These are Rothaug Documents 211, 212 and 213.
THE PRESIDENT: If we can have the book we will receive them in evidence. Exhibits 212, 213 And 214 are received in evidence. That concludes all the exhibits in Document Book Rothaug 8?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now come to Book 11. Are there any objections to Exhibits 215 to 223 inclusive? No objections. They are received in evidence.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Exhibit No. 215 is not very clear in the photostat and, therefore, I would ask you, your Honors, to take a look at the original.
THE PRESIDENT: All those exhibits which I mentioned are received in evidence down to and including Exhibit 223, Rothaug Book 11.
DR. KOESSL: I should also like to point out that Exhibit 218 is a supplement for Document Book 5-A, and 21 belongs to Exhibit 214 in in Document Book 8. Exhibits 222 and 223 relate to Prosecution Exhibit 560.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Joel Book 5.
DR. HAENSEL: Karl Haensel for Guenther Joel.
Of Document Book 5 which the Tribunal has now before it, I give the first Document No. 74 on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait just a minute, please. Have those exhibits in Book 5 been identified before?
DR. HAENSEL: No, only the first three. The first three have been given provisional numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the last Joel exhibit which has been received?
DR. HAENSEL: 73 is the last exhibit which has been received, Exhibit 73. 74 had been given a provisional number and it refers to the Hardingen affidavit. It is Book 4 end the Document is 69.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the exhibit number?
DR. HAENSEL: 74.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you wish to give to Document 74?
DR. HAENSEL: 74 is the exhibit number. Thus document I am speaking of is not contained in Book 5. It is contained in Book 4- Now I want put everything right: Book 4, No. 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 70 on the 5 of September was given Exhibit No. 75.
DR. HAENSEL: 75 was the Brauchitsch affidavit, Book 5, No. 78 May I just say, by way of explanation, this Brauchitsch affudavit has been given the Number 75 provisionally. It is in Book 4, No. 70. The preamble has been put right in accordance with the court readings and it is now contained in Book 5, No. 78. The Exhibit No. will be 75,
THE PRESIDENT: Then your Document No. 74 should be Exhibit 76, shouldn't it? You have just stated that your Document No. 78 should be Exhibit 75; is that correct?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you have used the Exhibit 75 and your next number in exhibits would be 76, would it not?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what document do you wish to offer as 76?
DR. HAENSEL: My Document 77.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HAENSEL: But the three documents in the book before, the three preceding documents 75, 75 and 76 have already been given provisional numbers; therefore, they are not new numbers. The first being the Hoeller document, Document No. 74 was given the provisional Exhibit No. 21.
THE PRESIDENT: And what was the number for 75?
DR. HAENSEL: The provisional number for 75 was Exhibit 44.
THE PRESIDENT: And for 76?
DR. HAENSEL: 76 was identified as Exhibit 53. May I just point out that this is an affidavit by Gisevius, who lives in Switzerland, and this document was certified by a mayor in Switzerland. The Prosecution has told me that they are going to object. I have written again to the Gisevius, but not correction has get been received. Now, a decision hrs to be made as to whether this document will be received or not. That is -
THE PRESIDENT: I an completely confused in this matter, and I think not without reason. Is there an objection stated to Document 76 which has been marked for identification, I understand, as Exhibit 53?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, Dr. Haensel is quite right, We do object to the form of the document because it is completely lacking in any of the formal requirements.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the facts stated by counsel are controverted, the objection will have to be sustained.
Now, will you proceed with the offering of the documents in your Book V?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, The next document, Document No, 77, has been given the Exhibit No. 76. This is an affidavit by Meindl. If you will read now on, you will com to the Document 78, and, as we have already agreed, it will be Exhibit 75. We have just been talking about it.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it marked 75.
DR. HAENSEL: And there will be no difficulty with the subsequent numbers. Document 79 becomes Exhibit 77; this is the affidavit by Osterkamp. I just handed the document to the Prosecution and as far as I know, these documents are all right from the point of view of the Prosecution.
My Document 73 -- no, no; I mean my Document 80 in Book V will become Exhibit 78.
My Document No. 81, the Faber affidavit, Exhibit 79.
My Document No. 82, the Schiffelbein affidavit becomes Exhibit 80.
My Document No. 83, the Tondock affidavit, becomes Exhibit 81.
My Document 84, Martin affidavit, becomes Exhibit 82.
My Document 85, excerpts of the military service record of Joel, becomes Exhibit 85.
