In view of this characteristic of Dr. Schoellgen I am afraid that he is not the right man for the Special Court of Hamburg, because it is to be expected that especially in the near future the Special Court of Hamburg will have to proceed with particular sterness. I beg you, therefore, not to assign Landgerichtsrat Dr. Schoellgen to the local Special Court."
Skipping to the signature, "Dr. Rothenberger."
The prosecution offers at this time document NG-519 as Exhibit 116.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
I guess my statement that this would be received in evidence did not go through.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I heard you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: So I am repeating that this document will be received in evidence.
The hour of 4:30 has now arrived, and we will therefore recess until tomorrow morning it 9:30 o'clock.
(At 1330 hours, 17 March 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 18 March 1947)
Official Transcript of the American MilitaryTribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Altstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 March 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain whether all defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made.
DR. BRIEGER: In the name of my colleagues and in my own name I would like to make the following declaration. One of my colleagues pointed out yesterday that we have so far not received the English test of the document and transcripts. Last night we had a discussion with Mr. Wartena, and during this discussion we found out that it was a mistake on our part. So far the tests were in the office of Mr. Wartena, where they were lying for our use and they will continue to be there in the amount which we asked for. Probably one of the German secretaries of our own offices forgot to inform us about this. We are in agreement that we have full confidence in the ability and the good will of Mr. Wartena, and we welcome his helpful attitude in this matter and in other matters, and therefore we do not have to occupy the time of the Tribunal for such technical matters in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal naturally appreciates this very fair and very frank statement of counsel, and we hope that defense counsel will always feel that they are getting a fair trial of this case.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we would this morning first like to clear up a matter which came up last week on Tuesday, March 11. The Court will recall that the Prosecution introduced in evidence as Exhibit No. 87 document styled "Lawyers Letters."
There was immediately an objection on part of one of defense counsel on the grounds that he believed that letter or there was a possibility that that letter had not been circulated, although admittedly it had been published. We then introduced as Exhibit 89 a document which was in the form of a brochure from the Ministry of Justice, although apparently not a covering letter for the circulation of the Lawyers Letters. The Court admitted documents 87 and 89 conditionally. I would call the Court's attention to the ruling as it appears on Page 426 of the daily minutes. The Court speaking:
"We do not yet see sufficient evidence to convince us that they -the Lawyers Letters --" 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."
This morning we wish to introduce two affidavits which we believe, we shall so move after the introduction, remove the limitation which the Court put on 87 and 89 at the time they were introduced. It is my impressthat the defense counsel has been furnished with copies of these affidavit However, I have additional copies here for the convenience of the Court an the translators. They will be NG 987 and NG 977.
THE PRESIDENT: Will they both be carried as one exhibit number?
MR. KING: I believe not, Your Honor. I think it would be more convenient, for the Prosecution, at least, if we have them admitted as two separate exhibits. The Prosecution will at this time introduce NG 977 which will become, when accepted in evidence, Exhibit 117. I would like to read portion of this document. Reading from Document NG 977:
"Sworn Statement, "I, Dr. Heinrich Kullmann, Nuernberg, Fuertherstrasse 58a, declare herewith under oath:
"No. 1 of the monthly informational publication "Lawyers Letters" dated October 1, 1944, was brought to my attention and transmitted to me by the President of the District Court. It appeared for the first time in circulation in October 1944.
This informational publication of the Reich Minister of Justice was also sent to other lawyers, as I have noticed from the mimeographed attached sheet; therefore they were also informed of the existence of this publication. The original "Lawyers Letters" No. 1, which was sent to me as well as the attached sheet of the President of the District Court dated October 24, 1944, is being attached to my statement. That is signed "Dr. Heinrich Kullmann."
