I think that we can find the answer in two deep-seated characteristics of the German military mind. Whether the characteristics prove the inheritance of acquired characteristics, whether they spring from undiscernible geophysical factors, or whether they are the result of the curious and narrow training and indoctrination to which German officer candidates are subjected, one may leave to the educators, historians, psychologists and anthropologists. Today is the day of the jurists, and today it is sufficient to observe that the characteristics of which I speak led these men, and others of their caste, into crime.
One of these qualities is that their every thought and impulse is geared to a world in which Germany is at war, in which Germany is attacking and invading, in which Germany is conquering and occupying. Lacking such conditions, their world is in a state of suspended animation. Their martial fantasies have permeated German scholarship and, by the latter part of the nineteenth century, had thoroughly poisoned the most distinguished German minds. It was the great German historian and philosopher Treitschke who declared:1 It is not for Germans to repeat the commonplaces of the apostles of peace or of the priests of Mammon, nor should they close their eyes before the cruel necessities of the age.
Yes, ours is an epoch of war, our age is an age of iron. If the strong get the better of the weak, it is an inexorable law of life.
For the German militarist, other nations exist only to be conquered by Germany. They persist in the illusion that the other nations will benefit thereby, and are often sincerely puzzled when their occupying armies are treated coldly. This, too, we find Treitschke:la We Germans, who know Germany and France, know better what is good for Alsace than the unhappy people themselves, who through their French associations have lived in ignorance of the new Germany.
We will give them back their own identity against their will. We have in the enormous 1. J. H. Morgan, The German War Book, p.42 (1915) la.
Morgan, op. cit. supra. p. 46 changes of these times too often seen in glad astonishment the immortal working of the moral forces of History to be able to believe in the value of a plebiscite on this matter.
We invoke the men of the past against the present.
With such a point of view towards war and the rights of German conquerors, it is no wonder that German military leaders have little or no respect for the laws of war or the dignity of peoples who may come under their way. This is because they do not value, and in fact are contemptuous of, the reasons which underlie those rules. "If the strong get the better of the weak, it is an inexorable law of life, " This attitude shows only too clearly in the "German War Book" -- the manual of the usages of war on land, issued by the Great General Staff (Gorss General Stab) of the German army. In the introduction to this manual, we read:1 Nowadays it is not only the army which influences the spirit of the customs of war and assures recognition of its unwritten laws.
Since the almost universal introduction of conscription, the people themselves exercise a profound influence upon this spirit. In the modern usages of war, one can no longer regard merely the traditional inheritance of the ancient etiquette of the profession of arms, and the professional outlook accompanying it, but there is also the deposit of the currents of thought which agitate our time. But since the tendency of thought of the last century (i.e. the 19th century) was dominated essentially by humanitarian considerations which not infrequently degenerated into sentimentality and flabby emotion, there have not been wanting attempts to influence the development of the usages of war in a way which was in fundamental contradiction with the nature of war and its object. Attempts of this kind will also not be wanting in the future, the more so as these agitations have found a kind of moral recognition in provisions of the Geneva Convention and the Brussels and Hague conferences.
In this case, the second marked characteristic of the German officer caste comes into sharp focus - their profound contempt, mingled with fear, of the peoples of Eastern Europe. Again and again this emerges in the orders to their troops and the reports to their superiors. We hear this note in Keitel's order of September, 1941, declaring that "a human like in unsettled countries frequently counts for nothing". Von Weichs, when he inaugurated the 100:1 ratio a few 1. Morgan, op.
cit. supra, p. 54.
months earlier, responded, to the same inner feeling. These orders, too, are echoes of Treitschke, whose voice, spanning over half a century, is heard, to say:1 Each dragoon who knocks a Croat an the head does far more for the German cause than the finest political brain that ever wielded a trenchant pen.
What these men have never realized is that no caste, and no notion, however mighty, can hold the world in contempt and set its laws at naught. Their military downfall was due, in no small part, to crimes such as those with which they are charged.
