This particularly applies to the statement of the accused MAZUR, who said that he intended to work as a shepherd in Switzerland although he had always been active as an industrial worker. Therefore one cannot believe the accused that they merely wished to look for other work in Switzerland. The Court is convinced that the defendants' submissions are merely a blind for their real intentions which induced them to escape. This applies particularly to the statement of the accused MAZUR to be unfit for military service disproved by the testimony of the official physician at Feldkirch on 18 February 1942. This medical testimony was used at the trial. The accused's escape to Switzerland must also have had the purpose of joining the Polish Legion. The accused denied, however, to have known that a Polish Legion existed in Switzerland, though this is well known. The Court is convinced that the accused, as is only natural and understandable, discussed with each other and with the other Polish workers living with them in the campbarracks, the fate of their nation and of the former Polish state and it's future, end the relevant developments and circumstances as well as the Polish Legion in Switzerland. It is furthermore known to the Court that shortly after the beginning of the campaign in Russia, the Polish emigregovernment an the USSR signed a pact and also that the English radio reported on this in several languages. The Court is convinced that this also was discussed among the accused and the other Polish workers. Furthermore, it is known to the Court from other trials that since the beginning of the Russian-campaign, Polish workers repeatedly escaped or tried to escape from the Reich to Switzerland and that there they are picked up by recruiting officers and enlisted in the Polish Legion. All these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the accused also aimed at joining the Polish Legion in Switzerland. Furthermore, it may be assumed that the accused KUBISZ and NOWAKOWSKI, as former volunteers and corporals in the Polish Army, had a particular inclination to serve in the Legion. After the defeat of France in the present war, as is known to the Court from other proceedings, detachments of the Polish Legion crossed the border into Switzerland and were interned in camps. The Legion continues under the command of Polish officers and kept in readiness for military action against the Reich on the side of the enemy in the event of German troops invading Switzerland.
Furthermore the Polish Legion conveys with English assistance some of its members through the unoccupied part of France to England, where the Poles are also being enrolled in military units. In Switzerland, Polish and Swiss officers agitate for enlistment in the Polish Legion. The economic maintenance of the Legion was made possible through funds of the former Polish state, administrated by the former Polish embassy at Bern.
The Polish Legion, which was constituted after the defeat of Poland by the Polish rulers who had escaped abroad, aims at aiding the enemy to bring about the defeat of the Reich in the present war, in order to reestablish the former Polish state on a considerably enlarged scale. Thus, these efforts aim at forcibly detaching the Eastern regions incorporated in the Reich as well as parts of the Altreich (Reich before the annexations) from the German Reich. Thus the Polish Legion carries on highly treasonable aims according to paragraph 80, Art. 1 of the Criminal Code. Anyone, supporting these aims by making arrangements to join the Legion, abetts the territorial high-treason furthered by the Polish Legion, in accordance with the paragraph 80, Art. 1, 83, Art. 2, of the Criminal Code. The accused have thus committed the crime of preparing for high-treason and they did this in the aggravating sense of paragraph 83, Art. 3, number 1 and 4 of the Criminal Code, inasmuch as their action was directed, by joining the Legion towards establishing an organisatory connection for the preparation of high-treason and because the offense had partly been committed abroad. The defendants were, there can be no doubt, aware of the importance of their activities and of the aims of the Polish Legion. By attempting to join the Polish Legion the defendants are also guilty of a crime of treasonably aiding the enemy according to Article 91-b Penal Code. They have, in their native country, attempted to aid the enemy, during a war against the Reich; for by joining the Legion, they wanted to support the enemy. The defendants were well aware of this." Skipping to Page 81 of the English Book, Paragraph 4:
IV The Measure of Punishment.
"The full measure of the law must be applied to the defendants. This demands for"--It is also gibberish. The reasonable translation is the way I shall read it, assuming there is no objection. "This is necessary in the interest of the protection of the German nation, particularly during the war. The punishment must also revenge the hostile attitude to Germany of the defendants expressed by the offense, which is of a conspiratory character. The defendants no longer wished to place their working ability at the disposal of the German nation. The offense of the defendants is, as stated, especially dangerous and damaging to the welfare of the German nation.
"Accordingly, the death sentence is the only adequate one. This has been pronounced."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 129, Document NG-352.
DR. GRUBE: (Attorney for Defendant Lautz) I would like to raise an objection.
