Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 26 September 1947, 0930-1630, the Honorable James T. Brand, presiding,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III, Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please, Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Let notation be made. I believe there was some documentary evidence, Dr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF (For the Defendant Mettgenberg): Document Book I, Mettgenberg is available now in both the German and English texts. May I ask that I be permitted to submit the numbers one to nine, which numbers have been reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. SCHILF: The first document from Document Book I contains the so-called directives for criminal proceedings; a general decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of the 13th April, 1935. It is a very extensive document, but here in this excerpt only the main tasks of criminal procedure are quoted. It is also of importance for the general defense, for subject No. 5 of the general defense. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 1, for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your GV-5?
DR. SCHILF: Yes,
THE PRESIDENT: In document book I.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: On page 6 of Document Book I is the beginning of the second document, an excerpt from criminal administrative directives; this is also a very extensive book, and these directives are listed in a table of contents; only that table of contents is reproduced in this document in order to afford the High Tribunal an opportunity to see what was the sphere of work a sub-department, sub-department IV of the Ministry. For that reason this document is also to be listed under the subject 5 of the general defense. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 2 for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one begins on page 16 of Document Book I, ans is an excerpt from the commentary on the penal code of procedure by Dr. Otto Schwarz. May I say that also the Prosecution referred to that commentary frequently, when referring to provisions of the penal code or the code of penal procedure. In this excerpt provisions are reproduced concerning the execution of the death sentences in Germany, with amendments up to the year 1944. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. SCHIIF: The next document, beginning on page 18 of Document Book I, for Mettgenberg, is an excerpt from the American Army paper, "Stars and Stripes" of the 29th of May 1947. It contains a report about the execution of a death sentence which was pronounced by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau, and shows that for reasons which are not given here, the execution had to be delayed. That document is introduced because the Prosecution has introduced many documents concerning the procedure of execution. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, it is received.
DR. SCHIIF: On page 20, the next document is an excerpt from the Reich Law Gazette of 1931.
It is an announcement concerning the extradition treaty between the German Reich and the United States of America, of the 14th April, 1931. To that announcement there is attached an appendix in English and German of the agreement concerning extradition between Germany and the United States. On page 34 the Court will find the name of the defendant, Wolfgang Mettgenberg, who as a delegate negotiated that treaty with the delegate of the United States on the 12th July, 1930. I am offering that document as exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: On page 35 there is an excerpt from Pfundtner-Neuberg excerpts from the law for a change in German extradition of the 12th of September, 1933. This is a change which took place in the year 1933. I am offering that document as Exhibit No. 6 for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is a brief compilation of the declaration of foreign governments, as well as treaties and agreements with foreign governments concerning the inter-state exchange of legal assistance in criminal cases, just as extradition, the inter-state exchange of legal assistance was the main field of work of Dr. Mettgenberg. I am offering that document about the introduction of these special publications as Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one, beginning on page 40, is an excerpt from the publication "Deutsche Justiz" from 1940. It reproduces a decree concerning the exchange of legal assistance in civil cases with the former Polish territories now incorporated into the Soviet Union. That is submitted for the general defense to illustrate the legal conditions referring to the occupied Polish territory, and which found expression also in the exchange of legal assistance between Germany and the Soviet Union. There is an appendix attached to the agreement between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Republics concerning the exchange of legal assistance in civil cases of the 12th October, 1925; the decree of 1940 is based on this agreement, and takes into account the conditions existing after the partition of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.
I am offering these documents as Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The last one is an affidavit by the brother of the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg about personal experiences and observations he made and about the work of Mettgenberg, concerning his investigations about the interpretation and application of the Nurnberg laws. I am offering that as Exhibit No. 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, this covers the remaining Dr. Mettgenberg, with the exception of a few documents which are not yet translated that I will have to submit later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SCHILF: There is only one supplement that I have to submit for the defendant Klemm. In his document Book IV, No. 36 has already been marked for identification; it is an affidavit by Hans Mueller. When a few days ago I submitted the balance of the document books for Klemm, I did not have the original. The translation, that is the English translation, is already in the hands of the Tribunal, as Exhibit 36 for identification. I now submit the document to the High Tribunal and ask that it be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: Your Honors, the exhibit which you have just received, we have no objection to its admission if perhaps the affiant could be better identified. The affidavit appears to have been taken in Nuernberg on 15th July, 1947, but there is no indication of the affiant's address. If Dr. Schilf can give us a little more information, I think it would be very helpful.