What we have said may explain, hut it does not condone. We may try to understand, but it is not ours to forgive. What these men did they meant to do.
There are only 11 men physically present in the dock, but they do not stand there alone. In a sense, they are hostages for the judgment which history will pass on many others like them. But they are more fortunate than the hostages we have heard so much about today. They will not he punished for the crimes of other man. Centuries ago, Grotius wrote that "hostages should not he put to death unless they have themselves done wrong." That is the law of humanity, the law which they themselves are charged with transgressing. And that is the law under which they will he judged.
GENERAL TAYLOR: This concludes the statement, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: This, I take it, concludes the Opening Statement on behalf of the Prosecution. The Prosecution having stated that this concludes that portion of these proceedings, the Court will now give consideration to certain nations which have been presented to it concerning procedural matters, and a motion for continuance or adjournment for a certain period of time. The first motion which will receive consideration is that concerning the request for ferment of these 1. Garner, op.
cit. supra, p. 43.
proceedings to a later date, which has been presented by counsel for the defendant. We will hear from the defense at this time.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, Honorable Judges, the application in question is already in the hands of the Tribunal in writing. That is merely just an additional reason which I would like to add, which in my opinion will be the decisive one, so that the motion will be granted. The defense is engaged in obtaining evidence, and considerable difficulties have occurred in this connection, and because, up to the end of the month of June, two American camps were dissolved. The inmates have partly been released, and some of them were transferred to other camps so that the defense is not now in possession of the addresses of witnesses whom we wish to call. This, of course, is an additional difficulty and an additional reason which I would like to state in order to give additional weight to the application of the defense, and that is all that I wish to say in connection with that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to make some inquiries at this time. I understand that there are only three counsels who are affected.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, might I add that I should like to repeat the application with the agreement of all the defense counsels in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps Mr. Denney could make some reply at this time and expedite the matter.
MR. DENNEY: May it please your Honor, the application of which Dr. Laternser speaks is dated 11 July and was served on us, the Prosecution, last evening, and our memorandum in reply was given to the Secretary General this morning, just before the Court convened. At that time Dr. Laternser was given a copy in English, and I believe that it has not as yet been translated into the German. The motion, or rather the application, as presented by Dr. Laternser is signed by six of the nine counsel. The first point which is urged is the fact that at the present time most of the defense counsel are engaged in other trials, which are now approaching their conclusion.
To my knowledge the only trial which is presently approaching its conclusion is the Trial No. 1, before Military Tribunal No. 1, the United States against Karl Brandt and others. Three of the nine counsel who represent defendants in this cause have clients in cause No. 1 before Military Tribunal No. 1. They are Dr. Weissberger, Dr. Marx, and Dr. Sauter. The application for adjournment was signed by Dr. Weissberger and Dr. Marx, each of whom has one client in this cause, one of whom has one client before Military Tribunal No. 1, and the other of whom, Dr. Marx, has two clients before Military Tribunal No. 1. The third counsel appearing in this cause, Dr. Sauter, has two clients before this Court and two clients in causes before Military Tribunal No. 1, but it was not until Dr. Laternser's statement of a moment ago that we were advised that he joined in the application.
He did not sign the original application dated 11 July.
Secondly, the counsel for the defense urge that only one week will have elasped between the opening session , if no adjournment is granted, and the time when the proceedings were commenced by the arraignment. I might call the court's attention to the rules, the uniform rules of procedure, Military Tribunal of Nurnberg, 1 April 1947, OMGUS. Rule 26 provides, in part, to defense counsel representing multiple defendants, I quote--"No adjournment or delay shall be granted any defendant on the ground that his counsel is engaged in the trial of another cause before a separate tribunal."
Rule 4 of the same rules makes provision with reference to time intervening before servide and trial. This rule provides a period of not less than thirty days shall intervene between the service of the indictment upon a defendant and the day of his trial pursuant to the indictment.
There is no provision in the rules which makes it mandatory in a cause that there be any specified time between the arraignment and the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, more than sixty days, or over twice the statutory period, rather the time required by the rules, have elapsed since the indictment was served on the defendants.