Now, the attached sheet to which he refers in the paragraph which have just read appears at the top of the Document Ng 977. It reads:
"Confidential Nuremberg, 24 October 1944. With 1 "Lawyers Letter" No. 1 to the lawyer Mr. Kullmann --" Kullmann being handwritten -- "I impo upon you the duty of secrecy concerning the contents of the "Lawyers Lette Then at least the typewritten signature of the President of the District Court, Dr. Keller, appears. It was certified by the clerk Reusch, If I may for a moment defer the offering in evidence of NG 977 while I read NG 987, which will become when offered, Exhibit 118. NG 987 is a sworn affidavit of the Clerk Hans Reusch, and it reads as follows:
"I, Hans REUSCH, Court Clerk, Nuremberg, Toplerstrasse 28, declare herewith under oath:
"I was born on 13 May 1913 in Nuremberg. After having been active one year at the Local Court (Amtsgericht), Nuremberg, I was transferred to the Office of the President of the District Court, where I remained until the end of the war? Here I was also charged with the certification of the issues of "Lawyers Letters" to the Nuremberg lawyers, as ordered by the President of the District Court.
"By using the list on which all accredited lawyers for the area of the District Court, Nuremberg, were named, I sent the "Lawyers Letters" to all lawyers, with the exception of those serving at the front." And that is signed "Hans Reusch."
The Prosecution in the belief that these two affidavits clear up the matter will permit 87 and 89 to be received unconditionally by the Court and we now offer in evidence the exhibits 117 and 118. We would also appreciate a ruling by the court on the question of whether or not 87 and 89 are now freed of the limitations under which they were originally accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The present ruling of the Tribunal will be that exhibits number 89 and 87 are now received in evidence unconditionally. I make this further statement. They are not received as conclusive evidence of the fact, but as competent relevant evidence of the fact, therefore probative evidence and receivable. I should add that we now receive in evidence Exhibits Number 117 and 118. Has counsel any ideas as to the place in which these exhibits should be put in our document book so that we may have uniformity?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor. Of course they were not anticipated, when the document books were drawn up. It would probably be most proper to put them in the document books following Exhibit 89. That is Document Book 1-D, at Page 116, where the Exhibit 89 appears.
THE PRESIDENT: 1-D or 1-B?
MR. KING: 1-D 116, yes.
We have this morning several more documents from the Book-1 series which we are anxious as the court to get into the record so that we can avoid to some extent the pagination problem involved in hauling all of Book 1, plus Book 3 into court with us every day.
To that end, we would, at this time, introduce, by reading portions from it, the Document NG-773 which will become when offered Exhibit 119. That is a**
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the book at this time?
MR. KING? I am sorry Your Honor. That appears in Book 1-A at Page 58 in the English text. Rather, it appears in the index of Document Book 1-A. The distribution which has been made should be placed in the text at page 58. Distribution has been made to defense counsel and I believe I am correct, to the Secretary-General. May I inquire if any one requires copies in order the we may proceed?
This is the text of a rather long address delivered by Goering before the Academy of German Law on 13 November, 1934. I think it might be well at this time to clear up a possible objection on the part of defense counsel.
This speech is to be found in the book entitled "Hermann Goering Speeches and Articles." It is edited by one Dr. Erich Gritzbach. I will read at this time few paragraphs which we believe to be representative of this address.
Beginning first on Page 1 of the document circulated, the second paragraph reads as follows:
"The juristical nation of the past the ancient Romans, said that legal security was the foundation of the State. A later decadent epoch averted this principle to the notion of a night wathchman state, according to which the state had nothing more important to do than see to it that no harm came to the individual in his sharply delimited private sphere. The fold was of secondary importance; the individual alone was important, with his egotistica" aims, which were secured and protected by law.
"We National Socialists, too, fully recognize the importance of law for the communal living of the individual citizen in the State. But we take our point of departure here from an entirely different, more natural concept of life and State. Our primary interest is not the individual, but the community of all fellow citizens. That is why, we call ourselves Socialists. The Feuhrer created our State for the people so that the people might live. Our state, therefore, is not an end in itself, but the means to an end.
"The National Socialist State strives to unite its citizens, who are alike in nature to a popular community, to a people's community."