My Document 86, my own statement, becomes Exhibit 84.
Document No 87 becomes Exhibit 85, extracts of the seniority list of the SS.
My Document 88, the von Haacke affidavit, becomes Exhibit 86.
Document 89, the Died affidavit, becomes Exhibit 87.
Document 90, the Dr. Straeter affidavit, becomes Exhibit 88.
Now, we can go on to the next page, Document 91 becomes Exhibit 89.
No, 92 becomes Exhibit 90.
No. 93 becomes Exhibit 91.
No. 94 becomes Exhibit 92.
No. 95 becomes Exhibit 93.
Document No. 96 becomes Exhibit 94.
Document No. 97 becomes Exhibit 95.
And Document 98 becomes exhibit 96.
THE PRESIDENT: May I summarize the ruling on these exhibits? First, with reference to the first three exhibits which appear in the index to Document Book V, for the defendant Joel, they are how marked Exhibits 21, 44 and 53. 21 and 44 are received, and 53 is rejected for insufficient certification.
Can you tell me in what book Exhibit 44, the Document 75 is? Is that Book IV?
DR. HAENSEL: No, it is in Book V. It is the second document in Book V, but it was given a provisional exhibit number earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, it is received in evidence. Then, Exhibits 76 to 96, both Inclusive, are received in evidence. That means that all of the documents in your Document Book V, with one exception which we have indicated, are received in evidence.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, May I just point out that Exhibit 75 is my Document 78. Your Honor, you have just stated 76 and the following -- I am talking about the fifth document in this book.
THE PRESIDENT: 75 is received. Exhibit 75 is received
DR. HAENSEL: And I should like to say this: Exhibit 74 had been given a provisional number; it was originally in Book IV, as No. 69, and I am submitting it today.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. HAENSEL: There was something wrong with the signature before; but now I have concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the next documents to be received. Dr. Haensel, does that include all your Joel exhibits?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other books which can be received this afternoon? We will recess until
MR. KING: I have one small matter, Your Honor, namely NG-2410 -- if Your Honors have the English copy before you. If you don't, we can take it up tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document NG-2410?
MR. KING: Document NG-2410, Exhibit 596. I mentioned the fact this morning -
THE PRESIDENT: I have it here.
MR. KING: Yes, Exhibit 596. I mentioned -
THE PRESIDENT: You can make the correction; that is the Jansen case?
MR. KING: Yes, may I ask the Court first to turn to page 5 in the English, the signature under the figure 2 should be "Dr. Waldo", the signature at the very bottom of the page, under the District Court of Appeals the signature should be Dr. Waldo.
THE PRESIDENT: At the bottom of the page?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the first signature you refer to immediately below the figure 2?
MR. KING: It is under "The Presiding Judge of Penal Chamber 4", where it says "(signature) illegible."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.
MR. KING: Now on page 6, which is page 140 of the original at the bottom of the page the signature should be "Jauch". On page 7 at the top of the page under "The Presiding Judge of Penal Court 4", the signature is "Luhrsen". Then down at the bottom of page 7 right above "trial", that should be "Jauch".
Now turn to page 9, it is page 141 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 9, you say?
MR. KING: Page 9 in the English copy. That signature under "Attorney at Law Schwarz & Hennings", should be"Dr. Walter Hennings."
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently it is Dr. Hans Henning here.
MR. KING: That is correct, it should be "Dr. Walter" and then four lines further down under the lower case "b" the illegible signature there should be "Dr. Waldo", and turning to page 11 in the English which is page 146 of the original, near the bottom of the page, opposite "The President of the Small Penal Chamber No. 4", the signature which is indicated as illegible should be "Dr. Waldow."
Again on, now on page 12, that is also page 146 of the original, the signature very near the bottom of the page just above stamp, should be "Jauch" again.
On page 13 of the English copy, page 151 of the original, near the top of the page under 9 November 1935, that signature should be "Dr. Waldo", and at the very bottom of the page under "The President of the Small Penal Chamber 4" should be "Dr. Waldo".
And on page 14 of the English, page 151, on the reverse page 151 of the original, under "Hamburg 9 November 1935" two corrections: The sentence which now reads "for the correctness of the copy by order" should read "The Chief Public Prosecutor", and under that the signature should be "Jauch" again.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean we should strike out the words "for the correctness of the copy by order"?
MR. KING: That is right, Your Honor. These were abbreviations which were mis-translated by the original translator.