As to the fourth ground urged by Dr. Laternser this afternoon, the fact that the Office of Military Government. United States for Germany, had dissolved two American camps and that they have had difficulty in obtaining addresses and hence have not been able to collect their evidence--it is submitted that they can continue to endeavor to collect evidence at the time that the case is going forward, which we anticipate will take several weeks.
Further, with reference to the documents, we plan to present approximately 325 in the Prosecution's Case, in chief, of these 428 have already been made available to the Defense Information Center and approximately 400 of these have been furnished for use of defense counsel prior to the first of July, and it is respectfully submitted by the Prosecution that the application for the postponement which has been made by defense counsel through Dr. Laternser be denied.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is not true that only three of my colleagues are active in other trials. Yesterday, I ascertained on a conference with my colleagues that there are six of them who are thus engaged, some of them in the medical trial, some of them in the SS trial and they are particularly overburdened with work at the moment since some of them are preparing their pleas and others are at present dealing with their own defense case.
There is one more point dealing with documents. Naturally, we have for some time had the documents of the prosecution for our perusal but those documents are so voluminous that during the short period which we had at our disposal we have had no opportunity for going through them as throughly as is essential for speedy and simple development of these development of these proceedings and that is all that I have to add to the application for an adjournment.
HR. DENNEY: Your Honor, please may I say one thing in reply to what Dr. Laternser said about other counsel being engaged? I mentioned only the military--or the medical case, because of the fact that paragraph one of the application reads as follows and I quote: "Host of the defense counsel are at present time still engaged in other trials which are now approaching their conclusion; in the physicians! trial, for example, the final pleadings will be hold by the defense next week (which is this week, this memorandum being dated t he 11th). For those pleadings, the presence of all the defense counsel is absolutely necessary."
I am not unaware that other counsel are acting in cases No.6, No.4 and.
No. 3. However, I have talked, with counsel for the prosecution in cases 4, 6, and 3, and have been advised by all of them that those cases are not approaching conclusion. Therefore, I would urge the court that Dr. Laternser's motion be limited to the specifications he makes in the first paragraph of his application to the effect that they are engaged in trials now approaching their conclusion. I was not aware that he was urging on this court the fact that other counsel have clients in other cases. I am, in fact, prepared to furnish the court with a list of co-counsel with Dr. Laternser who are in cases other than case one, but to my knowledge that was not raised by the application--or, so far as I was concerned, the question was not raised by the application.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion as presented will be considered submitted to this Tribunal and we shall rule shortly upon this motion. We shall not do so at this time.
INTERPRETER FRANCK: We did not hear you.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall repeat the statement that I previously made. The Tribunal will not rule upon this motion which has now been submitted at this time but we shall presently do so before the final adjournment of this Tribunal session. We shall now proceed with the submission of the second motion which concerns the seating of certain counsel for the defendants.
DR. LATERNSER: I believe, Mr. President, there is an erratic transition under way. The further application made by the defense is aiming at the cancellation of a measure which is intended, through which the defendants who, up to now, have remained in solitary confinement in the prison should be accommodated in pairs in solitary cells. As I heard of such an intention, I made an application to the effect that I am asking the Tribunal to decide that such a joint confinement of defendants of two in one cell should be refrained from, because the Defense----
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt, please? This Tribunal has not been furnished any such motion at this time. We have had presented to us an application concerning the seating of counsel, and that is-these two motions are the only ones that have been presented and sent to our respective offices.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite. Mr. President, the application which I have touched upon just now has been submitted to me in writing but I am able to present it to you immediately because the Defense is greatly interested in the decision about the application which we are now dealing with. In the event of the intended measures being carried out, the Defense would feel that their case would thus be limited and we wish to prevent such an occurrence from being realized.
