Q Did you -
A One moment -- and that was the tendency displayed by individual offices of the administration of justice and all the offices of the administration of justice in the laender, to what extent Thierack went too far in his fraternization with the Party, I cannot judge.
Q Did you attend that meeting?
A Of course I attended that meeting.
Q What happened after the meeting? The witness says here that you sat with Dr. Thierack; and therefore, I am asking you to tell us briefly whether you know Dr. Thierack at that time and what happened after that meeting?
AAs I have told you already, I did attend the meeting. The speakers were Thierack and Holz, and the tendencies of the speeches that were made at that meeting were close cooperation between the Party and the Administration of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: You have just repeated what you said some time ago -- complete repetition.
A Well, I just lost the thread and that is why I wanted to establish the context again.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't need to do that.
AAfter the meeting the following happened. I was asked to go to the Deutsche Hof because the Minister wanted to talk to me. I didn't like that altogether for many reasons, but mainly my reasons were of a personal nature. I did go to the Deutsche Hof. When I got there a fairly large party had already assembled there around a table. As far as I remember, among them were the Minister, all Presidents of the local authorities, the Commanding General, the Gauleiter, and a number of other people.
Q Did you know Thierack before?
A I knew nothing of Thierack; I didn't know him.
Q And how did it happen you got into a conversation with Thierack?
A That was because he asked to go and see him, and after all he was my superior and he asked me to go and see him; there was nothing I could do, except to go. I sat next to him, and from that I concluded that he wanted to talk to me about the Ramsbeck case which has been discussed here several times. I should like to say that was a case of fraud. An old Party member and Ortsgruppenleiter, local group leader of Nuernberg, had sold a small cloth factory, and in selling that factory he had committed fraud, and had cheated a poor young couple in a despicable manner. At first an attempt was made to suppress that case. There were negotiations with the young couple, and the object of the negotiations was to silence the couple by paying them for their silence. The money was paid, but the woman was incapable of calming down, and she managed to throw a letter at Hitler on the Obersalzberg. In that letter she described what had happened. Subsequently the Party instituted investigations on a large scale. The final result was that it was handed over to the ordinary courts. I tried the case, and, as I have already stated here, Ramsbeck was convicted.
Then there was a scene between Holz and me, and he made a complaint about me to the Minister of Justice; and when, in January of 1943, the Minister came to Nurnberg, he brought that complaint along with him; and now, he wanted to discuss that matter with me there at the Deutsche Hof. For that purpose, Holz had brought along a legal advisor of Ramsbeck's. Thierack started on the Ramsbeck matter by saying that under all circumstances a way had to be found, in a discussion with Holz, to calm Holz down as far as this case was concerned. He--Thierack--attached importance to the fact that I would attend that discussion. I told him that I would no longer discuss these matters with Holz. I told him that I had talked matters over with Holz, as a result of which Holz had comlained about me, and that he--the Minister--himself had gotten the complaint. I did not think it advisable to have another meeting with Holz because Holz would only use that as a precedent to act in the same way in the future. I also thought that if he, as the Minister, thought my sentence was wrong, it was for him to choose those methods which were laid down in the law. He could, after all, quash the sentence and pardon the man. Thierack then told me that that was out of the question, for he considered the judgment altogether correct.
Q. Was that what brought about your transfer to the Reich Prosecution?
A. That did not bring about my transfer to the Reich Prosecution, because that transfer had been agreed upon before. It was in this connection that Thierack discussed the matter for me first time.
Finally, he said that my attitude was correct as far as the Ramsbeck case was concerned. He told Holz that a meeting was out of the question, whereupon Holz sent his legal advisor Daniels home.
In the further course of our talk, Thierack told me that he thought it advisable to remove me from the Nurnberg conditions, and to put me into a job with more scope. As to how he wanted to set about that was evident from the fact that after that he told me there was a vacancy at the Reich Public Prosecution at the People's Court and that he was thinking of me to fill the vacancy. That was the first tine I heard of these plans. I asked him to give me a fortnight to think things over, and it seemed to me that Thierack was willing to agree. However, after a week Holz asked me to come to see him; he informed me that Thierack had written to him and had said among other things that he had already taken steps regarding my transfer to Berlin. Holz also told me that there was no further need for me to think matters over. Later on, the transfor arrived, and on the 1st of May 1943, I assumed my office in Berlin.
