In the meantime, it had been provided in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10 that "membership in categories of criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal" should be "recognized as a crime." Paragraph 3 of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10 specifies the punishments which may be imposed for membership in these organizations.
In its dimension, the International Military Tribunal set forth certain limitations upon the scope of its declaration that membership in these organizations were original. Under these limitations in order to render membership criminal, two things, in addition to membership must be shows Firstly.
That the individual in question became or remained a member of the organization after 1 September 1939 and Secondly, That the individual in question either (a) became or remained a member with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article VI of the London Agreement, or (b) was personally implicated as a member of the organization in the commission of such crimes.
The Prosecution believes that, once it has established that a defendant was a member of one or more of the criminal organizations, it is incumbent upon the defendant to come forward with evidence that he neither knew of the criminal activities of the organization, nor participated in their commission, or that he ceased to be a member prior to 1 September 1939. We believe, however that any questions concerning the burden of proof will be entirely academic in this case, inasmuch as the positions which these defendants held, and the evidence embodied in the documents which we will offer in evidence, will show beyond question that they both knew of and participated in the criminal activities.
I will deal first with the four defendants charged with membership in the SS. The evidence will show that the defendant Altsötter became a member of the SS in 1937, that he remained a member after 1939, and attained the rank of Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in June, 1944. The defendant Cuhorst became a sponsoring member (Foerderndes Mitglied) of the SS in January, 1934 and remained such after 1939.
The defendant Engert joined the SS in 1936 and thereafter attained the rank of Oberfuehrer. The defendant Joel joined the SS in 1938, and attained the rank of Obersturmbahnfuehrer or Lieutenant Colonel.
The activities for which the SS was declared a criminal organization are set forth in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal. These activities included the extermination of numerous "undesirable" classes, including Jews, and the transfer of numerous Jews and foreign nationals to concentration camps, where they were murdered and tortured.
It will be abundantly apparent from the proof that if any member of the SS knew of and participated in its widespread criminal activities, surely these defendants did. They were directly concerned with penal problems and, as we have seen, of necessity their cooperation with the SS was extremely close. In fact, Himmler himself took special pains to insure that the German judiciary would be fully advised on the ideology of the SS and of its nefarious aims and purposes. In July 1944, at the special invitation of Thierack as Reich Minister of Justice, Himmler made a speech to the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Reich Prosecutors. A report from the files of the Ministry of Justice describing this occasion reads as follows:
"On the invitation of the Reich Minister cf Justice, Dr. Thierack, the Reichsfuehrer SS, spoke to the Presidents and the Chief Prosecutors of the courts of appeal at the Reich castle of Cochem on 20 May 1944. The question of the development and the aims of the SS was dealt with, in particular the importance of the racial question, questions of national biology, fighting selection, racial community, the importance of the Waffen-SS and the Greater German thought.
"The judges and public prosecutors were to receive the information through the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and might have been informed in the meantime.
"You are respectfully requested to submit a detailed report on the reception and the effect of this speech on the judges and the chief public prosecutors."
Himmler's well-known view on the value of non-German human life were thereby made available to all German judges and chief prosecutors. They surely came to the attention of the defendant Cuhorst, in this and numerous other ways. They surely were well-known among the higher officials of the Ministry of Justice, including Altstötter, Engert and Joel.
Indeed, long before Himmler's speech to this judicial assembly, the Ministry of Justice had been collaborating actively with Himmler in turning over Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies and others from the ordinary prisons to the concentration camps. The whole evil process must have been particularly well-known to Engert, who was in charge of Division XV of the Ministry of Justice, which was charged with carrying out these transfers. A Justice Ministry document written in October 1942, gives complete information concerning the agreement between the Ministry and Himmler, and specifically delegates the execution of the agreement, on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, to Engert and his associates in Division XV, Engert thereafter visited various prisons throughout the Reich, checked over the lists and arranged for the delivery of these unfortunates to the SS.
Nor could those arrangements, or other activities of the SS, have been any secret from Altstötter, who was a Division Chief of the Ministry of Justice throughout this period. Furthermore, Alstötter was a particular personal favorite of Himmler's. Correspondence which we will introduce will show that the most cordial relations existed between Alstötter and Himmler and between Alstötter and other high SS officers, including Dr. Karl Gebhardt, the Chief Surgeon of the SS. At a conference in 1942, with Thierack, Rothenberger and other judicial officials, Himmler singled out Altstötter as being "reliable." The Defendant Joel was not only an officer of the SS, but also a member of the Sicherheitsdienst, the branch of the SS particularly concerned with intelligence and with the extermination of Jews in Poland and the Soviet Union. Joel was particularly familiar with these murderous activities. A memorandum signed by Joel in 1942 described a plan which Goering had connected for picking out "daring fellows" from among the prison inmates who would carry out special tasks behind the lines on the Eastern front. Joel's memo recites that Himmler had already selected a large number of such men for his purpose, but that Goering wanted the field picked over again.
