He informed me that the courts-martial within his command had at no time, not even under the authority of the regulation of the 27th December 1941, considered imprisonment generally a sufficient punishment for the illegal possession of hunting-weapons. The only correct interpretation is that, before the decision of the chief of the Supreme command of the Wehrmacht to judge, as a matter of principle, the possession of hunting-weapons the same as the possession of other weapons, the possession of hunting-weapons was always judged more leniently. In individual cases and if the circumstances of the case justified it, prison sentences were also pronounced. After the above mentioned decision of the chief of the supreme command of the Wehrmacht the courts-martial, however, discontinued this more lenient judgment for the possession of hunting-weapons. If prison sentences for the possession of weapons are still pronounced today, these are cases where extraordinary circumstances justify a milder judgment.
I ask you to notify the special court of the foregoing and to emphasize particularly that the special court, when judging the possession of huntingweapons, is to proceed according to my decree of the 13th of July 1943, even if it is to be judged according to the regulation of the 27th of December 1941.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Prosecution offers now NG-482 as No. 80.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Are the documents in Document Book 3-D available? 1-D, I beg your pardon.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Do you wish to read from it, sir?
MR LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I wish to make a few comments with reference to the way the prosecution will treat the Richter briefs, which are contained in this document. They are documents which are numbered NG-298, at page 3; NG-315, at page 12; NG-321 at page 74.
The prosecution will offer these documents in evidence, with the exception of the first one, NG-298, which we will discuss briefly and separately.
The Richter briefs, or judges' letters, which make up the documents are prepared in the following manner; First, the factual background of the cases discussed are given chronologically and under sub-headings. Thereafter, under the same sub-headings and following this same chronology, the opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice upon the decisions made and the penalties fixed in the cases cited are given. For this reason it is most difficult, without available indexes, for the members of the Tribunal to turn from any given case to the discussion of the same case by the Minister of Justice. Therefore, we have prepared separate indexes for each of these documents, headed separately, which will be submitted to the Tribunal as an aid to it in reading the Richter briefs readily and in thereafter following any reading which may be made from these documents by the counsel for the defendants when they introduce their case in chief. These indexes will be separately distributed to the Bench as we introduce each of these documents.
I am sure when Your Honors get to reading this document book and these documents, we will incur your everlasting blessing for having done this work. It took me about two days--maybe I am stupid--to find out just how to do this.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these indexes been shown to the defense counsel?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Well, the defense counsel will understand by looking at them, that I need not show them to them. I mean, there is nothing secret; this is an aid to the Court. I don't intend to read anything, but it occurs to me that hereafter the defense counsel may want to read; or the members of the Bench, who of course are not bound by what we read, will want to read these briefs intelligently.
The aid that I am supplying is one which Your Honors may use as you study these briefs, or which will enable defense counsel later, by their references, to make it more readily available.
If, within the next few weeks, or before they get to their case in chief, the present load on our secretarial staff eases up, I will attempt, as a matter of courtesy, to furnish one or two copies of this index to defense counsel.
However, I did not intend to read them now, and I am sure defense counsel understand that there is nothing secret or bad about this.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): The defense probably will want to produce many judges' letters, and it is in the interest of the defense to point out that the Reich Ministry of Justice also criticized too severe judgments. The excerpts which are now submitted by the prosecution are concerned with criticisms by the Ministry regarding judgments which were considered too mild.
If the prosecutor has promised us very kindly to put at our disposal an index of these letters as soon as the defense is ready to submit its case in chief, then I should like to ask for one important favor.
Personally, I have tried to get a complete collection of the judges' letters. However, unfortunately, I could not achieve that. In the library of the Courthouse, as well as in the document center of the IMT, there is no complete collection.
Now I have a great request to make of the prosecution, who perhaps has a complete collection; that is, if it would be possible for the prosecution to let us see this collection in advance so that these difficulties could be removed, difficulties which the defense has in obtaining the judges' letters.
May I perhaps suggest that the gentlemen of the prosecution--if they should possess the judges' letters in the original--would receive a gentleman from the defense and show them to him, or permit him to look through them?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I believe, first, that since the letters have been-I believe photostatic copies of original documents are sent to the defense center. To that extent, the defense counsel are ahead of me, because I just saw these a few days ago.
So far as I know, I don't know of a full set of Richter briefs anywhere. If they can be found, if they are available, I have certainly no objection to the defense using them.