On Page 2, I will read the first full paragraph beginning:
"Gentleman, I know that of course one can overdo the principle of law per se. Let me state one thing right at the ourset: Law per se is not the primary consideration. First come the people; and the people created a State; and the State created the law for the community of the people. This in the last analys** is the source of the fact that ever and always the people is the primary reality, and it is only from the people that State and law can arise. Indeed, we did not begin with a constitution on paper when we came to power like the Weimar Republic, which had nothing more pressing to do than to write down alien, bloodless theories on paper. We leave these things to the organic process of growth. We, on the contrary, attempted to solve the pressing questions of the life of the people through laws, and in so doing have already replaced an enormous part of the useless body of law by National Socialist legal values.
Laws, however, remain dead letters, which do not fulfill their purpose, and may indeed do more harm than good, if the assurance is not given that everywhere and at every time they will be enforced and fulfilled in accordance with their purport and purpose."
May I now ask that you turn to Page 10, and refer to the second paragraph in the English text.
"A community of these of common blood based on true confidence and respect is possible only when all parts of the community are filled with the certainty that the protection of the law, that justice is assured to them all equally and fairly. National Socialism, indeed, as sworn enemy of the liberalistic conception of 'equality' recognized a differentiation in the sphere of the law and its application too. But this is not a step backward but one forward. We do not want, after all, to hang the little ones and let the big ones go, we want in particular to attack the major public enemies. The Fuehrer again gave classic and fundamental expression to this National Socialist principle of State in his twelve points."
I turn now to page 17 and refer to the first full paragraph on that page.
"We National Socialists have no understanding for exaggerated legal quibbles. We refuse to give every grumbler and informer the chance to exert without restraint his obnoxious and dangerous inclinations. We do not consider it legal security if the State and its organs loyally places its powers at the disposal of those who under their very protection want to attack it and its purposes. For us, at any rate, that is not legal security but a crime against the people and its community. We want, on the contrary, to do everything in our power to serve this community, to safeguard for every citizen vital space, a safe life, freedom to live, and joy in life and his profession, and so to guarantee the possibility for him to live and to work as a part of the community."
The Prosecution now formally offers in evidence as Exhibit 119, Document NG-773.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to hear again the identification of that address.
MR. KING: It appeared in a book of speeches and articles entitled, "Herma Goering, speeches and Articles, "and it was edited by Dr. Eric Gritzbach. The publication is available within the Court House if either the Court or defense counsel would care to examine it. The title of the book, Your Honor, is merely "Hermann Goering, Speeches and Articles."
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and defense counsel to turn to Document Book 1-C. The prosecution at this time desires to introduce the Document NG-24which when formally offered, will become Exhibit 120. This document is to be found at Page 20 in the English text of Document Bock 1-C and is there--I was about to say, Your Honors, "is there complete." I am going to retrace my step on that statement and say that in the German. Book and possibly in the English Book, several pages were omitted at the time these books were circulated, and those deficiencies have now been cured by circulating the missing pages. May I ask whether or not the Secretary-General has them for distribution to the Court? I have here for distribution to to Court, the complete copies of the English, and we will present them.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this in any way differ from the exhibit as found in the Exhibit Book?
MR. KING: Your Honor, that is a very pertinent question at the moment. In the English text--I am not sure that I can give you tho answer. My original impression was that the English text was in good order. Your Honor, it appears that the copy which I have circulated and the copy in the English text are identical. There are a few paragraphs that we would like to call to the attention of the Court.
The letter which appears on Page 20 of the Document Book 1-C is from the Senior Public Prosecutor at the County Court at Wuppertal, and is dated 20 January 1936. The subject of the letter is: "Incidents at the concentration camp Kemna in Wuppertal." In this letter, the public prosecutor describes certain mistreatment of prisoners that have occurred, and I think we can get to the summary of that most expeditiously by turning to Page 23 in the English text That is at the top of page 4 in the English Document as circulated.
