MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to ask Dr. Wandschneider if the affidavit of Becker is by the same Becker who testified. If it is, I think it should be rejected.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No.
MR. La FOLLETTE: This is a different Becker he informs me.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. The name of the witness who appeared here was Becher,B-e-c-h-e-r; and this man's name is Becker, B-e-c-k-e-r.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I am prepared to proceed with the witness Helm, and the witness by the name of Herget -- if the Court will permit me to present them. They are both in the case Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand there is no witness available for the defense at this time. Assuming that to be the case, you may proceed.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE: Would you call Arthur Helm.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a witness?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, Your Honor.
ARTHUR HELM: a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. La FOLLETTE:Q.- Will you state to the Tribunal your name, please.
A.- Helm, Arthur.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand it.
A.- Helm, Arthur; H-e-l-m.
Q.- What position did you occupy?
A.- General Public Prosecutor.
Q.- During August, 1944?
A.- General Public Prosecutor, Munich.
Q.- General Public Prosecutor?
A.- Yes, I was.
Q.- You have before you a German mimeographed copy of a document marked NG--1580, and also referred to as Exhibit 529. Have you seen a photostatic copy of the original of that since you came to Nurnberg about a week ago?
A.- No, I never saw a photostat, but I think it is the original which I saw.
Q.- It was the original that you saw?
A.- Yes, it was the original.
Q.- And it had your signature at the bottom of the original; is that correct?
A.- Yes, it bears my signature.
Q.- With reference to the matters set out in the first paragraph of those notations; they are dated 16th August, 1944; are they?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How shortly after Ministerial Counselor Mitschke came to Munich did you write those?
A.- After he was there I put that down in connection with his visit.
Q.- I see. How shortly after he was there did you make this notation?
A.- I should think it must have been on the same day.
Q.- And as far as you remember, you noted-down in that first paragraph the message brought to you?
A.- Yes, naturally.
MR. La FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for the defendant Klemm and Mettgenberg) Q.- May I just have a look at that file.
Witness, you say that probably it was on the same day that you made this notation in the files? Can you tell us exactly when it was? Do you remember exactly?
A.- No, but I am sure it wasn't later than the day after.
Q.- When you had that conversation with Dr. Mitzschke, was there anybody else present?
A.- I don't remember; I can't remember that conversation, that is to say, I do remember in a way but I don't remember where it took place; I don't know whether anybody was present.
DR. SCHILF: I have no more questions, Your Honor.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
Mr. La FOLLETTE: Will you call Franz Herget, please.
FRANZ HERGET, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY Mr. La FOLLETTE:
Q.- Will you state to the Court your name.
A.- Franx is my first name; Herget.
Q.- And the last of January, 1945, where were you employed and in what position?
A.- I was employed by the Gestapo in Frankfurt on the Oder, as a Criminalrat Q.- Did you know there Obersturmbannfuehrer Viktor?
A.- No, I didn't know him.
Q.- Wasn't Viktor your Chief at Frankfurt on the Oder?
A.- Richter was his name.
Q.- Yes.
A.- Obersturmbannfuehrer Richter.
Q.- Is that right he was your superior?
A.- Yes, he was.
Q.- Do you remember the occasion of a telephone call?
A.- Yes.
Q.- On the evening of one of the last days of January, 1945, from SS -
A.- Yes.
Q.- Oberfuehrer Fischer in Berlin. Do you remember that conversation?
A.- Yes, I do.
Q.- Will you state to the Court what that conversation was; and where Richter was at that time?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And just what happened, and what was contained in that conversation; what you know about it; just tell the Court.
A.- Well, that was during the last days of January, 1945. I was very overburdened with work, particularly in connection with civil servants who were coming back from the east, when suddenly a telephone call came from Berlin. Oberfuehrer and inspector of the security police Dr. Fischer was on the other end of the telephone, and he told me that he had just been rung up by the General Public Prosecutor in connection with the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. At that moment, Obersturmbannfuehrer Richter, whom the person at the other end really wanted to talk to, and who was not to be found in his office, came into my office, and the telephone call had been put through to my office because he had not been in his office.
As I said, he entered my office at that moment, and I handed the phone over to him.
Q.- Did you hear his end of the conversation; was he standing where you could hear him?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did he protest against anything; did he issue -
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did he protest against what he was being told to do?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Yes, I see.
A.- Yes, he did. He was absolutely shocked, for I could tell by his facial expression and then he protested "it is quite impossible and you can't carry that out; that can't be carried out;" that it was impossible, he said he tried to ward that off.
Q.- Did he turn from the telephone and did he tell you what the conversation was immediately?
A.- Yes, he didn't right away because there was a lot of people there, and I don't remember now whether he told me outside the office afterwards. Anyhow, he did tell me sometime what it was all about.
Q.- What was it about?