Since the discussion has come up, I think, since Dr. Schilf has opened it, I am justified in making my first comment on the character with which, or the purpose for which, we introduce the evidence.
These briefs are introduced for the purpose, as far as the prosecution is concerned, of showing that there was a direct direction by the Ministry of Justice to the judges. The effect of it is in the letters themselves. There is no question, as I have read those that we introduced, t at in certain cases the Minister at that time, Dr. Thierack, declared that certain court decisions were too severe. For my purpose, the issue is not that in these letters any particular case amounted to a violation or a crime of which the defendants are charged; but they are introduced for the purpose of showing that there was a direct connection and a direct, active relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the presiding judges.
The table which I have introduced, as I say, is purely--if Your Honors haven't read this document yet, you don't know what you are up against. But if you have attempted to, you will find that these tables are purely to permit you to turn from one page to the other.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. LaFollette, you are not offering anything as evidence, are you? You are simply offering a memorandum to connect the different documents together.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes. When I offer the documents, I am simply giving the Court a memorandum which will assist it to understand the documents. It certainly will assist. By way of illustration, before I have introduced the exhibit, if Your Honors will turn to page 40 of book D-I am sorry I don't have the German paging--you will find there, at the top of the page, a sub-heading, "Twenty-one Prohibited Association with Prisoners of War.
Some sentences passed in 1942."
That whole document is 15 pages long. You will notice number one, "The shorthand typist of a machine factory..." and so forth. Now that is the statement of that case. The Reich Minister's discussion of it occurs at page 47 of the English, beginning at the bottom of the page, where it says, "The typist B, who opposed the continuous advances of the prisoner of War..."
Now, without this index that I am furnishing--which I sat up a couple of hours late to finally work out--Your Honors would have a most difficult time in ever reading this intelligently. All I am doing is furnishing an aid. It is not evidence; it is not anything. But I don't know what all the disturbance is about all the work I did trying to make things easy.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger): I should like to re-emphasize the request of Dr. Schilf that if possible we should be given an index and, if possible, all the judges' letters, because it is true that a selection is being submitted, a selection made by the prosecution, which of course is likely to, in order to charge the defendants, present only those cases where criticism has been expressed because verdicts have been too mild.
Therefore, on my part, I should like to ask most urgently that the prosecution put at the disposal of the defense, for its examination, the entire material.
The judges' letters, from the point of view of the defense, are also important because, on the part of the individual defense counsel, such as on my own part, it has to be shown for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger that the effect of these letters was in no way always decisive, and decisively the effect that the subordinated officials and courts were giving way to pressure or influence, but, on the contrary, very frequently they made the attempt, and with full success, to put themselves before the judges in the individual districts and, as far as this was possible within the framework of the National Socialist Government, they tried to guarantee freedom of decision and freedom of the judges' responsibility.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I think I am entitled to make one more statement. I want Dr. Wandschneider to hear it.
I am inclined to think that Dr. Wandschneider was pulling my leg a little when he said that all of these cases in here were, as individual cases, what the prosecution would select. I am sure, as an able counsel, he has read NG-321 alone, and if the purpose of the presentation of this evidence were to solely present the Ministry of Justice in the position of demanding more severe sentences, that document alone does not do it.
These documents are here, they are introduced--as I say, this is the first time I have discussed it--on the theory of showing that there was a connection and a direct attempt to direct. Now, it is an ultimate fact of the conception that the right to direct was a part of the plan and enterprise in the system here, which this is evidence of.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, surely.
JUDGE BRAND: Isn't it a fact that what counsel for the defense have asked for, and the only things they have asked for, are, first, that they have made available to them, so far as you can do so, the judges' letters?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: And second, that as soon as you can, you give them a copy of this index?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: And you are willing to do both?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I am willing to do both, surely. I just have to put a girl to typing a little bit more. I would have furnished them copies this morning, a few at least, but we can't do but just so much in so many hours.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that matter has been sufficiently discussed and it is time for a recess.
Do you desire to merely offer your document in evidence at this time?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Since the discussion has come up to the time of the normal recess, I think I will do all that when we reconvene.
THE PRESIDENT: Please make a special note of the fact that our recess this time will be until 1:45.