The public prosecutor writes as follows:
"In most cases they (that is the prisoners) were beaten shortly after their arrival, during the interrogations - in part upon their stripped bodies- with rubber clubs, horse whips, sticks, cow-hide horsewhips and other things. In many cases they had to lie down, across a specialwhipping bench or they were forced down by guards, whereby their mouths were shut or stuffed up with paper-balls, cloths, bags or similar things, in order to prevent them from screaming. Another part of the guards was beating them simultaneously. Prisoners who fainted at these procedures were reawakened by kicks or by pouring water over them and they were forced to rise. In many cases the mistreated persons were then locked up in a boarded partition under the stair case or in an elevator, and they were not given medical attendance, food or drinking water."
Then skipping down to the beginning of the next paragraph on that same page.
"Several prisoners were also forced to eat unwatered herrings from the barrel, - it has been said that salt was also applied to these herrings and that also lubricating grease and kerosene was applied to part of them-and also bread sprinkled with salt. After eating these herrings the prisoners who naturally suffered from tormenting thirst were refused drinking water. In such a manner have been treated the following prisoners in protective custody:"
There follows the names of several prisoners, whose names we will not read. And under tho list of the names of the prisoners, to continue:
Of these Claser, Hirsch and von den Eickent (no. 9, 13 and 33) were forced - after having been fed with such herrings - by kicks and blows into narrow wardrobes, such as they are used in factories for the storage of the clothes of the workmen. In these wardrobes, in which one could neither stand upright nor sit down the prisoners had often to spend several hours, and occasionally also cigarette smoke was blown through air-holes of the wardrobes."
That is all on that page that we wish to read. The next paragraph is the first full paragraph on Page 25, or on Page 6 of the document as distributed in the English text.
"If we review the chances of a criminal procedure limited to these defendants and contemplate what the situation will be in a possible trial, and what the consequences will be and if we take also into consideration the result of the procedure before the party court against some principle defendants (which has become known in the meantime), such serious objections can be raised against the continuation of the criminal procedure that I thought it advisable to submit the files for a now decision."
On that same page, the second paragraph from the bottom in the English text:
" In addition it has to be considered that the defendants are in part SA-leaders and old party members and that in the trial it will only be possible to produce such witnesses who to the greatest part were surely communists and some of which are at present still serving terms for high treason."
On the next page, page 26 in the original test, or on page 7 of the document that has been distributed, the second paragraph on the page: "The concentration camp Kemna was established in a vacant factory building, and was supposed to serve only temporarily for housing of prisoners in protect custody. It was situated in a remote part of the suburbs of Wuppertal-Bar** and was not protected from the outside by any security installations whatsoever. Although its capacity was only 200-300 prisoners, it was almost permanently overcrowded. At times up to 100 prisoners," -
THE PRESIDENT: The text reads one thousand.
MR. KING: I meant to have said one thousand, your Honor. "At time up to 1000 prisoners were housed there. This large number of prisoners he in insufficient localities was guarded by about 30 - 35 persons (including administrative personnel).
I skip to the last paragraph, which continues on to the following page:
"In any case it is certain that the lack of organization of the camp the inadequate supervision and the absence of clearly defined limits of responsibility are the main cause for the events described. The guard was composed of SA-men, who where appointed in a rush and who were -- according to the latest statement of the witness Lowinski - in part only recently inducted, who had no previous training or experience in the police service, who were left entirely to their own resources in regard to the guarding, detailed organization and administration of the camp. They evidently were gradually endeavoring to make it clear from the start towards the bulk of arriving prisoners that rigid strictness would be applied in order to nip in the bud any thought of resistance or flight."
Now, we skip down to page 29 in the text, or on page 10 of the English document or text which has been distributed, and begin with the last full paragraph on that page:
"Furthermore it seems to me that the attitude of the Supreme Party Court with regard to the matter of the preliminary investigations is of vi*** importance.
After all, the Supreme Party Court has passed its sentence before these criminal cases started. In this sentence the Party Court decide to !show mercy instead of the rigid enforcement of the law', because of the extraordinary conditions of the year 1933, the bona fides of the defendant to act in the interest of the party and of the state and because of the services which the defendants rendered to the Nazi movement."
