A. From that office which was competent to pass on the Fuehrer order to the police, that is to say, in order to mention names, from Lammers or if it came from Meissner or Schaupp, from those people.
Q. Not from the police?
A. No, not from the police.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you, that is all.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Dr. Gramm, the Prosecution just put to you a letter, if I understood it correctly, a letter to the Deputy Gauleiter of Nurnberg; that apparently was supposed to be a speech which was made in the Luneburg. Do you know anything about that speech?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And, from that speech a sentence was put to you which referred to asocials and inferior elements which were undesirable. If on the basis of my knowledge of the document, I may add to that, that is a quite general term without in any way characterizing further what has to be understood under that term, asocials; is it know to you that during the war quite generally for criminalistic reasons, the opinion prevailed which was quite justifiable, that criminals had to be combatted most severely, and that therefore, the most severe measures had to be taken against asocial criminal elements?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object your Honor, the question is not proper redirect examination. The cross examination was asked for definite purposes of testing the witnesses opinion and for no other reason. The question is also in the form of a positive statement rather than a question.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is very definitely leading and leading at length. It calls for an answer concerning which there is already much testimony and I think it is not proper redirect examination.
The objection is sustained.
We are aware of the facts concerning which you asked; there is a great deal in the record concerning the necessity or alleged necessity for great severity in time of war.
You may ask another question.
Q. Witness, several contradictions were put to you which were found between statements made by Dr. Rothenberger and those which you expressed here. Is it known to you that contradiction of that nature, if one described the thoughts of a man, if one wants to be successful with his intentions and on the other hand has to camouflage these same intentions by giving them a national socialist shape because one is opposed to National Socialist pressure, that is quite possible?
A. I cannot answer your question. I do not understand it. Will you please ask me more clearly.
Q. I shall save that question for the presentation of the testimony for Dr. Rothenberger because it calls for an explanation of the occurrences which would go far beyond the scope of a redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further redirect examination.
The witness is excused.
Dr. Kubuschok, do you desire to proceed with documents or with further witnesses.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
I now start with document book II. I ask you to turn your attention to page 32 of the document book, document No. 38, an affidavit by the attorney Ernst Ziehe, I read the second paragraph:
"I have known Dr. SCHLIGELBERGER for over 45 years and have been friends with him ever since."
I skip now the rest of this paragraph and the following one and go on reading with the second paragraph from the bottom of this page.
"He also expressed his negative attitude towards National Socialism during discussions in the circle of mutual friends. He was considered by everybody there as a most respectable man beyond reproach who did everything in his power to oppose, as effectively as possible within the limits of his position the orders of the Party offices, prevent encroachments or, if this was not possible to weaken their effects. He used to complain bitterly, that a great part of his time was taken up by the constant struggle with the Party offices.
"It is characteristic that every time Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER was asked why he did stay in office, since he was inwardly so much opposed to National Socialism, he always answered that it was his conviction that by staying in office he could do some good and could prevent the situation from getting worse, Since I knew the situation I had to agree with Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, having heard repeatedly from various leading personalities of the Social Democratic Party, for instance especially from the former senior alderman of Berlin, Hugo HEIMAN, that numerous Social Democrats were remaining in their positions and even joined the NSDAP for the sole reason of keeping informed. All these gentlemen, however, have never changed their Social Democratic convictions."
I offer this document as exhibit 96.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received and the time has arrived for our afternoon recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document which I offer is Document No. 39 on page 34 of the document book, an affidavit by Friedrich Ernst Jaekel who in 1935 came as a temporary employee into the Reich Ministry of Justice. I skip the first two pages of that affidavit and read from the last paragraph of that affidavit. It is the fifth line of the last paragraph.
"At these occasions I was able to note that Dr. Schlegelberger firmly demanded that the procedures in question against prominent members of the movement were to be carried out relentlessly and without regard to the political position of the party in question. Contrary to Under-Secretary Dr. Freisler, who, as an old defense counsel of national socialists, always stressed the exonerating facts, Undersecretary Dr. Schlegelberger was a man of absolute justice, a fact which, due to the great respect he enjoyed as a human being and scholar among us young assistants, was nothing new to me. We knew that, if we were going to be attacked in our fight for the cause of justice, we could count on Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger's supporting us. The strong contrast Schlegelberger-Freisler was known to us and we recognized in Freisler the "wild Party man", while in Schlegelberger we admired the true expert, the representative of absolute justice and the just superior. Not once did I notice that Herr Schlegelberger departed from this, his road."
