When that draft reached the Party Chancery and Group III-C there was great commotion, but not against the Administration of Justice, but out of great concern for the Administration of Justice. This decree appeared to us to be a means to get from bad into worse. The draft provided, among other things, the following: Upon the motion by the general prosecutor, the president of the district court of appeals may commute a sentence after conference with two judges as advisors in open proceedings. For us, in the party chancery, this draft came as a shock because we knew the party even better than the Ministry of Justice. We imagined immediately that every Ortsgruppenleiter and every Kreisleiter and every Gauleiter immediately would approach a president of a district court of appeals or a general prosecutor and exert pressure on them whenever he disagreed with a sentence. We knew likewise that the presidents of the district court of appeals were of quite different types. There were upright men among them, but there were also some among them, though, who under those circumstances wanted to be on good terms with the local party office. I do not care to mention any names, because I don't want to appear spiteful. A further danger was contained in the fact that depending upon the varying interests of local party offices, and depending upon the leniency of the justice officials in various localities jurisdiction would have developed somewhat at variance in the different districts. And a further reason for concern was that that method seemed to represent a great danger to the self-assuredness of the judge and his professional ambition if by administrative channels the president of the district court of appeals could commute his sentences, and we considered it much more bearable if perhaps in two or three cases Hitler would make use of that power and authority -- in fact he never made use of that authority -- than that three hundred thousand judgments would fall under that regulation; and, therefore, we were against it. But from that time on the difficulties really started.
Namely, if Bormann would have thought it through and would have noticed what tremendous indirect influence could be obtained in this way by the local party offices, he might have supported that decree, because the system of the law authority and the difference in that system as it existed in the armed forces compared to the civil administration of justice would have been very great. The generals as law authorities did not permit any interference from the party offices, quite apart from the fact that there were not at all as many party offices so interested especially outside of Germany; and, therefore, in such terms as Bormann liked, on the part of the party chancery, that suggestion was rejected; in fact, however, it was done to support the Administration of Justice, to help the Administration of Justice against being subjected too much to the local party offices. The letter itself, of course, had to take into account Bormann's mentality, and, therefore, it is written in such terms.
Q. Herr Klemm, you just mentioned Hitler's speech of April, 1942, and that the suggestion on the part of the Reich Ministry of Justice was a repercussion of that speech. For completion's sake-since you were in the party chancery -- I want to ask you did the party chancery submit any material for that infamous speech by Hitler; or, were you informed in advance in anyway about that speech. May I explain briefly that that speech is Exhibit 24, NG-752, Document Book 1-A; that has been submitted against all the defendants in this case.
A. Exhibit 24. As in all speeches before the Reichstag made by Hitler, we never knew in advance what he would speak about. And I heard this speech with an admission ticket to the Reichstag, and I was so deeply shocked that after the speech I asked to be permitted to return to the armed forces again. I considered my work worthless if such speeches would be held.
Q. In this connection there is also Exhibit 27; that is NG-075, Document Book I-B; it's a memorandum from Dr. Rothenberger.
I ask you now, did he party chancery have any previous knowledge of that memorandum; was it submitted to Hitler through the party chancery and, sines it was a justice matter, through Group III-C?
A. No. As can be seen from the exhibit, through the intervention of Albert Bormann -- that is a brother of Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, chief of the chancery -- this was submitted to Hitler. We, Department III, and the Justice Group III had no advance notice of that memorandum.
Q. In this connection I want to ask you, did you personally , or your justice group within the party secretariat exert any influence to the effect that Thierack was finally in August, 1943 appointed Reich Minister of Justice?
A. I did not have any influence in that direction. I only had to do the following: One day Bormann called me on the telephone in connection with some other matters, and put the question to me -"do you happen to know Rothenberger?" That must have been during the days when Hitler read that memorandum; and we know from Bormann that he had the frequently ridiculed ambitions to be informed about everything when speaking to Hitler, and for that reason he also asked me whether I knew Rothenberger; and I told him : "Yes -- the Oberlandesgerichtspresident of the district court of appeal of Hamburg." Then I was charged with the mission to write to him quite briefly giving him the personal data on Rothenberger's career and life. For what purpose, for what reason, I did not know. That was the first time, and although it would really have been a matter for III P, that is the personnel department to compile such data, Bormann in his rather irregular way turned to me and requested -- I believe it was two or three weeks later --- such data of various well known jurists. From these names we could gather that apparently intended to appoint a new minister of justice. However, we did not know whether it was actually the position of the minister of justice or also a candidate for position as under secretary in the Ministry of Justice.
