According to instructions from the Ministry in those days such cases had to be brought before the People's Court.
Q. The Prosecution in this case, in the von Brinken case, appears to make the charge that by the interference of an SS leader, the defendant, von Brinken, was given preferential treatment.
A. If the prosecution were to assume that it is wrong, as far as the Reich prosecution is concerned. The document shows that in spite of the interference on the part of the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hildenbrandt, which by the way was not only made in writing but also personally to me, that in spite of that interference I filed an indictment before the People's Court, because discriminations of that type were alien to me.
Q. What do you have to say to Exhibit 181?
THE PRESIDENT: What was your recommendation in that case for punishment?
THE WITNESS: The files show that at the trial a sentence of eight months imprisonment was asked for and that because the witnesses gave different testimony than they had done previously.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. What are your comments on the Bonnes case in Exhibit 181?
A. The files contained only files from the Ministry of Justice. From my memory of the case I can only say very little but I still know this for certain. After the first sentence had been submitted, which, by the form of the opinion, appeared altogether impossible, I called on President Freisler. I drew his attention to the fact that in my view such a sentence could not be upheld. The question was merely as to how it was to be treated. The only way, the correct way in this case, it seemed to me, was to suggest to the Minister of Justice that extraordinary objection should be made. Freisler did not want to listen to that suggestion at first because the sentence had been passed by his vice-president; but afterwards apparently he did send a letter to the Ministry.
As to why extraordinary objection was not made but a reopening of the trial was instituted, why that was so, I can't remember now. At any rate, an application for reopening was made -- apparently it was made by defense counsel, and no doubt the Reich prosecution supported it, for the Court approved it, a reopening was permitted, and a new trial was set. At the retrial Freisler was presiding judge. The Senate again passed death sentence. I believe that one has to see from the files that the prosecutor who appeared in the case had asked for that sentence. I believe that I can remember that I authorized him to do so. When the second trial was concluded the defense counsel applied to the Ministry of Justice for an extraordinary objection to be made. A copy of that application by the defense counsel had been handed to me. It is also possible that I was given the original, and that the Minister received the copy. I don't remember for certain. I got in touch with the Ministerialrat Frank, the Referent at the Ministry, and through him I heard that the Ministry of Justice was resolved to pardon Bonnes. Therefore, there was no need to go on with the extraordinary objection, and I was to submit an application for pardon to the Ministry. I did so. I counted on it for certain that Bonnes would be pardoned. Why that was not done has been discussed here.
DR. GRUBE: I should like to state briefly that in Exhibit 181 the Bonnes clemency statement is contained and that subsequently, by the interference of the Gauleiter, the granting of clemency was prevented. That, too, is evidenced from Exhibit 181.
Q. Witness, have you any comments on Exhibit 158. That Exhibit is concerned with the Kozian case.
A. Kozian, apart from the fact that he had made himself guilty of serious attacks on the state and government, apart from that he had tried to keep his son out of the military service. That was held very much against him, and as a result he had to be indicted before the Peoples Court. The files further show that after the trial, after sentence had been pronounced, the Reich prosecution asked for an expert opinion on his mental state, and that is apparently why he had to be investigated officially.
It is further evident from the files that those doubts were not affirmed.
Q. What are your comments on Exhibit 159. That is the Beck case.
A. I do not remember particulars of that case. The indictment bears the signature of my deputy. I believe that when that indictment was filed it was considered an aggravating circumstance that Beck was a man who, by his occupation, was brought into contact with a great many people, and such people if they made remarks of that kind were to be dealt with more severely.
Q. The prosecution has further submitted Exhibit 140 concerning the Zinser case. What are your comments about that?
A. According to the judgment Zinser made defeatist and inciting remarks to a large number of people and thereby caused unrest in a large industrial firm. That constituted the aggravating circumstance.
Q. The prosecution, as Exhibit 141, has submitted a Fuehrer information which deals with the Paschen case. Do you remember anything about that?
A. I do not recollect that case. But evidently - that is apparent from the Fuehrer information - what was particularly serious was that Paschen had made remarks which were detrimental to the state and the government towards two Danes.