Q. What section did you deal with there; what was your sphere of work (Referat)?
A. To begin with, as the defendant Lautz has already stated here, I was placed in charge of the section for high treason.
Q. Was that limited to the Reich territory?
A. Yes, it was limited exclusively to the Reich territory and it extended roughly from Thuringia to the southern borders of the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean Altreich?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Altreich;
THE WITNESS: That is to say, Altreich together with Austria.
DR. KOESSL: That is, as the Reich existed , up to 1 September 1939.
THE WITNESS: As it existed before the war.
DR. KOESSL:
Q. Did you have anything to do with foreigners in your section? Did any Jewish cases occur there?
A. I don't know of one single Jewish case. I believe that on the 1st of May 1943, no cases concerning Jews were submitted to us.
Q. And when did you go to Potsdam?
A. I went to Potsdam on the 1st of December 1943.
Q. When was it that cases of undermining of military morale came to you?
A. On the 1st of January 1944, I was entrusted with those cases, and that happened in just the way in which the defendant Lautz described it here.
Q. To what spheres did your competency extend as far as cases of undermining of military morale were concerned?
A. To the entire territory of the Reich, with the exception, naturally, of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Alsace and Lorraine; that is to say, all the German territories.
Q. So again you are referring to the Reich such as it was on the 1st of September 1939?
A. Yes.
Q. In cases of the undermining of military morale, did you have anything to do with foreigners?
A. No, that did not occur, and it was not possible that it could have occurred.
Q. Did you have to deal with all cases connected with the undermining of military morale?
A. When you put that question to me you have to bear in mind that the cases of the undermining of military morale, such as they were dealt with by us, consisted in remarks that were made. According to the aim which people had in making those remarks -
which were of a different character, or of a different nature-they could constitute high treason if the remarks aimed at overthrowing the order of the state from within. The same statements however could, be designed to undermine military moral if, for example, they were aimed, above all, at undermining fighting strength, at undermining the will for self assertion, or it might have been the aim of such remarks to overthrow the NSDAP. Also, such remarks could also be designed to give aid and comfort to the enemy. It always depended, and that is how we had to evaluate matters, in what direction the center of gravity lay. If the center of gravity was on high treason, the case was transferred to the High Treason Section. If undermining military morale was the main thing, then the case came to me. If the main contents of the remark were aiding and abetting the enemy, then the case was sent to the section which dealt with aiding and abetting the enemy, even though it was also connected with undermining of fighting morale.
Therefore, one cannot simply say that a case, because the undermining of military morale was involved in it, was dealt with by my section for that very reason alone. If the case was of any particular importance for any reason whatsoever, in that event it was never sent to my department, which was overburdened already, but it was sent to Parisius' department, which was not so overburdened.
Q. Who was Parisius?
A. Parisius, like myself and Barnickel, was Reich Public Prosecutor, and he was also the Chief's permanent deputy; that is to say, he was Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz's permanent deputy, and I believe that as far as signatures were concerned, he acted not only by authority of Lautz, but also on behalf of Lautz.
Q. Where is Parisius?
A. Parisius is at large; I don't believe he was ever under arrest.
Q. Did you always deal with all the other cases of undermining of military morale that occurred in the Reich territory?
A. No, these cases of undermining of military morale -- roughly from March of 1944 until February of 1945 -- were split up between me and Reich Public Prosecutor Franzky, and the distribution was done by even and odd numbers. That is to say, they weren't distributed by geographical areas or according to the type of case, Therefore, half of the cases came to me and the other half was dealt with by Franzky.
Q. Was Franzky an independent man alongside of you?
A. Yes, quite independent, side by side with me.
Q. Why, in February of 1945, did you again take on all cases?
A. Well, one has to bear in mind that roughly, from the autumn of 1944, when the heavy air raids on Berlin started which bombed things out of existence at random, an orderly process of work at the central authority was no longer possible because almost every night attack disrupted Berlin's communications. In consequence, the staff of workers either didn't appear at all, or appeared later during tho course of the day, soon to leave again. And what was a particularly disrupting factor was that from the end of 1944 we hardly got any mail into the office and we hardly got any out of the office.
