If the prosecutor wishes to touch upon a point which I touched upon during the cross examination, I must join the objection of my colleague, Dr. Kuboschok. In this connection I only referred to the law which concerned the so-called dangerous habitual criminal. Sterilization is not mentioned at all, only castration. I only referred to that point in my questions to the witness. I am not sure whether the prosecutor wishes to discuss something which one of the other defense counsel stated here. For that reason my objection was made after that of my colleague, Dr. Kuboschok. Now that it appears the prosecutor referred to me, this part has been crystallized.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. I think it is proper to point out in answer to Dr. Schilf that I find no where, at least in the brief examination I have made, the use of the word "castration". I find repeatedly places where Dr. Schilf used the word "sterilization". I think that is contrary to his present suggestion.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I believe what I am trying to do is clear up something that did come through. Through translation possibly, I recall both the words "sterilization" and "castration" during Dr. Schilf's examination. I think that was covered by other counsel. If we had language trouble, the objection might have been stated quite accurately. I believe the transcript is full of statements about sterilization. Am I not correct, Your Honor? That is the way I heard the translation. I thought the examination covered both fields.
THE PRESIDENT: Those terms I find on further reading.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I thought they were used interchangeably either by the witness misunderstanding or otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: If it were used interchangeably, it was, of course --
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Inadvertent.
THE PRESIDENT: Inadvertent, yes. Both words were used.
DR. SCHILF: May I say another word? I admit that the word "sterilization" was mentioned in my cross examination but that was only due to the fact that to help the witness's memory I read to the witness a number of titles of articles which appeared in Deutsche Justiz (German Justice) in 1934.
They appeared as essays. The purpose of my mentioning these articles was simply this: I wanted to refresh the witness's memory because he said previously that he had been completely informed on the development of the Third Reich. He said he also read the Deutsche Justiz. To **** his memory I read the titles of several articles. That was where the word "castration" and also the word "sterilization" occurred. If I may ask the witness, I believe the subject we discussed was purely that of castration. The cause of my question was only the law of 21 April 1934 which created the so-called the dangerous habitual criminal.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Court will also recall, and I am sure Dr. Schilf will now remember, that he went rather extensively into that. I did not interrupt him. He assumed something which was not in evidence. I did not quarrel. He said there were sterilization or castration statutes in the United States. There are no castration statutes in the United States but if I recall Dr. Schilf specifically said there were 33 states that --
THE PRESIDENT: 25.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Certainly he has opened up the field of sterilization. He has opened the field. I think I am entitled on redirect examination to direct a few questions to that issue.
JUDGE BRAND: I might call attention to the fact that the transcript refers to that article as a weapon of criminal policy and then it refers to sixteen thousand persons sterilized in the United States. That surely entitled the prosecution to clarify the issue.
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, though, before the prosecution takes up the cudgel, I am sure that 16,000 figure is grossly erroneous. I wonder if the text was misread?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I doubt if it were a mis-reading. It was, I believe, a German text in which the accurate figures may not have been available. I am sure counsel read the text correctly. It was a German text. The source may not have been accurate.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SCHILF: May I add this, Mr. President? Among the titles I read this one appeared: "16,000 Sterilized Persons in the United States of America". There is no doubt about that, but actually the subject which I was asking the witness about was not sterilization. That title was only read by me to help the witness's memory because in 1934 the law was published and it started discussions in legal journals which made comparisons between German and foreign law.
THE PRESIDENT: Under all the circumstances the Tribunal rules that your questions are competent.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Now we will read the language of the article. Article 4: "Interested persons and counsel can be barred from appearance at the Hereditary Health Courts and Appellate Hereditary Health Courts for important reasons. This decision is uncontestible." My question is: does the provision of that law, which came as early as 1935, confirm your opinion that sterilization legislation passed by the Third Reich, was passed in a different context and made available for purposes other than those ostensibly set out when that legislation was passed?
A This provision increases my misgivings about the legislation or concerning prevention of progeny afflicted with hereditary disease, such as it was introduced under the Third Reich. I stated my misgivings when we discussed the castration of habitual dangerous criminals, and these same doubts apply to the complex of questions concerning hereditary disease and the legislation applying to it. In two cases, judges themselves told me of the resistance with which these matters were dealt with at the Hereditary Health Courts. One of the judges told me that he intentionally delayed dealing with such cases because he had a particular resistance to dealing with these matters.