(A recess was taken, at 1235 hours, until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION "The hearing reconvened at 1345, 11 March 1947)
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The Prosecution will offer as its next exhibit, which will be No. 81, which is found in Book I-D, at page 3 of the English text. I am sorry we have not been able to, at least in this copy of this book, give the corresponding page of the German reference, but I will go slowly. This is a Richterbriefe of 1 October, 1942. The need for an assisting index, to which I referred this morning, is not so great in connection with this document, but it does exist, and I send to the bench four copies of the assisting index with the suggestion that the members of the Tribunal eventually insert them permanently at page three of their respective document books. I shall read briefly from this Richterbriefe; thereafter the rest of them will be introduced more rapidly. I am reading on page three of the English book with the beginning of the letter . "Richterbriefe. Communications of the Reich Minister of Justice. Confidential." If I may speak parenthetically for just a minute, because of certain mechanical needs of the Prosecution, this document is being introduced a little out of the chronological order that we anticipated, but it will be followed by a document which sets for the fact that these briefs, these Richterbriefes are to be sent out.
Reading again from the document: "German Judges.
"According to ancient Germanic interpretation of the Law, the Leader of the nation has always been its supreme judge. When the leader therefore invests and other person with the authority of a judge, this means that the latter not only derives his judicial power from the leader and is responsible to him, but also that leadership and judgeship have related characters.
The judge is therefore also the guardian of the National self-preservation He is the protector of the valuable members of the nation and helps in the annihilation of the unworthy. He orders the events of life, which are diseases in the life of the body of the nation. A strong judgeship is essential to maintain a strong national community.
On account of this task, the judge is the direct assistant of the Leadership of the State. This position renders him prominent, but also shows the limits of his tasks which cannot, as according to a liberal doctrine, lie in the supervision of the Leadership of the State.
For, if a state does not possess an organization which leaves the leadership to those best suited therefore, the administration of justice cannot make good this selection by its activity.
The judge is the embodiment of the living conscience of the nation. Any state is bound to fall if honesty and common sense do not form the standard of values in the national community. It is the task of the Judge to guard over this. In his judgment he must always show this rule.
These tasks make the judge the center of the administration of justice. They show the profession of justice as an original profession - to be compared with that of the farmer and the soldier. These tasks can only be fulfilled by men who are mentally free and honest, and who possess a high sense of responsibility enjoy the responsibility they carry, and answer by their mental and exterior attitude to the imagination which the German people form of a judge. The body of judges must therefore become a corps of judges, which represents a selection of the nation."
I now turn to page 5 of the English text, which in any event will be the last paragraph and the signature of this letter. It is on page 5 of the English text:
"I am convinced that the "Richterbriefe" will essentially contribute to the creation of a uniformly arranged German corps of judges. Berlin, 1 October 1942. Signature, Dr. Thierack, Reich Minister of Justice."
I now turn to page 12 of the English text, and I shall read sub-title 3, Application for Coffee Rations by Jews, and the first paragraph which follows that sub-title. Have defense counsel found the page? (Nods that they have) Decision of a District Court of 24 November 1941.
"In autumn 1940 a special coffee ration was distributed to the population of the town B. Amongst others a large number of Jews applied for this coffee ration, which however they did not receive, as they were excluded from the distribution per se. The food authorities saw in this conduct an offense against the VRStVO and imposed fines on the Jews. Thereupon several hundred Jews appealed against them and asked for a court decision, so that about 500 identical cases were pending simultaneously with the district court in B. The judge informed the food authorities that in his opinion the imposing of fines could not be upheld for legal reasons - one of which was the statute of limitations - and recommended rescinding them.
The food authorities did not share this legal opinion of the judge and refused to rescind the fines, but suggested to the court that it mention only the point of limitation in case the fine should be set a side. Thereupon the court rescinded one of the fines; the other cases were to be dealt with according to prescribed procedure and with reference to this decision."
I now read from page 13 of the English text, which is the top of the page of the English text under the title "Opinion of the Reich Minister of Justice."