As far as orderly proceedings in Berlin itself were concerned, one couldn't think of conducting them there because we didn't get people to come in from the provinces. Either they really couldn't get to Berlin because there were no trains, or they were afraid to go to Berlin, or they had other personal reasons and simply didn't come when they were summoned. Because the mails didn't arrive, no new denunciations came in so that, from January 1945 on no new cases came in. Therefore, there was no longer any reason to leave this section, which had been split up between Franzky and me under A and B, in being. Therefore from February 1945, I again took on the work of the whole section, and, in effect, one only had to deal with old cases and finish them off.
Q: Was your work as Reich Public Prosecutor all done in Berlin?
A: I went out of Berlin very often - I'd say relatively often. My guess is that on average, I was absent from Berlin eight or ten days a month.
Q: Herr Lautz has given a detailed account of the work at the department. He described his position and the position held by his subordinates. He also spoke of the authorization to sign, and he spoke about reports and the extent of those reports. Is there anything you would care to add to that account?
A: What Herr Lautz said here is entirely in accordance with the facts and it has been stressed here sufficiently that originally it was said that the Reich Public Prosecutor was at the head of that office, and that was, in fact, correct at the beginning but, later on, the position of a Chief Reich Public Prosecutor (Oberreichsanwalt) was created.
The Reich Public Prosecutor was not superior to any other member of the office. That is to say, he did not have to issue instructions to any one. He was merely a subordinate of the Chief Reich Prosecutor (Oberreichsanwalt) and the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q: In connection with the authority to sign, a subject which has been discussed here again and again is that of signing "by authority" and "on behalf" (Im Auftrag und in Vertretung). Another thing that keeps on cropping up is that some document or other was initialed. What exactly were the meanings of the words "by authority" and "on behalf"? (Im Auftrag and in Vertretung)?
A: The man who signs "on behalf of" someone is deputizing for the other person's will. That means to say, he, replaces the will of the person who normally signs. That is to say, he assumes full responsibility. He has to decide in the way in which he, the deputy, considers right. Therefore, he is not bound by any instructions of the person for whom he deputizes. Things are different when the signature is "by authority" of another person. The person who signs "by authority" of someone else (im Auftrag) does not, by his own will, replace the will of another person, but he acts according to specific or general instructions of another person. His will must aim at acting in accordance with the will of the person who gave him the commission. The initialing of a document merely means that one initials it and, by placing one's initials there, one shows that in some way one has played a part in dealing with the document, but it does not mean that one assumes final responsibility.
Q: Did you ever have the authority to sign as a deputy?
A: No.
Q: How many cases of undermining of military morale did occur? In your affidavit, Exhibit 473, you mentioned figures. Are those figures correct?
A: They are not correct, as I mentioned already in the affidavit. At the time that question was asked of me very suddenly. I don't mean to say it wasn't the intention of the interrogating officer to surprise me. On the contrary, the interrogation was in every way correct and proper, but I said at the time that it was impossible for me to make exact statements. At that moment, I had an idea that somebody had said that a certain number of cases had occurred per week, and I believed that I could arrive at a result by multiplying that figure by four. However, later on I remembered that there had been certain disruptions which might lead to an entirely incorrect judgment. On account of the disruption, which I have already mentioned due to continuous air raids it happened that at the office a large number of case files accumulated without their being passed on to the section which had to deal with them. In order to remedy that state of affairs, three or four times as many people were employed in the office and, suddenly, large numbers of cases were submitted to us, but they had actually occurred over an extended period of time. I remembered that a very high figure had been mentioned to me. The multiplication of that figure to make it work out all right for twelve months would have made me arrive at a figure that would have been altogether impossible, but, in the meantime, my interrogation was finished and there was no possibility nor opportunity for me to correct my former statements and to point out that I had arrived at my estimate on a faulty basis. But I did say at the time that the figures might possibly be far removed from reality.
Concerning this very important question in this trial I am not yet able to give any reliable data as far as figures go because I simply can't do so. But I do remember this: every day, or at any rate, almost every day, I used to take home with me in the evening all the material concerning new cases, and I worked on them until 1:00 o'clock in the morning. All the new material that had come in during the day used to fill my brief case to capacity. The files themselves weren't very extensive, and I estimate that I took home with me every evening something like thirty cases. I dealt with them at home and worked on them until about 1:00 o'clock in the morning. Next morning I passed them on to the section for further work on them or some times they were passed on to other sections.