Q May I ask you further that, assuming that there will be introduced into evidence in this case, a document known as No. 4055-PS, dated Berlin 12, 1942, signed by the defendant Dr. Schlegelberger, addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief for the Chancery, Dr. Lammers, Berlin, in which I read for you the following passages:
"Raise and Settlement, Main Office of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Attention SS-Gruppenfuehrer Hoffmann: Final solution of the Jewish question, with regard to the treatment of Jewish question, with regard to the treatment of Jewish descendants of mixed marriage of the first degree:
I agree with the conception of the Reichsminister of the Interior, which he expresses in his letter of February 16, 1942, to the effect that the prevention of the propagation of these descendants of mixed marriages is to be preferred to their being thrown in with Jews and evacuated." It follows, therefrom, that the evacuation of those half Jews, who were no more capable of propagation is obviated from the beginning. There is no national issue in dissolving the marriages between such halfJews and a full-blooded German. Those half-Jews, who are capable of propagation, would be given the choice to submit to sterilization or be evacuated in the same manner as Jews. (Signed) Dr. Schlegelberger."
I ask you, assuming that that evidence is true, whether or not you consider as to your answer on direct examination, that you believe the sterilization law was Nazi legislation and dangerous in the context of Nazi ideology, is still your opinion? Please don't answer it until Dr. Kuboschok says what he wishes.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to the utilization of this document in the form in which the prosecutor has just done it. The subject of this document is: "Measures against half-Jews." The question of half-Jews was not mentioned in any way during the cross-examination. It is really not possible that if a word was once mentioned under cross-examination, such as the word "sterilization," and this word occurs once in another document, that it comprises a different complex, and that in that case, this document is used on redirect examination. That would mean that for redirect examination, there would be no limits whatsoever.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to state my position because I have no intention of violating an accepted principle.
I stated the evidence of course is an assumption, but I referred to evidence which will be introduced. The issue is not as refined as Dr. Kuboschok thinks. The witness was constantly asked by practically every defense counsel, questions relating not only to this statute but to others, as to why, if the form of the language used was found in other lands. He would say that this sterilization statute, he considered to be a dangerous change made by the Nazi Government, and I am certainly entitled, on redirect examination, without regard to whether it's sterilization or castration, to reaffirm a position which was, at least be clouded on crossexamination, by asking him to assume evidence which bears out his statement on direct examination for the purpose of reaffirming it. I am not asking that this evidence be made evidence. I am simply asking him to assume if these things were true.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: May I add-
THE PRESIDENT: Before Dr. Kuboschok makes any further observations, I will state the position of the Tribunal. It is said by the prosecution that the later Exhibit Number 4055PS will be introduced on this very subject, that being the exhibit that he has read in part. I remember that on former occasions, when an objection has been made by defense counsel taking this same position relative to some statute, we have said to defense counsel that we are quite capable of interpreting and applying the language of an exhibit, and that same remark, of course, will apply to the prosecution counsel.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I can understand applying the same rule. I'd like to point this out, Your Honor, I think there is a distinct difference between this case and the one where I, a few minutes ago, attempted to introduce evidence with reference to these individuals.
That the court might well do; but this goes to the credibility of this witness, in his judgment, and it seems to me that I am entitled to strengthen his credibility by this question.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. La Follette, it's the exhibit that will strengthen his credibility if it conforms to his opinion as given before. You don't need to ask him if it strenghtens his credibility or confirms his opinion. If your exhibit, when offered, does strengthen his opinion, the court will know it. It seems to me personally that you are wasting time completely in asking him if an exhibit which you propose to offer, in which you assume may confirm his opinion, does confirm his opinion. We can determine that perfectly when you offer the exhibit.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I understand the Court's ruling. May I say this: I shall find it necessary, I think, to be much more active than I have been before in objecting to questions on cross-examination which assume the existence of facts which are just taken out of the air. I mean where there is no possibility of their being introduced into evidence. I had not been intervening because I felt that I would have the opportunity to support my facts, not assumptions.