Thus, in the course of time several names were mentioned, and I had to compile these notes. I remember the following names: Froboese, president of the district court of appeals in Posen; Harmening, Ministerial Director in the food ministry; Lehmann, OKW.; Thierack of the People's Court; David, president of the district court of appeals; Leitmeritz; Weber, former minister of justice in Thuringia; and Dr. Best, who later was charged with German civil administration in Denmark.
DR. SCHILF: It seems you have sufficiently answered the question. Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I believe it is time for the ten minute recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court-room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Mr. Klemm we are now coming to the next exhibit which the Prosecution submitted as exhibit 65; that is the power of attorney which was given to the Reich Minister of Justice on 20 August 1942. Did the Party Chancellory or did you have any influence on this socalled justice power of attorney, administration of justice as power of attorney?
A No, I saw it for the first time and found out about it after the now Minister of Justice was appointed. The power of attorney itself was made out on the very same day on which Dr. Thierack was appointed Minister of Justice.
Q Exhibit 33 is connected with this, this is NG 341, document book I-B. This is a letter by the Chief of the Party Chancellory. It is sent from the Fuehrer's headquarters, dated 27 August 1942. It is in connection with Thierack's appointment as Minister of Justice, and with the so-called power of attorney for the administration of justice. Did you participate in the drafting of this circular letter of 27 August 1942? This letter is entitled "Reorganization of Administration of Justice"?
A Yes, I did participate in that, but I have to say something about this. Simultaneously with the possibility that a new Minister of Justice would be appointed, a crisis regarding the Leader of the Reich Legal office and Chief of the NS Lawyers League, Frank, the Governor General of Poland was created. And, we saw in it a possibility, at least for the administration of justice, to remove the dualism which existed in almost all State fields in Germany since 1933, that taken hold since 1933. No Landrat could work without having the Ereisleader interfere, and there was probably no sphere of the State in which some party organization or another did not govern it or interfere.
Frank had always tried to gain an influence into the administration of justice through the NS Lawyers League, and through the Reichs Legal Office, and the corresponding Legal Office of the Gaus and the Kreise of the NSDAP. When this crisis about Frank developed at the time, we in Group III-C, from the point of view of saving personnel and the lack of importance for the war effort suggested to him to have the Reichs Legal Office, the Gau Legal Offices, the Kreis Legal Offices, and the entire NS Lawyers League put to rest. The reasons were obvious in view of war time conditions, and from the temporary point of view, this suggestion was chosen well because Frank had come into disfavor with Himmler. And, this occasion is significant, too, in Munich, in Vienna, and in one or two other places, Frank had delivered speeches in which he spoke against the Police State and in favor of the Constitutional State, Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had used this text of Frank's and misquoted it to Hitler. We, in Munich, heard about all this only through rumors -- I believe from a member of the Reichs Leader's Office who once came to Munich from the Fuehrers headquarters. These two incidents coincided. When the new Minister of Justice was appointed, our suggestions to put the Reich Legal Office, and the NS Lawyer's League at rest were approved only in part by Bormann, and the Reichs Legal Office was dissolved with the corresponding institutions in the Gau and in the Kreis. These two incidents were briefly incorporated into the circular letter and we in Group III-C even suggested to send such a circular letter to the Reich Leaders, Gau Leaders and Leaders of the affiliated organizations. The nucleus of the circular letter, its purpose, however, was quite another one. The real purpose is expressed in the sentence on page 2, I quote, "To this belongs, that it is avoided to have any, and every public criticism of institutions of the administration of justice, judges, and of individual court sentences." I changed the sequence of the sentence because of the translation. The circular letter then describes that whoever had a complaint against the administration of justice, anybody in the party sector, should address himself to the Party Chancellory; that is to say, III-C the legal group of which I was in charge of , would have dealt with these matters so that such complaints could be discussed with the Minister of Justice.
