRING: That is the information the Tribunal desired. That is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to ask Dr. Servatius a question. Dr. Servatius, counsel for defendant Karl Brandt, referred to an article in an American magazine named "Life." It will be advisable to read into the record the date and the number of the magazine from which the doctor road.
DR. SERVATIUS: This is a copy of the magazine of the 4th of June, 1945, Volume 18, Number 23. It is an American magazine, copyright Pan American, copyright convention.
THE PRESIDENT: That information is sufficient to identify tho magazine. The Tribunal would ask the counsel whether or not he proposes to offer this magazine in evidence during the case when Karl Brandt is presenting his case.
DR. SERVATIUS: I would offer it now as Karl Brandt Document No. 1 and submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: The magazine should at this time be marked as defendant Brandt's Identification 1.
DR. SERVATIUS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Brandt understands that this simply identifies this document and that later on if counsel desires to offer the document in evidence it should then be formally offered into evidence?
Does counsel for defendant Brandt understand what I just said? Counsel signified that he did understand what the Tribunal meant.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FLEMMING: (for defendant Mrugowsky)
Q. Professor, in answer to the last question of Servatius, my colleague Servatius, you asked if such experiments could be conducted on guinea-pigs. Do you remember that? Are you aware that there are quite a number of problems which cannot be solved by animal experiments but only by experiments on human beings?
A Naturally.
Q. Is the handling of such problems essential for the development of medicine and the good of humanity?
A. That is the purpose of making physiological experiments on human beings.
Q Professor, do you knew of experiments on human beings carried out in medicine? Have you studied them in enough detail to have a good knowledge of this subject, and are you able to say to what extent such experiments have been conducted so that you can judge them from the point of view of many medical men, not only from your own ethical standpoint?
A I think that this question is a question for a specialist who works on experiment, some therapeutical matters; and I don't think that I can make any final answer in that respect as a medical historian.
Q have you studied this subject in enough detail to be informed not only of what has been published on the subject but what has been published so that only an expert could understand it?
A No.
Q Professor, do you know that in the case of scarlet fever vaccines from scarlet fever toxin there is no possibility of testing it on animals and that for that reason in many foreign countries it is tested in children's clinics and on human beings?
A I think it is possible.
Q Are you aware that such decisions were not decided upon in Germany and that consequently there is uncertainty that ineffective vaccines were used and in the other hand dangerous vaccines were used: the danger of these vaccines was realized only when they were used?
Were not valuable human lives lost and was there not considerable damage to health?
A I am not quite familiar with these questions in detail. These are questions which belong to experimental therapy and I cannot say anything final about them.
Q Professor, do you know of the prophylaxis experiments in sleeping sickness? Do you know that negroes were hired as subjects?
A I don't know anything about the latter; but the first is basically right.
Q Do you know that in such an important disease as malaria, work on reagent and animal experiments are impossible because the disease cannot be transferred to the animal and the germ cannot be cultivated; and consequently in almost all civilized countries, were not experimental subjects used, experiments conducted on human beings in malaria, primarily on insane persons by therapeutic malaria infections but also on hundreds of experimental subjects?
A. Already this morning I referred to the literature of Dr. Moll and aside from that I know the malaria experiments here mentioned to me and also these examples which you have just mentioned which are quite well known to me.
Q. Professor, are you aware that in the old syphilis and gonorrhea research human experiments were primarily a part of the research, and that the French Government issued an order for experiments on human beings?
A. I know these things partly from the literature of the French Philroye.
Q. Are you aware Professor that Joseph Gruenberger with approval conducted experiments on twelve persons or prisoners, who in the case of survival were promised a pardon, and that he conducted pellegra experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that Adler, a prize winner of the Royal Society for Tropical Disease and Hygiene in 1940 infected five cancer patients with kala agar and that all five died?
A. This case occurred in 1940 and is not known to me, but it is analogous to other cases which came from the literature of Moll.