DR. SCHILF: It is an affidavit by a man named Hans Mueller. He was formerer a judge with the district court of appeals at Munich. At the time when he signed that affidavit, on the 15th July, 1947, he was here in Nuernberg in the witness house.
THE PRESIDENT: His name is Mueller?
DR. SCHILF: Mueller, Hans Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 36?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: Then, at this time I have no further documents to a submit.
MR. KING: Your Honors, it appears from a further conversation with Dr. Schilf that the witness Mueller was in the witness wing of the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to offer two affidavits for identification; two documents for which I have not yet received the translations. One is an affidavit by the retired Ministerialrat Dr. Marx; and the second one is an affidavit by the judge Dr. Walter Harnsen, director of the district Court in Hamburg. I have an affidavit from the latter, but it is not in accordance with the regulations, so that I have to get another statement from him, which is in the proper form. Besides, I have two or three statements which I still have to submit. Any firther affidavits, I do not expect to get. Whatever I have, I shall be able to submit even before the 13th of October.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any identification numbers for the affidavits of Marx and Harnsen?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am sorry, Your Honor, I don't have my folder here, but if I remember correctly, I believe the last one was No. 85. If the Secretary General would be so kind as to tell me -- I think it was 85.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibits to be -- are the originals here to be marked?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: For these I have the original here, but it is not in the right form, but I could ask that the numbers be marked for these two exhibits; it would be --85 was the last one; therefore, the affidavit by Marx, for that I ask that the number 86 be reserved; and the affidavit by Dr. Walter Harnsen, for that I ask that 87 be marked.
MR. KING: May it be marked for identification now?
THE PRESIDENT: Have it marked for identification now, that will be the ruling. Let them be marked 86 and 87 respectively; Rothenberger exhibits.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other documents to be offered today?
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I have one more affidavit by the attorney Dr. Zitter from Vienna, and which I would like to have marked for identification for Lautz. Since I don't have my folder here, I am not in a position to remember what number the exhibit would be. If I remember rightly, my last exhibit was Exhibit 265.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are not sure, it will be advisable to offer it and identify it on the 13th--if you are not sure of the number. We will make a notation that you have asked for it at this time.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that we are in a position to rule that the offering of verbal testimony by both Prosecution and the Defense is closed. Before we make that ruling, is there any objection?
The offering of verbal testimony by both Prosecution and Defense is closed.
Are there any other matters that counsel desire to present before we proceed to a different question? I anticipate that it may not be possible for the Tribunal to completely satisfy all counsel as to the matter of time of arguments. Before we announce our decision on that matter, we will hoar any suggestions which the parties desire to make.
MR. KING: If Your Honor please, this does not pertain to the subject about to be introduced. I wonder if Your Honors had a ruling on the matter of the Segelke affidavit, or, do you prefer to discuss that later?
THE PRESIDENT: In its present form as a general rebuttal affidavit, the offer of the Prosecution is rejected, if there be may matter which is limited solely to the function of cross examination or to the equivalent of cross examination of the Defense, the exhibit which I think was 37 -
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be offered in a modified form or in part.
MR. KING: Under those circumstances may we request Exhibit No. 37 we saved for the affidavit by Dr. Rothenberger, be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is denied.
We will hear from counsel with reference to their wishes concerning argument.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In a previous discussion it has already been pointed out that the translation for the final plea will probably be confronted with great difficulties. Of course these difficulties also exist for the defense, and we believe, therefore, that this could be handled in the following manner and serve our purpose. We intend to submit the final pleas in writing in German.
That will occur in time one or two or three days before the date when the final plea will be delivered. The German text will be given to the Interpreters so that they will have an opportunity to look at the test first and to examine it for difficult passages for translation. Possibly in a discussion with the Interpreters there will be an opportunity to have the difficult passages pre-translated in writing so that it could also be submitted to the Court in English. After these preparations have been completed we believe that the final plea could be submitted orally without any difficulties.