THE PRESIDENT: To assume a fact which is oral and which is not the subject matter of an exhibit then introduced or later to be introduced is one thing, but to introduce an exhibit which speaks for itself, we think, it creates a different situation.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Of course, I abide by Your Honors' ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: We think that, without further discussion, we should sustain the objection.
BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q. I believe, Doctor, you said on cross examination that there was, in your opinion, some form of objective fact which could be or must be referred to in order to punish and convict a man under the provisions, the concepts of the Reichs Legal Gazette Blatt, to define crimes contained in Article 2 of the laws that changed the penal code of 28 June 1935, Part 1, page 839. Article 1 of that act declares that the creation in legality by proper application of the penal code in Article 2 and 2-A of the penal code is amended to read as fallows, and then Article 2 follows. Do you have that before you? It is a law of 28 June, 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness has this little pamphlet, it is on page five, if that will help any.
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. In the English it reads: "Whoever commits on act which the law declares is punishable, or which deserves punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law, or the sound concept of the people, shall be punished." Is that the sense of it?
A. Yes.
Q. "If no specific penal law can he directly applied to this act, then it shall be punished according to the law whose underlying principles can be most readily applied to the act."
DR. SCHUBERT (Attorney for Defendant Oeschey) With regard to this very important translating, I just want to draw your attention to it. Article 2 says: "He would be punished who commits an act which is declared punishable by the law, or who according to the basic principles of a law." "And" is mistrabslated. It should be: "And according to the sound feelings of the people." I thought it was necessary for me to draw your attention to this.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I thank Dr. Schubert for the correction of the translate. I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Further proceed with the prosecution of the case.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May the witness be excused.
MR. WOOLEYMAN: If the Court please, the evidence last introduced in Documentary evidence by the Prosecution was Exhibit No. 125. This was document NG-669, which was found on page 22 of the English document book. It will be remembered from the Prosecution's reading of that case that there several defendants were sentenced to varying terms for treason. Before proceeding further with the case in chief, we wish to invite the Court's attention to Prosecution's Exhibit No. 77, previously introduced some days ago, which is found on page 81 of Book I-C, Document NG-412, wherein was set forth certain correspondents concerning the formation of the promulgation of certain legislation, making treason a capital punishment, offense. We merely wish to invite to the Court's attention that relationship in passing.
At this time the Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 126 Document NG 659, which is a sworn affidavit of the Defendant Lautz, from which, prior to the actual offer, we wish to read certain portions. This document was distribution to the Defense separately, apart from any document book on the 14th of March
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, I would like to delay the reading of this document for a minute. There are several mistakes in that document, and I haven't got my copy with me at the moment. I should like to go and get it quickly.
THE PRESIDENT: How long a time will it take to get the document?
DR. GRUBE: I shall be back in three minutes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, we have the original exhibit here, if counsel would like to examine that.
DR. GRUBE: All the same, I should like to reserve the right to make the objection; that the text that we have received is corrected to the original; there are several mistakes contained in it which do not agree with the original.
MR. PRESIDENT: I think counsel should have an opportunity to find the document, on which ho has probably made some notations. Get it as quickly as you can.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, this affidavit is being introduce at this juncture for reason of trial technique.
I would prefer not to continue until it is produced; we can continue at that time.
DR. GRUBE: I now have the right document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I ask what counsel said?
DR. GRUBE: I now have the right document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I repeat, I did not hear what the Counsel said. Does he have an objection to make at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: There has been no objection.
DR. GRUBE: I have not objected against the document as such. I only ask to reserve the right to make a motion for corrections as I found that our c*** contains several mistakes which obviously do not a roe with the criminal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is one of the translation problems that has not yet been arranged for nor solved.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I have just been advised that was an objection to the translation. I met with Dr. Briefer and Dr. Schilf, and I think we have reached, in substance, an understanding of an orderly method of handle this. It does not require Counsel to make their objections now in order to protect themselves, and certainly I want the record to show that Dr. Grube was protected in his objection until we can present the Court with a written stipulation and agreement. I have not had a chance to write it because I have with the witness ever since we met and I think other people ore in the same shape.