Joel's memo goes on to state:
......."The only suitable men are these with a passion for hunting, who have poached for love of the trophy, not men who have laid snares and traps. The Reich Marshall also mentioned fanatical members of smuggling gangs, who take part in gun-battles on the frontiers and whose passion it is to outwit the customs at the risk of their own lives, but not men who attempt to bring articles over the frontier in an express train or by similar means.
The Reich Marshall Goering leaves it to us to consider whether still other categories of convicts can be assigned to these bands of pursuit commandos.
In the regions assigned for their operations, these bands, whose first task should be to destroy the communications of the partisan groups, could murder, burn and ravish; in Germany they would once again come under strict supervision.....
The defendant Cuhorst again, along with Nebelung, Oeschey and Rothaug, is involved in the charge of membership in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. The declaration of criminality rendered by the International Military Tribunal includes all the "leaders" in the hierarchy of the Nazi party from the Reichsleiters down through the Gauleiters and Kreisleiters, to the Ortsgruppenleiters. It also includes the heads of the various staff organizations, down to the staffs of the Kreisleiters.
The evidence will show that Cuhorst became a member of the Nazi party in 1930, and in 1933 was given the status of Gaustellenleiter. The defendant Oeschey joined the party the following year and, in 1940, was given the status of Gauhaupstellenleiter. Rothaug joined the party in 1938 and attained the status of Gaugruppenleiter. All three of these defendants were, therefore, heads of staff organizations at Gau level. The defendant Nebelung joined the party in 1928 and soon thereafter became an Ortsgruppeneleitter. All four of the defendants, therefore, fall within the categories of the Leadership Corps specified in the decision of the International Military Tribunal.
The criminal activities of the Nazi Party Leadership Corps are also set forth in the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal.
I These included the persecution and extermination of Jews, administration of the slave labor program, mistreatment of prisoners of war, and the lynching of airmen who had bailed out over Germany. The evidence which we will offer will show knowledge of and participation in all or most of these activities by all four of the defendants.
In conclusion on Count Four, the prosecution wishes to point out certain factors which it believes should be borne in mind in considering the decree of culpability to be attributed to membership in organizations declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. The charge of membership in these organizations, coupled with knowledge of the crimes that were committed or participation in those crimes, is a very serious one. Its consequences will, we believe, have to be more closely examined at the conclusion of this proceeding, but certain factors can be pointed out here and now.
It is true, for instance, that in a sense none of the seven defendants involved in Count Four were "full time" or "paid" members of these organization All seven of them had full time jobs as judicial officials but, under the circumstances which the evidence in this case will disclose, we do not believe that this fact is significant in estimating culpability.
It is true that the high officers' ranks in the SS held by Alstotter, Engert, and Joel were chiefly honorary. It was part of Himmler's calculated policy to draw support to himself from all quarters by distributing honorary SS ranks and decorations. But those who accepted special ranks thereby lent the weight of their names and prestige to Himmler and to Himmler's policies. If they did not agree with these policies, they prostituted themselves for whatever prerequisites or security those shameful ranks and awards might bring.
Where it can be shown, as it will be here, that the defendants not only were fully familiar with the horrifying scope of Himmler's program, but also participated directly in its execution, it should be considered no defense whatsoever than an individual's SS activities were extracurricular rather than his daily bread and butter.
1. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I, Trial of the Major War Criminals, pp. 258-61.
Similar considerations apply to the defendants who were members of the Party Leadership Corps. Cuhorst, Nebelung and Oeschey were all members of the Party years before Hitler came to power; all three of them, and Rothaug, too, played a leading role in party affairs.
They too, by the very nature of the positions they occupied in the judicial system, to say nothing of the fact that they were high in the party councils, must have been aware of the activities recited by the International Military Tribunal as the basis for its declaration of criminality.
Indeed, the guilt of these seven defendants under Count Four is, in many respects, deeper that of many fulltime officers of these organizations. The defendants were highly educated, professional men, and they had attained full mental maturity long before Hitler's rise to power. Their minds were not warped at an early age by Nazi teachings; they embraced the ideology of the Third Reich as educated adults. They all had special training and successful careers in the service of the law. They, of all Germans, should have understood and valued justice.