THE PRESIDENT: And insert what words, "The Chief Public Prosecutor"?
MR. KING: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you filling in the illegible signature under E on page 14?
MR. KING: That we can't apparently figure out either, and near the bottom of the 15th page, 152 of the original, near the signature should be "The Attorney Bohlen". And then on page 23 of the original copy, that would be on page 153 of the original/
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page number?
MR. KING: 23 there is a correction at the top of the page. You will find the notation "rubber stamp", 11 February" and instead of 1933 it is 1936, and then in approximately the middle of the page in English you find the words: Hamburg, Chief Public Prosecutor" and that should be Dr. Schubert, and now at the very bottom of the page, just above the last line we find the signature, one signature should be Kreiss, and then there is a second one which is illegible still to us, and a third one which is Bock. While we are on that page just above those signatures appears the line:
"District Court, Lower Criminal Chamber IV", that should be the "Small Criminal Chamber".
THE PRESIDENTS: There is that?
MR. KING: Just above the signature, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 23?
MR. KING: Yes, and now on the next page 24 of the English copy, which is 179 of the original, there are several additional corrections. First, opposite the "2" with the parenthesis mark near the top of the page: "communication to be made to " and that should be "local court". Then in the same paragraph on the next to the last line, "The District Court in Hamburg, Lower Criminal Chamber IV", should be changed to "Small penal chamber IV", and then right opposite the IV followed by the parenthesis mark should be the name "Drescher", who was the General Public Prosecutor, and then under "Hamburg, 19 February 1936", "Chief Public Prosecutor of the District Court", that should be Dr, Schubert, and then under the last line there are some that we cannot decipher, one however is Jauch again, J-a-u-c-h.
THE PRESIDENT: Where you said that these names should be inserted, you mean that they are signatures?
MR. KING: They are signatures or initials which can be identified positively as the names which we have given you.
DR. KOESSL for Defendant ROTHAUG:
Mr. King by mistake used the name Rothaug instead of Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: At what time and place was that mistake made?
DR. KOESSL: On the first page of the document, no it was at the beginning and it must have been page 8 or 9.
MR. KING: If I pronounced Jauch as Rothaug, I apologize.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no Rothaug down in this exhibit at all.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that I don't know for certain whether the Jansen document which was presented here a few days ago had the same size as the document which is now being presented.
A few days ago I had a document which dealt with only a very fey; events and it is possible that supplements have been added now and I should be glad that supplements have been added now and I should be glad if I could have the document and compare it if any additions have been made and I should like to give my opinion on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, the document which I have in my hand we were asked this morning to bring to the bench. We brought it, it is the identical document I marked 596 at the time when it was first presented.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: When Hr. King says that it deals with the same matters as the document which was presented a few days ago and Dr. Rothenberger has commented on it
THE PRESIDENT: So far as the English copy is concerned I brought a copy from the office and made the corrections on the original which I marked 596. However, you are entirely at liberty to check anything you desire and if there is any error we will correct it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am quite satisfied because you have mow given me an assurance. I only want to make quite certain because it is a long document and I want to be absolutely certain.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be glad to have you make any investigations you want to, including the copy which I have.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Mettgenberg documents are ready and we will expect to have them offered tomorrow morning at nine-thirty, until which time the Tribunal will recess.
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 26 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 court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if all the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please, Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Let notation be made. I believe there was some documentary evidence, Dr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF (For the Defendant Mettgenberg): Document Book I, Mettgenberg is available now in both the German and English texts. May I ask that I be permitted to submit the numbers one to nine, which numbers have been reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
DR. SCHILF: The first document from Document Book I contains the so-called directives for criminal proceedings; a general decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of the 13th April, 1935. It is a very extensive document, but here in this excerpt only the main tasks of criminal procedure are quoted. It is also of importance for the general defense, for subject No. 5 of the general defense. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 1, for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your GV-5?
