"Apart from this, it was not necessary to point out to the Jew that he was only one of many members of his race who also had complained. Just as superfluous was the information that the food office in the preceding negotiations had refused to withdraw the fines and that the district attorney, through its refusal to take up the case, had also shown its opposition to the food office. These indications were immaterial to the ruling. The Jew could perforce only have the impression of a dissension between the various authorities."
The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 81, which is Document NG-298 in the Book 1-D.
Again in Book 1-D at page 21, NG-315 will, when introduced, become Prosecution's Exhibit No. 82.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't realize you were acting on them separately.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I thought Your Honor had. I must offer them separately.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be received in evidence, which is Document NG-298.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Excuse me, Your Honor, I should have made my position cleat. I send to the bunch four copies of an assisting index of Document 315, which I respectfully suggest be placed permanently at page 21 of the Judges' Document Books. The prosecution now offers and introduces into evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 82, which is Document NG-315 in Book 1-D at page 21.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-308, Book 1-D on page 26 will be, when offered, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 83. I send to the bench four copies of an index to make that document more readily understandable, which I recommend be placed at page 26 of the document book. Now the prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit no. 83.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Document NG-297 will be, when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 84. It's found at page 40 of Book 1-D. I now send to the desk four two-paged indexes of this book, which I suggest be placed at Page 40 of the English Document Book. Now I offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 84.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: On page 55 of Book 1-D, Document NG-307 will be Prosecution's Exhibit No.85. I send to the desk four copies of the assisting index which I suggest be placed at page 55. I might say that I do not believe, as I remember that assisting index, that it is near complete. When I check my own copy, if it has to be made more complete, I will inform you of that. This is the first time I have seen these particular copies. I think it should have been much more elaborate, from what I send out. In any event, at this time the prosecution offers to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 85.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: On page 74 of Book 1-D, Document NG-321 will be, when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 86, and I send to the desk four two paged indexes which should be placed at Page 74. I now offer to introduce into evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 86, which is Document NG-321 found at page 74 of Document Book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We find other pages bearing that same document number. Are you introducing those other pages or merely page 74?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, I introduce the Exhibit as an exhibit and said it was found on the beginning of that page. I don't introduce the document, I introduce the exhibit, which is found on that page. There are many pages, Your Honor, included in the book. All pages thereafter which bear the number 321 are part of that same document.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor. Colonel Nesbit, is Document Book 1-E set up? I would like to introduce one document from that book at this time and then turn the matter over.
I appreciate very much the Tribunal permitting me to introduce this at this time. NG-260 found at page 1 of Document Book 1-E, which will be when introduced, Prosecution's Exhibit no. 87. This on the first page of the Document shows, so I am not breaking faith, a lawyer's letter circulated by the Reich Ministry of Justice to lawyers. This is the first volume dated the first of October 1944. So far as I know, it's the only one I have ever seen; if there are other lawyers' letters, the prosecution has not consciously withheld them. These are handled the same way as the Reichter Brief, and I send to the desk four copies of an index to assist members of the Tribunal in the reading and understanding of this document.
I briefly stated this morning with reference to the other briefs and also with this brief, that the Prosecution offers them as evidence for the purpose of showing that there was a direct controlled judiciary and lawyers. We are not offering these documents as evidence of any particular act contained therein, but since we offer them, we are to some extent bound by them and our purpose of offering them is to prove there was a connection. However, in this lawyer's brief, even though with this statement, I do not believe that the Prosecution would be bound by what is in here any more than the fact that it is in. I do not want to pass on without a comment in fairness to the Prosecution and the American Bench and Bar. Reference to case No. 1 which appears on page 3 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: On what page?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Page 3 of the English text, Your Honor, case No. 1 at the top of the page, this is Book E. It starts out: "Circular for Lawyers, Communication of the Reich Minister of Justice." Does Your Honor have that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Reichs Minister's comment on that case is found page 19. Now, here is one example why I furnished Your Honors' with an index. It is quite a job to go back and find out where the comment was. You will find it on page 19, No. 1 on that page. Have Your Honors' found on page 19 where the reference is located?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I will read from page 19:
"(1) The letter of the defense counsel to a traitor in a penitentiary speaks for itself. Not only is the unconcealed wooing for clients repulsive but especially the inconceivable lack of dignity and servility with which this German lawyer addresses a declared, marked enemy of the state."