In general conclusion:
Crimes, theoretically and, more often than not, actually, are these acts, which are so contraty to the moral conscience of the community or so dangerous to the maintenance of a reasonable degree of order, justice and peace in the community, that the community, by appropriate processes, demands their elimination and suppression in the interest of the individuals who constitute the community. Therefore, those within a nation or a state who institute proceedings to enforce this community decision as prosecutors, speak for the community conscience or community decision. For this reason, criminal prosecutions within states ornations are brought in the name of the State of Commonwealth, or by the use of words suitable to describe the offended community.
In this proceeding at Nurnberg, the world is the community. The four nations which have written the substantive law under which we proceed, their responsible government heads and their elder statesmen, have proclaimed it as a codification of crimes denounced as such by the moral conscience of that community when the crimes we try were committed.
Therefore, although this indictment is brought in the name of Government of the United States, this case in substance is the People of the World against these men who have committed criminal acts against the community we know as the world. For surely few spots on this earth are so remote that they have not felt in some degree the disruptive, if not indeed the destructive, impact of the criminal acts of those men or these others when they served and with whose acts they were criminally connected.
Therefore, unless all the countries of tho World fight a continuous struggle to match the moral conscience of the world which has been asserted here, the result will be a cynical Germany and an apathetic, a moral world which drifts aimlessly because it sees no national conduct which matches the standards of moral conduct which are proclaimed here. The true significance of these proceedings, therefore, far transcends the mere question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants. They are charged with murder, but this is no more murder trial. These proceedings invoke tho moral standards of the civilized world, and thereby impose an obligation on the nations of the world to measure up to the standards applied here.
Although this Tribunal is internationally constituted, it is an American court. The obligations which derived from these proceedings are, therefore, particularly binding on the United States. True it is that two wrongs do not make a right, and equally true that the crimes charged against these defendants and the other leaders of the Third Reich were so calculating, so malignant, and so devastating" that they find no modern parallel. But, underlying these crimes, there are myths, superstitutions, and more sophisticated distortions of philosophy which do not know national boundaries. If we, of all nations.
fail to rise above these malignant doctrines by actions which manifest a steady growth in national fiber and character, then all that we do here will come to nothing, and will leave us and mankind an easy prey to their next violent eruption.
We have still other obligations here which must not be overlooked. As was pointed out earlier, we have undertaken, together with other nations, the task of preparing "for the eventual reconstruction of German political life on a democratic basis and for eventual peaceful cooperation in international life in Germany."
These proceedings are dedicated to that end. Punishment of these leaders of Germany whose crimes made this task necessary is only a part of what we seek to accomplish here. We seek to resurrect the truth in Germany, and to re-invigorate these ideals that have been so long desecrated. The people of Germany sense the need for this, but they will measure our efforts by the measure of our own devotion to tho ideals which we proclaim.
The United States cannot evade the challenge of those responsibilities. No can fulfill only the smallest part of them at Nurnberg. But Nurnberg must be a symbol, not of revenge or of smug self-satisfaction, but of peace and good will among nations and peoples. It is the crime of shattering the foundations of peace and denying the very fact of humanity that is charged in this and other proceedings at Nurnberg. It is by trying these charges under law, and in quest of truth, that Nurnberg will find its full measure of justification.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time we have decided again to remind the Prosecution and the Defense Counsel of our decision that you confer before the next session, and to be prepared, on both sides, to state your positions concerning the challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment.
HR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, may be -
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing) May be you are prepared to state that new?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, I would like to make clear what possibly was not clear this morning, maybe I spoke too rapidly, but the Defense Counsel who challenged the sufficiency of the indictment this morning or any others who care to met me, I will remain in the court room here after the court has adjourned for the purpose of meeting with them in an attempt to reach a solution so that we can advise the court of this tomorrow morning, at least.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Mr. President, perhaps I may make a statement today -
THE PRESIDENT: First state your name.
DR. SCHILF: Dr. Alfred Schilf representing defendant Mettgcnbcrg. This morning was afraid that the Prosecution was going to present the indictment and the evidence all together in one. I have had a talk with the gentlemen of the Prosecution, and I have learned that my fears are groundless, and I, therefore, no longer wish to put forward that motion. My colleagues and I had objected against the affidavit, on which the court decided, and in the affidavit there has been no evidence presented. I said possibly the indictment would not be separated from the presentation of evidence. Now, that the court has already decided in one case, that the evidence would be produced separately, I have no longer any misgivings. I would also like to state that the Prosecution, in a letter, which only reached me yesterday gave cause for fear in regard to the Prosecution. Therefore, my words of this morning concerning obligations in writing, that has now been settled. I mean to say, I have no longer any objections against the course of the procedure, such as we have seen it today. If any one of my colleagues has anything to say, I would suggest that such colleagues do so, and afterwards submit such objection in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other Defense Counsel desire to make a statement at this time?
