(No response)
Apparently not, and the prosecution may proceed with any further redirect examination. May I inquire at this time whether the witness will be able to respond in English? If so, it will save us from using the earphones.
That would be unfair to the German speaking counsel, so I will withdraw the remark.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. I believe you testified that the form of the laws of the Third Reich must be read in the anthology of the Third Reich and which surrounded its coming into power?
A. Yes, that is the meaning of what I have said.
Q. Witness --
A. I beg your pardon, may I speak in English?
THE PRESIDENT: No, speak in German.
Q. You were asked about Special Courts under the Weimar Republic and in the state of Bavaria and I believe you answered that as far as the form of the language of the Enabling Act there was very little, if any, difference between those of the Third Reich and those about which you were asked.
A. That is correct.
Q. Now if - pardon me, Your Honor - Are you acquainted with a statement of Joseph Goebbels published in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on 25 November 1934 which reads as follows: "We were not legal in order to be legal, but in order to rise to power. We rose to power legally in order to gain the possibility of acting illegally." Are you acquainted with that statement?
A. Yes, that is a statement - a quotation - which was often quoted.
Q Assuming that the statement becomes evidence in this case and al assume that the evidence now in this case discloses and I refer to Exhibit 66 in Book 1-B at page 118, that Dr. Schlegelberger in 1941 wrote this let in discussing the connection between Dr. Goebbels Ministry and the Ministry of Education -- I mean of Justice -- "Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels has therefore instructed the press and the propaganda machine to consider these necessities in all publications; at the same time he has requested that the Ministry of Propaganda be informed about all judicial proceedings which maybe used to this end by calling special attention to them", and further similar language, I ask you at the time of the laws under the Weimar Republic, the law passed in connection with the Special Courts following the murder of Rothenau and the others that you mentioned, was there any such statement of policy as I read from Goebbels as the policy of the Government then in power?
A Such a taking of attitude from that time, I do not know.
Q There was no such statement of Goebbels as: "We come to power legally in order that we may act illegally?"
A No.
Q At the time of the Weimar Republic was there?
A No, not at the time of the Weimar Republic.
Q Was there a control of the press and mediums of information in the time of the Weimar Republic comparable to that which existed in the Third Reich?
A No, it cannot be compared in any way.
Q Did you ever hear of any connection between the Ministry of Justice under the Weimar Republic and anything comparable to it in that republic a Ministry of Propaganda that Goebbels had in the Third Reich?
A No, there was no such Ministry. It was only in the Third Reich
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. It seems to me that this is inaccurate compare the periods of the Weimar Republic with the period of the Third Reich. It will be more accurate to compare the period of the enabling act with the period before that, would it not? The Weimar Republic never went out of existence, is my thought.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Well, I understand your Honor's feelings but I think we have been accepting the fact that there was a differentiation. I am trying to contrast the conditions before. I think you said also that when you stated that the Peoples Court were typical Nazi Legislation that you had in mind the potentiality for complete domination of the State by the Hitler regime. Is that not correct?
A Yes.
Q And the conditions that I have -- I will withdraw that. In addition to the difference of conditions under the Weimar Republic and the Nazi Regime which you have just referred to, I call your attention to the fact that in February 1942 the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, Exhibit 74, Be 1-C, beginning at page 64, page 66, who was then presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals in Hamberg reported to the -- I think I am wrong. It was Dr. Rothenberger. No, it wasn't Dr. Rothenberger. I wish to reframe that question. Counsel (referring to counsel for defense) was right. It wasn't Dr. Rothenberger but the Oberlandsgerichts-President, President of the Court of Appeals at Hamm, Westphalia. I am correct now. That on February the newly appointed Gauleiter of South-Westphalia paid a visit to the Court of Appeals. I ask you whether or not that statement confirms your opinion that the control of the Special Courts was affected by the officials of the Nazi Party? That also SS Obergruppenfuehrer Freisler paid a visit?
AAccording to these statements, yes.