A.- It was the order issued to shoot the inmates of Sonnenburg penitentiary.
Q.- And were the inmates of Sonnenburg penitentiary shot by a commando from Frankfurt on the Oder the next day?
A.- Yes, they were shot -- only can t tell you whether it was the very next day.
Q.- But the commando went to Sonnenburg from that station at which you were located, Frankfurt on the Oder; is that correct?
A.- Yes, that is right.
Q.- And the Generalstaatsanwalt was the Generalstaatsanwalt in Berlin; is that correct that Fischer referred to?
A.- Yes, I am pretty sure that it must have been that man in Berlin.
Q.- Well, Fischer in Berlin says he had received an order from the Generalstaatsanwalt and he must have told Richter that when he called?
A.- He didn't exactly say that he had been requested to do so. All he said that he had been telephoned and what Fischer had said in fact was "the general public prosecutor rang me up"; that is more or less what he told me.
Q.- Yes. Do you know what happened to Richter after the first refused to carry out that order?
A.- Well, for the moment nothing happened, but a few days later he was replaced by another Obersturmbannfuehrer.
Q.- Was he demoted?
A.- Well, yes, he was transferred to the Waffen SS.
Q.- And you know where Fischer is; or, do you have -- have you heard anything about his whereabouts?
A.- No, I assume and I mentioned that in my interrogation, in fact I am almost certain that he must have died in Berlin.
Mr. La FOLLETTE: That is all BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, I would like to ask you a few Questions.
A. Yes, do.
Q. You said that telephone call came from Berlin?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Fischer smoke about a phone call from Berlin, can you tell from what office he was speaking?
A. No, I can't tell you that.
Q. According to his official position Dr. Fischer was SS Oberfuehrer?
A. He was an SS Oberfuehrer and Inspector of the Security Police in Berlin.
Q. Therefore, he must have been subordinate to the RSHA?
A. Yes, without any doubt.
Q. You said Fischer had told you he had been rung up by the General Public Prosecutor?
A. Yes, by the General Public Prosecutor or that it had been a phone call from his office.
Q. Did he mention any names?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. You said you had thought that was the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin. Was he mentioned or on what did you base that assumption?
A. Well that is the only thing I can imagine that could have happened because he was in Berlin, he was in Berlin to the end.
Q. In reply to Mr. La Follette's question you said that Dr. Fischer had not spoken of an order with which he had been entrusted?
A. No.
Q. You were a Kriminalrat with the Gestapo, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Can you say whether a General Public Prosecutor can give any instructions at all to the RSHA?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object because it calls for a conclusion of this witness as to rights under the law with which he is not acquainted and to which they are not pertinent. Whether or not he could give an order is not relevent to this issue. The fact is: he testified he received a phone call and which constitutes an argument as to the nan who called which is not at issue.
THE PRESIDENT: The first question is who it was who called him but I think he might be permitted to state, if he knows, whether the call was an authorized one under the procedure. If you know whether the General Public Prosecutor had the authority you may state it.
DR. SCHILF: Witness, you may answer.
THE PRESIDENT: If it should be a fact there was no authority it does not militate against the other fact if the call was made. This is cross examination and he may inquire as to the knowledge of the witness concerning the authority, if any.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Do you understand, witness? Will you please answer my question whether a General Public Prosecutor had the possibility to issue instructions to the people at the RSHA, for example, Dr. Fischer?
A. Not in my view,no.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you for testimony. I am merely asking you what is your contention as to who the person was who is alleged to have rung up Fischer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought the witness stated it was the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin as I understood him.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you what your contention was as to the name of the person who called up?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: My contention is that there was only one Public Prosecutor in Berlin and his name was Hansen. I don't know that this witness knows his name.
THE PRESIDENT: His name was Hansen?
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Do you know the name of the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin at that time?
A. No, I didn't know the name.
Q. Bat this was the General Public Prosecutor at the Kammegericht in Berlin, is that right?
A. Yes, that is a supposition on my part. I can't tell you for certain whether it was the General Public Prosecutor of the Kammergericht. I can only assume that because the inspector was rung up by the General Public Prosecutor without giving any of the details.
Q. That is right, but the fact remains Fischer did tell you he had been called by the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin?
A. Yes, he told me that the General Public Prosecutor had called him up.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. May it please the Tribunal. May I ask one more Question?
Witness, did you know that in Berlin there were two General Public Prosecutors?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. There was the General Public Prosecutor of the District Court as well, did you know that?
A. No.
Q. And then there was the General Public Prosecutor at the Kammergericht, did you know that?
A. No.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't know what your Honors want. The Prosecution can introduce some rebuttal documents that are available if the Court wants to receive them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT. The Court will receive rebuttal documents if there is nothing else to receive at this time. We have already stated we desired that the defense should complete their defense before rebuttal but if the defense is not prepared to proceed we will receive your documents now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Would you give me about five minutes to go and select the documents which I know are ready that I may bring them in.
