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?
DR. GRUBE: Document 310, Your Honor, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number is your next one?
DR. GRUBE: I am offering this document as Exhibit 264.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. GRUBE: And the last document I am offering is the affidavit Loeser, which bears my Document No. 311 and is contained in my Document Book No. VIII. I am offering it as Exhibit 265.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We have not found your Document Book VIII.
Had that book been previously presented? Or is it a new book?
DR. GRUBE: It is already translated. I already received the English copy of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we previously received your Document Book VIII, or is it new, today? - the book?
DR. GRUBE: That is quite new. That only contains that one exhibit. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't find it.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: We have not yet received it.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, may I be permitted -- I have a few English copies myself. May I be permitted to get these copies and submit them?
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your offer of exhibits?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, Your Honor, that concludes it.
THE PRESIDENT: Give us the document number and the exhibit number, then.
DR. GRUBE: The document has my number 311, and it should receive the Exhibit number 265.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. KING: We should like to point out to the Court that this document is dated, certified, the 3rd of October, which is well beyond the deadline set by the Court.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, on account of the general difficulties, ***t that witnesses could be reached only on the very last days - and as soon as I found out his address I immediately had the affidavit made out by him.
THE PRESIDENT: Whet is the name of the witness?
DR. GRUBE: Loeser. L-o-e-s-e-r.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the affidavit concerned with?
DR. GRUBE: The affidavit confirms that Lautz, in a case where a defendant by the name of Loeser -- in connection with the event of the 20th of July 1944 had been arrested by the Gestapo, intervened to the effect that his wife could get in touch with him. Frau Looser confirms here that it was upon Lautz's intervention that Loeser was not executed.
THE PRESIDENT: The offer of this exhibit is rejected.
MR. KING: I would like to call one thing to the Court's and Dr. Grube's attention. In Lautz Exhibit 199, which is Document 299, the original was never submitted. We have checked that in trying to determine who signed the original. It merely states "signature", and no indication of whose signature it is. I think it is incumbent upon Dr. Grube to tell us, if he knows, whose signature should have been on the original, and that he will produce the original, which he did not. I wonder if he could tell us at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Exhibit 199?
MR. KING: Yes, Lautz Exhibit 199, Document 299.
Excuse me -- it is Document 292: and that was in Lautz Document Book IV-B.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the original has never been offered?
MR. KING: The original has never been offered, Your Honor. What was offered was a copy of the original, and the signature which was supposed to be on it does not appear on the copy which was offered to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entitled to know.
MR. KING: Well, that is our position. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are entitled to know the answer.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President: That document was taken from files which the Prosecution put at my disposal here. I still have these files. I ask to be permitted that I get the files into the courtroom to find out whose signature is on that document.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so!
The next defendant... by his counsel?
DR. KARL HAEMSEL (for defendant Guenther Joel): I ask to be permitted to offer two documents... my documents numbers 99 and 100 - which would make my documents 100 in number, then. But this is not the cause. I am only offering these documents now because I received them now.
I offer as Exhibit 97 from Document Book No. VI, my Document No. 99. It is an affidavit by Hoeller. It was written after a rebuttal document concerning the file Schaps was offered.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. HAEMSEL: As my last document I offer Exhibit 98, my Document 100, from Document Book VI -- an affidavit by Eva von Schroeder dated the 23rd of September 1947, which I have only received after the 28th.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL (for the defendant Rothaug): With the permission of the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have that document book yet.
DR. KOESSL: It is in Document Book XII and XIII, containing one document each, and I have received the translations.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
THE PRESIDENT: We have received an instrument marked Document No. 12, but it does not indicate what the defendant was relating to. Is this the Rothaug Document Book?
DR. KOESSL: That is the Rothaug Document No. 236, on the first page. It is expressed on the document, it is above the text. It is an affidavit by Martin Denzler, of the 26 September 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number should it receive?
DR. KOESSL: I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 224. It is offered to prove that the report of 18 February 1942 contained in Exhibit No. 561 of the Prosecution came about in the manner in which Rothaug described it, that he could not base himself on the description of facts as they are assumed in his testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 237 is offered as Exhibit No. 225.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We have not it as yet.
DR. KOESSL: It is Rothaug's Document Book XIII. This is the only document in the book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General has not received your Book XIII.
DR. KOESSL: I have received a copy from the Defense Center, and I shall look immediately for the English copies if I am permitted to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve Exhibit No. 225 until you have investigated the matter.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The next?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for Dr. Barnickel. Mr. President, I want to offer the Supplement volume to the Document Book of the defendant Barnickel.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not as yet received it on the Bench of the defendant Barnickel. What was the number of your last document book? Do you recall?
BR. TIPP: The last exhibit I offered was from document book No. II, Barnickel's Exhibit No. 42, your Honor. I would like to continue with Barnickel's Document No. 45 which is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Emil Niethammer.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Next exhibit would be Exhibit No. 43?
DR. TIPP: Exhibit No. 43. Yes, Your Honor. It is Barnickel's Document No. 45.
THE PRESIDENT: You misunderstand my question Dr. Tipp. Was Book No. 2 the last book?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor, Book No. 2, I submitted only two Document Books and this is the supplemental volume. I am offering Barnickel's Document No. 45. Affidavit of Professor Niethammer.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you mark this in the numbered book which you offered as supplement to Document Book No. 3, Exhibit No. 43, being document No. 45, which is received.