(No response).
If not, the Tribunal understands that no further request is being made for copies of the interrogation records, and we also understand, maybe wrongly that no further objections are made as to the sufficiency of the indictment at this time. Am I right about that?
(No response).
On that assumption, we will adjourn the meeting of this Tribunal, and we will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:30 o'clock in room 295.
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 6 March 1947, 0930, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3. Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court?
TEE SECRETARY GENERAL: Your Honor, all of the defendants are present except Rothaug and Engert.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that all defendants are present except the defendants Rothaug and Engert and they are absent by application of their counsel and by permission of the Tribunal. Is the prosecution ready to proceed with the case?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, we are ready, Your Honor.
TEE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, I think the Court is acquainted with the statement that if you would resort to only one document you engaged in plagiarism and if you resort to many you engage in research. This is a form of plagiarized research that I am about to proceed with. Certain proceedings have been developed for laying the basic grounds for the presentation cf evidence and Mr. Schiller of the OCC, who was connected with the initial trial in Tribunal No. 1, has been kind enough to let me have the benefit of his experience so I want to give credit to him and to others who have gotten this up in the sense--
THE PRESIDENT: It is excusable since that tribunal followed the procedure of Tribunal No. 1 also.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir, Thank you, Your Honor. Before beginning the presentation of evidence it might be well to explain the method whereby documents have been procured and processed for the purpose of presentation in evidence by the United States as well as the procedure which we, with the Tribunal's approval, propose to follow throughout the presentation of these documents.
When the United States Army entered German territory, it had specialists, military officials, whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary document centers. Later each army established fixed document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these U.S. document centers in the U.S. Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers. Upon the creation of the I.M.T. field teams under the direction of Major William H. Coogan were organized and sent out to the various document centers. Great masses of German documents and records were screened and examined. Those selected "were sent to Nuernberg to be processed. These original documents were then given trial identification numbers in various series. The name, style end series being designated by the letters "PS", "L", "R", "EC", and "C". indicating the means of the acquisition of the documents and each series were listed numerically. The prosecution in this case will have certain occasions to introduce in evidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some of these documents were introduced in evidence before the I.M.T. or Military Tribunal 1 and 2 and some were not. This Tribunal is required by the provisions of Art. 9 of Ordinance 7 to take judicial notice of those documents which were introduced before the I.M.T. or before military Tribunal 1 and 2. However, in order to simplify the procedure we will introduce photostatic copies of such documents to which will be attached a certificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of the Document Control Center of OCC, certifying that such documents were introduced in evidence before the I.M.T. or the Military Tribunal and that it is a true and correct copy thereof. These documents have been and will be made available to the defense just as in the case of any other documents. As to those documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan which were not used in the case before the I.M.T. or in Military Tribunals 1 and 2, they are authenticated by the affidavit of Major Coogan, dated November 19, 1945.
This affidavit is the basis of authentication of substantially all documents used by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the I.M.T. It was introduced in that trial as U.S. Exhibit No. 1. Since we may use certain documents processed for the I.M.T. trial, I would now like to introduce the Coogan affidavit as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1, to authenticate such documents. The exhibit is also found at page 1 of Document Book 1. This affidavit explains the manner and means by which the captured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trials. I shall not read it as it is substantially the same as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a moment. At this time I desire to offer it as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1. I Ask that the exhibit be considered as offered in evidence but I shall not read it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it for granted that a copy of this has been furnished to each of the defendants?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be no objection. It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I now come to the authentication of documents processed, not for the I.M.T. trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. Some of these documents have been introduced in evidence and have thus been covered by me previously in what I have previously said. All other documents processed for subsequent trials but not yet introduced in evidence are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which will be found at page 6 of Document Book 1 and which I now offer in evidence of the Prosecution Exhibit No. 2. This affidavit explains the procedure of processing documents by the OCC for War Crimes. I desire to read it.
JUDGE BRAND: Which affidavit is this?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: This is Mr. Fred Niebergall's. I shall read from the original document. I shall read the original affidavit and make the formal offer at the conclusion.
"Affidavit -- 3 December 1946.
"I, FRED NIEBERGALL, A.G.O. D150636, of the Office cf Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:
"1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office cf Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "OCC") on 2 October 1946.
"2. I have served in the U.S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a reserve office with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the U.S. of America. Based upon my experience as a U.S. Army Officer, I am familiar with the operations of the U.S. Army in connection with the seizing and processing of captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for OCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between defense Counsel and Translation Division of OCC and assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostatting of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel.