The Gau Leaders, in particular, had become accustomed to addressing themselves directly to Hitler. And the final sentence in regard to this is as follows; I quote: "In that manner it will be avoided that the Fuehrer is informed incorrectly and not exactly about matters of the administration of justice." The words are "incomplete" and "incorrect" and "inexact". That was the essence of the circular letter and that was what our purpose was; the avoidance of every public crisis of the administration of justice, that is what we were interested in; and secondly, in order to avoid that Hitler was informed directly, and then on the basis of a distorted or absolutely wrong presentation of facts, made some kind of a decision. Here, too, I have to add, we, of course, had to formulate that in the style and to bring reason which would cause a person like Bormann to sign it; but, the sentences which I did quote he signed.
Q. The next document which the prosecution submitted against you personally is Exhibit 357, NG-327 Document Book V-B. It concerns the interference of the Gau leaders in clemency matters. Kerr Klemm you know that Altmaier, a witness for the Prosecution, in his affidavit --that is Exhibit 441-- stated that this interference on the part of the Gau leaders in clemency cases was due to the initiative of the Party Chancellery, and in Exhibit 441 Altmaier mentions your name, too. Please explain this.
A. In regard to this measure, when death sentences were to be commuted to prison sentences, the Gau leaders were to be informed / by the Administration of Justice and were supposed to state their attitude in the matter. We in III-C heard about this Fuehrer order for the first time after it had already been issued. This can also be seen from Exhibit 359, because on 23 October 1942 Dr. Lammers writes to Thierack, "The Fuehrer has ordered that," and so on. Furthermore, Lammers writes, on this same date, to the Chief of the Presidial Kanzlei, Meissner, who was here as a witness: "On the occasion of the discussion of an individual case (Graf Stoerk), the Fuehrer has ordered," and then comes this order. At the conclusion of this letter Lammers states : "I have sent a further copy to the chief of the Party Chancellery and have asked him to inform the Gauleiters in accordance with that."
Then, in a conversation too, or perhaps it was a short note, we found out the following as to how this Fuehrer order came about. In Vienna there was a Count Stoerk, one of the leaders of the Hapsburg Legitimist movement. He had been sentenced to death for high treason. This sentence had been commuted to a prison sentence, and he had been freed of this prison sentence, or it was impossible to arrest him. In any case, this Count Stoerk was running around free in Vienna. Because of this treatment, the Gau leader of Vienna, von Schirach, addressed the Fuehrer directly and complained about it. He is supposed to have stated that this manner of handling the case strengthened the Legitimist movement in Vienna.
Thereupon Hitler is supposed to have reacted in the Allowing manner, that on account of the political results he asked that such clemency pleas would not be granted. The Justice was always supposed to ask for the attitude of the competent Gau lead r in regard to a clemency plea which he makes. What the witness Altmaier said about that in his affidavit is a false conclusion. After I have explained about these documents I don't have to go into that, I suppose.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, when I submit my document book I shall introduce an affidavit by the just-mentioned Baldur von Schirach which will clarify the matter entirely. This affidavit will prove that this was actually the way in which the witness Klemm described it just now.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Herr Klemm, the next document which the prosecution introduced is Exhibit 296, NG-324, document book VII-B. This is a letter which Thierach, as Minister, sent to you on 1 December 1942. It is addressed to you personally, not to the Party Chancellery as an office. Please describe the circumstances which brought about this letter. This letter is entitled: "Execution of death sentences against Plunderers."
A. The Gauleiter of Pommerania in Stettin, Schwede-Doburg, had written to the Party Chancellery directly, or to Bormann, and had made the suggestion that plunderers who had been sentenced would immediately be hanged on an emergency gallows on the top of the ruins of bombed out buildings. If this was not possible, the police was supposed to shoot them. He stated that the reason for his suggestion was that the Administration of Justice otherwise brought the hangman to an execution in a car, especially that it was outrageous that for such a purpose fuel, which was so scarce, would be wasted, and it would be simpler and would have a better educational effect upon the general public if the plunderers would be publicly hanged in that way.
Now, in order to avoid having death sentences executed in this irregular manner, I spoke to Dr. Thierach , to whom I showed the 1 letter first, and agreed with him that I would send this letter to him with a request for his opinion, and he would then s end an answer to me, which, in turn , would place me in the position of being able to make the suggestion to Bormann to refuse the Gauleiter Schwede-Coburg to intervene with the Fuehrer on behalf of his plan.
Document 296 contains this answer from Thierack to me, and it was refused to support the suggestion of the Gau leader Schwede-Coburg.