Q. According to the jurisdiction of those days that was very serious?
A. No doubt that was the case - the underline of that particular case.
Q. A further Fuehrer information, that is Exhibit 402, refers to the Kiep case, von Thadden, Solf. Frau Solf who was involved in the case has been heard as a witness here, as you know. Would you make some comments in that case, please?
A. From the examination of the witness Frau Solf, as I recollect it, it became evident that in September -- at any rate in the autumn of 1943 -- at a meeting in Partenkirchen - at any rate it was in upper Bavaria -- in a small circle party she made utterances herself partly had agreed with remarks made by other persons which amounted to saying that Germany had lost the war; that after the secession of Italy, and the failure of the U-Boats, it became quite evident, and that the time had come for new men to arrive on the scene and to put an end to the war.
The name Goerdeler was mentioned in this conversation. It was striking, already at the time, that she had given three letters to be forwarded to the witness Reckzeh, who later betrayed her and who was at that party in Partenkirchen, and who lived at Berlin, and intended to go to Switzerland. The secret transportation of letters abroad was in those days subject to severe punishment in the Reich. Permission to send letters of a harmless nature could be obtained very easily. It therefore had to appear suspicious that she chose the dangerous way; and that, through a person she didn't know. It did seem suspicious that she chose that way for sending letters to Switzerland. As the letters were no longer in Switzerland, and as Reckzeh did not know their contents, one could not draw any conclusion from that alone. At the trial which took place at the beginning of July -- and that is what she said here -her own trial was adjourned. According to her testimony it must be assumed, since the presiding judge Freisler had told her, that new material against her had become available; and that was so. For in another collateral trial it had been established that beyond those conversations of September 1943 the defendant Solf had also attended a large number of other conversations which had dealt with the same topic. In particular, she had participated in a discussion where mention was made of the ports in Northwestern Germany had to be opened for the British Fleet. But no new indictment was filed against her on account of that, nor was that possible under the existing legal provisions. The newly established facts of their own accord fell within the scope of the indictment which had already been filed, and could be used by the Court at a new trial, and the Court could base its findings on those facts.
As the witness Solf testified here, a new trial was only to be held -I believe I remember rightly -- in January 1945. The reason was this: The Fuehrer information shows that I submitted a report after the first trial. In that report I pointed out that the Solf case had been found to be more serious, and that under certain circumstances, that is to say, if the new trial were to confirm that, the death penalty might have to be considered. Insofar the Fuehrer information evidently contains a printing error. I certainly, in that report, did not say, "among other things", according to the context that would have been meaningless. What might have been the other circumstances according to which the death sentence might have been considered, either the death sentence could be considered, or it could not be considered.
The Fuehrer information shows further that it was pointed out that the defendant was the wife of Ambassador Solf, and that was due to the fact that the defense counsel had stated that with emphasis. It was obviously mentioned in the Fuehrer information because it was known -- concerning trials which might expose high officials, possibly, even high officials of a preceding era -- that Hitler did not wish such trials to be held. There was, therefore, a possibility that the trial might be prohibited at least for a certain time. That explains the long waiting period until the end of the year 1944. As the witness testified here, a new trial was not held.
Q. I am now coming to the cases where Poles were indicted or sentenced.
Witness, it appears that the prosecution wants to charge you, in cases of penal actions committed by Poles in the incorporated Eastern Territories with having considered such cases as high treason and therefore with having filed an indictment before the People's Court. What are your comments on that?
A. I have already explained tho reasons why I considered myself under an obligation to respect the German laws which had been introduced in the East. In this question too, in my opinion, I could not take any other view than the one taken by the German Government. However, it was a fact that in the newly occupied Eastern Territories, that is to say, immediately in the rear of the fighting German troops, there were highly active Polish resistance movements. No doubt those resistance groups constituted considerable danger for the German occupying authorities. It was not only their aim, concerning tho German troops and the German Administration, to chase them out of the territory under occupation, but, furthermore, to annex German Reich territory reaching as far as the Oder, because they hoped that if the Reich were to collapse, they would be able to do so.
Q. You have just said that those Polish organizations also wanted to separate old German territories from the German Reich and worked towards that aim. Does that also concern the territories as far as the Oder-Neisse line which the Poles claim today, and from which they have expelled millions of Germans?