DR. SCHILF: I do not know what Dr. Grube's objection referred to. The Prosecution has mentioned that we have already made an agreement concerning the question of translation, but if this objection of Dr. Grube's does not refer to the translation, then this would not be applicable.
DR. GRUBE: My objection in this case does not refer to a translation. is because in this case we only have a copy of the German original. This is a mistake which was made when the criminal was copied.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If the Court pleases, this whole problem could be avoided very neatly if the Counsel would care to examine the criminal which we have here. Either there is an objection or there is no objection. The Prosecution would like to know when to proceed. I am sure I do not understanding the character of the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection as far as I know.
JUDGE BRAND: If I understood the Counsel for the Defense, he said that German copy of the German criminal is not quite accurate; that certainly is a matter the Prosecution can adjust, if there is any discrepancy between the German copy and the German criminal.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, may I say also that this is one cf the things that is contemplated being adjusted, and the transcript, except for the purpose cf study, the English copy and version is the one that the Counsel must be the most concerned about rather than the inadequacies in the German copy.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Reading now from document NG-659, a sworn affidavit:
"I, Ernest Franz August Lautz, Senior Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court from 1 July 1939 until the end of the war, hereby swear, state and declare:"
Skipping new to page 12 cf the English copy, the first complete paragraph.
"There were numerous cases of Polish workers who had left their place work in Germany and had attempted to o abroad. I do net believe however that the total number cf persons accused of this offense by the Reich Prosecution amounted to more than 150 to 200. It is, cf course, very hard for me to remember these figures now.
"We were officially notified that there existed an organization in Switzerland which gave help on a large scale to fugitive Poles in order to enable them to join the Polish Legion. As far as we know, this polish Leg existed in England, but in Africa, too, Polish units were fighting. When Pole crossed the Swiss border, there was sufficient reason to suspect that he wished to join this organization, particularly in the presence of additional incriminating circumstances, such, as in the case submitted to the fact that he was notoriously reluctant to do work and thus evidently did not have the intention to seek any employment, and provided that hence not be present proof to the contrary. But, if he would go abroad in order to fight on the enemy side against the Reich, this constituted, according to German law, a clear case of aiding and abetting of the enemy, in accordance with paragraph 91 (b) of the Penal Code; for paragraph 91 (b) of Penal Code states clearly: 'Whoever proposes, within Germany, or as a German outside of Germany, to aid an enemy power or to harm the Armed Forces of his own country will be punished in such and such a manner.
' All Senates of the People's Court shared this point cf view insofar as they were concerned with such matters, and punished such cases accordingly. There else occurred some cases which we believed the defendant when he said that he would not have joined the Legion, but had tried to escape into Switzerland for some other reason. The sentence, included in the verdict shewn to me: 'Investigations have shown that the accused was lazy and afraid cf work, so that there is no reason to suppose that he wanted to seek employment in Switzerland,' was included to counter the statement cf the defendant that he has wanted to go Switzerland only to find better work. But it should not have been expressed in the form of an invective. The statement that, while he had known that somewhere there existed a Polish Legion, but that he had net known that Switzerland had anything to do with this, and that he did not have the intention to be drafted into this Legion, can be regarded as a backhanded admission of guilt, in view cf the fact that many Polish workers before him had found their way into the Polish Le ion by way cf Switzerland, that the existence cf the Legion in Switzerland was widely known, and that the man was afraid of work.
"The political penal cases were entirely repugnant to me, partly beca** in political cases one has to work so much with circumstantial evidence. For example: this Pole we had to assume to be a violent opponent of the Reich. He had had a job which he did not like, and he wanted to go away. He went Switzerland. He could have gone elsewhere, but this was the only hole that was left open to him. Now it is clear that by crossing the Swiss border, if he intends to join the Polish Legion in Switzerland, he is aiding and abett** an enemy power. In looking at the case in a. purely political manner, this conclusion is evident: This Pole wants to dc what his comrades did before him. We had to cite the penal Decree against Jews and Poles in the Occupi** Eastern Territories of 4 December 1941, because it provided for other penal. I intentionally did not cite article 1 cf this decree in my first indictment since I did not consider this necessary in view of the cases which we were then handling. Later, I was instructed to cite it."