I offer this document as Exhibit 97.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, Document No. 40, is an affidavit by Georg Klauer who is now in charge of the Patent Office. That is the same as the former Reich Patent Office. I read on the second page of the affidavit, the second paragraph.
"He always was attached with great loyalty and admiration to the former Minister of Justice Dr. JOEL, who was of pure Jewish extraction. I have hoard from different sources that it was chiefly the re Court No. III, Case No. 3.sult of his action that Dr. JOEL was spared the degrading and dangerous measures connected with the persecution of the Jews.
"Herr SCHIEGELBERGER has furthermore given very decisive effective assistance to my niece, Fraeulein Annemarie KUEHNEMANN, Berlin W.15, Saechsischestr. 70, saving her from the concentration camp when she had been sentenced by a Special Court to a temporary prison term for alleged "insult to the Fuehrer."
"Summing up, I am of the opinion that Under Secretary in the Ministry of Justice SCHIEGELBERGER, while totally opposed to nationalsocialism, was driven by the one desire to offer resistance to the constantly increasing pressure on the side of the party and to save, as far as possible, the tradition of the Ministry of Justice trying to tide it over those bad times. If he had been forced to make certain concessions, this does not by any means prove that such concessions were made in accordance with his convictions; on the contrary, on intimate knowledge of the prevailing circumstances will prove that they were made under compulsion, in order to avoid further evil."
I offer this document as Exhibit 98.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, 41, is an affidavit of the present Kammergericht president, Dr. Strucksberg.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honors, please, as to Document 41, and I might also speak of 42, the Prosecution objects at this time for the reason that the preamble or preliminary statement which is required by the rule that the affiant knows that there is a penalty for giving a false affidavit and that the affidavit is to be used in evidence is not found in either of these two documents. Of course, as to Document 42 this is premature, but I thought we could state it now and make progress. I think my position is consistent with at least the reserve rulings or the rulings that the Court has made before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I ask to be given the permission to reserve an exhibit number for this document because I will offer it later in a Court No.III, Case No. 3.changed form.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit, so-called, Strucksberg will be marked for identification -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 99.
THE PRESIDENT: 99, and the ruling will be reserved.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 42 is a letter from Switzerland, from Zurich written by Generaldirektor Dr. Hans Koenig. In this letter Koenig submits an affidavit. I know that that affidavit does not conform with the rule. On the other hand, on account of the difficulties existing through the mail service, it will not be possible for me to submit an affidavit now. Therefore, I should like to make the following suggestion. I ask that this document be considered not an affidavit but simply a letter, a document, and be accepted only for what it is worth.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, rather than to set that precedent, I realize the circumstances. I read the document. I would prefer to be permitted to withdraw my objection to Document No. 42 as an inadequate affidavit rather than to consent to it going in as a letter. I am not advised that it is in conformity with Swiss law, nor do I want to set a complete precedent for all such cases in similar documents in this case, but the Prosecution has no objection to the admission of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that there is something in the nature of an acknowledgment.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Although not in the nature of an oath.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And under those circumstances and in view particularly of the waiver of the objection -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: -- by the Prosecution, the Exhibit will be received. We have not, as I recollect it, ever ruled that mere letters, Court No. III, Case No. 3.unauthenticated, are to be received for any purpose whatever.
This exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The content refers to the behavior of Schlegelberger in the field of international exchange of legal matters and is also a personal testimonial. I offer this document as Exhibit 100. 100, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: May I get myself straightened out on that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 42 is Exhibit 100. 41 -- the No. 99 exhibit, No. 99, was merely reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, which one was received owing to the fact that no objection was made?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 42. This one, 42, as 100.
THE PRESIDENT: We have ruled that that was received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we come to 43,now, do we not?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: No, I have no objection to 43, Your Honor. I objected to 41 which was marked for identification only as 99, and I state no objection as to 43. I have none.- Which is now being offered.