Q. The next document which was submitted against you is Exhibit 435 ; which is NG-889, Supplementary Volume I. This concerns an extensive transcript of 23 June 1943 signed by a certain Dr. Bergmann. This document is entitled, "Significance of Political Judgments by Party Offices in Court Proceedings."
In other places it is also described as Party Liability Law in this trial here. Your name is mentioned in this document as having been present at a conference with Ministerialdirektor Altstoetter, that is the defendant in this trial, and Dr. Bergmann of the Ministry of Justice. Present for the Party Chancellery in addition to your name, an Oberregierungsrat Dr. Enke is also mentioned. Please state your opinion in regard to this document.
A. I do not want to go into the actual contents of this entire matter too much, otherwise I would have to quote almost every paragraph of this memorandum and to explain what has to be read into it, and above all what one can read between the lines. The essence of this whole matter I shall mention briefly, and I can do so briefly because the entire problem remained in draft form and never was formed into a legal regulation. The nucleus of the matter is as follows: if in any trial a political rating is introduced which has been made by some Party office, the judge may examine this political judgment as to its correctness or must he accept it as being correct? In other words, this is how the party saw it should the judge be given the right to examine measures taken by the party? These political ratings could play an important part in the regulation of legal matters. For example if some one was dismissed from his job because of his political attitude or if a guardian was supposed to be appointed, situations arose in which the importance of the political judgment alone was the important thing. The Party, especially Division 2 of the Party Chancellery, and other offices too, for instance the Legal Division of the Reich Treasury represented stubbornly the point of view that the Party does not let the administration of justice examine it's judgments, the Party's judgments in such cases, and the judge must abide by what the party gives him without criticism. This legal regulation was supposed to be created, and this memorandum discusses this. Perhaps this was the most difficult position which the Group 3-C ever had to assume. On the one hand were the party offices which pressed for the creation of this regulation within the meaning which they desired; on the other hand were the realiz ation that no judge could be expected to abide by this, and the desire to help the Administration of Justice in that problem.
We of the Party Chancellery in this discussion which is described in this memorandum let our point of view be seen quite openly. We had probably for this discussion which took place in Munich in my office not asked to come the representatives of the legal division of the Reich Treasurer and representatives of Division 2 -- in order to be able to speak with the representatives of the Administration of Justice somewhat more openly. The result of this discussion is also recorded in this document, namely that it had to be reformulated. This again meant a gain of time. In this manner as in this discussion of 22 June 1942 a final solution is again postponed. In this way this matter was handled later on, too, and even in 1945 no final regulation had been made yet in regard to this problem.
Q. With that we have exhausted all of those exhibits which the Prosecution submitted against you, which concerned discussions or agreements in regard to drafts of laws. At the beginning when you described the activity in the party Chancellery you had, however, stated further tasks which you had to deal with in the Justices Division Group, Group 3-C in the party Chancellery. You mentioned that the Malicious Acts Law, the Law against Malicious Attacks on Party and State contained a regulation according to which the Party Chancellery in the case of penal persecution had to give its approval. I am now asking you in what cases was this important and what was the attitude of the Legal Group 3-C?
A. I can answer this question relatively briefly since I have already described how in accordance with the so-called Malicious Acts Law the ordering of penal prosecution was possible only in agreement with the leader of the Party Chancellery. In the same way as I did from 1937 -'36 till '39 in the general political department in the Reichministry of Justice these reports of penal cases under the Malicious Acts Law in the way I had compiled them for the Party Chancellery, in the same way now when I was in the Party Chancellery I received these reports in order to state my opinion from the point of view of the Party Chancellery.
In that regard between Department 3-C and the Ministry of Justice almost complete unity prevailed. A different attitude in an individual case was most infrequently taken. An absolutely moderate practice was followed, and I can remember no single case in which it was suggested not to prosecute under the Malicious Acts Law but to indict because of undermining the military strength. This never happened. At the most in one case or another it was said that it would be better if the Prosecution under the Law were ordered here or it was stated: in this case we consider that it is not necessary to order prosecution under the law. In accordance with the insight I have, these cases were about equal; and I believe there were sometimes six to ten cases during one year in which there was a deviation from the suggestion of the Ministry of Justice and a different attitude was taken.
