Q Thank you for that clarification; I misunderstood you.
A And the associated judge, in the matter of the reopening of the trial-that is, I assume therefore, that the associated judge in the past case was the later Oberlandesgerichtsrat Atzendorf, district Court of Appeals Counsellor Atzendorf.
Q I ask you to be excused if I return to the case of Soell again. You have informed us that Soell, after the sentence was pronounced, had collapsed. Did you as defense counsel, in the main trial, ask for a decision by the Court about the capability of the defendant to stand trial?
A No.
Q One moment; and if you did not do so, did you make an application for the record concerning the state of health of the defendant Did you have it entered in the record?
A No, that was not necessary because everybody could see how the man looked.
Q Wouldn't an entry of that kind in the record have been an important prerequisite for the reopening on the trial? Wasn't it your duty as a defense counsel to request that an appropriate statement be made on the record?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just a moment, please. I only want to know what case this is.
DR. MANDRY: It is the case of Soell.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: All right.
MR. MANDRY: In the case Soell, the witness has stated that Soell's state health was devastating.
THE WITNESS: Yes, physically, but he was still capable of attending the trial. He could pronounce his answer and, such a long time of imprisonment in that state of health, after he had been taken away from his apartment, from his home, from his wife, where he was well cared for, after he had been arrested again and again brought into the prison, he insisted personally that finally he should get through it with the trial.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q In the other cases which you have discussed with the representative of the prosecution, in this cases too, which might easily understand, was it also the wish of the defendants that they should have their trial as soon as possible?
A That is a general wish, or the general request today and before. A man in prison wants to know as soon as possible what his after is going to be, even if he has to expect a severe penalty.
Q I the cases which you have discussed with the prosecution now, were there also defendants who informed you as defense counsel that they would like to see their trials scheduled as soon as possible, even if that schedule was a very close one, or very nearby, and therefore made it difficult for them to consult their defense counsel?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just one moment please. Obviously this evidence for the defense. I did not at any time ask this witness any questions about the proceeding of trials. Time element was never asked on direct examination. Therefore the cross-examination does not go to effect the credibility of the witness not to effect any fact about which he testified on direct examination.
DR. MANDRY: I have to admit that this objection by the representative of the prosecution is justified, and therefore, I will withdraws the question.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q I come back now to the case of the Gypsies. Did I understand you correctly that that four or five defendants, Eckstein, Winter and Koehler, and Reinhardt, were the only ones from a large number of Gypsies--I believe you spoke of a whole group of Gypsies--were the only ones who could be convicted, bu that there were ether offenders who could not be indicted together with them?
A Yes, there was quite a number.
Q Can you tell us about the conditions which were brought about the thieveries of the large number of Gypsies, or of persons who joined up with them? You mentioned Upper Wurttemberg where that occurred.
Could you tell us some more details about that; that is as far at is has been stated in the verdict or in the sentence, or was mentioned in the proceedings?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Please, don't answer that.
I Object, Your Honor. It is obviously a matter for defense. I didn't touch on this matter at all with this witness. There is nothing; to deny the defendant Cuhorst the right to prove all these facts and then to argue to this Court that his sentences were correct. But I did not ask this witness any questions with reference to the conditions, or with reference to anything except the age of the defendant and the facts surrounding the case trial. We didn't do into conditions in Germany at the time of the trial, therefore it is not proper cross-examination.
DR. MANDRY: I put the question because the witness, if I remember correctly, motioned the conditions in Upper Wuerttenberg, or at least started to speak about them.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
THE WITNESS: I have not spoken about the conditions in Upper Wuerttemberg, but I only mentioned Upper Wuerttemberg in order to identify the place where the offense occured.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q You spoke about the acts committed by Eckstein and Winter, and said there were mostly simple cases theft which were committed by the group or the band. You also mentioned thefts in cellars. Could you tell us something about that; that is to say, other theft with aggravating circumstances was also committed by breaking in, letting in through windows, etc.?
A There were relatively many cases, individual cases, where the defendants were not always together, but one theft was committed by one and two, another two to five, and so forth-- meaning individuals. Among these thefts, quite numerous thefts, there were some of aggravating circumstances according to outlaws.
Q Thank you. I have another question concerning this point, and that is about the record of previous convictions of the four or five defendants.
According to your recollection, wasn't there any defendant who had already served a term in the penitentiary?