Q. Are you aware that Heymann, Heilbrunn and Gungnanu, treated three paralytics through inter-cerrebral penicillin treatment, that they treated three paralytics and that all three died?
A. I do not know about these cases. Probably I have not all of the foreign literature at my disposal.
Q. Are you aware that Vief and Stocks in the United States had infected two hundred fifty persons with hepatitis epidemica with well water, in these cases to test the role of water as a carrier of the virus?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that in the sleeping sickness research human experiments are available?
A. I know about experiments on human beings suffering from sleeping sickness.
Q. Is it true that in sleeping sickness it is possible to experiment on animals?
A. That is a special question which I cannot answer.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that in the case of Papatacci fever experiments can be conducted only on human beings and that there are many reports of such experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that basis yellow fever research up to 1903, in this very dangerous disease, was exclusively based on human experiments, a large number of human experiments?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that in typhus research aside from some old Russian experiments human experiments were conducted in Mexico by Otero, in Indo China by Yersin, in Algiers by Sergent, in Turkey by Hamdi and in Poland by Sparrow?
A. I think that is possible even though I do not know the individual disease, but it covers what I have generally told about the subject.
Q. Are you aware, Professor, that Troum infected prisoners with living plague bacilla?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware that dysentery experiments were conducted on human beings?
A. No, I don't know anything about these special cases.
Q. Are you aware or do you remember from the First World War that the official English and American commissions investigating five day fever, worked to a large extent on human beings?
A. No.
Q. Are you acquainted with any reports of infection experiments in leporsy?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware that in America internees and recruits were artificially infected with measles?
A. In all countries of the world such infection experiments were carried out in the second half of the 19th century.
Q. If all of these experiments, Professor, were actually conducted, and also as you said this morning, and as Moll's book shows, about six hundred works are published, in which there are thousands of such experiments described, must not one say that the question of experiments on human beings under certain conditions is judged differently by other circles of medical men as you judge it from an ethical point of view.
A. That I cannot say since Moll at the end of his work writes it is apart of the morality of a physician that he holds back his natural research urge in order to maintain his basic medical attitude which is laid down in the oath of Hippocrates and which may result in doing harm to his patient.
Q. But in your opinion, Professor, how should a doctor do work in the interest of suffering humanity in cases where, as you have just said, there is no possibility of experiments on humans?
A. The concept of humanity is a very dangerous concept. It is most dangerous for the physician. Above all humanity for the physician there is the individual, and the individual unfortunately was very low in these last few years.
Q. I believe that you have not quite answered my question. I asked: How do you think the doctor is to work, even in the interest of the individual, how is he to clear up questions which cannot be tested on humans and in a test tube as is the case in malaria, for instance, problems which must be cleared up if he is to help his suffering patients?
A. That is naturally a very difficult question, but it will always be of major importanqe, but there must be a certain limit to a risk.
Q. Thank you. Now I come to another point. This morning, Professor, you expressed disapproval about a book which the defendant Mrugowsky wrote. May I ask, have you read this book?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know Mrugowsky personally?
A. No.
Q. Then you do not know his ethical point of view?
A. I said that it was a joke of world history, the quite ironical joke of world history, that the medical ethics of Hufeland were quoted in the form of an excerpt from his writings with a few connecting words and that those quotations were combined in a little volume, and that on the other hand we know in what organization of degradation he was connected with these deeds, which I am questioning here, and I am only speaking about the degradation and not the objective guilt which has not been proven yet.
Q. And is there anything except the facts with which he is charged here?
A. In the final analysis he was still the Chief of the SS Hygienic System, and what the basic medical ethics for the SS were has become historically clear to me in the course of the last few years, and between these two sectors I think there is a large gap, that is the SS medical ethics of Mr. Haupthold. I may perhaps understand that a man like Mr. Haupthold could be lead to a one sided practice of police medicine and could get excited about it, but I could not understand how the SS ethics could be brought into connection with the ethics of William Christian Huefeland.