Since the final pleas cannot be pre-translated the necessity will arise that the time for the final pleas should not be limited. It is, of course, very difficult before the work has been completed to make a prediction as to how long the individual defense counsel will want to speak in delivering it's final plea, but all that I have heard from my colleagues shows that defense counsel know full well that it is not the quantity and length which marks the importance of the final plea, and, therefore, in their own interest they have to apply a limitation, but since it cannot be predicted for the individual how much time he will need I ask the Tribunal not to establish a time limit. I am fully convinced that the week beginning the 13th of October, during which at first documents will be submitted, during which the Prosecution also will submit it's final plea, will be quite sufficient for all the final pleas.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask in some at least of the preceding trials the individual defendants have been accorded the privilege of a ten minute statement to be given by themselves personally. Do the defendants in this case desire the privilege of making, not an argument upon the whole facts, but a brief statement such as has been permitted in some of the other cases?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As far as I am concerned I consider it a matter of course, that the last words by the defendants should be very brief. I am convinced that the majority of the defendants do not even need ten minutes for that.
THE PRESIDENT: They desire the privilege of making a brief statement, by themselves, do they?
DR. KUBOSCEOK: Yes, Your Honor, as far as they want to avail themselves of that privilege, but I am sure that will not take long. That will take a very short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution desire to be heard on this matter?
MR. KING: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that the business of the Tribunal for this day is concluded. We will take a ten minute recess and make a statement concerning the natter of an argument after that time.
Ten minutes recess, gentlemen.
(A ten minute recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has had the benefit of an informal conference at which Dr. Kubuschok and Mr. La Follette and Mr. King were present, and an interpreter, and, after considering the problem, have arrived at the following conclusion:
When we recess today we will recess until 9:30 o'clock on the morning of October 13, Monday, I believe. After the receipt of the remaining documents, which we understand will be few, the closing arguments will be commenced. The Prosecution will be given one day to open, and, after the closing arguments of the defense, the Prosecution will be allowed one and one-half hours -- not to exceed one and one-half hours -- for rebuttal. The total limitation imposed upon argument will simply be that the arguments must be closed during that week. If it is necessary for us to sit on Saturday in order to make a six-day week, the Tribunal will consider doing so.
You will realize, then, that the Prosecution will have one day, the Defendants will have the rest of the week, subject only to the hour and a half of rebuttal for the Prosecution. Do you understand that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, it is not quite clear to me as to when the Court contemplates -- or what time -- that the defendants in person might make their special statements.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't come to that.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: We will arrive at that in due time.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: As to this broad, general limitation of time for argument by the defendants, we will impose no limitation separately as to any one defendant, because we realize that some of the cases require a longer argument than others. We therefore impose upon the defense attorneys the duty of agreeing among themselves as to how they will divide the time which we are allotting to the defendants as a whole.
I think that makes the matter clear so far as the argument of counsel is concerned on both sides. In addition to that argument of counsel we will also save, out of that week, sufficient time for each individual defendant, at his option -- if he so desires, that is -to make a statement not exceeding ten minutes, which will be made after the final rebuttal of the prosecution. Are there any questions?
(No response)
We were informed that Dr. Brieger earnestly desired to make a statement.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I should like to make a few brief remarks to give the Tribunal information which I was asked to furnish concerning a few exhibit numbers in the Cuhorst case.
Exhibit No. 2 is the affidavit by Baumann, and it now becomes Exhibit No. 133.
Exhibit No. 6 originally was the Klett affidavit, but that affidavit had to be withdrawn because Klett was examined here on the witness stand.
Exhibit 21 is the affidavit by Frau Scholl, which I offered yesterday with that exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 21.
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 22 is an affidavit by my client himself about his work for the Alpine Club. As the Tribunal did not wish me to present that document, I have withdrawn it.
Exhibit 45 is the affidavit by Dinckelacker, which I offered yesterday with the Exhibit No. 132.
Exhibit 67 has now become Exhibit 31.
By way of explanation, I should like to point out that I submitted the Rieder affidavit yesterday, and the exhibit number under which I offered it was probably 132. I stated yesterday that that affidavit, to which, in my opinion, particularly significance attaches, refers to the other Rieder affidavit, and I was not able to give you the exhibit number of that first Rieder affidavit.