A That I would still have understood, particularly since one could not ommit considering the conditions of war time as far as legal conditions were concerned.
Q I believe I have been misunderstood.
MR LAFOLLETTE: I would like to have the Court instruct the witness that he may continue his answer if he wishes to. I thought he was cut off; I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. If he has any further answer, of course we will hear it. Did you have some further answer to make, Mr. Witness?
THE WITNESS: Concerning the penitentiary conditions? No, I would only like to say in order to mention the special case of Winter, I would not have considered a penitentiary term in order.
MR. MANDRY: I am afraid my question has been misunderstood. I wanted to ask whether there was not one among the four defendants who had a previous penitentiary sentence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I object to that. I don't know what it has to do -- I asked this witness particularly about the sentence against Winter, which was a death sentence. I don't know what difference it makes whether somebody else had a previous sentence. It was only about this defendant Winter.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. We see no impropriety in that question. There was same inquiry into those cases, and we think he should be permitted to further inquire about them. We have, however, arrived at the time of the usual adjournment, and we will therefore recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 18 April 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the Matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. 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 Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if all of the defendants are present in the Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the Court with the exception of the defendants Rothaug and Engert.
THE PRESIDENT: Those two have been excused: let the proper notation be made.
You may proceed with the cross-examination.
JULIUS DIESSEM - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued.
DR. MANDRY (Counsel for the defendant Cuhorst): Your Honor, I should like to repeat the question which could not be answered last night.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q. The question is whether, in the case of Winter - Eckstein, the so-called Gypsy case, any one of the defendants had previous convictions as, for instance, a penitentiary or any considerable prison term.
A. I spoke about Winter yesterday, that Winter only had a very short prison term of a few days before that case, and, on the other hand, I think he had had a fine of about ton marks, in both cases for theft.
Eckstein, who was considerably older, As I still recall, had more, and more serious previous convictions than Winter.
However, I believe I recall that these previous convictions, as far as the new case of the Special Court was concerned -- that is, those previous convictions had occurred long ago.
Q. And the other two defendants, do you know anything about their previous convictions? Do you remember anything?
A. I do not know that about the two others, or at least I do not know it any more, because I was not their defense counsel.
DR. MANDRY: May it please the Tribunal, I do not have any more questions in cross-examination.
BY DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the defendants Klomm and Mottgenberg):
Q. Witness, in connection with the case Stiegler -- that was the black market dealer who was sentenced at Ulm -- you mentioned the decree against public enemies. In the direct examination you stated that the application of the decree against public enemies was more or less a matter of taste. In the cross-examination, however, you stated that as far as you were concerned, there was no doubt about it, it was not a matter of taste any more.
The question is, by saying "Geschmacksache", a matter of taste, did you intend to characterize the decree against public enemies as such, or did you want to have it limited to the court or to your own opinion?
A. I did not mean to criticize the law; that is not my task.
Q. Then I would like to ask you -
A. (Interposing) But I wanted to say that the courts which had to apply the decree against public enemies -- and those were the Special Courts --- could, as one may say, apply it if they wanted to, or they did not have to. I was going to say that the courts were not compelled in any way to apply that decree against public enemies. Furthermore, I wish to state that I, from my own point of view, which I have to consider an absolute humane point of view, in a large percentage of the cases, would not have applied the decree against public enemies in consideration of the enormous consequences against the defendants in proportion to the acts that they committed in the individual cases.
Q. In the manner of speaking that the courts were not compelled to apply the decree against public enemies, isn't that a rather loose manner of expressing it? Because there were definite acts which had to come under the decree against public enemies.
A. In my opinion, as I remember it and as I have stated yesterday, there were no definite acts that had to come under the decree against public enemies, but it was a framework within which the offender first had to commit some other acts.
Q. Does that apply to all acts that come under it?
A. I didn't understand that.
Q. What you said, just now, did that apply to all acts which came under the public enemy decree?
A. It would have to apply that it was a "Rahnengesetz", a framework.
Q. Between questions and answers, would you please have a longer pause?
A. I am not supposed to be examined about the law here, am I? Everybody can read that law. However, if I recall the text of the law or of the decree correctly -- it is a considerable time since I have not had to defend such cases -- then murder, arson, and a few other cases were mentioned by name, but in my opinion only as examples.
Q. I come back again to my question, which you have not answered, that the courts were not compelled to apply the decree against public enemies; whether you consider that a formal, legal statement, or whether that was just in the vernacular of the layman.