Q: Those thirty cases which came in every day, were they all dealt with in your section?
A: You mean, were they all dealt with by the Reich Prosecution?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, they were, but new it becomes necessary to go into detail. These thirty files were quite a lot for one evening, but when one knows how to read files it can be done very quickly, and it doesn't take long to find out whether a case had to be dealt with by our section or whether it had to be passed on. The so-called report from the Gestapo helped me in finding out who was to deal with the case, and that report included material on the actual investigations which have been discussed here. The files contained all the records of the investigations. That is to say, the records of interrogations of the witnesses and experts, reports on certain local conditions, etc.
At the end, there was a so-called summary. That summary was not an institution of the Gestapo, but it was an institution of the police as such, and its purpose was, the Public Prosecutor and, later on, the judge - to afford an opportunity to inform himself as quickly as possible what the files were about. For example, in order to ascertain whether a case was to be dealt with by us or whether it was to be transferred to the district court of appeals, to find that out, as a rule I only needed to read a few lines of this summary and when I had read those few lines I could say with absolute certainty that we would not deal with that case but hand it on to another section.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, do you desire to repossess yourself of your prospective Exhibit 166?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I'll leave it here for you.
The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at the usual hour.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 13 August 1947)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 13 August 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendants Engert and Schlegelberger, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused.
The defendant Schlegelberger is temporarily absent owing to illness. We have had a report on his condition this morning to the effect that it would be possible for him to attend court, but that it is advisable that he have a few days of rest. The Tribunal is glad to extend to him the benefit of a few days of rest to the end that he may be able to return to court soon. I take it that is in accordance with the desire of his counsel.
DR. GRUBE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. He is temporarily excused. Let the notation be made.
You may proceed.
DR. SCHUBERT (Counsel for the defendant Oeschey): May I, for a very short moment, claims the attention of the Tribunal? I wish to talk about a difference of opinion which has arisen between the Prosecution and myself. I should like to point out to the Tribunal that up to now, thanks to the accommodating attitude of the Prosecution, I have been able to settle all such differences of opinion immediately. I regret that in this case an agreement with Mr. La Folette was unfortunately impossible.
To begin with, I should like to describe what actually happened and how the difference of opinion arose.
In the court prison here -
MR. LAFOLLETTE (Interposing): If Your Honors please, I will send to the Bench three copies of a paper entitled, "Interpretation of Rule 23 as Amended, 3 June 1947." It is a uniform rule of procedure of the Military Tribunals as a.greed upon by the Prosecution and the Defense. This is signed by Mr. Benjamin B. Ferencz for the Prosecution, and Mr. Wartena for the Defense. I send it to the Bench because I think that the discussion which Dr. Schubert and I will have--or rather, the argument--as to the proper interpretation of Rule 23 and this interpretation, will be clearer to the Court if I furnish them with this recent rule.
This rule first came out, as I understand it, on Monday August 11, 1947, at least, I was advised yesterday by Mr. Ferencz and Mr. Wartena that that was the effective date of it. If I am wrong, Dr. Schubert may correct me.
DR. SCHUBERT: In the court prison here there is a man named Karl Schroeder, who formerly was the Senior Public Prosecutor in Nurnberg. Earl Schroeder was brought here by the Prosecution. He has deposed an affidavit for the Prosecution, and the Defense has cross-examined him with reference to the affidavit. All that was done while the Prosecution was submitting its evidence. The Tribunal approved Schroeder as a witness for me by a Court Order issued on the 23rd of June, 1947.
Up to now it has always been possible for me, or at any rate, I have repeatedly had the opportunity to talk to a witness without a representative of the prosecution being present. On Saturday, when I asked for the witness, a representative of the prosecution came along and intended to he present during my examination of the witness. I protested, and I discussed the matter with Mr. LaFollette. However, as I have already said, we were unable to reach an agreement.