The Prosecution concerning this sentence in connection with the defendant Lautz by referring to this affidavit i.e., Document 659, to use the affidavit in this connection, I consider inadmissible for the reason that approximately it amounts to nothing but argument which, in my opinion, should be left to the plaedower. These arguments on the part of the Prosecution are not correct, and at least this affidavit by Lautz in NG-679, Exhibit 126 cannot be used as evidence for the fact that the defendant Lautz in effect signed the indictment, which is the basis of the sentence in this document. That this supposition cannot be founded is revealed by the following: The sentence in Document NG-352 dates the 12th of August, 1942; the previous document, which has just been read out in full, Exhibit 128, the sentence was signed two days previously, that is on 10th August; and in this case the indictment was signed, as revealed by Exhibit 128 by Parisius, not by Lautz. Therefore, I consider it neither admissible nor founded by the facts mentioned together; the document and the affidavit, NG- 158refer to them together in this connection. Therefore, I would ask that the passage in the records concerning Document NG-659, Exhibit 126 should be crossed out. It merely constitutes argument, and secondly it consists of arguments which are not based upon facts.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Only a brief word, if it please the Court. I don't think that Defense Counsel will deny that the affidavit of the defendant Lautz is not argument, but a fact; the words that it state are facts. Moreover, it cannot be inadmissible at this time because the document has already been introduced into evidence. I expressly reserved the right several days back to refer to it again, and as I remember the Prosecution advanced no argument at all, but merely read from that which we had formally introduced into evidence, which we have sought to do at the present time; no argument was intended.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Court, I maintain my objection that reading the quotations from Lautz' affidavit in connection with this document presented last is inadmissible for the reason that this affidavit as introduced in this is purely for reason of argument as the Prosecutor himself admitted to bring about a connection between this and the signature of the sentence, but this is really a matter for plaedower.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal feels that there is without a doubt sufficient references in the affidavit, on the signing of the affidavit, to connect him with the signing of this indictment, but you made some statement about a discrepancy of dates that is not clearly understood by the Tribunal Will you repeat what you wanted to say about the discrepancy of dates between the 10th and 12th of August, 1942; would you kindly repeat that. We only want to hear from you concerning your former statement about discrepancy of dates.
DR. GRUBE: I beg your pardon, Mr. President; I didn't get the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: In your former statement, the first statement you made in this objection you spoke of an alleged discrepancy of dates that the sentence was pronounced two days earlier than the finding of fact. We do not understand your statement; I wish you would repeat it.
DR. GRUBE: The Prosecution, in connection with presenting NG-352, that is the sentence of 3 August, 1942, the Prosecution said that the indictment was not available, but it could be assumed that the indictment had been signed by the defendant Lautz.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I must object to that; I made no such observations regarding the signing or not signing of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Grube has some statement to make to clear up the discrepancy of dates; we will hear from you on that alone.
DR. GRUBE: In Document NG-352, which is now about to be introduced as an exhibit, the sentence of 12 August, 1942, the previous Document, Exhibit 128, contains a sentence which was issued two days previously, on the 10th of August, 1942, and this sentence was based upon an indictment which was signed by Parisius. Consequently, one cannot simply, such as the Prosecution intends, assume that the sentence of 12 August, i.e., the sentence and Document NG 352 is based upon a document which was signed by the defendant Lautz.
Therefore, I consider it materially unfounded if the Prosecution in this connection refers to the affidavit; but also formally I consider it inadmissible to bring it together, to connect the affidavit with the sentence simply because the Prosecution introduces this affidavit in connection with Document 352 and refers to it again, as the Prosecution says in order to establish a connection with the defendant Lautz. That is a matter for the plaedower review, but not a matter to bring up here as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal fully understands the objection raised by Defense Counsel, and the objection will be over-ruled and the exhibit will be offered in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The Prosecution offers NG-352 as Exhibit 129.