A. I believe that I am a witness here and 1 have to speak about facts and not give any legal opinions.
Q. Witness, I do not want to instruct you, but you have made two statements: First, that it was a matter of taste to apply that decree; and second, that the courts were not compelled to apply the decree. It is my duty to ask you only how you understand that in detail.
In other words, you are just asked to explain your two statements.
A. Concerning "a matter of taste", I have already said I am of the opinion that the courts were not compelled to apply the decree against public enemies.
Q. If the courts were confronted with the facts, which they had from the main trial, weren't they compelled to apply the public enemies decree?
A. If the judge came to the result, as it was called, that the offender was a type of public enemy, then, of course, on the basis of his conviction, he had to come to the application of the decree against public enemies.
Q. Do you know anything about the jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court at that time concerning the type of offender?
A. Yes, that is know to me.
Q. Can you tell us something about the type of offender, of the public enemy, and what point of view or what attitude the Reich Supreme Court had?
A. That I do not remember.
Q. I have one last question. You said yesterday that war-time conditions, of course, could not be without influence on criminal legislation. I would like to ask you whether the decree against public enemies was a measure of war-time legislation exclusively or not.
A. Yes.
Q. Exclusively?
A. Yes, a. measure which had been issued on account of the war.
Q. And which should only be valid for war-time?
A. That I don't know.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other of defendants' counsel desire to cross examine this witness?
(No response)
Has the prosecution further examination in re-direct?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, technically I have about two questions which possibly should have been direct. In view of the fact that I don't think they will hurt anyone, I hope I shall be permitted to ask them. If the Court, on hearing them, does not care for me to do so, I will refrain.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. You were living in Stuttgart at the time of the big air raid in 1944 that injured the courthouse?
A. Yes.
Q. I ask you whether or not the records of the Special Court and the Criminal Senate of the Oberlandesgericht wore destroyed in that raid.
A. At that time much was destroyed by fire.
Q. And what happened to that part of the courthouse in which the records were contained?
A. The main building burned down completely.
Q. Did that include the part in which the records of the courts were contained?
A. I could not say that with certainty. However, I know that records of the Special Court, and probably also of the Penal Chambers, had been kept in the collar. I believe that quite a number of those records were saved.
Q. Do you recall the occasion of the occupation of Stuttgart by the American troops on one side of the river, and the French on the other, in this last war?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it on that occasion , or approximately at that time, that there was bonfire in which prisoners destroyed arm-loads of records?
Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I believe it was in the beginning of April when the courts were evacuated from Stuttgart. One morning I went through the courtyard of the prison. That courtyard was flanked on one side by the courthouse which was quite burnt out. In the rubble, that is to say, in the rubble of a room that was completely burnt out on tho ground floor, there were about eight or ten prisoners in a circle around a large fire. Each one of them had an arm full of files, and the prisoners threw one after the other of these files into the flames. At that time they were guarded by one or two wardens.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the character of this redirect examination, it not being strictly redirect examination, an opportunity will bo given to defense counsel to further cross-examine if they so desire.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Solely on the questions asked on re-direct?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
Apparently no one desires to do so. That is the end of this witness' examination, as I take it; he may therefore be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Will the Tribunal and defense counsel please turn to Document Book IV-A?
For the Tribunal's information, I have amended copies of the first document in Book IV-A, which supplies the first two pages which were missing, I think, in your books.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't hear you distinctly.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In the English Document Book IV-A, the first document, 1549-PS, was faulty in that two pages were omitted. I am now supplying the amended versions. The German books are in order.
The first document in Book IV-A is 1549-PS. This document begins with an initial draft by the SS, dated 20 December 1940, which proposes general amnesty for racial Germans in the annexed Eastern countries, including Poland and Danzig. It is addressed to Hitler's Deputy, and requests a law quashing certain legally pronounced sentences. Amnesty is here proposed even for murder if the racial German culprit "was carried away" in committing the act by his excessive zeal for the fight for German folkdom or Party ideas.
This document is completed by a letter from the defendant Schlegelberger for the Ministry of Justice to Hitler's Deputy. Schlegelberger therein advises that further general amnesties for racial Germans in Poland are not necessary since Hitler, up until 4 October 1939, had already pardoned them all.