THE PRESIDENT: We see a large assortment of documents on the table. Some counsel must claim them.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, at lunch time today I found that a document book for Dr. Metgenberger had arrived but in bad order as concerns Volume I. They are Quite incomplete in the English translation, that is to say a number of pages are missing, some of them have just been mixed up in the way they are stapled and I am afraid that the Tribunal wouldn't like it if I introduced these documents in their present shape. Therefore. I would ask you if you won't give me a chance to put them right first. All Quarters have told me that the document book cannot be properly offered in the form which the General Secretary has before him. I cannot introduce it because the pagination is out of order and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: When can you be prepared to offer them?
DR. SCHILF: I think I should be ready by tomorrow and at the latest by the day after tomorrow but I cannot at this moment judge the technical difficulties which may possibly arise.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, are all of the documents which you have Mettgenberg volume I?
THE SECRETARY: No sir, I am making a list now of some odds and ends here. I don't know what these mean myself, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General is in possession of Rothaug Book No. 10. What is the situation with reference to that?
DR. KOESSL: I can introduce Book No. 10. I would be able to do so but I discussed the matter with a member of the Prosecution and as far as he knew Book No. 10 had not yet got into possession of the Prosecution.
Otherwise, I an quite prepared to introduce it now. I can do it immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have to hear from the Prosecution as to that, and Petersen Document No. 142 is with the Secretary General. There is an affidavit by Weinkauf, an Alstoetter document.
DR. ORTH: Your Honor, I think only one document can be concerned here and I am surprised that it isn't contained in the document books. I wonder if the document which is contained in the document book was not removed by mistake. The new Weinkauf document which I submitted with the request to put it in the book in place of the old Weinkauf document which is quite identical with the other one but the former defects of the first document were put right in the second document. I shall investigate the matter and when I have done so, I shall submit the document here.
THE PRESIDENT: We should like to have the defense prepared to attend to the matter of the Weinkauf affidavit, the Rothaug book No. 10, Petersen Affidavit No. 142, and the Oeschey Supplement No. 1. Will counsel be prepared to take care of those matters tomorrow?
The Prosecution may proceed, Mr. La Follette.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dy. Koessl has informed us he is prepared to introduce his book 10, but that he is not sure the Prosecution has seen it. Will you be ready to have it introduced tomorrow?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I will check your Honor and I think we can let it go in whether we have seen it or not if we can see a copy in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be prepared for that tomorrow?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor, May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: What is the next Prosecution number - 601. Your Honor as Prosecution Exhibit 601, which I offer to introduce in evidence, is document NG 2322. This is directed in rebuttal to a statement made in the affidavit presented by the Defendant Lautz.
THE PRESIDENT: These exhibits are not in a document book?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: They are not, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Exhibit 601, is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: In connection with the case of the defendant Schlegelberger, the prosecution offers document NG-2004 as Prosecution Exhibit 602.
JUDGE HARDING: Pertaining to what defendant?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Against the defendant Schlogelberger, Your Honor. This is an excerpt from "Deutsche Justiz", in which the defendant, on the 14th of July 1939, praised the achievements of the People's Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit -- 602, Mr. Wilson?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: This last Exhibit was 602.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: All right. As Prosecution Exhibit 603, the document NG-2282. That is a letter of the defendant Schlegelberger directing the procedure in plundering cases.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit 604, in rebuttal in the matter of Schlegelberger, NG-2218.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As Prosecution Exhibit 605, document NG-2276. These are certified photographs of action in raids of the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam on February the 22nd and 23rd, 1941.
I have three for the Court, and I will distribute as many as are left to defense counsel. I couldn't get but a limited number. Dr. Schilf, I know, will want one.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2284, the prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit 606.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2285 -
JUDGE HARDING: What defendant does that last exhibit pertain to?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That last one was against Klemm, Your Honor.
NG-2285 the prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit 607, which again is against Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2277, as Prosecution Exhibit 608, we now offer against the defendant Klemm, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes,
MR. LA FOLLETTE:NG-2483, Prosecution Exhibit 609, against the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2484 the prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit 610, against the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a German translation; this is in German.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It must be by accident. I must have given the wrong documents to the wrong group. I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, the document NG-2311, Prosecution Exhibit 611, against the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution next offers document NG-2480 as Prosecution Exhibit 612, against the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2481, as Prosecution Exhibit 613, against the defendant Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document 3333-PS, as Prosecution exhibit 614, against the defendant Klemm. The Prosecution's Exhibit 614, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2519, as Prosecution Exhibit 615.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
JUDGE HARDING: Is that 15 against Klemm?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Klemm, your Honor. Document 221PS as prosecution's Exhibit 616 against the Defendand Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 615 and 616 are received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document 3332-PS against the Defendant Klemm as prosecution's Exhibit 617.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Now your Honors, 3323-PS, prosecution's Exhibit 618.