DR. SCHILF: Yes,
THE PRESIDENT: In document book I.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: On page 6 of Document Book I is the beginning of the second document, an excerpt from criminal administrative directives; this is also a very extensive book, and these directives are listed in a table of contents; only that table of contents is reproduced in this document in order to afford the High Tribunal an opportunity to see what was the sphere of work a sub-department, sub-department IV of the Ministry. For that reason this document is also to be listed under the subject 5 of the general defense. I am offering it as Exhibit No. 2 for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one begins on page 16 of Document Book I, ans is an excerpt from the commentary on the penal code of procedure by Dr. Otto Schwarz. May I say that also the Prosecution referred to that commentary frequently, when referring to provisions of the penal code or the code of penal procedure. In this excerpt provisions are reproduced concerning the execution of the death sentences in Germany, with amendments up to the year 1944. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. SCHIIF: The next document, beginning on page 18 of Document Book I, for Mettgenberg, is an excerpt from the American Army paper, "Stars and Stripes" of the 29th of May 1947. It contains a report about the execution of a death sentence which was pronounced by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau, and shows that for reasons which are not given here, the execution had to be delayed. That document is introduced because the Prosecution has introduced many documents concerning the procedure of execution. I am offering this document as Exhibit No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection, it is received.
DR. SCHIIF: On page 20, the next document is an excerpt from the Reich Law Gazette of 1931.
It is an announcement concerning the extradition treaty between the German Reich and the United States of America, of the 14th April, 1931. To that announcement there is attached an appendix in English and German of the agreement concerning extradition between Germany and the United States. On page 34 the Court will find the name of the defendant, Wolfgang Mettgenberg, who as a delegate negotiated that treaty with the delegate of the United States on the 12th July, 1930. I am offering that document as exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: On page 35 there is an excerpt from Pfundtner-Neuberg excerpts from the law for a change in German extradition of the 12th of September, 1933. This is a change which took place in the year 1933. I am offering that document as Exhibit No. 6 for Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next document is a brief compilation of the declaration of foreign governments, as well as treaties and agreements with foreign governments concerning the inter-state exchange of legal assistance in criminal cases, just as extradition, the inter-state exchange of legal assistance was the main field of work of Dr. Mettgenberg. I am offering that document about the introduction of these special publications as Exhibit No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The next one, beginning on page 40, is an excerpt from the publication "Deutsche Justiz" from 1940. It reproduces a decree concerning the exchange of legal assistance in civil cases with the former Polish territories now incorporated into the Soviet Union. That is submitted for the general defense to illustrate the legal conditions referring to the occupied Polish territory, and which found expression also in the exchange of legal assistance between Germany and the Soviet Union. There is an appendix attached to the agreement between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Republics concerning the exchange of legal assistance in civil cases of the 12th October, 1925; the decree of 1940 is based on this agreement, and takes into account the conditions existing after the partition of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union.
I am offering these documents as Exhibit No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: The last one is an affidavit by the brother of the defendant Dr. Mettgenberg about personal experiences and observations he made and about the work of Mettgenberg, concerning his investigations about the interpretation and application of the Nurnberg laws. I am offering that as Exhibit No. 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, this covers the remaining Dr. Mettgenberg, with the exception of a few documents which are not yet translated that I will have to submit later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SCHILF: There is only one supplement that I have to submit for the defendant Klemm. In his document Book IV, No. 36 has already been marked for identification; it is an affidavit by Hans Mueller. When a few days ago I submitted the balance of the document books for Klemm, I did not have the original. The translation, that is the English translation, is already in the hands of the Tribunal, as Exhibit 36 for identification. I now submit the document to the High Tribunal and ask that it be accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: Your Honors, the exhibit which you have just received, we have no objection to its admission if perhaps the affiant could be better identified. The affidavit appears to have been taken in Nuernberg on 15th July, 1947, but there is no indication of the affiant's address. If Dr. Schilf can give us a little more information, I think it would be very helpful.
DR. SCHILF: It is an affidavit by a man named Hans Mueller. He was formerer a judge with the district court of appeals at Munich. At the time when he signed that affidavit, on the 15th July, 1947, he was here in Nuernberg in the witness house.
THE PRESIDENT: His name is Mueller?
DR. SCHILF: Mueller, Hans Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 36?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHILF: Then, at this time I have no further documents to a submit.
MR. KING: Your Honors, it appears from a further conversation with Dr. Schilf that the witness Mueller was in the witness wing of the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to offer two affidavits for identification; two documents for which I have not yet received the translations. One is an affidavit by the retired Ministerialrat Dr. Marx; and the second one is an affidavit by the judge Dr. Walter Harnsen, director of the district Court in Hamburg. I have an affidavit from the latter, but it is not in accordance with the regulations, so that I have to get another statement from him, which is in the proper form. Besides, I have two or three statements which I still have to submit. Any firther affidavits, I do not expect to get. Whatever I have, I shall be able to submit even before the 13th of October.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any identification numbers for the affidavits of Marx and Harnsen?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am sorry, Your Honor, I don't have my folder here, but if I remember correctly, I believe the last one was No. 85. If the Secretary General would be so kind as to tell me -- I think it was 85.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibits to be -- are the originals here to be marked?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: For these I have the original here, but it is not in the right form, but I could ask that the numbers be marked for these two exhibits; it would be --85 was the last one; therefore, the affidavit by Marx, for that I ask that the number 86 be reserved; and the affidavit by Dr. Walter Harnsen, for that I ask that 87 be marked.