Q. Professor, you just told us you do not know Mrugowsky at all?
A. No.
Q. Then how can you express a judgment on his personal ethical attitude? You are judging only from the fact that he belongs to the SS. Before you express such a definite opinion as you are doing, as you talked of a joke of world history, must you not first know the personal attitude of the person you are criticizing, and is it not quite possible that a person personally had such an attitude as expressed in this book?
A. I don't believe that one can hold a leading position in the SS and then talk about such ethics if one does not act in ethical cases in what is called double bookkeeping?
Q. But you admitt that is a poor opinion based in no form on a personal knowledge of the person whom you criticized?
A. I do not know Mr. Mrugowsky.
Q. Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel on cross examination?
DR. TIEFENBACH: Dr. Tiefenbach, defense counsel for the defendant Dr. Schaefer.
BY DR. TIEFENBACH:
Q. Witness, I have the following questions to put to you in connection with your statements about the persecution of Jews, of Jewish physicians. In 1938, was it dangerous to quote Jewish authors in scientific writings?
A. That varied considerably. One can be fortunate and one could be unfortunate. I personally remember that as a collaborator and co-worker of the "Frankfurter Zeitung" I once made the attempt to quote the name of my Swiss friend Ludwig Binzwanger in a scientific article, who was only half-aryan, and then the editors struck out that name.
Q. Do you believe that aside from the removal of such quotations by the editors, there would have been any further consequences or had to be any further consequences for a person who cited such a Jewish author in a medical scientific writing? Can you give any examples to this?
A. As far as I take it, you are only referring to the time of 1938.
Q. Yes, that is '33, '34, but up to '38 -- I am asking specifically about such an advance period as 1938.
A. With reference to the first years, I would not think that it was so terribly dangerous; in the year of 1938 it was much more dangerous. As for individual examples as the case of Binzwanger, I cannot think of any.
Q. Would you have considered it unusual if at that time in 1938 you had seen Jewish authors quoted in a scientific writing?
A. Yes, it would have been very unusual.
Q. Yes; and would you assume that a physician who, as late as 1938 quoted Jewish authors in his writings, that this physician agreed with the National Socialist system, in particular, that he would approve of experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A. Now, Doctor, how can one answer such a question. One has nothing to do with the other since there is no such connection in the life of a personality. It is completely illogical.
Q. So that it is not absolutely necessary that the physician who quotes a Jew, who at the same time expresses that he does not identify himself with the system?
A. They are the most remarkable things which may run parallel to one another.
DR. TIEFENBACH: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by defense counsel? Do counsel for the prosecution have any matter with which they can occupy a few minutes?
MR. HARDY: I have four or five questions to put to the witness, your Honor, on redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Professor, you have stated that the attendance of young physicians was not mandatory in the Fuehrer School of German Physicians. Now, I ask you, was it not a command performance, so to speak, for a young physician to attend Blome's school so that he might be able to proceed successfully in his profession?
A. The latter is naturally very probable. I remember similarly that the same was the case with the Reich Labor Service. There were a number of a colleagues who thought that this entire affair was very horrible but they made a show for the outside; they went there and they said it was a very nice life and knew very well that it would be advantageous for their career. I should like to see that young physician who at that time did not try to create such an impression in the interest of furthering his career.
Q. Now, Professor, you mentioned the film "I Accuse." Have you seen it?
A. I did not see the film but I know its contents.
Q. What did it show, Doctor?
A. The film showed, as far as I remember, that a human being who is suffering from an incurable multiple sclerosis should, be killed rather than kept alive and the propagandistic technique of that film was very dangerous for the reason that in a suggestive manner the public was, so-called, asked to take part in the decision so that the help of the public was enlisted in the aid of that decision and should spontaneously arrive at a decision but beyond that, I can say from my experience gained by my neurological practices, that ever since the day that film was shown, the word "multiplesclerosis" was no longer mentioned by me as a physician since I could no longer stand to mention this designation of a disease to my patients.