Mr. LaFollette bases his opinion on Article 23 of the uniform rules for procedure issued by the Military Tribunals. That Article 23, on the 3rd of June 1947, was amended by the majority of the judges of the Military Tribunals here. A procedure has now been established which abbreviates and facilitates the previous method of procedure. The two methods, however, differ on one essential point. Before the 3rd of June 1947, when a defense counsel examined a witness, a representative of the Court attended, whereas now a representative of the prosecution attends these examinations.
According to its introduction, Rule 23 refers to witnesses or prospective witnesses for the defense, who arc detained in the Nurnberg prison. As the prosecution, too, realizes, that rule requires an interpretation, and it has been interpreted by agreement between the prosecution and the defense; and that interpretation has just been submitted to the Tribunal by Mr. Lafollette. That interpretation in itself contains a change of the rigid text of the introduction to Article 23 which I cited earlier. I refer to figure "2" of the interpretation which the Tribunal has before it.
According to the rigid wording of the introduction to Article 23, one might assume that no defense witness may be heard without a representative of the prosecution being present, whereas under figure "2" of the new interpretation, an exception is made.
These are the circumstances in the case of Schroeder:
The Prosecution brought the witness here; the witness testified for the Prosecution, and there was a cross examination and a redirect. The witness has now been used to his fullest extent by the prosecution, but up to now the prosecution has not yet formally waived its right to use him as a witness, and such a waiver is usually postponed for some time according to the usual practice of the prosecution.
On the other hand, I have been permitted to call this witness as a defense witness, and not only -- and I wish to emphasize this -- has it been agreed that I may use him as a prospective witness, but it has been agreed that he is definitely going to be a witness whom I will call before this Tribunal.
All the same, as is evident from the procedure, I have no opportunity to talk to that witness without a representative of the prosecution being present. I can entirely understand the interest which the prosecution has in hearing what the witness tells the defense counsel. On the other hand, I consider it a curtailment of the defense, which is altogether intolerable, if the prosecution--that is to say, the very prosecution which is interested in the case -- is present at the examination of such a witness and has an opportunity to listen to every word the witness says and to take it down in writing. Not in this case, but in other cases I have seen it happen where the prosecution brought a stenographer along and therefore actually had an opportunity to have every single word taken down.
Furthermore, it is Quite understandable that a witness, in the presence of a representative of the prosecution, may hold back one or two statements which he might have made if he had been alone with the defense counsel.
The new rule 33, which was put into effect by the Tribunal on the 3rd of June 1947, was intended to be an improvement of the procedure which, until then, had been rather involved.
No doubt it is an improvement from a technical point of view, But the former rule had one advantage, to which I referred earlier, the defense counsel was able to hear the witness in the presence of a representative of the Court -- a neutral representative of the Court -- who merely saw to it that the subject of evidence was adhered to but who, for the rest, had no interest in the witness's testimony.
I assume that the Tribunals, when they issued the new ruling of Article 33 on the 3rd of June 1947, did not intend to have the consequences arise which I have just described. I Therefore ask the Tribunal to make a ruling concerning this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
It will be helpful for us to know the exact issue. I take it that the exact issue which you present is simply this. You object to having a representative of the prosecution present during your conference with the witness which has been approved as a defense witness, and counsel for the prosecution insists upon having a representative of the prosecution present. That is the complete statement of the issue, is it?
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your view, Dr. Schubert?
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with that issue? Let's find out what the issue is first.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am not in agreement with the issue, but in a very few minutes, if the Court will indulge me, I will state the issue as I see it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The issue is this, with reference to the witness Schroeder -- and then I wish to discuss it -
The witness Schroeder was first arrested by the Government of the United States and. put in the Nurnberg jail. He was a witness for the prosecution. He has never been released from the Nurnberg jail, nor has the prosecution in this case ever issued a statement to the warden of the jail, or to any of the offices which are entitled to receive that information, that the prosecution has abandoned its desire to hold him as a prosecution witness or to have him sent from the Nurnberg jail to some other place of detention. In, other words, this witness Schroeder, under the laws generally prevailing, if sent from the Nurnberg jail, would still be sent to a work camp or detained somewhere because of his classification, as I understand it.
Now, to make clear again what this issue is, there has been a man brought in here by the name of Kreisleiter Zimmermann. He was detained somewhere away from Nurnberg, but I think he was the Kreisleiter of this area. He was brought in from his other place of detention, at the request of the defense, and placed in detention in the Nurnberg jail because he can't be permitted to be free. As to that man I am raising no objection.