THE PRESIDENT: 41.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 41 is reserved.
TIE PRESIDENT: 42 has been received.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That's right. I have waived that. That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: We now come to 43.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: That's right.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now we come to 43.
THE PRESIDENT: Which would be 101.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 43 will be 101. Right. Document No. 43 is an affidavit by Dr. Edward Seibt. I shall not read all of it. It confirms the fact that on the occasion of Schlegelberger's leaving the Ministry as Acting Minister of Justice, the British Broadcasting Service, the BBC, Court No. III, Case No. 3.made the comment that "This means that the last true representative of justice in the noble sense leaves the Administration of Justice."
I offer this document as Exhibit 101.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The following document No. 44, deals with the same subject. It is in English and on account of my poor pronunciation, I should not like to read it. It deals with the same subject as the previous one.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Your Honor please, I haven't had my headphones on, and I don't know what has been said, but I consider that Document 44 is a letter -- the essence of the document is an unverified letter, and although it was sent to American judicial forces apparently, yet I don't believe that gives it any higher degree of probative value. I shall object to it because it, on its face, appears to be a letter and a letter written rather clearly in contemplation of litigation. By the same token while we are discussing it, I shall also object to Document No. 47 which is a letter from the Protestant Bishop of Berlin.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Concerning Document 44 I can only say that I received this letter through Military Government. It is correct that it does not have the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come to the next document, Document 45, an affidavit by Dr. Walter Kriege. Dr. Walter Kriege is not in a very high position in the bi-zonal office. I read the second paragraph.
"As a referent in the Reich Ministry of Justice I was working at that time under the then Under Secretary Dr. Franz SCHLEGELBERGER. Knowing that I was not a member of the NSDAP and its organizations and that I was in strong opposition to National Socialism, he occasionally talked with me in private about his fears. In doing so he particularly emphasized how much he was harassed by the fact that he was only partially successful in eliminating the disastrous influence on the judicial system exercised by HITLER, the Party, and the SS. I remember having told him once or twice on such occasions that the best he could do was to resign from his office forthwith. He replied that this in fact would be the best expedient to get out of all difficulties. But he was afraid that a radical person, presumably Herr THIERACK, would be put in his place immediately after his resignation, which would mean a considerable intensification of the radical course, particularly in maters of criminal justice. However, as much as he wished to resign from his office,so as not to be responsible for matters which were contrary to his views, he nevertheless considered it his duty to hold out for the present in order to eliminate as much as possible any disastrous influences. I replied that I indeed had to admit that after his resignation from office judicial affairs would deteriorate considerably; but I advices him to consider whether considering his own person, he had not better take this decisive step after all. He then said that, for the time being, he still wanted to continue the struggle; still, there might of course arise a situation some time when he would follow my advice."
I offer this document as Exhibit No. 102.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 46 is an affidavit by Dr. Max Matthias. I read on the first page.
"Owing to the fact that I never became a member of the Party or any of its branches, Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER knew my views and repeatedly took the opportunity of frankly discussing political matters during our conversation.
But he always treated official matters with proper reserve. We discussed especially economical developments, because as chairman of industrial enterprises I was particularly interested in that subject, Herr SCHLEGELBERGER always seemed to me to be a very educated state official with a high sense of responsibility, who was considered as one of the top exports on German Economic Law, and became a recognized authority in this field. His views and aims were based on a definitely nationalistic popular sentiment and culminated in the view that legislation should establish a balance between contradictory opinions. He tried to modify one sided advances of political tendencies through appropriate regulations. That is why he considered it necessary to make occasional compromises to extreme conceptions in order to reduce their activity to the lowest possible minimum.
This was the reason why he occasionally approved of decisions which were contrary to his personal feelings, as I realized particularly during discussions of the law concerning stocks and shares.
In time I was able to watch Herr SCHLEGELBERGER getting more and more depressed which expressed his disappointment in the development of the legal ideology in Germany. His condition got to the point where one could recognize that he grew more and more bitter and definitely weary of his position, which did not stop until he resigned from office. After that time he was obviously relieved to be free of those unbearable ties. The reason why his resignation was delayed was, as I concluded from occasional remarks, partly based on the fear that his position might be taken over by a successor who would bring the judicial system to extremes, that it could never be justified."