A. That that slogan "Poland as far as the Odor" was produced is evident from the leaflets which were added to the exhibits.
Q. May I refer to the exhibits submitted by the Prosecution, that is to say, Exhibits 134, 125, 137 and 138. Did a great many indictments against Poles reach the Reich Prosecution because of high treason?
A. No that was not the case, for the following reason. Soon after the People's Court had passed its first sentence, the following situation came about. The Gauleiters in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, under the leadership of the Gauleiter of Poznan, complained that the jurisdiction of the People's Court in these cases was too lenient. By such sentences, so they said, order could not be maintained in the East. As neither the Reich Ministry of Justice of those days -that is to say, the Ministry of Justice in the days when Schlegelberger was in charge of it -- nor the President of the People's Court of those days, nor myself, were of the opinion that one could uphold jurisdiction of a different nature, the Gauleiter of Poznan approached Hitler and achieved it that in future the High Treason Senats in the Incorporated Territories would deal with such cases. In exceptional cases only the Chief Reich Prosecutor was to be entitled to deal with such matters and to bring them before the People's Court, but that was subject to the approval of the Ministry, and in the future that approval was granted only in very rare cases.
Q. You said just now that in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, generally speaking, such cases were brought before High Treason Senats. Those were the High Treason Senats of the District Courts of Appeal, were they not?
A. They were the High Treason Senats of the District Courts of Appeal in Danzig, Poznan, and Kattowitz.
Q. I am now coming to Exhibits 125, 134 and 137. What are your comments on Exhibit 125? That deals with the Kawka case.
A. The sentence shows that this was an offense which was committed by spreading a leaflet, a leaflet with an inciting content of the nature which I described earlier. It was particularly dangerous because it contained an appeal to hide arms and keep them ready for the coming hour. I believe that that in itself was a reason to institute proceedings.
On the other hand, the sentence shows that only prison sentences were pronounced, and in two cases there were acquittals, I believe. I think that I can remember these cases for certain, and I can recollect that the clemency plea--if it were available and if the prosecution were to have it in its hands -- would show that a large number of the people who were sentenced there to prison terms later on had these prison terms reduced considerably.
Q. Witness, what are your comments on the Szczerbinski case in Exhibit 134?
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt? While you are on that case, Exhibit 125, my notes do not show clearly--where were the acts committed which were the basis of the charge?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the crimes mentioned in the three exhibits now under discussion were committed in the Incorporated Eastern Territories, that is to say, in the territories which were occupied after 1939 by German troops and which had been Polish territory since 1918.
THE PRESIDENT: And the defendants were Polish nationals, were they not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, they were Polish by birth.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Did those defendants possess Polish citizenship at the time when they were sentenced? Did such citizenship exist in those days?
A. That is a difficult question, it is a question of international law, and I do not think that I am expert to decide such a question. In our view, since its defeat, the Polish State no longer existed. At any rate, I, with my modest knowledge of international law, took that view.
Q. Witness, what are your comments on the Szczerbinski case? That is Exhibit 134.
A. The facts of the case are the same as those of the previous case. Here too a leaflet had been spread which was making propaganda for the preparation of a State of Greater Poland. The defendant Szczerbinski was, however, only sentenced to a prison term. The documents which the Prosecution has submitted here in connection with the Szczerbinski case, and which reveal that she was moved to Auschwitz, I believe in 1943 - I had never seen those documents. They were dealt with by the official who dealt with the execution of punishment. He was either a public prosecutor or a Rechtspfleger, Administrator of the Law.
Q. If you had been shown those documents, your initials would have had to appear on those documents, would they not?
A. Yes, the date and my initials would have appeared, or there would have been a note that the case had been reported to me on a certain date. However, I didn't find such notes.
Q. What are your comments on Exh. 137? It concerns Wolniewiez and others.
A. The indictment on which this sentence is based I believe I can remember for certain. I signed it myself, for this was one of the first bigger cases of this type. The facts on which the sentence is based, and I believe similar facts, were mentioned in the indictment. Those facts make it evident that the Polish resistance group in question was extremely dangerous, that if that group had not been stopped in its activities it would have been very dangerous to the German occupying forces. From the purely legal point of view the judgment shows that the senate in its legal evaluation die, in part, not concur with the opinion expressed in the indictment. It refused to acknowledge the facts of paragraph 91-B of the Penal Code, which paragraph deals with aiding and abetting the enemy.