That is the only portion cf this affidavit which the Prosecution desires to read at this time. We will now offer it into evidence. We reserve the privilege, if the Court please, to refer t c other portions as may be necessary from time to time in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: It may Re received in evidence.
DR. GRUBE: Play it please the Court, our colleagues contend that the phrase was written by hand afterward, by the defendant Lautz. This particular passage has net yet been read. cut. As the document has now been or is going be introduced as evidence in full, I would ask you to give me an opportunity to have this mistake, which is most important to me, to have this mistake corrected. We are concerned in the German text with the passage on pare 12, the third lino from the bottom. The word "ursprunplich", original. In the original text, written by hand it says "vermutlich" presumably.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court pleases, this objection, we submit does not become important in view of the fact that the English translation which is no in the Court's hands, and from which I read. This translation was made from the original exhibit which is about to be introduced into evidence and not from the German copy which is not an official copy.
DR. GRUBE: Up to now I had not had an opportunity to study the English of this affidavit, from my point of view. I should like to be allowed an opportunity to do so. perhaps it would be done in this way. The document perhaps could only be admitted with a reservation.
MR. WOLLEYHAN: If the Court pleases, the Prosecution submits, the presentation of its case in chief should not be burdened by actions cf the Defense Co*** in not examining evidence that is filed for their benefit and for this very purpose. We have receipts that this document was delivered to the Defense s* days ago and which offers them ample opportunity to examine it before trial. Subject to any conditional admission of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Re see no valid round for objections to the introduction this document, the criminal document. If there is some real error then the Counsel can point out this in the English translation, and it can be brought the attention of the Tribunal at any time, and if not, before the State closed its case, then in the defense this can be brought to cur attention.
You have every opportunity to bring it to cur attention.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you very much.
MR WOOLEYHAN: The document under discussion is now offered in evidence as Prosecution's Exhibit 126.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has already ruled it admissible an we will now repeat that ruling.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If Court and Counsel will please now turn to Document NG-419 in Document Book 3-A which in English is found on Page 56. In the German Document books there is no last page to NG-419 which was in adverted omitted in the assembling of those books.
JUDGE BLAIR: Will counsel give us that Page? Again we don't have those documents here and if you will give us the page so we can refer to in our document book?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Certainly. The document is on page 36 of English Document Book 3-A.
JUDGE BLAIR: What's the number of it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Document NG-419. This missing last page of Document NG-419 in the German book was supplied as extra page and delivered to the defense on the 11th of March. In the event that the defense have not brought those with them we have some extra, copies of this last page which we will now distribute. This document begins with the letterhead of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, OKW, the Foreign Affairs Office, Counter-intelligence, and it's stamped "secret", dated Berline 31 May 1940. It's address to the Reich Minister of Justice. Its subject is illegal trespassings of border-line, the Czech Legion in Franco.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: And handwritten into the left-hand margin at this point are, among other things, the following; and I am reading now from page 63, in the English Document Book and in the German Book is the Page * just distributed. I repeat: handwritten on the margin of the letter at the juncture of the letter appears: "How many sentences have already been pas** in these cases? What was the legal basis for the sentences?"
THE PRESIDENT: You say that's on page 63 of the English?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor. Now, to page 36 of the English -- continuing with the letter upon which the marginal notation I just read was entered:
"From the Counter Intelligence Post Prague the following is reported:"
"Because of illegal trespassing of the frontier almost 500 persons have been arrested during the last four months within the area of the branch office of the Counter Intelligence Brno. Proof for the intention of the arrested to join the Czech Legion abroad, could be furnished in three fourth of the cases by objects found (military identification papers, maps, foreign currency etc.) and in part by confessions. Since this constitutes a misdemeanor according to Par. 91b, the Secret State Police, Gestapo Ah (Brno) handed these convicted parsons continually over to the Military Court.
"At a recent discussion, at the Secret State Police in (Brno), it was found that the cases finished by the State Police are handed over to the Military Court in (Brno) and from there are passed on through the appellate Military Court in Prague to the Chief Military Prosecutor in Berlin.
"In this connection the Counter Intelligence Post in Prague states as follows:
"1.) The cases of illegal trespassing of the frontier with the intention to join the Legion are becoming so numerous, that sentences which are a warning example would have to be passed, and this very soon.