This apparently does not appear in the German text; is that correct Your Honors, we will rectify the insufficiency in the German text; and may inquire if the last paragraph on page 30, in the text on page 11 of the document as distributed -- the last paragraph, consisting of three lines
INTERPRETER: Yes, it is.
MR. KING: The last paragraph: "I believe, therefore, that I may submit the document to the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor with the recommendation to quash the entire proceedings." That is signed by the Deputy of the Prosecutor for the District Court in Wuppertal.
The next portion of this document appears on page 12 of the original or page 12 of the document as distributed -- page 31 in the text. We merely wish to point out that it is a letter from tho Reich Minister of Justice to the Public Prosecutor in Wuppertal-Elberfled, with the statement that, "The files are sent back. The proceedings have been cancelled by a decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, dated 20 February, 1936. The Lower Rhine gr** of the SA and the Supreme Party Court have been notified by us."
The next page, page 13, as distributed, page 32 in tho text, and the following three pages -- in other words, four pages altogether, 32, 33, 34 and 35 in the English Text are notes and short letters, all of which are signed by the defendant Joel. We only wish to point out that his signature appears on these notes and short letters; they all pertain to the question of quashing the proceedings, and we do not believe it necessary to read the at length.
The final letter to which we call attention in this document begins on page 17 of the document as distributed, and is to be found beginning on page 36 of the text.
This is a letter from the Reich Ministry of Justice, it is dated February, 1936. It was written by Guertner; primarily it is a letter which reviews the facts, the gist of which I already conveyed by having read previous excerpts. We only wish in that letter to call attention to the very last paragraph on page 20 of the document, as circulated, and page 39 in the text, in which the Minister closes the letter by saying, " view of all these circumstances. I request that the proceedings be cancel.
I regret that there is still an insufficiency in the German copies but we will see to it that the changes are promptly made, so that the Def*** Counsel need be under no fear that their copies differ from the copies from which we read or from which we introduce in evidence.
I now offer formally in evidence Prosecution's Exhibit No. 120, which is NG-249.
DR. BRIEGER: (Attorney for Defendant Cuhorst) I have to make an objection against this document.
The document consists of photostats of a file copy, and it begins after the photostats with page 102. This results from numbers in the right upper-hand corner; they begin with 102, 103, 104, etc., until page 116. The second part of the document consists of photostats of letters which have been pulled from the fi*** in such an unfortunate manner -- they have been cut off rather so that the numbers of the file pages are not any more on them. In a case such as th*** one, it is up to the Prosecution to point out that the defendant Joel has taken part in turning down the proceedings. however, it is up to the Defense to point out that the defendant Joel started this proceeding altogether and that all the unfortunate circumstances which have been read here have been discovered by him, and were brought by him to the jurisdiction of the cour If thus, this file copy is presented, it has to be presented in its entire not only pages 102 to 116, whose origin is not even known. Therefore, I would like to request that the entire file copy be presented in their entirety. Where the files can be presented, one cannot be satisfied with photostats which present only certain paragraphs of the entire proceedings.
MR. KING: Your honor, we are conscious of the objection which the Defense Counsel has made. The gist of what is in the file which we arc offering in evidence is not complete as evidence by the fact taut the page, first page, of the document of the file as page 1 is actually on the photostatic copy page 102, and the conclusion therefore is drawn that a large part of the file is missing. It occurs to us that this part, so far as the Defense Counsel has gone, is well taken. Undoubtedly there may be other portions of this file which are not here reproduced. However, it is the position of the Prosecution that the letter which we have submitted does speak for itself; that the statement of the defendant Joel are in the defendant's own handwriting and surely, therefore, he cannot deny that authorship. Those notes as reproduced in document 249 show that he had knowledge, that he was involved in the quashing of these proceedings one way or another.