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Continuing): I offer this document as Exhibit 103.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next Document No. 47 is a certificate by the Protestant Bishop of Berlin. It bears an official seal by the Bishop.
The certificate was already made out on the 13 July 1946 for a different purpose. It is not an affidavit, but it is a certificate by an authority of the church which bears its seal. Only with that restriction in it, in the sense, I offer that document in evidence.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor, please, I acknowledge all those statements but nevertheless it is a letter by the Protestant Bishop of Berlin or a copy of it and the certificate, as translated, is certifying the conformity of the above copy with the original. There is a seal of the church but there is no indication that I can find that any person other than the signer acknowledged the knowledge and there is no statement under or contained in it. I must object to the introduction of this document No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is sustained.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to Document No. 48. That is an affidavit by Alexander Wiedow. I read only the last paragraph on the second page of that document, page 61 in the Document Book.
"Personally, I had the impression, from the time of our first conversation, that he was an enemy of the National Socialist system and an opponent of HITLER and I was glad to have found in him a faithful Christian member of the parish who felt responsible for the maintenance of tho Church."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Wiedow is the competent superintendent; that is to say, the senior Protestant Pastor of the Parish to which Schlegelberger belonged. I offer this document as Exhibit 104.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I wish to object, because there is no certificate of any kind in this document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I just see that. The objection is quite justified. I withdraw the document. I refer next to Document No. 49. That is an affidavit by Mrs. Anneliese Goerdeler, the widow of that man who today was mentioned in the course of the examination of the witness Gramm. Karl Goerdeler, the leader of that movement which led to the attempt of tho 20th of July, 1944, and who was designated to be the future Chancellor of the Reich after the removal of Hitler.
On that ocassion, may I refer to tho examination of the witness Roeder who said that among the people belonging to the resistance movement, Schlegelberger was considered to be the future Minister of Justice.
I read the second paragraph.
"Dr. GUERTNER, the former Minister of Justice, was very well known to my husband who was very familiar with him. I know of many conferences which my husband had with Minister GUERTNER. On those occasions both quite openly discussed the various bad conditions. Both of them treated the conversations as absolutely confidential. Various bad conditions could be aleviated. My husband very much appreciated GUERTNER as a human being, and with GUERTNER he was of the opinion that he should stay in office in order to avoid that justice would fully slip into HIMMLER's hands. My husband knew how big the sacrifice was which GUERTNER thus had to make. My husband was convinced, as he said at GUERTNER's death, that GUERTNER had died of a broken heart. As highly as my husband esteemed GUERTNER, my husband also esteemed State Secretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, whom he had known for decades and with whom, same as with GUERTNER, he had personal and official conferences. He also fully trusted SCHLEGELBERGER and never doubted his integrity. My husband considered GUERTNER and SCHLEGELBERGER as a last resort who endeavored to make tho principle of right respected in spite of all the attacks against it."
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I offer this document as Exhibit 104.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 50 is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Sauerbruch. I read the second and third paragraph:
"In 1942, the present University Professor Prelate Dr. SCHREIBER, a wellknown politician of the Roman-Catholic (Zentrum) Party of the years before 1933, was involved into a criminal procedure. He was accused of embezzlement.
The case was raised on a purely political basis and was prosecuted by the Gestapo with every possible rigor.
Prelate SCHREIBER with whom I was friendly since the time of our joint work in the "Emergency Community of German Scientists" applied to me and I then undertook a great number of steps in order to help Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, who gave real positive help and he saw to it that the criminal procedure was suspended and prelate Dr. SCHREIBER freed from prosecution."
I offer this document as Exhibit 105.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 51 is an affidavit by the just mentioned Prelate,pr. Schreiber. Its contents arc related to the affidavit that I have just read by Sauerbruch. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit 106, Document 51, Exhibit 106.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 53, affidavit by Hans Joachim von Rohr. I read the second paragraph.