DR. TIPP: The next is Barnickel's Document No. 46, offered as Exhibit No. 44, an affidavit by Arthur Jander, which also discusses the position of a chief Reich Prosecutor. The next is document of the defendant Barnickel No. 47. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 45, an affidavit by the Ministerpresident of Bavaria, Dr. Hans Ehard, 26 August 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPP: The next one I am offering is Barnickel document No. 48, an affidavit by the President of the District Court of Appeal, Dr. Walther Stepp, Moosburg, dated 13 September 1947, which refers to a document submitted to Dr. Barnickel during cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 46 received.
DR. TIPP: The affidavit is signed by Dr. Walther Stepp showing that until 1945 he was President of the District Court of Appeals in Munich.
MR. KING: I want Dr. Tipp to explain to us who Dr. Hermann Mueller is who has apparently certified that affidavit.
DR. TIPP: Dr. Hermann Mueller is assistant of one of the defense counsel in another defendant's case. He had been out in the Moosburg Civilian Internment Camp on 13 September for the purpose of conducting an investigation, since I could not get to Moosburg myself, so I asked him to get the affidavit signed, and certify to the signature on there.
THE PRESIDENT: Your next.
DR. TIPP: The last document, Mr. President, is Barnickel's No. 49, which I am offered as Barnickel's Exhibit No. 47, an affidavit by the former President of the Local Court of Munich, Dr. Gustav Lichtenberger, dated 16 September 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. TIPP: That concludes the presentation of evedence for Dr. Barnickel.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, the document which was objected to before, my Exhibit 191 is before me in the original. I have discussed it with a representative of the Prosecution, who expressed himself that that document is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, for the defendant Schlegelberger. I ask to be permitted to offer documents from the supplement volumes 3 and 4.
THE PRESIDENT : What supplements is that?
DR. KUBUSCHOK : Three and four, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those new books, new volumes?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Your Honor. They have been translated into English.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, we have only supplement No. either 2 or 11.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you only have No. 2, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Supplement 2. Are the exhibits which you are offering in Supplement 2?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I can refer to Supplement Book 2, as during the session of 25 September 1947, I offered these documents for identification. Now I should like to offer them in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the transcription working?
MR. UIBERALL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, I am afraid I don't quite understand your purpose. We have Supplement No. 2 to the document book. Does this contain new exhibits, which you are offering, or are you offering some old exhibits which had been marked for identifications out not received?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The documents which are contained in the supplement book No. 2 have already been marked for identification, and I now am offering them altogether in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us what exhibit numbers were given to these documents when they were marded for identification?
BR. KUBUSCHOK: 131 to 157, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: 131 -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 131 to 157, inclusive.
THE PRESIDENT: Now your Document 141 would be Exhibit 131, is that right?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I offered 135 as the first one, that would be Exhibit 131, Document No. 135.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Documents 132, 135 and 134?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I beg your pardon, Your Honor, No. 132 I had offered as Exhibit No. 129. Document 133 I had offered as Exhibit No. 130.
THE PRESIDENT: Secretary-General confirms that your document 135 was marked for identification Exhibit 131, as you correctly stated. Then the other documents take exhibit numbers consecutively from 131 on throughout the book?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Your Honor. Mr President, there is, however, one difficulty. The documents number 138 and 139 I had left out of the record, consequently after document 137, which was offered as Exhibit 133, there follows the Document 140 as Exhibit No. 134. Otherwise, at any rate Document 163, the last one, is Exhibit No. 157, Your Honor, I offer that as Exhibit No. 157.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 157 is offered as Exhibit number - -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 151, Your Honor. The document numbers go all the way up to 163. That is on the page with Roman numeral IV, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 163, I take it would be Exhibit No. 157?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, indeed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the last exhibit?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now, turning to documents which I really indicated as submitting today, and which are contained in supplement volumes 3 and 4 for Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. You said you had omitted your documents Nos. 138 and 139 on the first page of your index. Those exhibits are not offered?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Now, we have not your new supplement books as yet.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: How do you want, me to proceed now, Mr. President? They have been translated for a considerable time, already.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you sure you have not them, Mr. Secretary?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: No, I have not them as yet. I think they will be down this morning.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Well.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary assumes they will be down this morning. Will you postpone offering them until they reach the Bench.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now--Excuse me, I have one more document here, which is contained in Document Book No. II. It is document No. 142, which was marked Exhibit No. 136. At the time I had withdrawn it, because I thought there was an error in the document. This was not the case, therefore, I should like to submit this document to the Secretary-General who had not received the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I now deal with the defendant von Ammon.
THE PRESIDENT: 136. Schlegelberger's Exhibit No 136 is received, being Document 142. That was in document book 2, was it?
DR KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Document Book 2, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In von Ammon's case?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, that is von Ammon's, yes, sir. Are all the supplements Nos, 2 and 3 before you?
THE PRESIDENT: We have supplements one and two.
DR KUBUSCHOK: In Document Book No. 2, exhibits Nos. 7,8 and 9, are contained - - - I beg your pardon, supplement volume No. 1 - - supplement volume No. 1 contained Document 7 to 9. These documents are offered with the same exhibit numbers.