Mr. President, as we have been informed, the defendants who up to now were accommodated in solitary confinement in the prison are now to be accommodated in pairs bf two in a solitary confinement cell. We have further been informed that the reason for such procedure is supposed to be that just recently there have been individual cases of attempted suicides. The realization of the measure which appears to be intended is objected to very strongly by the defense. Apart from the fact that it wouldn't be proper that one defendant should be made the watchdog for another defendant, the prison cells are only designed for one inhabitant and consequently their measurement is too small for two defendants. For that reason alone, the joining of two defendants in such a cell would represent a very severe measure which, psychologically speaking, would affect the defendants most unfavorably. In addition to that, on health grounds this measure would have disadvantages since this space is too small for two defendants and circulation too is restricted, particularly with regard to the trial which is now about to start, and which will make considerable demands to the mental powers of the defendants, everything must be avoided which would result in a disturbance of a defendant.
On the trial days, for instance, defendants only have the evening hours to afford them the opportunity to work through the record of the trial and to prepare for the next day. Since the lighting arrangement of the cells is done from the outside, however, defendants have had to make do of it, that they pushed their little table to the door through which the light was coming in. In that manner, at least one defendant can, in a make shift way read. A second table would not find room for such an arrangement in such a cell and certainly not get enough light for the second defendant too to be able to read.
I conclude, if therefore, this pending measure were carried out then this would have to be regarded as a considerable impediment of the possibilities of the defendants. Yet, the defense is of the opinion that something that has been possible up to now must also be possible if it is of even greater importance at this point.
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honor this is the first that the prosecution has heard about the intended re-arrangement in the jail and it is submitted that we have nothing to do with it. However, I am advised that the jail facilities are becoming somewhat crowded and that may, at least in part, account for the change of the billeting arrangements there. That is all we have to say about it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now give consideration to the matter of seating, of counsel and will give consideration later to the comments made by counsel for defendants and the prosecution. Do you wish to submit the matter of seating of counsel at this time?
DR. LATENSER: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, as my colleagues just tell me, we have no objection to the seating arrangement just as we find it here just now.
THE PRESIDENT: There has been presented to this Tribunal a motion which is signed by Dr. Laternser in which he requests that, "My assistant be permitted to take a seat next to me during the session of the Military Tribunal. Due to the fact that I have two defendants I may need the assistance of Dr. Lucht during the sessions." It was to this request that I made reference.
DR. LATERNSER: I have already been informed by Mr. Wartens, who is the defense administrator that this application has already been granted so I hadn't thought of it any more because I had already been told that it was all right and I thought the matter had been dealt with.
THE PRESIDENT: That being true the Tribunal does not find it necessary to give consideration to that matter. The court will stand in short recess while we give consideration to the matters as submitted.
We will not adjourn at this time but will return shortly.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I touch upon one point, about two minutes. As, Mr. President, you will no doubt have noticed, at the beginning of this afternoon's session there were very few defense counsel present. This was due to the fact that one hour for lunch interval does not suffice for us to eat. May I be brief in explaining why this is so. All counsel from all the trials eat in one mess. Since all trials adjourn simultaneously at 1230, at or about this time everybody crowds together so that it is difficult to get food quickly. I am awfully sorry to bring it up but there it is. I, therefore suggest that perhaps we might choose 1215 for the mid-day recess so that we wouldn't have to get mixed up in the crowd and we would then be able to manage with one hour, fifteen minutes luncheon recess. It can't be done any other way. So, my application is for adjournment from 1215 to 1330. I have been told that in other trials such lunch time recess has already been set at one hour and fifteen minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: I might say to counsel for defendants that the members of the Tribunal are also suffering from the same inconvenience at times, in finding our time is limited in connection with our lunch period.
DR. LATERNSER: But, Mr. President, we, the counsel, don't eat in this building. We have to walk about 500 yards, 4 - 500 yards , in order to get to the point where we eat.
THE PRESIDENT: May I make inquiry? Do you not think it might be well for the several Tribunals to give consideration to this request so that it might be worked out on a schedule basis rather than just this Tribunal alone.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite, Mr. President. That suits me, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall take it up with the presiding judges of the several tribunals.