The only comment I want to make, Your Honors' is that while I do not consider the Prosecution in agreement with Thierack's idea of a relationship to an enemy of the state. I do not want to be in a position of appearing to disprove of a reprimand of a lawyer who is soliciting business I also consider that this was a matter which was subject to a reprimand and by introducing this Exhibit, I do not want to be in a position of appearing to oppose that.
I understand Dr. Kubuschok wishes to address the Court.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I contradict the utilization of the lawyer's letters a evidence. The lawyer's letters would only have probative value if, in effect they had actually been sent to the lawyers. I myself, was a lawyer and only now during this trial I learned that there were such lawyers' letters. Therefore, I must assume that such lawyers' letters were drafted but were no dispatched to the lawyers, probably on the assumption that the majority of German lawyers were not suitable or were not likely to be influenced by such letters. If it were really to be correct that this was only an intent utilization of these letters, but that these letters were not used, then these letters would not have probative value.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: In answer to the objection, I stated that I appreciate Your Honors' permitting me to introduce these somewhat out of order. If you will withhold the ruling, at least, on this point, I will introduce as an Exhibit document No. 461 which is found on page 116 of Book 1-D, which is a letter indicating a distribution. Now, certainly with this evidence, as introduced, and with this letter, there is a presumption, at least, that there was a distribution. It is entirely possible that the Counsel who spoke did not receive a copy of the letter; unquestionably I do not doubt his statement, but it is not competent evidence that there was no distribution. On the reputation of the Prosecution that further showing will be made as to the matter of distribution, and will receive this conditionally on the ground that the Prosecution will show this yet this afternoon.
The Prosecution offers to introduce into evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 87.
THE PRESIDENT: On the conditions stated, that will be received in evidence
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal and Defense Counsel will turn to Book 1-C, we have a document ready which because of the 24 hour ruling could not be introduced this morning. The Prosecution is in possession of a duplicate of a receipt from the Defense Information Center that Document No. NG-287, the last page thereof, was delivered to the Defense Information Center at 1410 hours yesterday.
I believe it is permissible for us to introduce this document at this time. The Document is NG 287, found on page 1 of both the English and German books, 1-C:
"Copy "Berlin Illustration Night Edition.
No. 246 Monday, October 20th, 1941.
"Jew hoarded 65,000 eggs and allowed 15,000 of them to spoil."
And, that is underlined.
"Wired from our reporter.
"Breslau, October 20th. The 74 year old Jew Markus Luftgas from Kalwarja withdrew a high amount of eggs from the general economy and now had to vindicate his conduct before the Special Court of Bielitz. The Jew had hidden 65,000 eggs in tubs and in a lime pit, 15,000 of which had already spoiled. The defendant was sentenced to 2 1/2 years of prison as a just punishment for a crime against the war economy regulations."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading now from page two of the English book which is page one and two of the German. Letterhead:
"The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, F.H.Q."--which we presume means "Fuehrer Headquarters. -- "October 25th 1941.
"1. To State Secretary Professor Dr. h. c. Schlegelberger charged with the management of the affairs of the Reich Minister of Justice Berlin "Dear Dr. Schlegelberger:
The enclosed newspaper clipping" -- which by the way, the prosecution has just read --- "about the conviction of the Jew Markus Luftgas to a prison sentence of 2½years by the Special Court of Bielitz has been submitted to the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer wishes that Luftgas be sentenced to death. May I ask you ** urgently instigate the necessary and to notify me about the measures taken in order to enable me to inform the Fuehrer.
"Heil Hitler.
"Yours devotedly "The Reich Minister."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On the second page of the original of this document is found an additional letter which is paragraph 2:
"To SS-Gruppenfuehrer Julius Schaub -- Fuehrer-Headquarters "Subject:
Markus Luftgas "Dear Mr. Schaub:
"After receiving your letter dated October 22nd 1941, I got into touch with the Reich Minister of Justice asking him to instigate the necessary.
"Heil Hitler:
"Your devoted (signature of the Reich Minister)"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That document is also initialed with the letter "L" which the prosecution assumes to be that of Lammers, who was indeed the Reich Minister. Reading now on Page 4 of the English Document Book which is Page 3 of the German Book. This is a page that was distributed to the defense yesterday "Berlin, 29 October 1941.