Turning now to page 84, which is page 97 in the German book, Document NG-641, here again we find, through circumstances completely beyond our control no indictment is available. However, this document again is a case record of the People's Court, "dated 27 May, 1943; In the Name of the German People; In the criminal proceedings against the electrician Piotr Kalicki, the auxiliary worker Czycz, and the type-setter Iwaniszyn, and ", setting out various dates in Poland which we won't read. "At present in custody on remand because of preparation of high treason, etc.; the Peoples' Court, 1st Senate, pronounced in the trial of 21 May 1943, in which participated as judges:" And thereafter follows an enumeration of judges whose names we will not read. "The defendants Kalicki, Czycz and Iwaniszyn, who are Poles, left their places of work in Kempten in the summer of 1942 and proceeded in the direction of the frontier of the Reich in order to seek connection with the Polish Legion in Switzerland. They wanted to fight as members of the Polish Legion for the restoration of an independent Polish State. They were prevented from doing so through their arrest. Through their actions they undertook to help the enemy of the Reich. Therefore, they are sentenced to death."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I am against to do, for the benefit of the interpreters, considerable skipping through this case record so I will try to give you the German page whenever possible. Page 85 of the English Book, page 98 in the German. Still reading from this same case record; Reasons for the foregoing death sentences:
R E A S O N S "The defendants are Polish nationals, are former Polish citizens and, on 1 September 1959, *** their residence in the territory of the former Polish Republic.
They all had come from the East for labor service in Germany. In summer 1942, at different dates, Kalicki and Iwaniczyn the latter together with the Pole Mendrala - left their respective places of work in Leipzig without permission and proceeded to the Allgau. In Kempten they get work, Kalichi as electrician in a machine factory and Iwaniszyn, who, together with Mendrala had been picked up by police, in a cheese factory.
"On 28 June 1942, three days after they started working, Iwaniszyn and Mendrala quit work without permission and fled in the direction of the German - Swiss border at Bregenz (Verarlberg).
"During the night of 5 July 1942 they were picked up by a custom official at the railroad bridge loading into Switzerland, between the border points Loustenau and St. Margethen (Switzerland) and were taken to the police jail at Bregenz. When interrogated, Iwaniszyn adopted the false name of Serecka. On 7 August 1942 he and Mendrala were brought back to their former places of work at Kempten. But soon thereafter, both, together with the other defendant, decided to make a new attempt at escape.
"In Kempten Iwaniszyn, Mendrala, Kalicki and also Czycz lived together in an inn, managed by nuns.
In March 1941 Czycz, left his place of work in Leuhdds (district of Kempten) without permission, had been brought back to his place of work after having been imprisoned for three weeks, had been repeatedly admonished because of violation of the work discipline, was then held in the police jail because he refused to work, and, during February/March 1942 had been interned in a Disciplinary Work Camp. He too, had finally been working in a cheese wholesale business in Kempten.
"The three defendants Kalicki, Czycz and Iwaniscyn used their quarters -- which they shared -- to confer with Meddrala how they could manage to go to Switzerland in order to join the Polish Legion there. Obviously for security reasons they reached the agreement to set out for the escape together, but then to head for the Swixx border separately. So, on 13 August 1942 the defendants and Mendrala left their places of work without permission and at first proceeded together in the direction of Bregenz, after they had removed the Polish insignias from their jackets.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The following is a brief description; I interpolate here, of the facts of their attempts to escape to the border and their arrest.
"The defendants admit the essentials of these facts, but state (and this objection is important) that they did not know that a Polish Legion existed in Switzerland and that, therefore, they neither decided nor intended to go to Switzerland. As to the purpose of their leaving Kempten, Kalicki and Czycz state, that they had tried, either through an acqquaintance, or through the Bregenz Labor Office, to obtain better employment. Iwznyszin defended himself by stating that he and Mendrala intended to work in Maurenstutz for a farmer, as they had done it before at the end of June 1942."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip to the next paragraph.
"These statements are not worthy of belief. All of the defendants had work in Kempten and were paid adequately as Poles. they had even less good reasons to leave their places of work without permission just in order to look for new employment, since they knew exactly that they would then be called to account for breach of contract and that they could not keep the new jobs they pretended to seek."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip to the top of page 87, which is page 101 in the German book.