"I was to have been arrested by the Gestapo in the Spring of 1943 but secceeded in eluding this arrest and had to remain in hiding. The cause of this persecution was that I had arranged a Christian burial for two Soviet prisoners who had died in my enterprise and that I myself, together with my wife and secretary, attended the funeral. My arrest was attempted shortly afterwards; while I managed to evade it, my wife and my secretary were taken into custody. In the further course of events, my relatives, and after her release, my wife too tried to prevail upon the Gestapo to abandon their plans to arrest me. In those endeavors they encountered the most extensive help in the Reich Ministry of Justine, which in the end culminated in the fact that the Chief Public Prosecutor at Grcifswald to whom the conducting of my judicial prosecution had boon transferred in the meantime was instructed to abandon plans for my arrest and to effect a similar restraint in my favor, on the part of the Gestapo at Greifswald.
This was successful, and I was from then on free to practice my profession. Upon a visit at the Ministry of Justice."
I was told by a referent that the kindness shown to me had been due to the attitude of Undersecretary Dr. Schlegelberger, the then acting Minister. A complete quashing of the proceedings against me was then considered. All this changed at one full swoop, when Dr. Schlegelberger resigned from office, and Dr. Thierack took over the Reich Ministry of Justice. From this moment on, the persecution of me started anew."
I offer this document as Exhibit 107.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The next and last document 53, I am not offering as an exhibit. That brings me to the end of my presentation of evidence. I have only one request. The position of the defense counsel for the first defendant is a difficult one. The case usually is the largest one as for its extent, and it is the first one to be dealt with. Consequently, I have not finished with all my preparations, not 100 per cent. I am still to receive some documents which I should like to offer later in a supplement volume. I should like to enclose in that volume also those affidavits which have been objevted to and which have to be supplemented. I ask for the permission that I may do that later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal concomettantly are opposed to ruling in advance of the issue, but we will rule upon your further offers when they are made. You may make the offers and we will pass upon them when the offers are made.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Another point, Your Honor. The decision concerning the affidavit Hecker and Miethsam had not been made. In case that I shouldn't be permitted to submit these affidavits, I also would like to ask for permission later to call both of them as witnesses; that of course only in case the affidavits would not be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is ready to rule upon those two affidavits. It has been recognized, both by the prosecution and the defense, and by various expressions from the members of the Tribunal, that there are many difficulties with the procedure which involves the receipt of affidavits in place of the verbal testimony of the witness. Notwithstanding objections which have been made by the defense, the Tribunal has acted upon the rule which was established by Ordinance No. 7 and has received exhibits. As exhibits, it has received affidavits. That practice has increasingly disclosed the inconveniences which are involved in carrying it out.
As to the affidavit of Miethsam; as we recollect it was stated that he was available but that he is not in Nurnberg and is at a distance. My next point is that during the sittings of the judges now on the bench as commissioners, we first attempted the procedure of allowing direct examination in addition to cross examination of affiants. Objections which were raised established that that was impracticable and we therefore limited the defense to what we deemed to be proper cross examination of the affiants who had been produced by the prosecution. So the right of the defense to produce evidence in some form is dear in connection with their cases in chief. As to Miethsam, his case very closely resembles numerous affidavits which were offered by the prosecution, and the Tribunal has decided that the affidavit will be received and we will be compelled to follow the clumsy system which we have already established and permit the prosecution to call him back for cross examination, as we did in the case of the defense who desired to cross examine. These difficulties are multiplied greatly or would be multiplied greatly if the same ruling were applied to a witness who is actually here now in the witness house, I believe--Hecker--he is either in jail or in the witness house.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Yesterday he was still in the witness house, but he intended to leave today. I had him informed that he should stay here, but I don't know whether that information still reached him.