DR. LATERNSER: Quite. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in short recess and will return later.
(a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the several motions on applications which have been presented, the Tribunal wishes to make the following announcements. As to the matter of adjournment for lunch so as to permit counsel for defendants to have sufficient time, we have decided that is a matter which should be taken up with the presiding judges of the several tribunals, and I shall do so and will report later, and if I should fail to do so, may I ask that counsel present the matter later.
In connection with the motion for -- or application relative to the placing of -- or rather the objection of placing the defendants two in a cell, the Tribunal wishes to state that there has been no formal motion or application presented, and in order that there may be a record in writing, the Tribunal will defer any ruling upon that matter until it is formally presented in writing.
In connection with the motion for a continuance or adjournment for a two-week period, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it should be denied, and it is denied. There has been some two months, or approximately two months, since the indictment was returned. Members of this Tribunal have been here for approximately one month. We do not wish to in any way limit or circumscribe the rights of any of these defendants, but we do feel that this case should proceed as promptly and as rapidly as possible. It will take some time for the prosecution to present its case, and after that, it will take some time for the defendants --the respective defendants to present their case; and we are of the opinion that during that period, all parties will have sufficient time to digest the documents which have been presented, will have sufficient time to contact the witnesses that are desired and to obtain these witnesses. If any necessity should arise or if a brief adjournment might be necessary at some later time, the Court will give some consideration to that matter;
but we feel that this Trial should proceed now, and that we should enter in with the presentation of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Therefore, the motion for a continuance for a two-week period as previously stated will be denied. In that connection, I also might state that we gave consideration to the fact that even though some of the counsel may be required to be absent for a day or a portion of a day, there is furnished to them copies of these proceedings and a transcript of all that has transcribed, and we do not feel that the rights of the defendants will in any way be effected. Court will therefore stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning at 9:30 at the place to which has been assigned the trial of Case No. 7 for Tribunal number 5, which is known to counsel for the prosecution, and I believe, to counsel for the defendants. The Tribunal will therefore stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 16 July 1947 at 0930 Hrs.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 16 July 1947, 0930, Justice Wennerstrum presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find-their-seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V 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, have you ascertained if all the defendants are in the courtroom?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Prosecutor, are you ready to proceed?
MR. DENNEY: May it please Your Honors, in order that the Court may be familiar with the process of procuring the documents which was indulged in by the prosecution, I would like at this time to have Mr. Fenstermacher, pro-counsel in the case, make a statement for the record with reference to the manner in which these documents were procured.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: May it please Your Honors, when the American army invaded Germany and the German army capitulated, we captured in Berlin most of the files of the German Wehrmacht. Those files were removed to Washington and they now repose in warehouses in or near Washington and the bulk of them, about 250 tons, are now in the Pentagon Building in Washington.
When we began to prepare this case, we hired about ten research analysts, people who understand the German language, to screen those documents and during the past six months those people have been going through these documents picking out those which relate to material in which we are interested in this case and sending them over to us.
We instructed the analysts working on this case to pick out certain excerpts and if they found a file of the army group "F", or a corps or division under it, we asked them to screen it, look for the material that was relevant and send over to us here in Nuernberg only that with which we were concerned.
We could not ship 250 tons of German documents here to Nuernberg. That was impossible.
Once the documents were received in Nuernberg, we had additional research analysts again screen them and again certain excerpts of these documents would be marked off and those excerpts are the ones which we have now had translated into English and which appear in the English version of our document books, and their German counterparts appear in the German document books. Those documents, once they were screened here in Nuernberg under the supervision of both a lawyer and other experienced research analysts, received a document number here.
Now, we have tried to be very fair in picking out excerpts. I instructed the people that were assisting me on this case; as they came across material in the documents which related to matters in which the defense would no doubt be interested, I instructed them to mark off those sections of the documents and to also translate those portions; and as they will appear in the English version of the document book, as we come to introduce them, it is our desire to read those portions which perhaps injure the prosecution's case; and should we fail to do that and the Court wishes to call our attention to it, I am sure we will read it into the record so that it will appear at that time.