MR. KING: May it be marked for identification now?
THE PRESIDENT: Have it marked for identification now, that will be the ruling. Let them be marked 86 and 87 respectively; Rothenberger exhibits.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other documents to be offered today?
DR. GRUBE: Mr. President, I have one more affidavit by the attorney Dr. Zitter from Vienna, and which I would like to have marked for identification for Lautz. Since I don't have my folder here, I am not in a position to remember what number the exhibit would be. If I remember rightly, my last exhibit was Exhibit 265.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are not sure, it will be advisable to offer it and identify it on the 13th--if you are not sure of the number. We will make a notation that you have asked for it at this time.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that we are in a position to rule that the offering of verbal testimony by both Prosecution and the Defense is closed. Before we make that ruling, is there any objection?
The offering of verbal testimony by both Prosecution and Defense is closed.
Are there any other matters that counsel desire to present before we proceed to a different question? I anticipate that it may not be possible for the Tribunal to completely satisfy all counsel as to the matter of time of arguments. Before we announce our decision on that matter, we will hoar any suggestions which the parties desire to make.
MR. KING: If Your Honor please, this does not pertain to the subject about to be introduced. I wonder if Your Honors had a ruling on the matter of the Segelke affidavit, or, do you prefer to discuss that later?
THE PRESIDENT: In its present form as a general rebuttal affidavit, the offer of the Prosecution is rejected, if there be may matter which is limited solely to the function of cross examination or to the equivalent of cross examination of the Defense, the exhibit which I think was 37 -
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be offered in a modified form or in part.
MR. KING: Under those circumstances may we request Exhibit No. 37 we saved for the affidavit by Dr. Rothenberger, be stricken.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is denied.
We will hear from counsel with reference to their wishes concerning argument.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In a previous discussion it has already been pointed out that the translation for the final plea will probably be confronted with great difficulties. Of course these difficulties also exist for the defense, and we believe, therefore, that this could be handled in the following manner and serve our purpose. We intend to submit the final pleas in writing in German.
That will occur in time one or two or three days before the date when the final plea will be delivered. The German text will be given to the Interpreters so that they will have an opportunity to look at the test first and to examine it for difficult passages for translation. Possibly in a discussion with the Interpreters there will be an opportunity to have the difficult passages pre-translated in writing so that it could also be submitted to the Court in English. After these preparations have been completed we believe that the final plea could be submitted orally without any difficulties.
Since the final pleas cannot be pre-translated the necessity will arise that the time for the final pleas should not be limited. It is, of course, very difficult before the work has been completed to make a prediction as to how long the individual defense counsel will want to speak in delivering it's final plea, but all that I have heard from my colleagues shows that defense counsel know full well that it is not the quantity and length which marks the importance of the final plea, and, therefore, in their own interest they have to apply a limitation, but since it cannot be predicted for the individual how much time he will need I ask the Tribunal not to establish a time limit. I am fully convinced that the week beginning the 13th of October, during which at first documents will be submitted, during which the Prosecution also will submit it's final plea, will be quite sufficient for all the final pleas.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask in some at least of the preceding trials the individual defendants have been accorded the privilege of a ten minute statement to be given by themselves personally. Do the defendants in this case desire the privilege of making, not an argument upon the whole facts, but a brief statement such as has been permitted in some of the other cases?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: As far as I am concerned I consider it a matter of course, that the last words by the defendants should be very brief. I am convinced that the majority of the defendants do not even need ten minutes for that.
THE PRESIDENT: They desire the privilege of making a brief statement, by themselves, do they?
DR. KUBOSCEOK: Yes, Your Honor, as far as they want to avail themselves of that privilege, but I am sure that will not take long. That will take a very short time.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution desire to be heard on this matter?
MR. KING: No, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that the business of the Tribunal for this day is concluded. We will take a ten minute recess and make a statement concerning the natter of an argument after that time.
Ten minutes recess, gentlemen.
(A ten minute recess was taken)