"According to the experiences of the Senate in similar cases, and according to the result of the numerous investigations made by the clerk of the Police Schleicher, who is working in the German-Swiss border and was heard as a witness, the way chosen by the defendants had been used by many Poles, escaping from the labor service in Germany to go to Switzerland and to join the Polish Legion there. There was a whisper propaganda among the Poles, especially - as the Court stated only yesterday in the sentence against Papuga, and others - in the region of Kempten since spring 1942. In consequence of this whisper propaganda, which was due to enemy influence, it was generally known that through the Consul of the Polish shadow government or through the English Consul in Switzerland the possibility existed to get from there by various means into parts of the Polish Legion, a formation whose purpose, as known by the Court, is aimed at the restoration of an independent Polish State by military operations conducted on the side of the enemy and by separating the annexed Eastern provinces from the greater German Reich by force. There is no doubt that the three Polish defendants, at least during their stay in Kempten, were informed of these conditions, and that they get in this way the idea to escape to Switzerland and that they made their decision together with Mendrala.
They are also persons in the best age for military service, and absolutely able to serve in the Polish Legion. They were also willing to do so; they proved their anti-German attitude by leaving their former places of work without permission. The witness Schleicher stated - and his statement is worthy of belief, that during the investigations Czycz, who was interrogated by clerk of the Police Schleicher, confessed frankly - after denying his guilt at first - that he and Kalicki agreed to flee to Switzerland, secretly, and to use in case of failure on evasive explanation similar to the one used in the trial. As to Iwaniszyn it can be added that he and Mendrala had already previously - in June 1942 - started to proceed in the direction of the Swiss border and that they were arrested right in the immediate vicinity of the border. This proves the intensity of their desire to reach the border by any means.
"The behavior of the three defendants in August 1942 only permits one conclusion, - considering the circumstances given and the completely unsuccessful attempt of the defendants to exonerate themselves, - that they decided in Kempten to escape together - even though they were using different way, to Switzerland and to join there the Polish Legion in order *** flight with the legion against the armed forces of the German Reich during the war. In spite of their denial the Court is convinced that the defendants were aware of the treacherous character of the Legion's aims and that they wanted to further these aims. Thereby, they are convinced of the crime of the common preparation of high treason according to Articles 80, Sec. 1, 83 Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 and of the crime of assisting the enemy according to Articles 91b, 47, 73 Penal Code.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, we have past the time for our usual morning recess and we will take this up at the close of the recess. We will now take a 15 minute recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Continuing with this same case. Still in that portion of the opinion labeled "Reasons", for the death sentence pronounced on page 84, we continue at the bottom of page 88, eighth line from the bottom, which is page 102 of the German Book, and the court referring to the defendant continues: "It was their obligation as citizen of a people which immediately before and at the outbread of the war committed mass murders of persons of German blood and thus became guilty of bloody crimes against the German people, to behave especially well and to work without reservation. In spite of that they started again to hate Germany, and not only deprived her completely of their working power but pursued their goal in spite of the natural obstacles to their undertaking, their goal, to fight with their weapons on the side of the enemy and to carry out the high treason which they prepared. And this in the August of 1942, in a time of the most severe defense of the Greater German Reich against Bolshevism. Therefore, only the death penalty is adequate to the dangerousness of the crime committed by the defendants, who are filled with hatred against Germany, and to the need of protection for the German people. It is also necessary for deterring purposes. The People's Court pronounced, therefore, the death sentence against all three defendants."
Skipping now to page 92 of the English Book, which is 105 of the German's. This is part of the same case record, and is in the form of recapitulation of the findings, signed by the presiding judge of that session.
"The deputy of the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor, and the defense counsels were invited to make their statements. The deputy of the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor demanded to sentence: Kalicki, Czycz and Iwaniszyn to death.
As we have seen from the foregoing case, the case record of the death penalty demanded by the prosecution was now pronounced.
Turning now to page 93 of the same document in the Document Book:
"Certified copies, in the criminal proceedings against Kalicke, Czycz and Iwaniszyn who were sentenced to death by the People's Court on 21 May 1***, I decided upon authorization by the Fuehrer, not to exercise my right of pardon but to let Justice take its course. Berlin, 28 July 1943. The Reich Minister of Justice, by deputy (signed):Dr. Rothenberger.
True copy of the original, Berlin, 29 July 1943."
Turning now to page 94 of the Document Book, which is a later page of the same document, page 107 in the German Book.
Letterhead: "Penitentiary and Prison on Remand. Munich -Stadelheim, Munich, 18 August 1943. Stamp: To the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, Berlin File 9 J 188/42g, Estate Stanislaw Czyz, born 18 December 1922.