Q. Witness, in the same Exhibit 137 on Page 26 and 27, that is page 77 and 78 in the German Document book there is a note and a draft of a letter to the president of the second senate of the People's Court. It says re an application for reopening of trial of Piotrowski who had been involved in that case. What is your comment on this?
A. This gives me an opportunity to say something about the law against Poles which has been frequently discussed here. As for the reasons and the development which led to the issuing of this law, I only heard of them because this law itself in the reasons which were given for its issuance explained it and also Freisler in Deutsche Justiz had published several articles on the subject. As a so-called legal ordinance it had legal force. And the courts and the prosecutions had to take it into consideration. As far as its contents are concerned, I considered it very harsh. To start with, I was wondering whether it would be of practical importance to the People's Court at all.
Paragraph 5 of the ordinance says the competence of the People's Court remains unaffected. From that I concluded that one might uphold the view that the People's Court was, in any case, not bound by the provisions concerning procedure. That is to say that in respect of the indictment at the trial and concerning the application for reopening of trial, those provisions only could apply which were of general validity. Of greater doubt was the question as to whether the provisions of substantive law of this ordinance could also be viewed from that legal angle. To start with, that was the view I took. But the Ministry of Justice told me that was wrong, for the punishment which, on the basis of the law against Poles could be passed were different from the punishments laid down in the General Penal Code. These punishments were terms in a camp and not in a prison or a penitentiary.
Q. I just want to interpolate a question, witness. What in you knowledge would "penal camp" mean?
A. Naturally I was interested in the question as to what penal camp was to mean. I in those days contacted the witness Hecker who name here to give testimony. At the time he tole me Penal Camp means that the prisoners as far as they are of Polish origin, during their imprisonment are to be separated from other prisoners, in particular from German prisoners, and are to be housed in separate institutions of the German Administration of Justice which will be provided for them. He mentioned the camp Schiratz as being one of those camps. That was situated between Poznan and Litzmannstadt. That camp has been mentioned in this trial. It was mentioned with the witness the clergyman Wein testified that the Polish prisoners at Schiratz when the Soviet troops approached were sent to central Germany. Otherwise I knew nothing about that question, nor did it affect my sphere of work, as I had nothing to do with the prisons.
Q. You have just told us something about your view concerning the significance of the law against Poles for the practice of the People's Court. What view did the senates of the People's Court take?
A. The senates of the People's Court were divided in their opinion. Concerning the provisions of substantive law they applied then all. Concerning the provisions of procedure, the second senate which we are discussing now took the view that the procedure before the People's Court had to be conducted according to the provision of the law against Poles. In this case the result was that the application for reopening in the case of Piotrowski could not be admitted. So that the defendant, that is to say the person who had been condemned should not suffer any disadvantage, I treated that application as a clemency plea and later on forwarded it to the Ministry of Justice together with the clemency plea files for when a clemency plea was made, it was possible in respect of actual remarks if they were evidently correct, and if they were contrary to the findings of the court, to take those into consideration in favor of the condemned person.
Q. Witness, may I revert to Exhibit 125, the Kawka case. You told us earlier on that if an indictment was to be filed before the People's Court in cases concerning Poles the approval of the Ministry of Justice was requested. Do you know whether in this case, too, as in the other two cases which we have mentioned here, that is Exhibit 134 and 137 that instruction from the Ministry of Justice was not paid any attention to? And a trial was held without the approval of the Ministry of Justice.
A. No, I believe you misunderstood me, Doctor. Consent in every individual case was not required, but generally when such indictments were filed that was due to an instruction from the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q. You did have to send copies in of the transcripts, did you?
A. Yes, copies of those transcripts had to be forwarded to the Minister so that he could look at them whenever he deemed it necessary.
Q. I am now coming to Exhibit k38, that is the Koslowski case. What are your comments on that case?
A. As is evident from the document, Kozlowske was not a Pole. He was a German citizen and he was civil servant of the Reich. He is a German civil servant even though his antecedents were Poles. If in time of war in the inland -- this case did not occur in the incorporated eastern territories, it happened in Germany, -- if such a German civil servant in the inland works for the breaking up of the German Reich in favor of establishing a greater Poland, some steps will have to be taken against such a man.