Q And if I read you from the evidence also in that report this statement:" The time between the receipt of the indictment and the judgment passed amounted in general to approximately three days only. It was possible to pass the sentence on a Polish woman on the same day in which the indictment had been received by the Court," referring to a Special Court. I ask you whether or not when you said that the Special Courts of the Third Reich were an instrumentality of the Nazi ideology, whether the evidence in the case that I have just read to you bears out that opinion?
A Yes.
Q I think you referred to the time in the year 1936 when the insig nia, including the insignia of the Nazi Party was placed on the robes of judges; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And I believe that one of defense counsel celled your attention the fact that there was other insignia of authority other than that of the Swastika on that insignia which was put on the judge's robe; is that correct
A On the robe of the judge, as I said, there was the so-called Sovereignty Insignia which is not identical with the Party insignia. Howe the most visible symbol, the Party symbol, the Swastika, was on this Sovereignty Insignia. I told that already to the Tribunal.
Q Now, I want to ask you was in not in 1933, the law of 1 December 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, for 1933, page 1116, that the law of safeguard the unity of party and State was enacted?
A Yes.
Q So that this insignia was in conformity with the underlying principle adopted in that Legislation in 1933, was it not?
A Yes, according to the law announced of National Socialism for the unity of Party and State, Reich insignia belonged to the Party as well as the nation in the same way just as the Party insignia and the so-called H Wessel song became a National hymn.
Q Now, if you please, also I call attention to the fact that the 1 of June 28, 1935, 1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, page 839, which was a law, Amendment 2-134-B of the German Penal Code of 1876 which is Book 2, 8-A, made it a crime to publicly defame the Nazi Flag, standards, banners. The act was passed in 1935 prior to the time this insignia was put on the ro** of the judges. The law I read you is evidence in this cause. 1935 was also prior to the time that this insignia was put on the robes?
A Yes.
Q So that, if you please, doctor, I ask you now by reason of the Legislation enacted prior to the time the symbol was put on the judge, do you conclude that your observation that the Special Courts were a special instrumentality of the Nazi Party is the same as the Legislation by the Na** Party itself?
A Yes.
Q May I have your attention, doctor. I don't care to have you read the book. I think you also stated, in fairness, that at the time this insignia was put on there were judges who resented it but nevertheless remained in the judicial section?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q I would like to read -- I withdraw that -- assume that document evidence which will be introduced in this case shows that the defendant Oeschey in the Spring of 1945 in discussing a case before the Special Civ** Courts martial which were provided for in February 1945 and who was, according to his affidavit, connected in various capacities with the administra*** of German justice from 1933 on while functioning as Chairman of the Courtmartial at Nurnberg -- assume that the evidence in this case -- I think Schubert wants to make an objection. Let me state the question and don't answer the question until he can make the objection:
"Among the people present at Breitensteller was also Oeschey, and Schoen, President of the Court Martial, and Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder. I was standing near them and overheard Oeschey say to Schroederas far as I remember, discussing a defendant before his court who had not yet been tried--'Now we will go over and shot the little count.'" I ask you whether, in your opinion--and don't answer until Dr. Schubert has a chance to speak--in your opinion, whether such a man objected to wearing the insignia of 1936 on his robe.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, the translation system did not quite work; I did not quite understand the question in its entirety. In so far as I could follow it, it concerned a problem of the so-called courts martials which were instituted in the spring of 1945. Regarding these courts martials, the witness was not asked about that during his first examination by the prosecution. Therefore, I believe that I have a right to object to this question.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I would like to state the general purpose of this examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the purpose may be, the question is, are you violating the rule in going into different fields?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I don't think so, because I don't think I have gone into different fields, if I may state my position.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will hear your statement.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The witness was asked by the defense, who said that at the time that Friesler made so much of the great moment of pinning the Nazi insignia on the robe of the judge, were there not other judges and other members of the Ministry who were not happy with that situation?
He was also asked whether or not the Hitler speech of April 26, 1942, was not resented by members of the German jurists, and he said, "Yes, and I quite agree with that."
I think that after such an answer on cross-examination I am entitled, on redirect examination, to point out circumstances as to these particular defendants and ask him whether or not, in the light of those facts, they come within the group that he said probably were not happy about these situations.