The above mentioned died here on 12 August 1943. The following things are here in deposit for the above:
1 leather belt, 1 jacket, 1 shirt, 1 pair of socks, 1 pair of shoes, 1 flashlight, 1 purse, money RM 475. All things are in a very bad condition The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 130 Document NG 6-41.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now in Book 3-A to Document NG-376, which starts at page 96, due to faulty assembly of the pages of this document it is out of order. To correct that defect I will read page 106 first. This bears the letterhead of the Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court dated Berlin, 17 March 1943, addressed to the President of the People's Court at Berlin.
"Subject: Proceedings against assistant laborer Johann DZIEKANIK for reasons of preparations for high treason.
"Indictment: 2 volumes of files 9 copies of the indictment "I herewith send you the indictment and inclosures referring to the motion I made at the end of the indictment."
Upon looking at the original document we find that this cover letter is personally signed by the defendant Lautz.
Turning now to page 105-A, which was inserted as a separate sheet, does the Bench have the English pages 105-A-B-C?
THE SECRETARY: No, we don't have those.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. Secretary, might I inquire if you received as extra sheets pages 105-A-B and C? I believe those are available. It is an indictment dated 17 March 1943 from the People's Court.
THE SECRETARY: There is one copy on the bench, only one copy.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Would it suffice if I read portions of that now and supplied you with later copies?
THE SECRETARY: Here is 105-A.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is an extra sheet, and also --
THE PRESIDENT: There is a different number on the pages.
THE SECRETARY: Some of those were marked 109-A-B-C.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We had a 105-A-B-C and 109.
THE SECRETARY: We have the 109.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: But no 105.
THE PRESIDENT: 109 is connected with NG-351, which is not the exhibit you are discussing.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, sir. If I may be permitted to refer to that at this time, we will supply the missing pages later.
THE PRESIDENT:NG-351?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, the missing pages of NG-376, which is the document of which I have just read the covering letter. That is complete in the German book but it was omitted in the English.
The indictment to which the covering letter which we have just read referred bears the letterhead of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Reich at the People's Court, Berlin, 17 March 1943, Indictment, the unskilled laborer Johann Dziekanik. I will skip around here quite a bit to avoid these repetitious details. Punished seven times in all by formerly Czechoslovakia courts, the last time by the district court of Teschen, on the 23rd of November, 1937, for the crime of theft with five weeks penal servitude and disenfranchisement, furthermore by the district court in Graz on 11 November 1942, for the crime of theft with eight months imprisonment. In security detention since 29 October 1942, in this case. Skipping now to, "I accuse the above of having been in Heidebreck, Upper Silesia, Marburg, Styria, and other places within this country and April, 1942, by the same continued action (1) attempted to prepare for the act of high treason, namely to sever by force a district belonging to the Reich whereby the object of the action was to form a coercive organization for the preparation of high treason."
We wish to skip now to page 106 wherein, without reading the entire case of this defendant, we merely wish to call the Court's attention to the fact that the defendant Dziekanik was sentenced to death for the alleged high treason in the indictment. Turning to the next page, 107 --
THE PRESIDENT: Does that appear on page 106?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That appears on page 106-A. I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask again before we pass 106, do I understand you to say that the signature that is indicated to be illegible on page 106 you now know to be a real signature?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We now know it is a real readable signature of the defendant Lautz.
Turning now to page 107 wherein the Senate at the People's Court cites its reasons for the indictment and findings in the case, we don't wish to read all those facts but at the risk of seeming slightly argumentative we merely wish to point out certain facts appearing on the face of the document itself. By way of documentation we wish the court to note that the facts stated there in the opinion of the court constitute, by a restating and a paraphrasing of the facts, the case alleged in the indictment. There is no single shred of new evidence cited other than the indictment alleges.
JUDGE BRAND: May I call your attention to the fact that there seems to be no page 106-A in the book.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In your book? They are at the bench there.
THE SECRETARY: These documents now distributed are merely marked 105-A. I don't know whether that makes any difference or not. There is a separate series, I believe, for 105-A.