As to crimes against Polish property, Schlegelberger states that he has made sure that no prosecution will occure unless especially important reasons exist.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 254, document 1549-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 7 of the English document book, and page 11 of the German , is found NG-640. This document is a one-page memorandum, bearing the handwritten signature of the defendant Joel, stating his decision to suspend sentences of "two deserving Party members" for murdering two Polish Priests for no reason other than their hatred for the clergy, the sentences of these two Party members to remain suspended as long as they served in an SS unit.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 255, document NG-640.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you, there appears no signature in the English copy. Would you tell us what appears on the original, if anything?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, on the original, appears the handwritten signature of the defendant Joel, and the date, which appears to be the 12th of September.
JUDGE BRAND: And the year?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The year is not given. In handwriting, under the signature, are the Arabic figures "12/9". However, in the text of the document appears the date 11 June 1940. He presume it is the same year.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: On page 8 of the English document book is found document NG-366. This document comprises the reports of two conferences held on 23 and 24 January 1939. Both reports are signed by the defendant Klomm. At these conferences the so-called security detention of prisoners by the State police, after service of sentence, is discussed and approved.
Tho prosecution offers, as Exhibit No. 256, document NG-566.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, this document is still being examined by defense counsel.
On page 13 of the English Document book and Page 17 of the German book is found NG-340. This Document is an exchange of correspondonce dated July and August 1939 between the Reich Ministry of Justice, the Reich Chancellery and the Nazi Party Chancellery in a Hitler order that all prison inmates in so-called security detention be immediately put at the disposal of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler for important work in concentration camps. The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 257, Document NG-340.
THE PRESIDENT: To which defendant, if any, does this have particular application?
MR WOOLEYHAN: It refers, particularly, to the policy-making level of the Ministry of Justice as the Prosecution contends is up to a state secretary level.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 17 of the English Book and Page 21 of the German Book is found NG-269, This document purports to be a letter or at least it begins with a letter dated 26 July 1940. It is personally signed by the Defendant Engert and two other People's Court judges. It was submitted to the President of the People's Court by an endorsement like wise personally signed by Engert wherein it is recommended that certain cases not be tried by the People's Court, but that instead the defedants be sent to concentrations camps. Thierack, then President of the People's Court approved this recommendation in the following letter to the Ministry of Justice dated 14 August 1940 in which among other things he stated the following. I road now briefly from Page 18 of the English Book, Page 23 of the German book.
" However right it is to exterminate harshly and uproot all the seeds of insurrection, as for example we see them in Bohemia and Moravia, it is wrong for every follower, even the smallest, to be given the honor, of apprearing for trial and being judged for high treason before a People's Court or, failing that, before an Appellate Court."
Skipping to the next paragraph, " I have therefore no objection what so ever, if all the small hangers-on who are somehow connected with the high treason plans which have been woven and plotted by others, are brought to their senses by being transferred to a concentration camp for some time."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 258, Document NG-369 THE PRESIDENT:
The document will be admitted in evidence MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 20 of the English book, page 25 of the German Book, is found NG-685. This appears to be a situation report by the chief Public Prosecutor at Hamm, Westphalia, dated 29 January 1941, addressed to Undersecretary Schlegerberger informing Labor Office, and the SS, his public prosecutors were turning over, without trial, to the Gestapo for concentration camps, all Poles who brached labor contracts.
There was a purported local difference of opinion as to whether Czechs should be similarly treated.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 259, Document NG-685.