"The Reich Minister of Justice (intrusted with the executive management of affairs) "To the Reichsminister and Chief of the Reichschancellery (initial) "K" "Subject:
Case against the Jew Luftglass (not Luftgas) "Dear Reichsminister Dr. Lammers:
In accordance with the order of the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor of October 1941, transmitted to me by the Minister of State and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, I have handed over to the Gestapo for the pr*** execution, the Jew Markus Luftglass who had been sentenced to 2-1/2 years' imprisonment by the Special Court in Kattowitz.
Heil Hitler.
Very truly yours, SCHLEGELBERGER."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 88 the Document Book NG-287.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution will next offer Document NG-496 which will become when received in evidence Exhibit No. 89. That is to be found on page 116 of the English text, 1-E and 166 of the German. The prosecution does not desire to read or excerpt in any part this document. We do want to call the Court's attention, however, that this is further evidence that the lawyers' letters introduced a few moment ago as Exhibit No. 87 by Mr. Lafollette in fact contemplated. The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 89 the Document NG-496.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to using Document 496. I should like to find the date. It's dated 11 March 1943. The lawyer's letter No. 1 which was presented stated October 1944. That proves that this was only planned *** if letter of March 1943 had existed -- a draft of the first letter dated October 1944, that would show clearly that it was intended to introduce such a system but that this never got beyond the stage of a draft.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, I think the argument which defense counsel just made may well be made as to the weight of this evidence but I don't believe that it goes to the probative value or the presumption which comes two letters of this sort that which was said to be done was not then done may well be that it is questionable to reason that later this letter was sent out but here is a letter which said 'we are going to send a lawyer's letter *** here's a lawyer's letter.
' It seems to me it is too confined. It shows sufficiently if there was such a letter sent out it justified the Court in receiving it at this time. May I add the further fact, your Honor, that the photostat shows the letter was a printed letter. I don't believe the letters would be printed unless some trouble was taken to print it and unless it was actually sent out.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will withhold ruling on this particular exhibit for the present. There may be further showing made on it. In any event we will rule upon it later.
MR. KING: Do we understand that it will retain its exhibit number as introduced or as attempted to be introduced?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it should retain the number which as already assigned to it at this time. Later upon later evidence there can be a later ruling upon that particular subject. It seems that my voice was not ******* through. The ruling is that this exhibit may retain its number and any i***** discussion will relate back to this exhibit number. In other words, the exhibit will not lose its exhibit number. I am not sure that my voice went through in making my earlier announcement on this. What I said at that time, whether you heard it or not, is that we are withholding final ruling on this. It isn't being received at this time.
MR. KING: The prosecution now desires to offer the Document NG-500which shall become, when introduced, Exhibit No. 90 and is to be found begins on page 1 of both the English and the German text. Document Book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get the document number.
MR. KING: It's document number NG-500, your Honor. We do not wish to read any portion of that document so we offer it in evidence at this time, the Document NG-500.
JUDGE BLAIR: We can't get your document number.
MR. KING: I am sorry, it is NG-500, to be found on page 1, document book 1-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it now.
Do I understand that you have offered that in evidence, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
MR. KING: The next document which the prosecution desires to offer is NG-499, which will become, when formally offered, Exhibit No. 91. It is to be found in document book 1-D, in the English at page 17, in the German at page 14. We desire to read the principal paragraph in that letter.
It is dated Berlin, 11 October 1942, and it is addressed to the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and General Public Prosecutors, except Prague. It concerns Judges' Letters:
"The shipment of the first Judges' Letters is imminent. Each judge and public prosecutor shall receive periodically one copy of the Judges' Letters. For your district you will receive for distribution 65 copies each time. Delivery of the Judges Letters to the single judges and public prosecutors will be made after receipt has been given acknowledged by the chiefs of the offices. I request you to stress the confidential character of the Judges' Letters. I ask that decisions which are regarded suitable for discussion in the Judges' Letters be currently brought to my attention. A short report should be attached thereto and, as far as it is necessary for full understanding, the files should be added."
Signed, "Dr. Thierack."
The prosecution now offers in evidence the document NG-499 as Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, there is just a little confusion, I think, between plaintiff's counsel and the Secretariat of the Tribunal as to documentation and exhibit numbers.