I think the facts may be, both subsequent to the act as well as prior to the act, evidence of the character of the individual upon which the witness can form his opinion for whatever it is worth about at the time at which he was questioned and gave his answers.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, surely.
JUDGE BRAND: Aren't you seeking to establish this evidence by a written document, which you propose to read to the witness?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, I think I am within my rights by at this time assuming--and I said I am assuming--certain facts which will later became part of the record. I am not attempting to establish by this witness the facts which I assume.
JUDGE BRAND: I understand that.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: It seems that I am entitled to assume facts; I am assuming facts which will be in the record, yes.
JUDGE BRAND: You are assuming facts which you say will be in the record.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Which will be offered in evidence.
JUDGE BRAND: If these facts are introduced into the record, then what is the need for asking this witness for his construction of those facts which you propose to put into the record? The facts will speak for themselves, will they not?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: They will, but the witness' answer was--I don't think that is quite the issue, Your Honor, but I will state this, and then I will desist. The witness was asked whether or not there were certain judges, and I am asking him whether or not, from these facts, he would conclude that these defendants were within the category that he excluded. That was the purpose.
JUDGE BRAND: My suggestion to you is that the evidence which you propose to offer will be as clear on that point as any evidence could possibly be.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I understand. That being true, I don't care to pursue that line of questioning any further. I withdraw the question.
MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q Now I think, as I recall, you were asked rather extensively about the question of sterilization and castration. I ask you first whether or not you do not recognize a distinct difference between sterilization and castration.
A Yes.
Q And I believe that you said that your objection to it, or rather, that your characterization of the sterilization law as typical Nazi legislation, was based upon the fact that you did not believe in the ethos of National Socialism, that sufficient safeguards could be put around that law to prevent its being used for a purpose which you felt was clear at the time it was passed. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q May I call your attention to the fact that during the period about which you testified, Reichsgesetzblatt for 1935, Part I, page 289, of 25 February 1935, entitled "The Third Decree for the Execution of the Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Progenies"--I think that is correct--Article 4 contained this provision, and I read it to you.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: This is page 60 of Book 2, Your Honors.
Q (Cont'd) "Interested persons and counsel can be barred from appearance at the hereditary health courts and appellate hereditary health courts for important reasons. This decision is incontestable."
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I ask the High Tribunal to excuse me, if, on behalf of the defense, I interrupt for purely technical reasons.
The translation by the interpreter is so inadequate that frequently we do not understand the meaning of the questions and statements of the prosecutor and of the Tribunal. We cannot follow. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Tribunal, on the question of the appointment of the interpreter, would make a permanent change, since the basis of an orderly and well-regulated trial can be endangered through this inadequate translation in a serious way.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If there is a 1935 Gesetzblatt in the courtroom, perhaps the translation will come through better if the law is given to interpreter and she can read it.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the objection is not merely to the reading; it goes to all of the translations?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That is the English to German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. It was because I wanted defense counsel to have the full benefit of the witness' answers that I thought he should speak in German and not have the translations relayed to them.
MR. LaFOLLETTE.: I get the German to English all right.
DR. Brieger; On behalf of my colleagues, may I mention that up to now we have found the translation of the lady very satisfactory. Also, it was repeatedly noticed that she helped the man interpreter in a manner which we appreciated very much as far as technical expressions were concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: This is, of course, a very important matter. We have now reached the period of the usual afternoon recess, and we will therefore recess at this time and try to take the matter up in a more deliberate way out of court.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We will briefly state, at this time, that we think we have a remedy for the situation. During the remainder of this day, at least, we request the witness speak rather slowly and deliberately to give the translator a better chance. The admonition applies to counsel. We all appreciate it is a wonderful talent to be able to make *** current translations.
It seems my remarks ere out of order. We already have another interpreter.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I believe the interpreters have found a copy of the law so that when I read from it it will make things somewhat easier. I would like to repeat my question.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. As I recall, on cross examination and also on direct examination you stated you felt that the sterilization law was a Nazi law because of the context in which it was passed and the capacity for danger you felt was apparent with the passage of the first act. Am I correct?