"The ruling of the district court, in form and content matter, borders on embarrassing a German administrative authority to the advantage of Jewry. The judge should have asked himself the question: what is the reaction of the Jew to this 20 page long ruling, which certifies that he and the 500 other Jews are right and that he won over a German authority, and does not devote one word to the reaction of our own people to this insolent and arrogant conduct of the Jews. Even if the judge was convinced that the food office had arrived at a wrong judgment of the legal position, and if he could not make up his mind to wait with his decision until the question, if necessary, was clarified by the higher authorities, he should have chosen a form for his ruling which under any circumstances avoided harming the prestige of the food office and thus putting the Jew expressly in the right towards it. The freedom from punishment for the unauthorized coffee registration was, even according to the law then in force, definitely doubtful. The fact that Jews were not entitled to a supply of genuine coffee was self-evident, even if it was not specially mentioned in the official decree. Registration had taken place by giving up a part of the ration card and by having this card stamped. If, considering the special circumstances of this case, this had been construed as an abuse of the right to draw rations, it could have resulted in an affirmation of the punishable character of their act. The impudent, provoked conduct of the Jews would have made it a "particularly serious case." In this case an offense could legally have been assumed. To such an offense a longer statute of limitations would have applied." 408 I jump the short two line paragraph of the English and proceed to the next paragraph which reads as follows:
"Apart from this, it was not necessary to point out to the Jew that he was only one of many members of his race who also had complained. Just as superfluous was the information that the food office in the preceding negotiations had refused to withdraw the fines and that the district attorney, through its refusal to take up the case, had also shown its opposition to the food office. These indications were immaterial to the ruling. The Jew could perforce only have the impression of a dissension between the various authorities."
The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 81, which is Document NG-298 in the Book 1-D.
Again in Book 1-D at page 21, NG-315 will, when introduced, become Prosecution's Exhibit No. 82.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't realize you were acting on them separately.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I thought Your Honor had. I must offer them separately.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be received in evidence, which is Document NG-298.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Excuse me, Your Honor, I should have made my position cleat. I send to the bunch four copies of an assisting index of Document 315, which I respectfully suggest be placed permanently at page 21 of the Judges' Document Books. The prosecution now offers and introduces into evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 82, which is Document NG-315 in Book 1-D at page 21.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-308, Book 1-D on page 26 will be, when offered, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 83. I send to the bench four copies of an index to make that document more readily understandable, which I recommend be placed at page 26 of the document book. Now the prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit no. 83.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-297 will be, when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 84. It's found at page 40 of Book 1-D. I now send to the desk four two-paged indexes of this book, which I suggest be placed at Page 40 of the English Document Book. Now I offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 84.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: On page 55 of Book 1-D, Document NG-307 will be Prosecution's Exhibit No.85. I send to the desk four copies of the assisting index which I suggest be placed at page 55. I might say that I do not believe, as I remember that assisting index, that it is near complete. When I check my own copy, if it has to be made more complete, I will inform you of that. This is the first time I have seen these particular copies. I think it should have been much more elaborate, from what I send out. In any event, at this time the prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 85.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: On page 74 of Book 1-D, Document NG-321 will be, when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 86, and I send to the desk four two paged indexes which should be placed at Page 74. I now offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 86, which is Document NG-321 found at page 74 of Document Book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We find other pages bearing that same document number. Are you introducing those other pages or merely page 74?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I introduce the Exhibit as an exhibit and said it was found on the beginning of that page. I don't introduce the document, I introduce the exhibit, which is found on that page. There are many pages, Your Honor, included in the book. All pages thereafter which bear the number 321 are part of that same document.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor. Colonel Nesbit, is Document Book 1-E set up? I would like to introduce one document from that book at this time and then turn the matter over.
I appreciate very much the Tribunal permitting me to introduce this at this time. NG-260 found at page 1 of Document Book 1-E, which will be when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit no. 87. This on the first page of the Document shows, so I am not breaking faith, a lawyer's letter circulated by the Reich Ministry of Justice to lawyers. This is the first volume dated the first of October 1944. So far as I know, it's the only one I have ever seen; if there are other lawyers' letters, the prosecution has not consciously withheld them. These are handled the same way as the Reichter Brief, and I send to the desk four copies of an index to assist members of the Tribunal in the reading and understanding of this document.
I briefly stated this morning with reference to the other briefs and also with this brief, that the Prosecution offers them as evidence for the purpose of showing that there was a direct controlled judiciary and lawyers. We are not offering these documents as evidence of any particular act contained therein, but since we offer them, we are to some extent bound by them and our purpose of offering them is to prove there was a connection. However, in this lawyer's brief, even though with this statement, I do not believe that the Prosecution would be bound by what is in here any more than the fact that it is in. I do not want to pass on without a comment in fairness to the Prosecution and the American Bench and Bar. Reference to case No. 1 which appears on page 3 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Page 3 of the English text, Your Honor, case No. 1 at the top of the page, this is Book E. It starts out: "Circular for Lawyers, Communication of the Reich Minister of Justice." Does Your Honor have that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Reichs Minister's comment on that case is found page 19. Now, here is one example why I furnished Your Honors' with an index. It is quite a job to go back and find out where the comment was. You will find it on page 19, No. 1 on that page. Have Your Honors' found on page 19 where the reference is located?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I will read from page 19:
"(1) The letter of the defense counsel to a traitor in a penitentiary speaks for itself. Not only is the unconcealed wooing for clients repulsive but especially the inconceivable lack of dignity and servility with which this German lawyer addresses a declared, marked enemy of the state."