Q. This exhibit reveals that since 1914 Koslowski had been a German civil servant. Does that indicate that Koslowski had been a German citizen at least since 1914?
A. As a German Reich official he certainly had German citizenship, and by virture of the Versailles Treaty he had been entitled to go to Poland. Evidently he made no use of that opportunity.
Q. I am now coming to Exhibit 135. This exhibit deals with the case of the Gogler Brothers. What is your comment on this case?
A. In this case, too, the offense was committed in the Reich territory and these were the facts of the case in brief. In the view of the prosecution the brothers Gogler had helped interned British prisoners of war, members of the RAF, to escape to enable them to enter the war against Germany once again. Very frequently the Reich Military Courts dealt with such cases and there they were treated no different than they were here. An indictment for aiding the enemy could not be avoided. The judgment shows that one of the two, and it was Joseph Gogler -- was acquitted by the senate because there was not sufficient evidence.
That shows that the prosecution had not been fully successful.
Q. Witness, I have to revert briefly to the law against Poles which you mentioned earlier on. By virture of this law against Poles alone was it possible to file an indictment before the People's Court?
A. That would not be possible.
Q. It was, therefore, always necessary that the facts of the case in themselves came under the competency of the People's Court?
A. Yes, the People's Court as such had to be competent for the facts of the case and then the law against Poles only had this importance: if a prison sentence was passed, the Court could not pass a sentence for prison or penitentiary, but for penal camp. The scope of punishment, which was provided by the law against Poles, did not go beyond the penal provisions governing high treason and treason. But because this is of importance for other cases, I would like to add these remarks. If an indictment, for example, for high treason had been filed, or shall we say, if such an indictment had been filed with the Penal Chamber for serious theft, and at the trial, the court -- shall we say the Penal Chamber -- establishes the fact that no serious theft has been committed -- the thief only entered the house because he was hungry and wanted to satisfy his hunger -- or in the case of high treason, the Court were to establish the fact that high treason had not been committed but that perhaps it was only an offense under the law against malicious acts, in such a case the Court which passes judgment is not in a position to transfer the case to a lower court but it has to decide the matter itself and it has to base its opinion on whatever legal point of view it considers correct. That, at any rate, is what is in accordance with German law.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection, Dr. Lautz, may I ask you: if the charge was brought for a crime which was within the competency of the People's Court, and the evidence failed on that charge, but that there was evidence of violation of the law against Poles, would the same rule apply that you have just stated?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. That was why I made my statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, may I address the Tribu nal for a minute?
I would not do this except, I think, for an emergency. It is shortly after the time that the Court fixed for the fil ing of written answers in the Petition to show cause for contempt. I have just been advised 15 minutes ago that Frau Karin Huppertz has the intention of leaving Nurnberg and the immediate jurisdiction of this Court on either tomorrow or Monday, and not to return. I don't know whether she has filed a written return. I had prepared, to be submitted for the Court's consideration, a general order, assuming that a written return had been filed, and hope that we could hear this matter on Tuesday, the 29th. However at this time I would like to send a copy of this order in English and German for the Court's consideration for subsequent ruling later on, but at this time I ask the Court to issue its bench order directing Frau Huppertz not to leave, the jurisdiction of this court, at least not to leave the city of Nurnberg -of course, the jurisdiction of this Court extends beyond that. I think I am justified in asking the Court to take that action at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the request of counsel is at this time only for a restraining order and an injunction restraining her from leaving the city of Nurnberg or her present residence?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exactly, that is it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That order is made. She is restrained and enjoined from leaving the city of Nurnberg or from concealing herself therein.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And would Your Honor request that the Secretary General or the Marshal give notice forthwith of that order to her?
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal is directed to inform the individual charged of the order of this court.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It should be done in writing.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you, Your Honor. May I now send to the Secretary-General, for the consideration of the Court, a form of order which the Court may, of course, reject. I simply prepared it generally on the matter of a hearing on this matter for the Court's consideration later on today.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any answers been filed by either defendant?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If they have been, the Court's previous order was that they be filed with the Secretary-General, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. I ask if they have been filed?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have not been informed. The time has just expired.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the examination.