Q: Herr Klemm, you furthemore mentioned that in the legal group, complaints by individual persons and complaints by party offices against the Administration of Justice were dealt with. Please will you describe that to the Tribunal more in detail but briefly.
A: A large number of such complaints came to the Party Chancellery -- complaints by individual persons who referred to their membership and thus turned to the party Chancellery as well as to individual Party and the Administration of Justice, especially prevented it that these matters be used by Division 2 in a campaign against the Administration of Justice, and these matters were handled either by our informing the complainant directly; mostly, however, it was said that interference in a pending trial was not possible in view of the independence of the judge. Or it was stated that on the basis of the laws, the case had been decided correctly and there was not cause for interference. However, these matters were also submitted to the so-called legal offices -- Rechtsbetreungsstellen -- of the Party who were legally trained persons in office with instructions to advise the person who had sent in a complaint. This activity had nothing to do with any clemency pleas and penal cases. These matters were dealt with by Bouhler's office. That is the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
However, there were also cases in which we considered a criticism of any measure taken by the Administration of Justice as justified. In such a case, we got in touch with the Ministry of Justice directly with the request to examine the matter and take further steps. Then we only informed the person who sent in the complaint that what was necessary had been initiated, or what also happened, directly, because the Ministry of Justice was competent, we turned the complaint over to it.
Q: In that connection, did you have to deal also with complaints by individual persons against the Party itself or against prominent Party members?
A: There were even quite a number of cases in which civilians either addressed Bormann directly or the Party Chancellery as such and asked for protection against Party offices because they interfered in matters of the Admnistration of Justice to the disadvantage of the author of the letter; in other words, for example, it happened that a man was sentenced or received a decision by a court in a civil case in accordance with which another person had to pay him a thousand marks. The person who was in the worst position in this litigation turned to the local group leader. This asked to have the person in charge of this civil case come to see him, and told him that he would take steps against him with the means at the disposal of the Party if he would try to have this decision carried out by force. The person who had been threatened in that way told the party Chancellory and in such cases it was seen to it immediately that such complaints came to our department, and it was seen to it immediately that the local group leader (Obergruppenleiter) was instructed by his Gauleader or Party leader not to do such things of that kind.
Of particular cases which were especially grotesque and important, I can remember only two. There were too many of those in order to remember all of them.
Q: Herr Klemm, may I remind you to describe these two cases which you mentioned especially briefly.
A: In the one case it was a question of a merchant from Augsberg who had acquired a farm.
A Kreisfarmer leader or land-farmer leader wanted to acquire this farm for himself and he put all possible obstacles in the way of this businessman so that he would not gain possession of this farm. In this case, we took the part of this businessman especially strongly and the Kreis, or Landesfarmleader had to give in. In another case, a physician had been removed from his position in charge of a children's hospital due to differences of opinion with the board of supervisors of this hospital which belonged to a foundation. The person who had pushed out the physician was was a very prominent Party member. He was the Chief of the National Socialist Dozenten Association -- Lecturer's Association. Here too we took the necessary steps with the Bavarian Government so that the physician would again be given his position which he had been deprived of due to the prosecution by this chief of the lecturers. We were successful in doing this too.
Q: You spoke about complaints which Party office made about the Administration of Justice. Were there also complaints by the offices of the Administration of Justice against the Party, and did you take measures in those cases?
A: That happened very frequently, namely that the Administration of Justice had to complain about Party office and their behavior. We tried in every possible way to help the Administration of Justice here and to eliminate such interference, but that really was the field especially in which we had a bitter fight with Division II of the Chancellory. But in this field especially, beautiful success was ours. It must have been December 1942 when we succeeded to cause Bormann to achieve that Hitler send a circular letter to the Party -- that is, a circular letter with Hitler's own signature -- and therefore it was especially authoritative.
That circular letter must be No. 10 or 12 from 1942, in which it was strictly forbidden that Party officers interfered in trials; that any pressure upon a party in a trial was forbidden; and that at the most it was permitted to give legal advice and that at most it might be attempted to achieve an arbitration with the parties -- but this took only in a manner so that no pressure was exercised in any of the parties in the trial.
Q.- Were there also cases in which party offices attempted to influence prosecutions in courts in order to have penal cases carried out against prominent party members, or to prevent their being carried out?