Exhibit number 87 was the lawyers' Letter, which I understand the Tribunal has said it will yet reserve its ruling upon. Exhibit number 88 was the document which referred to the case of the Jew Luftgas. Exhibit number 89 was the document which was referred to, a letter of Dr. Thierack, saying that there would be Lawyers' Letters. The Secretary has returned to me number 89, I am sure that that is in evidence. If the Tribunal wants us to keep possession of document 87, which is in dispute, we will do so, but I am quite sure that there was no objection to Exhibit 89 being received in evidence. The discussion was as to whether or not it was sufficient to justify the receipt in evidence of Exhibit number 87. So I would like to return to the Secretary Exhibit number 89.
THE PRESIDENT: The final ruling will be withheld on both 87 and 89.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Both 87 and 89.
Now may I ask the Tribunal, for the advantage of the prosecution counsel and the Secretariat, when the Tribunal reserves a ruling, may we nevertheless consider that the exhibits are in the hands of the Secretariat of the Tribunal, or shall the prosecution take physical possession of those exhibits? I mean, I think we must know where they belong so that some one can be responsible for them.
THE PRESIDENT: They should be in the possession of the Tribunal in order that the Tribunal may make further studies of those matters before they can rule upon them.
MR, LaFOLLETTE: Yes, so the Secretary can understand that where documents have been introduced and accepted with qualifications, they are in the possession of the Secretary General for the benefit of the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Thank you.
MR. KING: The prosecution will now introduce NG-497 which, when formally offered in evidence, will become Exhibit 92. It is to be found on page 18 of the English book 1, Section D, and page 25 of the German text.
It is a letter dated 17 November, 1942, addressing to the Presiding Judges of the Courts of Appeal and to the General Public Prosecutors.
"Re: Judges' Letters:
"I request to deliver the Judges' Letters also to all commissioned judges or public prosecutors, furthermore to the associate judges and assessors who hold a commission as judges or public prosecutors. The Judges' Letters become personal property of the judges and of the public prosecutors. They will be carefully locked up to avoid that they get into the hands of unauthorized persons. The receivers are subject to official secrecy so far as the contents of the Judges' Letters are concerned."
Signed, "Dr. Thierack."
There are also other notations on that document, but the prosecution does not at this time desire to read those. We now offer in evidence as Exhibit 92, the document NG-497.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence, and we will take our usual afternoon recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May it please Tour Honors, with reference to Exhibit No. 87, although no notice has possibly been given, I would like to be sworn as a witness and be permitted to testify, if defense counsel are "willing to waive the 24-hour rule.
BY JUDGE BRAND: Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth, so help you God?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I do.
My name is Charles M. LaFollette. I an Deputy Chief of Counsel in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. I have in my possession a printed document, in German, which by comparison is an exact duplicate of the photostatic document introduced by the Plaintiff as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 87.
This original document was obtained by me from the desk of Dr. Jacoby, attorney, Chief of Counsel, who has to my knowledge and belief never been inside of the Ministry of Justice of the Third Reich during the regime of Dr. Thierack as Minister of Justice, from which I conclude that he did not obtain an undistributed copy of this original typed copy of Document NG 260, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 87. It was in his possession and obtained by me from a man who so far as I know, and I reliably and firmly believe, could not have obtained the original except from some one to whom it had been distributed. I am willing to submit to crossexamination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Attorney for defendants Von Ammon, Schlegelberger):
Q. I don't understand clearly what designation of office Mr. Jacoby has.
A. Mr. Jacoby is an employee of the Office of Chief of Counsel, in the Ministry Division, here in Nuernberg. He is an attorney employed in that office of Chief of Counsel in O.C.C.
Q. Was he at any time during the years 1944 and 1945, was he at any time attorney in Germany during the years 1944 and 1945?
A. He was not.
Q. In other words, he could only have received the document through official channels, that is to say, from the documents of the Ministry of Justice where they had been collected.
A. That, I think, Doctor, consists of arguing with me, but my con clusion is that he got the document from a German lawyer who had received it.