I can now do so. The first affidavit deposed by Rieder has the Exhibit No. 59, and the document number is 52.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I didn't understand that there was any new exhibit offered, it was simply explanation as to what has been done.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until Monday morning, October 13, at 9:30 a.m.
(At 1035 hours, 26 September 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, Monday, 13 October 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, (Germany, on 12 October 1947, Justice James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: He understand there are a few documents to be received before the opening arguments are presented - before the closing arguments of the Prosecution are presented. Also, it has been suggested, in the interest of the defendants, that the text of the arguments which the various counsel intend to present should be placed in the hands of the Translation Department so that the interpreters may have opportunity to examine them at the earliest possible time. You will realize, of course, that the translations will be better if they have an opportunity to examine them in advance. It has been suggested that you send your German copies of your arguments to Room 106. The Translation Department, I believe.
What is the situation with reference to document books?
DR. SCHILF (for the defendant Klemm): May it please the Tribunal, I am in a position to submit several documents -- that is, as a supplement to the Document Books I to IX - it is my Document Book No. 10.
The English text is before the Tribunal.
I offer first, as Exhibit 76, a document which the Prosecution had already offered in its document books. It is NG-594. I am only offering an excerpt about the interference of the Gauleiters in clemency procedures. I offer it as Exhibit 76.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Was this already in? Book X?
DR. SCHILF: Book X, yes.
The next one is an excerpt from a German daily newspaper, "Die Welt", of the 22nd May 1947. It is a short note according to which, allegedly, in the former Reich Ministry of Justice files had been found of 1943/1944, stating that during these years over 10,000 people had been executed. I am offering that newspaper as Exhibit 77.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: Furthermore, I am offering an affidavit by Dr. Johannes Hubold, Berlin, of the 22nd July 1947. I am offering this affidavit as Exhibit No. 75.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one is an affidavit by the former Deputy Ministerial Director Marx. Marx, before he became chief of Department V, was the chief of that department which was competent for the execution of penalties in the Ministry, I am offering that document as Exhibit No. 79.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one has already been submitted by the Prosecution, that is to say, these are the affidavits by Tennkink and Hooykaas. These are the gentlemen who are now working in the Ministry of Justice for the Netherlands. I am only submitting it because apparently the Dutch text is the only one which was available so far. Therefore, I have to submit this in evidence, That would be Exhibit 80. It is identical with -
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, I would like to ask for a ruling of the Court on these matters and others that I think will arise. We understood that the Court limited in its ruling that it would receive those things which were deposited, and reached the Defense Center, on the 26th of September, and could not be made available for presentation.
These documents were not received in the Defense Center, as I am advised, until the 28th of September. There are other documents and affidavits by other defendants dated that day, and subsequently. The Prosecution is of the opinion that they come too late. However, if the Court desires to let them in I shall not make any objection; but for the purpose of the ruling I object to them because they come too late.
THE PRESIDENT: Assuming that the Tribunal find no evidence of an intention to delay matters by reason of the submission for translation at too late a date, and no evidence of unfairness to the Prosecution, we will receive these documents. We will reserve the right to modify the ruling if it appears that there has been any approach to imposition.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The position of the Prosecution is definitely this: That any affidavits which are dated subsequent to the 26th will come too late. But that does not apply to these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We have made the ruling which you requested. The Exhibit No. 81 is received.
DR. SCHILF: For the defendant Klemm I have only one more exhibit to be submitted. That would be Exhibit 82. These are filed received only a few days ago - files from the Military Court at Dachau about the case of Stuettken. The Court will remember that Stuettken was the man who, in Kleve, at the time had shot and killed two Canadian flyers. The Military Court in Dachau put at my disposal some files which contain some very essential facts to show with what great energy the senior public prosecutor, at the time at Kleve worked on this case. The defense received these files on the 2nd or 3rd of October and, that, in the English text; and the English text I have here. I could submit it, and, as I was told in the course of this morning that the copy of that English text will be submitted -- it will be possible to submit it this morning. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal to to receive Exhibit 82, excerpts from the files of the Military Court at Dachau.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received, when presented.