THE PRESIDENT: As to witnesses who are actually available here in Nurnberg, the Tribunal feels that it is a matter of greater fairness to both sides that such a witness who has twice already been examined in this Tribunal should be presented as a verbal witness rather than to present his affidavit. Any other procedure would regain involve calling him back for cross examination for a third time. The affidavit of Hecker is rejected. The affidavit of Miethsam is received.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As for Exhibit 74, the affidavit of Miethsam, I don't have to say more and submit it to the Secretary-General. May I ask the Tribunal to kindly let me know when an examination of the witness Hecker would be convenient? Would it be all right for me to call the witness if I can reach him for Monday morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is all right.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, as a matter of possible information and for orderly procedure, my present thinking is that it would be more more orderly if affiants like the affiant Miethsam are eventually called after all such cases have been disposed of, in other words, at the end of all the defendants' case, unless it's possible for us to get the man in during the presentation of a particular defendant's case. I don't know whether Miethsam can be produced for cross examination on Monday. If he can and if the Tribunal will permit, we will try to get him here; if not, may we assume that all those cases will be head at the end of the direct testimony of all the defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: You should be entitled to the same privi lege which the defendants had to call affiants back for cross examination at the end of their case.
I am sure counsel for both sides realize that it is a matter of great convenience and assistance to the Tribunal whenever possible to have the witness present and at least to have the cross examination in close connection to the direct examination or the affidavit, so that we have fresh in mind the testimony in chief when we are hearing the cross examination. It's a matter of some substance as well as of a rule.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I quite agree with you, Your Honor, and for that reason I will say now to Dr. Kuboschok that if we can get Miethsan here, we will have him here Monday, also so that we nay cross examine him and in case you wish to redirect. I don't know whether we can but we will try to have him here Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: One suggestion only, on which I have as yet not conferred with my associates, but I know they will agree. The Tribunal is very anxious that evidence having probative value which is offered by the defendants should be in such form that it can be received and considered. I want simply to commend to counsel for the defense and to each of then that they read the very simple rule with reference to statements in lieu of oath and attempt so far as they possibly can to comply strictly with it so that we will not make rulings which appear to be technical rulings. You will remember that those rules are adopted by all of the Tribunals and apply to all of them, and there is very little that can be done except to follow them. The procedure is so simple that we commend it at your attenrtion that you do not require the court to rule on technical issues of this kind. We should be ready for the next presentation.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I in connection with the statement made by Mr. LaFollette say the following: I still have the cross examination of two witnesse who have submitted affidavits against the defendant Klemm. The witnesses are the affiants Horst. Guenter Franke and Altmeyer. I want to ask the high Tribunal for a decision as to whether subsequent to the submission of evidence for my defendant Klemm I can cross examine these two witnesses, and that in the interest of seeing that at least part of the evidence remains close together. The witness Altmeyer, who has given an affidavit, is here in Nurnberg. The witness Horst Guenter Franke is at present in an English camp, and I spoke to Major Schaeffer today and asked him to call that witness for the end of next week, to come to Nurnberg, but he informed me that he had sent cables repeatedly to that camp and that the gentlemen of the Prosecution had even encountered the same difficulties with this witness Franke. The witness, therefore, had to be interrogated in the came Fallingbostel by a gentleman of the prosecution. Major Schaeffer thinks that the witness cannot be brought here; he was frozen, so to say, at the camp; he was registered under that designation as being frozen; and, therefore, he could only be brought here through the intervention of the British Military Government Office.
Now, the question arises since the Prosecution, as well as the Defense Center, do not seem to have any means within their power to bring that witness here, whether the Court or the Secretary General have any possibility in that direction, according to the rules of Control Council. Then, I would like to state that request today that that decision be made because otherwise the witness Franke could not come subsequent to my submission of evidence in the case Klemm, but many weeks later; and then, of course, the connection with the case Klemm is again disrupted.
Then, I have another question. In my document book for Klemm I have two affidavits by Hecker. I am just told that Hecker will be brought here on Monday, perhaps, as a witness for Schlegelberger. Now, I wonder whether I could also examine Hecker for my client Klemm, or whether Hecker should be examined as a witness by me only after I have examined Klemm -- as I intend to do now.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is safe to say that the Tribunal wants to get through with Hecker. You can examine him on the first occasion that you see him in this Courtroom as soon as the rest of them get through with him. What is the situation with reference to Altmeyer. He was an affiant for the Prosecution?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he on the list that you requested?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: For cross examination?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President. Also Horst Guonter Franke.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't get that.
DR. SCHILF: Also the witness Franke.
THE PRESIDENT: I heard about that. The witness Altmeyer is in Nurnberg.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You can produce him and cross examine him.