A. Yes.
Q. "Third Decree for the Execution of the Law for the Prevention of Congenitally Ill Pregeny of 25 February 1935. 1935, Reichgesetzblatt, Part I, page 289."
Article IV reads as follows --
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to this discussion on the second examination. Under cross examination castration was discussed as a penal measure. If now we are going to discuss sterilization on account of the law just mentioned, that means that a completely new subject is being introduced.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I think in fairness to Dr. Kuboschok, it should be said that I do not believe he was here when Dr. Schilf cross-examined this witness. The Court will remember that the question of sterilization was gone into rather extensively, I thought.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.
If the prosecutor wishes to touch upon a point which I touched upon during the cross examination, I must join the objection of my colleague, Dr. Kuboschok. In this connection I only referred to the law which concerned the so-called dangerous habitual criminal. Sterilization is not mentioned at all, only castration. I only referred to that point in my questions to the witness. I am not sure whether the prosecutor wishes to discuss something which one of the other defense counsel stated here. For that reason my objection was made after that of my colleague, Dr. Kuboschok. Now that it appears the prosecutor referred to me, this part has been crystallized.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I think it is proper to point out in answer to Dr. Schilf that I find no where, at least in the brief examination I have made, the use of the word "castration". I find repeatedly places where Dr. Schilf used the word "sterilization". I think that is contrary to his present suggestion.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I believe what I am trying to do is clear up something that did come through. Through translation possibly, I recall both the words "sterilization" and "castration" during Dr. Schilf's examination. I think that was covered by other counsel. If we had language trouble, the objection might have been stated quite accurately. I believe the transcript is full of statements about sterilization. Am I not correct, Your Honor? That is the way I heard the translation. I thought the examination covered both fields.
THE PRESIDENT: Those terms I find on further reading.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I thought they were used interchangeably either by the witness misunderstanding or otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: If it were used interchangeably, it was, of course --
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Inadvertent.
THE PRESIDENT: Inadvertent, yes. Both words were used.
DR. SCHILF: May I say another word? I admit that the word "sterilization" was mentioned in my cross examination but that was only due to the fact that to help the witness's memory I read to the witness a number of titles of articles which appeared in Deutsche Justiz (German Justice) in 1934.
They appeared as essays. The purpose of my mentioning these articles was simply this: I wanted to refresh the witness's memory because he said previously that he had been completely informed on the development of the Third Reich. He said he also read the Deutsche Justiz. To **** his memory I read the titles of several articles. That was where the word "castration" and also the word "sterilization" occurred. If I may ask the witness, I believe the subject we discussed was purely that of castration. The cause of my question was only the law of 21 April 1934 which created the so-called the dangerous habitual criminal.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Court will also recall, and I am sure Dr. Schilf will now remember, that he went rather extensively into that. I did not interrupt him. He assumed something which was not in evidence. I did not quarrel. He said there were sterilization or castration statutes in the United States. There are no castration statutes in the United States but if I recall Dr. Schilf specifically said there were 33 states that --
THE PRESIDENT: 25.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Certainly he has opened up the field of sterilization. He has opened the field. I think I am entitled on redirect examination to direct a few questions to that issue.
JUDGE BRAND: I might call attention to the fact that the transcript refers to that article as a weapon of criminal policy and then it refers to sixteen thousand persons sterilized in the United States. That surely entitled the prosecution to clarify the issue.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, though, before the prosecution takes up the cudgel, I am sure that 16,000 figure is grossly erroneous. I wonder if the text was misread?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I doubt if it were a mis-reading. It was, I believe, a German text in which the accurate figures may not have been available. I am sure counsel read the text correctly. It was a German text. The source may not have been accurate.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SCHILF: May I add this, Mr. President? Among the titles I read this one appeared: "16,000 Sterilized Persons in the United States of America". There is no doubt about that, but actually the subject which I was asking the witness about was not sterilization. That title was only read by me to help the witness's memory because in 1934 the law was published and it started discussions in legal journals which made comparisons between German and foreign law.