We do not, as the Defense Counsel implied a few moments ago, at this time, wish to draw any further conclusions from the fact that Joel signature, Joel's handwriting appears in this document. It is our position that the letter as introduced, speaks for itself, and has a certain amount of probative value and should be accepted as such.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for defendant Rothenberg): May it please the Tribunal, may I express my opinion on this, which in my opinion, is of decisive importance for the entire Tribunal, and from the mental importance. The Prosecution has to present, as is its right, only those things which charge the defendants. Therefore, it has only presented only such excerpts from the files, which of course, is obvious, and which they have the right to do. However, in all of these trials one has to consider that, because of the special situation of such trials after the end of the war, all of the defendants in contrast to the Prosecution are almost in no way in a position or in the same manner or nearly the same manner to present the material that will justify their actions.
The Defense material would be possible under normal circumstances, and, therefore, can be expected of them. I remind the Tribunal that at the beginning of this trial we discussed, when the Prosecution read some parts from their document, whether only those particular parts from the document should have probative value or whether the entire excerpt should have probative value. At that time I said with emphasis that the entire exhibit should be regarded as evidence material, and I remember that the Tribunal expressly agreed with this opinion through a special ruling. The meaning of this ruling was necessary and was correct because all those who are involved in this trial, who are taking part in this trial, wanted that the entire evidence material should be presented and should be admitted in their entirety as evidence even if the Prosecution read only parts of those documents which were presented in their entirety or only read particular letters iron them. I ask you with urgency since the question raised by my coDefense Counsel, Dr. Haensel, is of particular significance for each one of the defendants, that in similar cases, as to the one under discussion now, it should be seen to it that in accordance with the basic principals, that the entire exhibit is admitted as evidence material. It should be ruled that the Prosecution has to present the entire document even if the Prosecution wants to read only or wants to use only parts of it as evidence for its own purpose.
DR. HAENSEL: May I say only a few additional words. It is very much appreciated that my colleague extended the point of view from the individual case to a general one. However, I think that we can proceed quicker and better in our work if we decide first of all the case under discussion, the individual case. It is being discussed here today, but from a file copy which exists without doubt in its entirety.
Pages 102 to 116 of them are submitted in the photostatic copies, and the pages 1 to 102 have not been submitted. I make the request that pages 1 to 102 be also submitted.
MR. KING: Your Honor, may we say one more word. The Defense Counsel has presented the argument which, if the Court were to follow, would delay and impose--would delay the trial and impose an insuperable burden upon the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) I think the Tribunal can rule upon this without further arguments. In the first place I call your attention to rule 12 formulated by the Tribunal of which I quote:
"A defendant nay apply to the Tribunal for the production of witnesses or of documents on his behalf by filing his application therefore with the Secretary General at the Military Tribunals" Now that is one remedy available to the Defense Counsel.
May I further state the rule as to the entirety of documents? Of course, it is not permissible in English and American jurisprudence, and I take it that it would net be permissible in the jurisprudence of other nations, that certain words of document could be separated from their contents thereby changing the entire meaning of that. It certainly is permissible on the part of either the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel to take certain portions of a document, and neither the Prosecution nor the Defense Counsel should be required to introduce an entire document when great portions of it seem to have no materiality. If the rule was otherwise, if the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel would refer to a large volume, only a portion of which would have any bearing upon the Prosecution or the Defense; any ruling other than that which I have stated would require the entire volume to be read or at least to be considered by the Tribunal.
I am sure that the Counsel will agree that either side may present such portions of a document, when the time comes for the Defense to introduce their case, they can use any portion other than those which have been read. And, if there are certain portions of this document which are -- I will not use the word "withheld", I will use the word "not produced", and the Defense feels that there are other portions of this document which is material to the Defense, they can introduce it at the proper time.
MR. KING: I do not believe you have ruled, your Honor, whether Exhibit 120 is admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: And, the ruling of the court, already stated, the document will be admissible.
MR. KING: Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal pleases, does it wish to recess at this time?
TEE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you for calling it to our attention. We will recess for 15 minutes.