The only comment I want to make, Your Honors' is that while I do not consider the Prosecution in agreement with Thierack's idea of a relationship to an enemy of the state. I do not want to be in a position of appearing to disprove of a reprimand of a lawyer who is soliciting business I also consider that this was a matter which was subject to a reprimand and by introducing this Exhibit, I do not want to be in a position of appearing to oppose that.
I understand Dr. Kubuschok wishes to address the Court.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I contradict the utilization of the lawyer's letters a evidence. The lawyer's letters would only have probative value if, in effect they had actually been sent to the lawyers. I myself, was a lawyer and only now during this trial I learned that there were such lawyers' letters. Therefore, I must assume that such lawyers' letters were drafted but were no dispatched to the lawyers, probably on the assumption that the majority of German lawyers were not suitable or were not likely to be influenced by such letters. If it were really to be correct that this was only an intent utilization of these letters, but that these letters were not used, then these letters would not have probative value.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: In answer to the objection, I stated that I appreciate Your Honors' permitting me to introduce these somewhat out of order. If you will withhold the ruling, at least, on this point, I will introduce as an Exhibit document No. 461 which is found on page 116 of Book 1-D, which is a letter indicating a distribution. Now, certainly with this evidence, as introduced, and with this letter, there is a presumption, at least, that there was a distribution. It is entirely possible that the Counsel who spoke did not receive a copy of the letter; unquestionably I do not doubt his statement, but it is not competent evidence that there was no distribution. On the reputation of the Prosecution that further showing will be made as to the matter of distribution, and will receive this conditionally on the ground that the Prosecution will show this yet this afternoon.
The Prosecution offers to introduce into evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 87.
THE PRESIDENT: On the conditions stated, that will be received in evidence
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal and Defense Counsel will turn to Book 1-C, we have a document ready which because of the 24 hour ruling could not be introduced this morning. The Prosecution is in possession of a duplicate of a receipt from the Defense Information Center that Document No. NG-287, the last page thereof, was delivered to the Defense Information Center at 1410 hours yesterday.
I believe it is permissible for us to introduce this document at this time. The Document is NG 287, found on page 1 of both the English and German books, 1-C:
"Copy "Berlin Illustration Night Edition.
No. 246 Monday, October 20th, 1941.
"Jew hoarded 65,000 eggs and allowed 15,000 of them to spoil."
And, that is underlined.
"Wired from our reporter.
"Breslau, October 20th. The 74 year old Jew Markus Luftgas from Kalwarja withdrew a high amount of eggs from the general economy and now had to vindicate his conduct before the Special Court of Bielitz. The Jew had hidden 65,000 eggs in tubs and in a lime pit, 15,000 of which had already spoiled. The defendant was sentenced to 2 1/2 years of prison as a just punishment for a crime against the war economy regulations."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading now from page two of the English book which is page one and two of the German. Letterhead:
"The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, F.H.Q."--which we presume means "Fuehrer Headquarters. -- "October 25th 1941.
"1. To State Secretary Professor Dr. h. c. Schlegelberger charged with the management of the affairs of the Reich Minister of Justice Berlin "Dear Dr. Schlegelberger:
The enclosed newspaper clipping" -- which by the way, the prosecution has just read --- "about the conviction of the Jew Markus Luftgas to a prison sentence of 2½years by the Special Court of Bielitz has been submitted to the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer wishes that Luftgas be sentenced to death. May I ask you ** urgently instigate the necessary and to notify me about the measures taken in order to enable me to inform the Fuehrer.
"Heil Hitler.
"Yours devotedly "The Reich Minister."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On the second page of the original of this document is found an additional letter which is paragraph 2:
"To SS-Gruppenfuehrer Julius Schaub -- Fuehrer-Headquarters "Subject:
Markus Luftgas "Dear Mr. Schaub:
"After receiving your letter dated October 22nd 1941, I got into touch with the Reich Minister of Justice asking him to instigate the necessary.