"3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloguing was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers.
"4- :*: repaying for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "IMT") a great number if original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nurnberg, Germany. Major Coogan affidavit of 19 November 1945 described the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief cf the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, 1 received custody, in the course of official business, of all of these document except the ones which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nurnberg.
Some have been screened, processed and registered in accordance with Major Coogan's affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining there have been screened, processed, and registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below.
"5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals. Lawyers and Research Analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German speaking analysts, either at the document center or in Nurnberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.
"6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these documents, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six series designated by the letters: "NO", "NI", "NM", "N* "NG", and ***** indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents are listed numerically.
"7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the Photostat Room, the original document were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the Document Room. In the ca of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.
"8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are now located in safes in the Document Room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the Prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.
"9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.
Signed, "Fred Niebergall, Chief of Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC."
I now ask that Exhibit No. 2 be considered as introduced in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan affidavit. The Niebergall affidavit has been accepted by Military Tribunals 1 and 2, and now by this Tribunal, I think, as sufficient authentification of the documents used by the prosecution in those cases. In addition to the Coogan and Niebergall affidavits, the prosecution in this case will proceed the same way as in cases before Military Tribunals 1 and 2. It will attach to each document submitted in evidence, other than the self-proving documents such as affidavits signed by defendants, a certificate signed by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows:
"I , Patricia Radcliffe, of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the attached document, consisting of one photostatic page and entitled 'Letter from John Doe to Richard Roe,' dated 19 June 1943, is the original of a document which was delivered to me in my capacity, in the usual course of business, as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records, and files, captured by military forces under the Supreme Command, Allied Expeditionary Forces. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the original document is at the Berlin Document Center."
In the case before Military Tribunal 1, objection was made to the introduction into evidence, other than as admissions against interests, of affidavits sworn to before civilian employees of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes on the ground that no showing had been made as to the authority of such individuals to administer oaths.
Subsequently, these affidavits were admitted into evidence upon the submission by the prosecution of a certification by Brigadier General Taylor, Chief of Counsel, for War Crimes, showing the authority of the individuals in question to administer oaths and properly to attest affidavit.
In order to prevent such an objection in this case, the Prosecution desires to offer in evidence a certificate by Brigadier General Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, showing the authority of certain employees of OCC to administer oaths, and the date of the authorization.
This affidavit I am advised, is not in the document book, but it has been distributed, under the rules, to all parties concerned, as required by the rules of the Court.
I would like to offer in evidence, as Prosecution Exhibit No. 3, the certificate of General Taylor referred to, accompanied by documents evidencing his authority.
With the permission of the Court, I will read only the certificate first before making the offer formally, and not the accompanying documents, which are quite long.
"This certificate is made for the purpose of showing the authority of certain of the personnel of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to administer oaths and properly to attest those affidavits which will be offered in evidence before the Military Tribunal in Case Number 3 in United States vs. Josef Altstoetter, et al. pursuant to Executive Order 9547, 2 May 1945, attached hereto as Tab A, Executive Order 9679, 16 January 1946, attached hereto as Tab B, Memorandum No. 15 of the Office of Chief of Counsel, 20 March 1946, attached hereto as Tab C, General Order No. 301 of the Military Governor, 24 October 1946, attached hereto as Tab D, and letter USFET 24 October 1946, attached hereto as Tab D, and letter USFET 24 October 1946, subject: Appointment of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, attached hereto as Tab E, I am authorized and have been since 29 March 1946 to prepar and prosecute charges of atrocities and war crimes against the leaders of the European axis powers and their accessories. In the discharge of the responsibilities conferred on me by the above-mentioned orders and instructions I have authorized and detailed members of my staff who are engaged with me in preparation and prosecution of cases, including attorneys, interrogators, and other investigators and agents of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to conduct interrogations and investigations and in the course cf such interrogations and investigations to administer oaths, Among those whom I have authorized to conduct interrogations and investigations and to administer oaths, with the effective date of their authorization are the following personnel of Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes." Eight names are included in the certificate,which I shall not read. Signed Telford Taylor, Brig. General, US Army, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes.
I offer Prosecution Exhibit No. 3 and ask that it be considered introduced into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: We hear no objection, and it will therefore be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, I would ask you to forgive me if I interrupt at this moment the speech by the Prosecutor. I do not at this time want to make a formal motion, but I am asking the Prosecution and the Court to note a serious and very grave error, as well as to correct it.
I am the defense counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger. Dr. Rothenberger, that table shows which is in front of the Tribunal, according to that table, Departments 3,4,5, and 15 were directly in his charge.