I think these two illustrations will clarify the issue as I see it.
Now, Rule 23 as amended, must remain in existence and can not be altered by any administrative interpretation, although either side may waive any rights which they might have under it; but to the extent that they do not, I do not believe that any representative of the prosecution or representative of the defense has a right to make a binding administrative construction which is contrary to the provision of the rule.
The first statement or paragraph of Rule 23 says:
"In all cases where persons are detained in the Nurnberg jail either as witnesses or prospective witnesses for the defense and counsel for the prosecution or the defense wish to interview or interrogate such witnesses, the following procedure should be followed."
I go down to paragraph "2":
"In case the prosecution wishes to interview or interrogate such witness, counsel for the defendant or defendants involved shall have the right to be present. In case defense counsel wish to interview or interrogate such witness, a representative of the prosecution shall be entitled to be present."
Now that refers back to all persons who are detained in the Nurnberg jail, as this Tribunal and the other Tribunals have written the rule, and, to the extent that I am willing to waive that provision, I must insist on it and I must ask that this Tribunal enforce its rule.
No one else can waive that for me by an executive or administrative interpretation.
Now, in order that the Tribunal may be further advised as to what progress has been made heretofore: After this amendment came out there arose disputes between the prosecution and the various defense counsel that the prosecution, after the defense counsel had fixed a time for interrogating a witness detained in the Nurnberg jail, construing the words "a representative of the prosecution shall be entitled to be present", asserted that the prosecution had the right to disagree with the time which was fixed. That created a large backlog, and as far as I was concerned, with my consent, I said, "That is foolish; we will in some way attempt to comply with the hour fixed by defense counsel," so that we did not insist that the words "entitled to be present" meant that we should fix the time of the hearing, so that has been waived.
Now, we come to this administrative interpretation, which I have placed before Your Honors. I think what is pertinent are paragraphs 2 and 3:
"A defense witness brought to the Nurnberg jail by the defense may be interrogated by defense counsel without a member of the prosecution staff being present."
That is the Kreisleiter Zimmermann case. I still think it is contrary to the rule but I am willing to let someone waive that for me, that makes sense, because the rule says that anyone detained shall be subject to the provisions of the rule, and- clause 2 - I am repeating but I must reiterate - says that a representative of the prosecution shall be present.
I now go to 3 of the administrative interpretation:
"If defense counsel wishes to interview a prosecution witness" that is Schroeder - "or a person not classified as either a prosecution witness or a defendant, defense counsel will serve notice on the prosecution as to the date and hour of the proposed interrogation.
The prosecution shall be entitled to have a representative present during the interrogation."
Now, even the administrative interpretation, let alone the rule, requires me, unless I choose to waive it - and I do not in the case of Schroeder - to insist upon my right to be present when Schroeder is interrogated. Now, the Court can make a new ruling and deprive me of that right and I will say nothing about it, but as long as I have that right I must insist upon the privilege of asking for it or waiving it if I see fit, because it is a right which I have not been deprived of by the rule nor by this interpretation.
Now I want to say one thing more and then I am finished.
From time to time requests are made of the various prosecution team leaders to indicate witnesses detained whom they no longer care to have detained in the Nurnberg jail, but who are in a category where they would not be permitted to go free once they were sent out from the Nurnberg jail. In other words, if they were dismissed from the Nurnberg jail, they would go to a work camp or some other place of detention. I said yesterday to Mr. Ferencz and Mr. Wartena - who called on me, after Dr. Schubert and I talked about this on Saturday, and after we talked about it yesterday morning - at about 2 yesterday afternoon, but before I gave Dr. Schubert my final answer yesterday after Court. I said: "I will go this far, that if the record shows that I have released Schroeder, so that technically he is no longer a witness or a. person called by the prosecution and detained in the jail but mechanically it has not been possible to move him out, I will consider that as a reconstructive release so that we don't have to go through the silly procedure of sending him out to Dachau and then having Dr. Schubert request him and bringing him back, because under this interpretation 2, in that instance, despite the provision of the rule which I think does not permit provision 2 of the interpretation to stand, I am willing to abide by that in the interest of making progress."