"Heil Hitler:
"Your devoted (signature of the Reich Minister)"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That document is also initialed with the letter "L" which the prosecution assumes to be that of Lammers, who was indeed the Reich Minister. Reading now on Page 4 of the English Document Book which is Page 3 of the German Book. This is a page that was distributed to the defense yesterday "Berlin, 29 October 1941.
"The Reich Minister of Justice (intrusted with the executive management of affairs) "To the Reichsminister and Chief of the Reichschancellery (initial) "K" "Subject:
Case against the Jew Luftglass (not Luftgas) "Dear Reichsminister Dr. Lammers:
In accordance with the order of the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor of October 1941, transmitted to me by the Minister of State and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, I have handed over to the Gestapo for the pr*** execution, the Jew Markus Luftglass who had been sentenced to 2-1/2 years' imprisonment by the Special Court in Kattowitz.
Heil Hitler.
Very truly yours, SCHLEGELBERGER."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 88 the Document Book NG-287.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution will next offer Document NG-496 which will become when received in evidence Exhibit No. 89. That is to be found on page 116 of the English text, 1-E and 166 of the German. The prosecution does not desire to read or excerpt in any part this document. We do want to call the Court's attention, however, that this is further evidence that the lawyers' letters introduced a few moment ago as Exhibit No. 87 by Mr. Lafollette in fact contemplated. The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 89 the Document NG-496.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to using Document 496. I should like to find the date. It's dated 11 March 1943. The lawyer's letter No. 1 which was presented stated October 1944. That proves that this was only planned *** if letter of March 1943 had existed -- a draft of the first letter dated October 1944, that would show clearly that it was intended to introduce such a system but that this never got beyond the stage of a draft.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, I think the argument which defense counsel just made may well be made as to the weight of this evidence but I don't believe that it goes to the probative value or the presumption which comes two letters of this sort that which was said to be done was not then done may well be that it is questionable to reason that later this letter was sent out but here is a letter which said 'we are going to send a lawyer's letter *** here's a lawyer's letter.
' It seems to me it is too confined. It shows sufficiently if there was such a letter sent out it justified the Court in receiving it at this time. May I add the further fact, your Honor, that the photostat shows the letter was a printed letter. I don't believe the letters would be printed unless some trouble was taken to print it and unless it was actually sent out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will withhold ruling on this particular exhibit for the present. There may be further showing made on it. In any event we will rule upon it later.
MR. KING: Do we understand that it will retain its exhibit number as introduced or as attempted to be introduced?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it should retain the number which as already assigned to it at this time. Later upon later evidence there can be a later ruling upon that particular subject. It seems that my voice was not ******* through. The ruling is that this exhibit may retain its number and any i***** discussion will relate back to this exhibit number. In other words, the exhibit will not lose its exhibit number. I am not sure that my voice went through in making my earlier announcement on this. What I said at that time, whether you heard it or not, is that we are withholding final ruling on this. It isn't being received at this time.
MR. KING: The prosecution now desires to offer the Document NG-500which shall become, when introduced, Exhibit No. 90 and is to be found begins on page 1 of both the English and the German text. Document Book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get the document number.
MR. KING: It's document number NG-500, your Honor. We do not wish to read any portion of that document so we offer it in evidence at this time, the Document NG-500.
JUDGE BLAIR: We can't get your document number.
MR. KING: I am sorry, it is NG-500, to be found on page 1, document book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it now.
Do I understand that you have offered that in evidence, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
MR. KING: The next document which the prosecution desires to offer is NG-499, which will become, when formally offered, Exhibit No. 91. It is to be found in document book 1-D, in the English at page 17, in the German at page 14. We desire to read the principal paragraph in that letter.
It is dated Berlin, 11 October 1942, and it is addressed to the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and General Public Prosecutors, except Prague. It concerns Judges' Letters:
"The shipment of the first Judges' Letters is imminent. Each judge and public prosecutor shall receive periodically one copy of the Judges' Letters. For your district you will receive for distribution 65 copies each time. Delivery of the Judges Letters to the single judges and public prosecutors will be made after receipt has been given acknowledged by the chiefs of the offices. I request you to stress the confidential character of the Judges' Letters. I ask that decisions which are regarded suitable for discussion in the Judges' Letters be currently brought to my attention. A short report should be attached thereto and, as far as it is necessary for full understanding, the files should be added."
Signed, "Dr. Thierack."
The prosecution now offers in evidence the document NG-499 as Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, there is just a little confusion, I think, between plaintiff's counsel and the Secretariat of the Tribunal as to documentation and exhibit numbers.