THE PRESIDENT: 618 is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document NG-2310 as prosecution's Exhibit 619, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The following material, if the Court please, the prosecution offers as general rebuttal rather than against any particular defendant. Document NG-2163, prosecution's Exhibit 620.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Prosecution offers Document 2663-PS as prosecution's general rebuttal, Exhibit No. 621.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution now offers Document NG-2253 as prosecution's Exhibit 622 in general rebuttal. If your Honors please, that is a table which is of necessity written in German but the ranks, I think, are ascertainable to your Honors. It was part of the prosecution's opening statement. The prosecution now offers Document NG-2253 as prosecution's Exhibit 623, general rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't got that yet. We have just been handed several copies of Document 2155. I think that is a mistake perhaps.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am sorry, your Honor. We will have those returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Our last exhibit is 622.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor, and that should be NG-2253. I now offer NG-2252 as prosecution's Exhibit 623. Defense Counsel stated that they have no German copies of 622 which is NG-2253. That is a table of military and SS ranks and military judges which is found in connection with the opening statement. I simply wanted to make a document of it and we are presently short of mimeographed copies. If I can get them, I will deliver them to you -- but you already have them. I simply want to make a formal document of them, if you don't mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 623 is received as a memorandum.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution offers Document NG2155 as prosecution's Exhibit 324, general rebuttal. This consists of extracts from the General Assembly of the United Nations on genocide in the Nurnberg process.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution next offers Exhibit NG-700 as prosecution's Exhibit 625 in general rebuttal. That is the Hitler Decree of 3 September 1938 conferring power on the Ministry of Justice to grant pardons, about which we have had a good deal of discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 625 is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Prosecution now offers Document NG-1807 as prosecution's Exhibit 626, which is Reichsgesetzblatt 1940, June, which provided that the time spent in prison during the war would not count on the prison term.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Prosecution offers now Document NG1187, which is prosecution's Exhibit 627. This is an article by Freisler in Deutsche Justiz, 19 December 1941. The prosecution now offers Document NG-2485 as prosecution's Exhibit 628.
I will say to the Tribunal that this is simply excerpts from IMT, which we might have offered as judicial notice, but it's easier to do it this way or fairer to the Court than to read it. It's furnished in German and in English.
THE PRESIDENT: The text of the IMT, the Tribunal will take judicial notice of in any event, whether you put in excerpts or not. It's a public document. It's known to both the prosecution and the defense and the rules provide that we shall take judicial notice of it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: As prosecution's Exhibit 629, the prosecution offers Document NG-2467.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I may say that the prosecution is practically finished with the few scattering documents, one witness in chief; and cross examination of one defense witness, as far as I know, which has been requested.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until tomorrow morning at the usual hour.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 September 1947, at 1930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 September 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 Courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the notation be made.
Are you ready to proceed?
DR. ASCHENAUER (Counsel for the defendant Petersen): Mr. President, may I submit, from the supplemental volume, document 142, as Exhibit 138.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please.
Your next document is 138?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have Exhibit 138, Mr. Secretary?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yesterday I was told that the document had already been submitted to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is your document No. 138 also?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document 142.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: All my looks have been taken to the stenographers that I had yesterday. I can get them.
THE PRESIDENT: You have had Exhibit 138, have you?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I can't tell, sir, until I know what date it was submitted. Was it submitted yesterday?
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Tribunal received your Exhibit 138? Has it been handed up to us?
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is here, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And have you the copies?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The copies have already been distributed and submitted to the Secretary General. The prosecution has also received the translations.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Now that was a loose exhibit, was it? It was mot in a book?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, it is a loose document, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ORTH (Counsel for the defendant Altstoetter): Mr. President, the affidavit Weinkauff has been submitted to the Tribunal. I offer it in the place of Altstoetter document No. 28 of document book I, which was also an affidavit of Weinkauff. The original of the new affidavit has already been submitted to the Tribunal. However, by mistake, when the document book was put together, the old affidavit was not taken out and the new one was not put in. The difference between the two affidavits is purely a technical one. There was a question about the preamble to the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the numbers again, please?
DR. ORTH: Altstoetter document No. 28, document book No. I, page 99.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are substituting a new instrument for that?
DR. ORTH: A new document, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number?
DR. ORTH: The entire document book was number 1; it was received as Altstoetter Exhibit No. 1. It is Altstoetter document book number I, Altstoetter document 28, part of Exhibit No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.
The new exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, I should like to submit document book No. X. That document book contains excerpts from the Loewe-Rosenberg commentary to the Code of Procedure.