This film had a catastrophic suggestive effect on all laymen and patients.
Q. Do you know by whom this film was distributed?
A. That is not known to me. I do not remember it.
Q. Would you say that this film was medically or scientifically a sound and reasonable document?
A. No. Under multiple sclerosis there are just as many cases which would have been improved and cured, such as tuberculosis cases that can be cured and such as chronic alcoholics who can be cured and it was an intentional maliciousness if such a case was taken out and in such a manner propagated among the public.
Q. Then you would describe it, Doctor, as merely propaganda; is that correct?
A. Yes. As far as I knew, there was a film department with the Ministry of Propaganda where a physician collaborated and I think his name was Tomalla.
Q. Now, Doctor, do you know of any other such films?
A. I know another historical film which also shows a similar trend, the Robert Koch film, where the personality of one of our greatest German pathologists Robert Koch was distorted in an almost unbelievable manner. At that time, in the interest of Rudolf Virchow, I wrote an article in order to protest against this one-sided description. His son was living at the time. Geheimrat Hans Virchow thanked me for it for trying to save the honor of his father.
Q. Now, Professor, do you know anything about the Euthenasia Program as it operated in Germany from the latter part of 1939 on?
A. I only made the experience of the practicing psychiatrist; that is to say, I know the slow development of the transporting away of the insane to extermination camps and I know the suffering of the members of the families of the patients who had to fear being included in that action.
The consequence was that I far years, have made the attempt to knowingly falsifying of the patients which were given to my care and so saved them from such a fate as far as possible. It has not only referred to Euthenasia but it also referred to the sterilization measures for years and I admit that today, I protected my patients by, for instance, designating schizophrenia as another disease and that thereby I designated epileptic cases as merely "Klam" (?) cases and further, a number of so-called, "melancholics" I saved by calling it a different name in order to save my patients from sterlization or a fate even worse; namely, that of the extermination camps.
Q. I have one further question, Doctor. Then, in summing up, I would say or I may assume that the type of Euthenasia practiced by the Nazis in the Euthenasia Program from 1939 on was not that type of Euthenasia of which you have expressed a limited approval here today; is that correct?
A. No.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, the Tribunal is interested in knowing whether this film by the accused or similar films which have been referred to here in testimony, had any official governmental genesis or approval or authorization or whether they were merely private ventures?
MR. HARDY: I put that question to the witness, your Honor, and he said that he did not know who the distributor was. I think we can clear that up, however, but the film, I believe, has been requested by the defense counsel in their case.
JUDGE SEBRING: That is the reason I am asking the question.
MR. HARDY: The official government sanction is a matter that at the present time I am not able to answer, whether or not it is an official government film. I asked the witness that question and he doesn't know either. I have no further questions on redirect, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do my of the defense counsel heve any further questions for the witness in regard to the questions recently asked?
DR. FROESCHMANN: (Counsel for Viktor Brack). Mr. President, on the basis of the redirect examination, I have two more questions to put to the witness.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q. Professor, you were the head of a mental institution. In your opinion, are there insane persons with a lack of consciousness, of understanding, or on the very lowest intellectual level whose mental understanding does not go above the animal level?
A. That is a question which goes beyond the medical framework. We can only judge on the basis f reactions with reference to various degrees of animal life. We are not justified, however, to consider this comparison as the only one valid. The possibility that a change occurs is always there and therefore, there is no possibility to answer this question in such a onetrack manner.
Q. Are there not cases in which after years, if not decades, of observation in the insane asylums where any prospect of improvement is out of the question?
A. Certainly, there are such cases but there is also the contrary; for instance, there are cases of schizophrenia who, even after fifteen or twenty years, one day suddenly for quite unknown reasons come back to health. There are a number of incurable psychopathic case who cannot cope with life and could never live socially outside the walls of an institution and who then suddenly in their last hours after a physical disease show themselves ready to communicate with the outside world, something which they never had during their lives before. All these things do occur in medicine.