THE PRESIDENT: Under all the circumstances the Tribunal rules that your questions are competent.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Now we will read the language of the article. Article 4: "Interested persons and counsel can be barred from appearance at the Hereditary Health Courts and Appellate Hereditary Health Courts for important reasons. This decision is uncontestible." My question is: does the provision of that law, which came as early as 1935, confirm your opinion that sterilization legislation passed by the Third Reich, was passed in a different context and made available for purposes other than those ostensibly set out when that legislation was passed?
A This provision increases my misgivings about the legislation or concerning prevention of progeny afflicted with hereditary disease, such as it was introduced under the Third Reich. I stated my misgivings when we discussed the castration of habitual dangerous criminals, and these same doubts apply to the complex of questions concerning hereditary disease and the legislation applying to it. In two cases, judges themselves told me of the resistance with which these matters were dealt with at the Hereditary Health Courts. One of the judges told me that he intentionally delayed dealing with such cases because he had a particular resistance to dealing with these matters.
Q May I ask you further that, assuming that there will be introduced into evidence in this case, a document known as No. 4055-PS, dated Berlin 12, 1942, signed by the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger, addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief for the Chancery, Dr. Lammers, Berlin, in which I read for you the following passages:
"Raise and Settlement, Main Office of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Attention SS-Gruppenfuehrer Hoffmann: Final solution of the Jewish question, with regard to the treatment of Jewish question, with regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed marriage of the first degree:
I agree with the conception of the Reichsminister of the Interior, which he expresses in his letter of February 16, 1942, to the effect that the prevention of the propagation of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their being thrown in with Jews and evacuated." It follows, therefrom, that the evacuation of those half Jews, who were no more capable of propagation is obviated from the beginning. There is no national issue in dissolving the marriages between such halfJews and a full-blooded German. Those half-Jews, who are capable of propagation, would be given the choice to submit to sterilization or be evacuated in the same manner as Jews. (Signed) Dr. Schlegelberger."
I ask you, assuming that that evidence is true, whether or not you consider as to your answer on direct examination, that you believe the sterilization law was Nazi legislation and dangerous in the context of Nazi ideology, is still your opinion? Please don't answer it until Dr. Kuboschok says what he wishes.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to the utilization of this document in the form in which the prosecutor has just done it. The subject of this document is: "Measures against half-Jews." The question of half-Jews was not mentioned in any way during the cross-examination. It is really not possible that if a word was once mentioned under cross-examination, such as the word "sterilization," and this word occurs once in another document, that it comprises a different complex, and that in that case, this document is used on redirect examination. That would mean that for redirect examination, there would be no limits whatsoever.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to state my position because I have no intention of violating an accepted principle.
I stated the evidence of course is an assumption, but I referred to evidence which will be introduced. The issue is not as refined as Dr. Kuboschok thinks. The witness was constantly asked by practically every defense counsel, questions relating not only to this statute but to others, as to why, if the form of the language used was found in other lands. He would say that this sterilization statute, he considered to be a dangerous change made by the Nazi Government, and I am certainly entitled, on redirect examination, without regard to whether it's sterilization or castration, to reaffirm a position which was, at least be clouded on crossexamination, by asking him to assume evidence which bears out his statement on direct examination for the purpose of reaffirming it. I am not asking that this evidence be made evidence. I am simply asking him to assume if these things were true.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I add-
THE PRESIDENT: Before Dr. Kuboschok makes any further observations, I will state the position of the Tribunal. It is said by the prosecution that the later Exhibit Number 4055PS will be introduced on this very subject, that being the exhibit that he has read in part. I remember that on former occasions, when an objection has been made by defense counsel taking this same position relative to some statute, we have said to defense counsel that we are quite capable of interpreting and applying the language of an exhibit, and that same remark, of course, will apply to the prosecution counsel.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I can understand applying the same rule. I'd like to point this out, Your Honor, I think there is a distinct difference between this case and the one where I, a few minutes ago, attempted to introduce evidence with reference to these individuals.