May I ask, Dr. Schilf - do you mean to say that this energy which was manifested, which was in a prosecution and conviction by the German courts, of the man who actually shot the two flyers?
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, it did go to the prosecution of the case, but it did not come to a verdict. The files which I have submitted show, however, that the Reich Ministry of Justice gave definite instructions to the senior public prosecutor at Kleve to arrest the man and hear the Kreisleiter. It did not come to a verdict, but Stuettken was now sentenced by the American court.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, all this comes pretty late. I am not offering evidence, but I would like to offer information to the Court upon which I would like to file an objection to this.
MR. KING: Very recently I had an opportunity to discuss the files of this case with the prosecutor who tried these two men who were accused of killing two flyers in Dachau, and I have some information as to that. Now, I would be perfectly willing to take the stand and be sworn as to what I was told, but it would still be hearsay on my part. The facts appear to be that the prosecutor at Kleve was not the individual who appeared, here as a witness. The chief prosecutor from Duesseldorf, by the evidence adduced at Dachay shows that this prosecutor at Kleve, Steiner, was ordered to not proceed with the proceedings against these two accused individuals, and that finally these two individuals were ordered released through orders from the Reich Ministry of Justice. That is a part of what was testified to at Dachau during the proceedings in which these two accused were sentenced to be hanged.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood from the evidence before, that although there was a clear case against the man who did the actual shooting, the prosecution was delayed pending investigations concerning the Kreisleiter and ultimately nobody was convicted.
And from Dr. Schilf's statement I understand that still to be the case.
DR. SCHILF: For the defendant Klemm, therefore, I have no more documents to submit. But may I immediately offer the remaining documents for Dr. Mettgenberg, that is, Document Book VI, as a supplement to Documents 1 to 5.
The first one is an excerpt from a monthly periodical for German law, "Monatsschrift fuer Deutsches Recht", and I am quoting a sentence of the District Court of Appeal of Kiel of the 26th of March 1947. The question at stake is whether the international law and the Hague Convention could also be applied if an aggressive war was the cause for occupation. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 42, for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: You have checked that exhibit number, have you? You are sure that is the correct number?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor, 42.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. It is received.
DR. SCHILF: It is a decision of the Commissioned Public Prosecutor General of Saxonia dated 14 July 1947. If can be seen therefrom that the nullity plea in the Land of Saxony is still being used. Saxony is under the rule of the Contro. Council. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 43.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next is an affidavit by a former official of the Reich Ministry of Justice, Hans Richter. This also deals with the nullity plea and the personal observations of Richter concerning my client Mettgenberg, I am offering it as Exhibit No. 44.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one is an affidavit of Frau Irmgard Velder, of Berlin. I am offering that as Exhibit No. 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I have one more document. That is an affidavit received from a Dr. Georg Bruns. The English translation is expected to be ready in the course of this morning. May I ask the Tribunal to receive that affidavit now? Dr. Georg Bruns was the adjutant of Vollmer, Vollmer was the last chief of Department IV. It deals with the question whether my client Mettgenberg could possibly have been at the concentration camp Mauthausen.
I received that affidavit during the very last days and I ask the Court to kindly consider that the mail in Germany takes very long, and that that was the reason for the delay. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 46.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve Exhibit 46 and give the Prosecution opportunity to examine it before it is received.
DR. SCHILF: That concludes my submission of documents for the defendant Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg now rest their cases?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, the last exhibit -- the affidavit is dated the 2nd of October 1947. That has nothing to do with delay in the mail. It was taken long after this Court said it would receive evidence. The Prosecution objects.
DR. SCHILF: May I only say that the affidavit is dated the 1st of September; only the certification by the Notary is as of the 2nd of October. I had no possibility to avoid Bruns' going to the Notary Public too late. I cannot tell what the reason was. On principle, I would like to say that great delays occurred on account of the delay in the mail.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently this is not a result of delay in the mail, but the original statements were made on the date which you specified and were certified on the dale which the Prosecution said it was made.
It will be received in evidence.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz): I ask to be permitted to submit two more affidavits in evidence. The first one is the affidavit by Dr. Zitter; my Document 310 for Lautz; it is contained in my Document Book No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment please. That is your Document 310?