Before we recess, are there any other of these documents not complete.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your honor, there is a further additional problem which I did not go into this morning, which I was hoping we could dispense with, the transportation involved in getting these books into and out of the Court. Throughout the remaining document books, we occasionally will refer back to documents which have appeared in book 1 and we will refer back in later books to documents which have appeared in book 3 and some of the later ones. At first glance it might appear as the case progresses it will be necessary to bring to the court every day all of the document books that have been distributed, which of course we should not find ourselves forced into.
Therefore, it seems to me that we will have to arrive at some working arrangement whereby, when we refer back to documents in other books which have already been passed, we give the Court and defense counsel some noti that we are coming to them, so that those books can be brought in the day on which we expect to revert to them. Otherwise, I think the situation remains very much as it was yesterday. We are not through with the document books I series, and I think we cannot dispense with the availability of th** in Court for another day or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, yesterday the Prosecution undertook to supply to defense counsel certain aids in following the Prosecution's presentation of Document Book 2 and 3. The Prosecution is now prepared to make good on these undertaking.
The first is a list of three pages setting forth in order each statute or excerpt from a German legal text that we will refer to and setting forth specifically what defense was interested in, namely, the various articles, sections, and paragraphs of each statute to which the Prosecution would refer. That has been prepared in some fifteen copies, of which eight are in this folder and the other seven or eight will be up here in a few minutes. Here are the others now.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Court, I would like to ask for your forgiveness for interrupting here briefly on a cc*unr** of a personal matter. First I all, I would like to thank the bench and the prosecution for their generous assistance which has been loyal in every way, as far as we, the defense counsel, are concerned. At the moment I find it difficult to follow the proceedings calmly, because I have witnessed an incident which appears not important, but which does impede me personally. I believe that I and my colleagues have tried to observe the peace, the quiet, and the decency in this court and to observe it fully.
Before the Court entered this room I was standing and not sitting, as prescribed -- I don't really know -- and I was talking to my client, Dr. Rothenberger. While I was talking to him, suddenly an MP in this room pushed me against my arm and I locked around completely surprised because I didn't knew what was happening to me. The MP wanted, as I realized later, to indicate to me that I ought ti sit down so that when the judges re-entered the room I would be able to rise again. I entirely understand this matter. I understand that all due respect should naturally be paid by us to the Tribunal, and I have always tried to do so. But if here in the room I am pushed about by the MP's, that is a thing which I as an honorable man, and a man who is willing on the basis of law to work here, that is something which I cannot put up with.
I am therefore asking, with all due respect, that we the defense counsel should, as hitherto, have a guarantee for the physical condition of being independent of such hindrances on account of a pure mistake on my part. In fact, we should be protected from such incidents.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One word for the Prosecution, if the Court please. We certainly feel that unnecessary rudeness has no place here.
THE PRESIDENT: Naturally, this Tribunal regrets that there should be any occasion for any of defense counsel to make any rementrances of this character. We will not at this time enter into a trial of the matter, but we will content ourselves with stating, not only to MP's but to all others, that the persons of defense counsel are inviolable. No one has any right to touch them unless there is a breach of the peace. It should be, and is, sufficient to speak to them politely when occasion demands.
R. WOOLEYHAN: The second aid to the defense, which the Prosecution undertook to furnish yesterday, was an order of presentation of documents that were to accompany the more or less concrete presentation of the statutes in book 2. We have copied for the defense's benefit the Prosecution's own notes, which were all we had on the point of the manner in which we sought to offer the contents of Book 3 concurrently with that of Book 2. At this time we have ten copies of that order of presentation which we will hand to the defense. If more necessary, we will undertake to make them. I take it is net necessary to furnish copies of that to the English speaking members of the Court, since they already have that same information set out in the Document Book 2 itself.
Turning, to Document Book 2 on Page 10 of the English version -correction, Page 9b of the English version, 1934 Reichs Gesetzblatt, part I page 91. I am only going to read one two-line article and it will not be necessary to look it up. The statute is entitled "First law for the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich, 16 February 1934.