I do not know the German lawyer's name who received it; he didn't say, but since you asked me, he was never in the inside of the Ministry of Justice at any time to my knowledge, nor was he ever in Berlin employed as part of an American team seeking out evidence, from which I would conclude that he did not get this document as an undistributed document from out of the office of the Ministry, but that since he obtained it, it must have come from some one to whom it had been distributed.
Q. That is only a conclusion on your part, but not information received by Mr. Jacoby, is it?
A. You are quite right. You are quite right, except I didn't first state the conclusion. You ***rst stated the conclusion that he must have gotten it out of the Ministry of Justice and let me state my conclusion. I stated facts - that I have the document that Mr. Jacoby had, and that he had never been inside the ministry of Justice.
Q. What other facts led you to conclude that Dr. Jacoby on a later date than his official function had received this document after it had been in the Reich Ministry of Justice or at another place to which the Reich Ministry of Justice had sent the files and had been found there?
A. There is no fact of that kind, which I quite agree. I simply stated what I know, and leave it to the Court to draw the conclusion that Jacoby had no opportunity to be in the Ministry of Justice to get this at any time during the time that the defense said it was never distributed. I simply state what I know. I don't try to state conclusions, and I stated no conclusions until you **ew one. Then you opened the gate for me to conclude and I concluded that this is a distributed document. You may conclude otherwise; it is up to the Court.
Q. Did Dr. Jacoby have access to all official documents, that is to say, letters and documents which had been confiscated or which belonged to the Ministry of Justice?
A. I can't go that far. I would not say that he didn't; I don't know that he did have.
He night well have had, but I don't know that he didn't. I won't say that he didn't.
Q. Is Dr. Jacoby still here?
A. Yes, he is here.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination?
BY DR. SCHILF (Attorney for defendants Klemm, Mettgenberg):
Q. If I understood you correctly, witness, Dr. Jacoby is alleged to have received that copy from an attorney, a lawyer. May I ask whether Dr. Jacoby told you about that fact?
A. I think that you didn't follow me very closely. I tried to be very careful and state no conclusions as to when Dr. Jacoby got the document from, except the facts from which I conclude that he could not have gotten an undistributed document from the Ministry of Justice, and until Dr. Kuboschok wanted to draw conclusions I only stated the facts. I again state the facts that to my knowledge he was never in the Ministry of Justice, nor was he ever in Berlin going through the files of the Ministry of Justice. I also do not say that he could not possible have seen some of those files that were brought here. I also say that I don't know, so far as my knowledge is concerned, he did not.
Q. The possibility is to be left open then that this copy was not given to Dr. Jacoby by an attorney, the German attorney?
A. The possibility is quite open. I only stated that when Dr. Kuboschok also stated the conclusion that it didn't come from a German attorney as a possibility, except I stated facts from which I assume the Court can conclude that Dr. Jacoby was not inside the Ministry of Justice.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions to the witness.
A. I would like to say to the Court and counsel that I am simply trying to speed things up. Dr. Jacoby two weeks ago had a very serious heart attack and I didn't want to subject him to going on the stand. I have stated what facts I know. I hold the instrument in my hand, and that is all I have to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
DR. SCHILF: I have no more questions to this witness, but Mr. President, I should like to make a motion to call Dr. Jacoby as a witness as soon as his health will permit that, only to put the question to him as to whether he has received this copy from an attorney. That is to be considered my motion about which the decision nay be reached, provided that Dr. Jacoby is in a position to appear here as a witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If it please Your Honors, I would like to discontinue being a witness and proceed to be a lawyer.
(Witness excused)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Having now resumed the role of attorney, I simply say that I have attempted to aid the Court in speeding up the proceedings.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question? Is there any question with reference to the signature of Dr. Thierack on these two exhibits? Are they only printed signatures?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The signature on the documents which I hold in my hand and the photostat I think are definitely the same. I am advised that Dr. Thierack's signature does not appear on the document of initials but we put it in. I call the Court's attention to the fact that here is a printed document coming from the Ministry of Justice, with a signature of Thierack at the bottom. I think there is a very great presumption that is an official signature or a mechanical reproduction of the official signature.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be sufficient evidence before the Tribunal that Document 260 bears the genuine signature of Dr. Thierack.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Do we understand then that the Court has permitted Exhibit No. 87 to be introduced into evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: I have a further comment to make on that. Both documents 260 and 496 seem to bear the genuine signature, in the original of Dr. Thierack, the Minister of Justice. Our ruling, therefore, is that both of those documents are competent evidence as a declaration of policy on the part of the Ministry of Justice. We do not yet see sufficient evidence to convince us that they were distributed to lawyers. but as evidence of a declaration of policy on the part of Thierack as Minister of Justice, and for that purpose only they will be received in evidence at this time.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes, subject to the thought that we may produce an affidavit, which we will produce, we will go ahead pending the preparation of the affidavit of the German lawyer who actually received the similar one to which I held in my hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The role will still be offered to both prosecution and the defense for further evidence on this point.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Thank you.