That the court might well do; but this goes to the credibility of this witness, in his judgment, and it seems to me that I am entitled to strengthen his credibility by this question.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. La Follette, it's the exhibit that will strengthen his credibility if it conforms to his opinion as given before. You don't need to ask him if it strenghtens his credibility or confirms his opinion. If your exhibit, when offered, does strengthen his opinion, the court will know it. It seems to me personally that you are wasting time completely in asking him if an exhibit which you propose to offer, in which you assume may confirm his opinion, does confirm his opinion. We can determine that perfectly when you offer the exhibit.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I understand the Court's ruling. May I say this: I shall find it necessary, I think, to be much more active than I have been before in objecting to questions on cross-examination which assume the existence of facts which are just taken out of the air. I mean where there is no possibility of their being introduced into evidence. I had not been intervening because I felt that I would have the opportunity to support my facts, not assumptions.
THE PRESIDENT: To assume a fact which is oral and which is not the subject matter of an exhibit then introduced or later to be introduced is one thing, but to introduce an exhibit which speaks for itself, we think, it creates a different situation.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of course, I abide by Your Honors' ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: We think that, without further discussion, we should sustain the objection.
BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q. I believe, Doctor, you said on cross examination that there was, in your opinion, some form of objective fact which could be or must be referred to in order to punish and convict a man under the provisions, the concepts of the Reichs Legal Gazette Blatt, to define crimes contained in Article 2 of the laws that changed the penal code of 28 June 1935, Part 1, page 839. Article 1 of that act declares that the creation in legality by proper application of the penal code in Article 2 and 2-A of the penal code is amended to read as fallows, and then Article 2 follows. Do you have that before you? It is a law of 28 June, 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness has this little pamphlet, it is on page five, if that will help any.
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. In the English it reads: "Whoever commits on act which the law declares is punishable, or which deserves punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law, or the sound concept of the people, shall be punished." Is that the sense of it?
A. Yes.
Q. "If no specific penal law can he directly applied to this act, then it shall be punished according to the law whose underlying principles can be most readily applied to the act."
DR. SCHUBERT (Attorney for Defendant Oeschey) With regard to this very important translating, I just want to draw your attention to it. Article 2 says: "He would be punished who commits an act which is declared punishable by the law, or who according to the basic principles of a law." "And" is mistrabslated. It should be: "And according to the sound feelings of the people." I thought it was necessary for me to draw your attention to this.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I thank Dr. Schubert for the correction of the translate. I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Further proceed with the prosecution of the case.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May the witness be excused.
MR. WOOLEYMAN: If the Court please, the evidence last introduced in Documentary evidence by the Prosecution was Exhibit No. 125. This was document NG-669, which was found on page 22 of the English document book. It will be remembered from the Prosecution's reading of that case that there several defendants were sentenced to varying terms for treason. Before proceeding further with the case in chief, we wish to invite the Court's attention to Prosecution's Exhibit No. 77, previously introduced some days ago, which is found on page 81 of Book I-C, Document NG-412, wherein was set forth certain correspondents concerning the formation of the promulgation of certain legislation, making treason a capital punishment, offense. We merely wish to invite to the Court's attention that relationship in passing.
At this time the Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 126 Document NG 659, which is a sworn affidavit of the Defendant Lautz, from which, prior to the actual offer, we wish to read certain portions. This document was distribution to the Defense separately, apart from any document book on the 14th of March
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, I would like to delay the reading of this document for a minute. There are several mistakes in that document, and I haven't got my copy with me at the moment. I should like to go and get it quickly.
THE PRESIDENT: How long a time will it take to get the document?
DR. GRUBE: I shall be back in three minutes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, we have the original exhibit here, if counsel would like to examine that.
DR. GRUBE: All the same, I should like to reserve the right to make the objection; that the text that we have received is corrected to the original; there are several mistakes contained in it which do not agree with the original.
MR. PRESIDENT: I think counsel should have an opportunity to find the document, on which ho has probably made some notations. Get it as quickly as you can.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, this affidavit is being introduce at this juncture for reason of trial technique.