Q. And, now, Professor, supposing that one could decide whether a case of insanity was incurable or not, do you consider a unanimous affirmative answer to this question by a number of medical specialists independent of each other, do you consider this adequate to present the factor of human error? Did you understand my question?
A. May I consider it for a moment? Maybe you could repeat the last part of your sentence.
Q. The last part was, whether you consider such a combination of several medical specialists, psychiatrists or some other field, completely independent of each other, who answer this question of incurability in the affirmative, do you consider this an adequate basis for declaring this patient incurable?
A. As a philosopher I would still have my doubts then.
Q. And as a doctor?
A. I would go by the fact but I would not draw and consequences from that which go over the limits of the Oath of Hippocrates.
Q. In his philosophical answer -- I gather that theoretically you answered my question in the affirmative although practically you would not participated in such an undertaking?
A. Yes.
Q. My last question. May I conclude that there are cases of insanity where release from the sufferings is desirable from the human point of view and in which the physician alone is in a position to bring about this release?
A. That is not a medical question; it is a theological question.
Q. I asked you this question because you were just speaking from the philosophical point of view and I assumed that on the basis of your rich experience which you have demonstrated today, you are competent to judge this question in the field of philosophical and theological questions. That is why I asked the question. Would you please answer it?
A. I believe that the concept of release has to be discussed in further detail. Release is not only release from suffering and finally I must point out that I think it is a very questionable symptom of a modern human being when he can do nothing with human suffering but make the attempt to do away with this suffering. Herein, I think, is one of the most dangerous moments of the physicians of this time. The suffering up to the Nineteenth Century in the Western countries and in the entire cultivated world has had another meaning but only the meaning that is to be eliminated.
Q. And what about the therapy of hopeless cases?
A. I don't quite understand your question.
Q. What do you think of hopeless therapy? If you are of the opinion that the therapy is hopeless, then what is to be done with the patients?
A. As long as a human being breaths, I as a physician would still try, even considering the most hopeless therapy when according to my practical experience I have to assume that it would be useless.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions. Mr. President, may I answer a question of the Judge concerning the film "I Accuse"?
THE PRESIDENT: You may answer the question.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In Germany no film could be shown to the public without the approval of the Propaganda Ministry. Therefore, if the film "I Accuse', if the witness knows about this film, even by hearsay, then one can assume with certainty that this film had the approval of the Propaganda Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions of this witness on recross examination by defense counsel? Very well, the witness will be excused and the Court will recess until nine thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 January 1947, at 0930 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 28 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in the dock.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendant Oberhouser is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any information, Mr. Marshal, as to whether the absence of the defendant Oberheuser is merely temporary or whether the defendant will be absent for any period of time?
THE MARSHAL: I don't nave any information as to whether it is temporary or permanent, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for the defendant Oberheuser present? Has counsel for the defendant any information on that point?
DR. SEIDL (attorney for the defendant Oberheuser): Yesterday evening I talked with the defendant Oberheuser. Yesterday evening she was still in the best of health. I assume that she is only temporarily ill. I do not have any more exact information.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that the temporary absence of the defendant Oberheuser from the Court Room will in no wise jeopardize her case. Is that the true of counsel?
DR. SEIDL: That is also my opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness. The only information given to the Tribunal is that this absence will probably be temporary, and as the opinion of the counsel for the defendant Oberheuser and the Tribunal is that her absence at this time will not jeopardize the interests of the defendant Oberheuser, the trial will proceed.
The Marshal will endeavor to procure further information by the opening of the afternoon session as to the physical condition of the defendant Oberheuser.
Counsel for the prosecution may proceed.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution would like to have the Tribunal take judicial notice of a motion picture film which was exhibited to the International Military Tribunal. The title of this film is "Nazi Concentration Camps". One part of this film, which originally ran some two hours, deals with the euthanasia institute, Hadamar, about which the Tribunal has heard considerable testimony in this case.