On Page 31 of the English Book, which is Page 37 of the German, is found NG-540. This document is a one-page letter wherein Meissner, Chief of the Reich Presidential Chancellery informs the Defendant Schlegelberger on 22 April 1941 that Schlegelberger may, if he desires, postpone transfer of prison inmates to the Gestapo for short periods until Hitler can be notified of the reasons for such transfers.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 260, Document Number 540.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On the text page of the Document Books is found NG-581. This comprises two situation reports by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court of Appeals in Berlin dated January and March 1942, wherein, the Attorney General complained to the Defendant Schlegelberger that defendants sentenced to minor prison terms were being handed over by Justice authorities to the Gestapo, and were later shot under the so-called guise of having offered resistance. The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 261, Document NG-581.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 37 of the English Book which is Page 47 in the German Book, is found 638-PS. This appears to be some notes signed by the defendant Joel The notes concern a speech of Georing on 24 September 1942 wherein Joel outlines Goering's plan about having the Justice Ministry select to convicts for release in Partisan territories to murder, burn and ravish. A copy is stated to have been sent to the Defendant Rothenberger for his information. The Prosecution offers s Exhibit 262, Document 638.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received, in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 38 of the English Book, which is page 46 of the German Book, is found 662 PS. This appears to be a series of notes on a conference hold on 9 October 1942. It is signed by Dr. Crohnelt outlines a entirely now program whereby so-called asocial prison inmates, namely, Poles, Jews, Russians,Ukrainians, Czechs and Frenchmen in certain catagories are to be handed even by the Ministry of Justive to the SS. As to the asocials, aprogram is specifically delegated to the Defendant Engert in Division 15 of the Ministry of Justice. He is charged with tho decision in all individual cases.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 263, Document 662-)S.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 42 of the English book, which is Page 54 of the German, is found 648-PS. This is a Ministry of Justice order, dated 22 October 1942, addressed to All District Attorney Generals, which puts into effect the program of transferring asocial prison inmates to the SS and specifies the raises of convicts which are the same as those proposed and enumerated in the preceding document 662-PS. The division of official duties regarding this program is laid down between Division 5 and Division 15 of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 264, Document 648-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 46 of the English book, which is Page 60 of the German, is found L-316. This is a secret express letter, dated 5 November 1942, from the SS Main Office addressed to All SS and SD Branches, explaining the previously described transfer program with respect to asocial prison inmates, and it announces the nature of the working agreement between Himmler and Thierack on this point.
JUDGE BRAND: Would you tell me again the "L" number of the document?
MR. WOOLEYHAN:L-316. The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 265, Document L-316.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 48 of the English book -- and I am sorry but I don't have the German page -- is found NG-598. This is a letter dated 8 March 1943, signed and sent by the defendant Barnickel of the Chief Reich Prosecution Office at the People's Court. The defendant Barnickel writes to the commander of a prison camp and requests the latter's compliance with the program of transferring convicts to the Gestapo in specified cases.
JUDGE BRAND: I find in my book two copies apparently of this same document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Two duplicate pages?
JUDGE BRAND: Two complete copies. Is one of them the correction of the other or is that just an inadvertence?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe that is an inadvertence. That page was missing from the German Document Book. I just supplied the extra page.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 266, Document NG-598.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 50 of the English book, which is 76 in the German, is found NG-614. This document is in four parts. The first is a People's Court verdict sentencing a Pole, Johann Kubiak, and three other Poles to six years imprisonment; each for attempted high treason. The second part is a letter signed and sent by the defendant Barnickel of the Reich Prosecution Office at the People's Court to a certain prison director ordering that this Kubiak and the other three Poles sentenced with him are to serve in an "aggravated prison camp." The third part is a subsequent notice to the Office of defendant Barnickle, namely the Reich Prosecution Office at the People's Court, that this Pole Kubiak accordingly had been transferred to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. The last part is a notice to the Reich Prosecution Office at the People's Court, dated one week after the preceding part, stating that this Kubiak had meanwhile died in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 267, Document KG-614.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 56 in the English book, which is 81 of the German, is found 701-PS. This sets forth instructions by the Reich Ministry of Justice to the Public Prosecutors and to the Justice Ministry Commissioners in Emsland directing that Jews and Poles who have been released after service of their sentence in Reich prisons are to be transferred to the concentration camp at Auschwitz or Lublin for the rest of their lives regardless of the offense.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 268, Document 701-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 38 in the English book, which is 82 of the German, is found a statute, which is the same as that found on Page 54 of Document Book II. It is put here in repetition to point again to the fact that by this statute all Jews were deprived of all judicial process in criminal cases and were turned over without trial to the police, and after their death their property was confiscated by the Reich.
Does the Tribunal desire a separate exhibit? I have; otherwise it's found in Document Book II on Page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: A reference to that book and page would seem to be sufficient. What page did you say it would be?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 54 of Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: You have set out a complete copy of the statute and the exhibit?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, we have, Your Honor.
On Page 60 of the English book, which is 84 in the German, is found 2221-PS. This is an urgen Gestapo teletype message concerning the details of replacing transferred Poles in concentration camps to maintain essential war labor projects. Cooperation with the Ministry of Justice is specifically mentioned.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 269, Document 2221-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: That number did you assign to that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: 269, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You gave no separate number to that statute apparently?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, I believe it's our understanding at your suggestion that we make no extra exhibit on that statute.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder how that will affect the record room?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: There will be no confusion, Your Honor.