BY DR. BRUBE:
Q. I am now coming to the cases of the Polish Legion. As you know, cases were tried before the People's Court where Poles, according to the assumption of the Reich Prosecution, had attempted to contact the Polish Legion abroad. These are the documents I am referring to: Exhibit 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 491, and 136. However, in only two out of these seven cases is there an indictment which bears the signature of the witness Lautz. They are the indictments contained in the Exhibits 132 and 136. In this connection, I would like to say this. At the session of the 24 of March 1947, the Prosecution in submitting this exhibit 129, stated, "Unfortunately, no indictment was available." It was not in the possession of the prosecution. The prosecutor then quoted at that session of 24 March 1947, after the affidavit by the defendant Lautz, Exhibit 126 -- and he quoted several passages. The affidavit, which the defendant Lautz gave, contains a remark to the effect that generally speaking he signed the indictments. With reference to that statement, in Affidavit Exhibit 126, on that day, 24 March 1947, the Prosecution said that evidently it was the defendant Lautz who had signed those indictments; that is to say, the indictment of the Mazur case.
A few weeks later, following my request for all subsidiary files regarding the cases with which the People's Court had dealt, as a result of that request all I received was three thin files. I am now handing this file to the witness. This is one of the three which the Prosecution gave to me. (Witness is offered the file.)
Witness, please see first whether this is a file of the Reich Prosecution.
A. This is a so-called working file of the Reich Prosecution; that is to say, it is a file in which the official documents were kept which were destined for the internal use of the Reich Prosecution or any other prosecuting office. That is to say, such a file usually contains the indictment, the sentence, and all reports which were made on the case.
Q. Please have a look to see to what defendants the indictment makes reference.
A. The file refers to the defendants Mazur, Kubisz and Nowakowski. The indictment was filed on 9 March 1942.
Q. Those are the same defendants who are mentioned in Exhibit 129 where the sentence appears?
A. There is no doubt about that.
Q. Does this file contain an indictment?
A. The original of the indictment and a clean copy appears on pages 8 and following, and on page 12 and following.
Q. Who signed the indictment?
A. According to the contents of the file, the original, as well as the final copy, were signed by Reich Prosecutor Parisius, who was my deputy in those days.
Q. Thank you. Would you also turn to page 10, please.
A. Yes, I found page 10.
Q. What does it say on that page?
A. On that page there is an ordinance, the so-called accompanying ordinance. It deals with the steps which were taken after the indictment was filed; that is to say, it says to what agencies the indictment was forwarded.
Q. Does that page show that a copy of the indictment was also sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. Yes, that can be seen from Figure 3 where it says expressly that the indictment has to be submitted to the Reich Minister of Justice.
Q. Furthermore, does this page show that from the very beginning reports were made from day to day to the Ministry of Justice?
A. It is evident that in accordance with general rules, after the sentence was passed, all those reports were made which had been ordered by official instructions, and that those reports were made currently.
Q. You said before that Parisius -
THE PRESIDENT: Before you proceed---The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 July '47) ERNST LAUTZ - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. TIPP: (Attorney for the Defendant Barnickel) Before Dr. Grube continues with the direct examination Your Honor, my colleague, Dr. Marx, asked me to submit a request on his behalf.
By order of the Tribunal he was ordered before twelve o'clock noon today to make a statement in regard to the well known occurrences. Dr. Marx has just told me that in view of the bad state of his health, he was not in a position to submit this statement at the time that it was ordered. Therefore, he requested me to submit his request to the Tribunal to postpone this time limit until five o'clock this afternoon. Within that time limit he will be able to make a statement.
THE PRESIDENT: We are advised that Dr. Marx had already filed some kind of a statement. We are advised that Dr. Marx had already filed some kind of an answer. He may, however, have until five o'clock this afternoon in which to file such answer as he may desire. It is, of course, known to you that either Dr. Marx or the other person named in the petition for a show cause order -wither one of them is entitled to be represented by counsel of their own choice.
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
DR. GRUBE: May I continue the examination of the witness Lautz?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
BY DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for the Defendant Lautz)
Q: Witness, I again want to come back briefly to the law against Poles.