A.- That happened very frequently that local offices in particular Gau Leaderships, Kroisleaderships attempted in penal prosecutions against prominent National Socialists to prevent such a trial or to obscure the facts. In this connection I remember two cases in particular. In one case large embezzlements were concerned, within the scope of the NS People's Welfare in Kiel - that was the well known care Janawsky - and similar cases in Berlin, Department III-C in particular succeeded together with the revision office of the Reich Treasury, which cooperated very well in the matter, they succeeded in removing all difficulties which were in the way of carrying out of these trials. In the Jannowsky case, death sentences were pronounces too. Jannowsky, I remember this still, was executed too. And a second example, quite briefly; this was a Krcisleader at Bodensee (Lake Constance) who killed a woman by driving over her -- running over her with a automobile; and he was in a drunken condition. The Gauleiter tried to cover the Kreisleitor up and to ovoid having him prosecuted. Be achieved that this Kreisleiter was made available for trial; what was the result of that trial, I don't know.
Q.- You mentioned finally that in your justice group, it was among your tasks to observe civil and criminal trials. Would you please briefly make some statement in regard to this?
A.- The observations consisted merely in our asking the Ministry of Justice alter the sentences had been pronounced to send us a copy of the sentence; and that we thereupon informed the party offices that were interested. Especially where we did not quite trust the local party offices that they acted in a manner which the party chancery desired this to be sure happened seldom - a representative went to see the trial. Thus,I know for example, though at that time I was no longer in the partychancery, that for the trial against the Kreisleiter at Lake Cons tance one member of Group III-C went to this trial.
Q.- The last question in regard to this subject -- you mentioned legal reforms, work and expert opinions in your legal group. Would you please tell the Tribunal in one word what you meant by that?
A.- The work on legal reforms were per se the task of the Reich Legal Office. This office was dissolved in August 1942, and this work was discontinued completely because it was not important for the war efforts. At that time the entire material that existed was taken over into Group III-C, and one expert referent of the Reich Legal Office was transferred into Group 111-C. He administered these matters, but did not advance them. All of these questions were not dealt with unless a certain question became acute. As an example for this, I would like to mention the unification of criminal law between Austria and. the Old Reich. Here, however, we were concerned with purely scientific questions, as for example the question of attempted instigation. The giving of the expert opinion for the party legal field was also very limited because Division II asked us as little as possible for opinion and excluded us practically altogether. I would like to cite a few very brief examples. In 1942, in the spring, the highest party court submitted a large memorandum and asked that they should be given the same rights as the regular penal jurisdiction, in other words to be allowed to pronounce not only disciplinary penalties, but also monetary penalties, prison sentences and even the death sentence. This was justified by saying that it was harmful to the reputation of the party if serious crimes were tried in the public, in the Administration of Justice; and beside that, it was not practical to try such matters twice which should be kept secret, namely, before the honorary jurisdiction and before the police, then Group 111-C had to state our opinion in to this memorandum which Bormann had sent to us, I did so and the regard Fuehrer refused completed to sustain this suggestion. Another example which shows the difficulties of this interwining of party and state. Without asking the opinion of Group III-C, the Reich Treasury had issued an instruction that every denunciation because of an embezzlement of party funds, in local groups or gau level, could be made only by him.
This order brought many people into serious conflict of conscience, that is in their activity for the state, there were many Ortsgruppenleiters, local group leaders, won were mayors at the same time. As mayors they were at the same time the highest police official in the locality, and as police officials it was their duty immediately to forward the knowledge of crimes or matters which should be prosecuted to the competent prosecution authority or to their superior police authority. This order by the Reich Treasurer that only he could decide about denunciation, about embezzlement of party money, prevented them from carrying out this duty. If a local group treasurer had embezzled money, then, the local group leader, who was at the same time mayor, was in a conflict in any case, Either he violated the order of the Reich treasurer from the party point of view, or if ho followed this order, he did hot act in accordance with his duty as civil servant. There were serious fights to find a somewhat tenable solution, But on the whole we were asked to state our opinions less and less in such questions because Division II did not let us participate. Mostly however, if we were consulted, the question was merely in regard to the formulation of individual regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: You have reached a convenient stopping place. Counsel will bear in mind that this Tribunal is adjourning until Thursday morning, July 1th, at 9:30; and that the general hearing on the conspiracy count will be tomorrow morning in the large courtroom at 9:30.
We will adjour at this time.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 July, 1947, at 0930 hours.)