We have excerpted that portion of the film and we would like at this time to exhibit it to the Tribunal. We ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice rather than offering the film as an exhibit because it would entail considerable difficulty to obtain a print of this portion of the film. And I think by taking judicial notice of the film the necessity of the case will be met.
Before exhibiting the film I would like to read a certificate made by Howard J. McCracken. It reads as follows:
"I, Howard J. McCracken, Captain, Army, U.S., Serial Number 01055665, do hereby certify that: 1. I am on active duty as the officer in charge of the Reproduction Division in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, APO 124-A. I have held this position since the inception of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes under Brigadier General Telford Taylor and previously held the same position in the Office of Chief of Counsel under Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson.
"2. The film which is about to be shown is a true and correct copy of extracts from the film "Nazi Concentration Camps", which was introduced in evidence before the International Military Tribunal in the case of the United States against Goering, Hess, et al, as USA Exhibit Number 79.
"3. Such extracts concerning the institution at Hadamar and were taken from the aforesaid film "Nazi Concentration Camps" under my direction and supervision. These extracts have not been altered, distorted, or changed in any manner.
Signed, Howard J. McCracken." "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of January 1947, Florence M. Rowand, Captain, AC, Adjutant, OCC."
The film itself is otherwise self proving since it contains at the beginning of the film two affidavits by persons who were connected with the making of the film itself.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take judicial notice of the film as suggested by counsel for the prosecution.
There being no objection to the showing of the film, the prosecution will proceed.
(An excerpt from the film "Nazi Concentration Camps" was then shown to the court.)
MR. McHANEY: I would now like to submit for the approval of the Tribunal the certificate made by General Taylor with respect to the right of certain employees of the Office of Chief of Counsel to administer oaths for the purpose of taking interrogations and affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I will return the original certificate to the SecretaryGeneral. Will you take this certificate.
(The certificate was handed to the Secretary-General.)
THE PRESIDENT: Have copies of this certificate been referred to Defense Counsel?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, they have, Your Honor, in German. The certificate reads as fellows:
"This certificate is made for the purpose of showing the authority of certain of the personnel of the Office Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to administer oaths and properly to attest these affidavits which were admitted provisionally by Military Tribunal I in United States against Karl Brandt, et "Pursuant to Executive Order 9547, 2 May 1945, attached hereto as Tab A Executive Order 9679, 16 January 1946, attached hereto as Tab B, Memorandum No. 15 of the Office Chief of Counsel, 20 March 1946, attached hereto as Tab C, General Order No. 301 of the Military Governor, 24 October 1946, attached hereto as Tab D, and letter, USFET, 24 October 1946, Subject:
Appointment of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, attached hereto as Tab E, I am authorized and have been since 29 March 1946 to prepare and prosecute charges of atrocities and war crimes against leaders of the European Axis Powers and their accessories.
"In the discharges of the responsibilities conferred on me by the above mentioned orders and instructions, I have authorized and detailed members of my staff who are engaged with me in the preparation and prosecution of cases, including attorneys, interrogators and other investigators and agents of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to conduct and investigations to administer oaths.
"Among those whom I have authorize to conduct interrogations and investigations and to administer oaths, with the effective date of their authorization, are the following personnel of the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes:
"Walter H. Rapp, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification Number B-416367, Director of Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 26 May 1946.
"Herbert H. Meyer, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. A-441694, Interrogator, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 15 July, 1946.
"Fred Rodell, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. B-432569, Interrogator, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 10 July 1946.
"Henry Sachs, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. A-44168, Research Analyst, SS Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 15 July 1946.
"Guy Favarger, Neutral Citizen, AGO Identification No. 20071, Research Analyst, SS Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 15 October 1946.
"Alfred H. Booth, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. X-046254, Research Analyst, Economics Divisions, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 29 March 1946.
"Ivan E. DeVries, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. A-442938, Interregator, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 23 August 1946.
"Ralf Gartenberg, U.S. Civilian, AGO Identification No. D-090064, Interregator, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, authorized 5 October 1946.