MR. KING: The prosecution desires tointroduce the document NG-498, which when formally offered will become Exhibit No. 93. This document is to be found on Page 20 of Document Book 1-D in the English Text and Page 26 in the German text. We would like to read the principal paragraph. The letter is dated: "Berlin 17 November 1942." Addressed: "To the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Prosecutors, in Karlsruhe, Cologne and Zweibruecken."
"Re: Judges' Letters:
"May I ask you to make it a habit to give the judges and prosecutors in Alsace, Lorraine and Luxembourg, too, an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the 'Judges' Letters.' In cases where judges and prosecutors are suspected of political unreliability, they are to be exclude in a suitable manner from the list of subscribers to the 'Judges' Letters.
"Signed: Dr. Thierack."
We now offer in evidence as Exhibit 93, the Document NG-498.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution now desires to introduce into evidence three documents from the editor -- or at least the compiler -- of Judges' Letters, Dr. Schmidt-Leichner. We do not wish to read the context of these letters except to point out that they are requests submitted to the Courts of Appeal and the Chief Prosecutors for material to be supplied for forthcoming publications of the Judges' Letters. These documents are to be found beginning on Page 70, Document Book 1-D, on Page 71 and on Pages 72 and 73. It will probably clarify matters to introduce them separately. We now offer in evidence as Exhibit No. 94, the Document NG-502.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We also offer formally in evidence as Exhibit No. 95, the Document NG-501.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that found?
MR. KING: That is found on Page 71 of Document Book 1-D, 101 in the German text.
THE PRESIDENT: I take these are parts of one exhibit number -these four pages in the book?
MR. KING: No, Your Honor, these are three separate documents which will bear separate exhibit numbers. We merely introduce them together because they are pertaining to the same subject and we do not wish to read the contents of them.
THE PRESIDENT: That No. 501 will be Exhibit No. 95.
MR. KING: The prosecution formally offers as Exhibit No. 96, the Document NG-503, which in the English text is to be found on Page 72 and in the German text on Page 102. Do I understand, Your Honor, that Exhibit No. 96 is received in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 96 will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. The prosecution will now introduce the Document NG-510, which will when formally offered, become Exhibit No. 97.
This is to be found in the English text of Document Book 1-D, beginning on Page 108, and in the German text beginning on Page 157. We would like to read the first paragraph of that letter and a portion of the second paragraph beginning on Page 108. It is a letter signed by Thierack, dated Berlin 8 March 1943, and it's addressed to: Public Prosecutors and Presidents of Several Courts. We will not go into detail at this time.
"Re.: Method of criminal proceedings for public undermining of fighting morale (Article 5, para. No. 1, para. 2 of the Special War time Criminal Procedure decree of 17.8.1938, Reich Legal Gazette 1939, page 1455-)
Criminal proceedings for publicly undermining the fighting morale now come under the competence of the People's Court (para I of the decree to supplement and alter the competence decree of 29 January 1943, Reich Legal Gazette I, page 76 -). Senior Public Prosecutors will submit without delay such criminal cases to the Senior Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court for the examination of his competence.
Doubts are often raised as to whether statements made by defendants should be punished under Article 5 of the Special War time Criminal Procedure Decree, the Law against malicious political acts or Article 134 of the Reich Criminal Code. In all cases where a charge under the latter legal provision is made too, I would ask the Senior Public Prosecutors not to submit the details to the Senior Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court. They should report to me in the normal way concerning the question of ordering criminal proceedings, or consenting to criminal proceedings under the law against malicious political acts, or Article 134 b of the Reich Criminal Code."
There follows certain citations which we will not read. We now formally offer as Exhibit No. 97 the Document NG-510.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.