"2.) With regard to the tremendously increased work in the field of combatting high - and national treason, the secret State Police in (Brno) respectively in Moravia is understaffed to such an extent, that in addition to these cases it can master the many hundreds of cases of illegal trespassings of the frontier only by extraordinary efforts. In addition to that, new cases are initiated every day.
"3.) The prisons in (Brno) and at the frontier are overcrowded to such an extent that solitary confinement which would be absolutely necessary, has become an impossibility.
"4.) In most cases people are caught by the custom authorities and are handed over to the Secret State Police. Because of the circumstances mentioned in point 2 and 3 it is in many cases not possible at all to interrogate them at once. First of all they are jailed, and discuss their defense with their fellow prisoners. If finally the interrogation takes place, they withdraw their confessions made before the custom-house authorities, and then it takes in most of the cases some weeks until such a defendant has to give in, and makes a confession under the pressure of the evidence.
"5.) After the interrogation, the prisoners arc brought in most cases to Brno and there they are instructed again by their fellow prisoners about their further conduct and advised to withdraw in court the confession made before the Secret State Police. The policy of all these prisoners is to delay the final sentence. It is their in ention to gain time, because they hope - as the entire Czech nation does - for an early change of the military situation, and thereby also in a change of their own situation.
"6.) Under the circumstances mentioned in point 2 and 3 an examination of their political attitude, their education and their mental maturity is practically impossible, and that least of all in the Protectorate. The value of any information about these questions received from Czech authorities, offices or teachers would be extremely doubtful.
"7.) Counter Intelligence lost Prague emphasizes again the urgent necessity of soon passing sentences which are a warning example. The extensive measures have made the illegal trespassing of the border much more difficult, as the numerous arrests prove. This is known to the Czechs too, and they are trying now to force trespassing of the frontier by violence, if necessary. Numerous fugitives, seized during the last days, carried -weapons (pistols, ammunition, knives with fixed handles), and even pepper was found.
Danger exists, that sooner or later they will become united in gangs and will force the trespassing by use of arms. This danger exists the more as up to now it was not yet possible to convince them that an arrested fugitive who had tried to join the Legion would be indicted, and punished most severely, according to the laws concerning high-treason.
"Summarizing the Counter Intelligence request that orders are issued to the competent authorities:
"a.) To bring about a fast and final solution of the problem of the competence of the courts, "b.) to relieve the court prisons in Brno by transferring currently the cases already handled by the State Police, and by accelerating the proceedings "c.) to pass with the greatest speed sentences which are a warning example - this because of the large number of people who try to escape "d.) to give due consideration to the facts reported under points 1-6 and to the extraordinary conditions in the Protectorate, which by no means can be compared to those prevailing in the Reich.
Since the People's Court is competent for the proceedings in the. cases mentioned above, it is requested that, according to the suggestions of the Counter Intelligence in Prague, measures be taken for the relief of the Czech prisons and for the prompt sentencing of the Czechs in question.
"By order of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Continuing on page 59 of the English Document Book which is page 70 of the German. This, by the way, is the following page of the original document that I am about to read:
"Extract from the report of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court about the situation - dated 1 June 1940"
MR. WOOLEYHAN: This report is entitled:
"Non-Marxian high-treason National Czech separatist movement:
"Czech Legion.
"Since the outbreak of the war, numerous cases have been initiated here against subjects of the Protectorate, who tried to leave Germany by secretly trespassing the frontier with the intention to join the Czech Legion, organized in France. They were either seized at the frontier or were caught after having crossed the frontier, and were sent back to Germany. As such defendants made themselves guilty of a crime of preparation for high treason regularly in coincidence with the attempted crime of treacherous armed help to the enemy, I have, as a rule, handed over the proceedings to the Supreme Military Court. As I have been informed now by the legal department of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, the President of the Reich Military Court will decide in the future - on basis of a directive of the Chief of Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht - that no reasons of military nature require that the proceedings in the cases of these Czech legionnaires are carried through by the Supreme Military Court and that therefore all such proceedings, now pending at the Supreme Military Court against about 500 arrested defendants would be transferred to the People's Court."