DR. GRUBE (For defendant Lautz): Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to show the photo copies of this document, the photostat to the defendant Lautz so that he could compare the signatures. Also I ask to be permitted to discuss it with him briefly.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, photostats, two duplicates of these documents are of force given to the defense. Two copies of every copy we seek to introduce are furnished in photostatic form to the Defense Information Center. The prosecution submits that if any comparison by the defendants and their counsel as to the validity of these signatures is to be done, it is first part of their case in chief, and second should he done at sometime other than the introduction of our case.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, we know no more than the copies as we get them in the document books are available for us. As for the photostats we knew nothing about them. I did not know until now that also photostats were supplied. We have an opportunity to see the English copies, but that photostats were supplied, about that I was not informed, and I believe that also the other defense counsel did not know anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire when these photostats were placed in the Defense Center?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, the prosecution, since the beginning of the case, has been required to submit two photostatic copies of every document to the Defense Information Center. Now the mechanics of their distribution I am not clear on, that is none of our affair. However, we have been required to so furnish. That is a dereliction I cannot account for. We will attempt to straighten it out after court.
JUDGE BRAND: Well, isn't it obvious that if only copies are furnished the defense information center, that they are simply there for inspection.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is true.
JUDGE BRAND: They are there for the files, and not for distribution to 15 defendants' counsel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is obvious that they are there for inspection and not for distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose the question still remains, how are defense counsel to know that deposits of documents are made with the Defense Center unless it is in some way brought to the attention of defense counsel? It seems to me there is a lameness there that must be looked into.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is very apparent that there is a lameness, Your Honor and in addition to its other duties, the prosecution will attempt to find out what the lameness is.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, I can see that the prosecution is to bla** in the least for this.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: About all we can say to you, Dr. Grube, is that you should inquire of this document, and it is possible, as is suggested by the prosecution, that you can bring it to our attention as a part of your defense which will be quite as satisfactory to you as it would to do it now.
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, in this case I wanted to show the document to the defendant. It is very important if it is his signature.
THE PRESIDENT: We think that is a reasonable request, and we would like to have the document either delivered to defense counsel, or defense counsel to secure it, and then the matter can come up.
The better plan would be after we resume our sessions after the lunch hour. At least, this period should not go entirely by without your having an opportunity to show it to your client.
Is that document here in the courtroom at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is, Your Honor. It is the exhibit we are attempting to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: I mean the photostat.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will take enough time for counsel to show it to his client.
(The document was shown to the defendant Lautz)
DR. GRUBE: I thank the Tribunal for the opportunity to be permitted to show the document to the defendant Lautz.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. Secretary, might I inquire whether you have up there pages 109-A, B, and C, and page 112-A? Would you please distribute them at this time for document NG-351?
May the Court please, these extra pages were omitted from the English books; the German books, I believe, are in order. They refer to document NG-351, and are to be inserted at the junctures in the book at which their numbers occur. No. 109-A, B and C constitute the indictment of case NG-351and should be inserted in the beginning. Page 112-A is the last page of the case record and should be inserted at the end.
Because of the examination by the defense of the last document considered the prosecution neglected to offer it into evidence as Exhibit No. 131. May we so offer it at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Which one is that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is the one that was just examined by the defense at just previously read. I neglected to offer it after the defense examined it.
THE PRESIDENT: What number is it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is document NG-376, Your Honor. We so offer it at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
There seems to be a little difficulty about exhibit numbering. Do I understand that 351 will be an exhibit with a separate number?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No. 351 will be the next exhibit, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What number will it have?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It will have 132 when offered. No. 351-NG is the document we are about to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Counsel for the defendant Petersen): I beg your pardon if I interrupt, but concerning the question of photostats, which we discussed before, I ascertained last Friday afternoon, for the first time, that photostats have been received in the office, and a second delivery arrived this morning. We do not deal here with two photostats of each document, but only one photostat was delivered per document. Apart from that, I was informed that the distribution of photo copies was not possible sooner because the photostats were received out of order, not in any order.
This technical question is the reason why the photostats could not have been at the disposal of the individual defense counsel to look at them.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Commencing with page 109-A, which is the Indictment, bearing the letterhead of the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court, dated Berlin, 14 April 1943:
"Indictment:
"I charge:
"1. The porter Paul Stefanowicz, born at Clyka, single, last of Berlin, a Pole:
"2. The laborer Franz Lencewski, born at Sandee (Government General), single, last of a Berlin Community Camp, a Pole;
"Both without previous convictions, both provisionally arrested 6 August 1942 and on the basis of the order for arrest of the investigating judge of the People's Court with the District Court at Insbruck, order of 3 October 1942 as to Stefanowicz and of 6 October 1942 as to Lenczewski, at present on remand at the prison at Nurnberg, Zellenstrasse;