We have then placed ourselves in somewhat of a trustee relationship with this material. We cannot bring it all physically from Washington to Nuernberg but we instructed our people in Washington and we instructed our people here to extract those portions which were relevant and material to the allegations which we have set forth in the indictment.
I think, Your Honors, that will give you somewhat of an understanding of the problem with which we were faced in screening this material and of the problem that was before us as to what documents and what excerpts to use. We tried to be completely objective about it and to protect, in screening this tremendous amount of material, the interests of the defense as well as of ourselves.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for defendant List): Your Honors, in reply to the statement made by the prosecution, I would like to state my attitude quite briefly because I think this necessary already at this stage of the proceedings. The prosecution has just said that that material which they had sent to Nuernberg from Washington was only material which interested the prosecution. Therefore, I can assume that mainly incriminating material was selected, a fact that I can well understand from the standpoint of the prosecution.
I would like, therefore, to ask that, first of all, the defense be given permission to go through that material which is now in Nuernberg so that we can proceed to the truth. I would, therefore, ask the Tribunal to have the prosecution let us, first of all, go through the material which the prosecution does not want to use here in Nuernberg.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendants Lanz and Geitner): Your Honors, in addition to the statements made by Dr. Laternser just now, I would like to make a concrete request. The prosecution bases its case to a large extent on war diaries, war diaries which the individual units of the German Wehrmacht made on the Balkans. In Germany -- and it is probably the same in America - each unit, each division, each regiment had to make an official war diary. These war diaries were, as far as I know, saved and are now in the hands of the prosecution. They are, of course, documents which have a special power of evidence and these war diaries are made for the purpose of being able to reconstruct all matters at a later time.
Now, most of the accused generals are, for the most part, dependent on these war diaries for information with regard to events which happened at that time and few of them -- I repeat -- and few of them made these war diaries for their own use, but for the troops, and therefore only few of the generals kept detailed notes about their experiences during the war time.
If we want precise statements about the events in the Balkans, it is urgently necessary that we have insight into these war diaries, i.e. of course as soon as possible, because these war diaries include many volumes and, if the defense is supposed to go through the diaries in time so that the progress of the trial is not delayed, then we must get insight into these war diaries as soon as possible.
Therefore, Your Honors, this is a concrete request which I am stating on behalf of my clients Lanz and Geitner. I think I am also speaking in the name of all the other defendants. Without these war diaries the defendants cannot make reliable statements about the places, times, and reports, and we want to help the Court to get the most reliable and precise reports and statements which each defendant here can confirm under oath. Therefore, Your Honors, I would like to ask that, as far as possible, you would have the prosecution let us have this material and make use of it.
MR. DENNEY: May it please your Honors, the material which we have here in Nurnberg has been furnished about 90 per cent to the defendants' counsel. They have much more material than we have here in the document books. We will certainly be glad to let them see the other five or ten per cent that we have not given them up to now. We can make an arrangement whereby they can go over it in the office, with one of the members of the staff for the prosecution.
Now about the request of Dr. Sauter, concerning the war diaries, these diearies are just running accounts of operational reports, and we have taken the material that has to do with a particular happening-the entries on either side of it in some cases, where they have a bearing on it, have been extracted and sent over, and I am not at all sure that we will be able to get all of the war diearies over from Washington.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire, Mr. Denney, has the defense counsel any representative in Washington?
MR. DENNEY: Not so far as I know, they do not.
THE PRESIDENT: Why don't they?
MR. DENNEY: I do not know, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further?
THE PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is of the opinion that these defendants should have access to all materials that they feel are essential for the defense of their respective clients; counsel should have access to the material. The Court is interested, and I am sure that all of the parties are interested in getting down to the real facts in the case, so that the attitude of the prosecution will be that this Tribunal wants to feel, when it has completed its deliberations and that defense counsel and defendants will also feel, that they have been given every opportunity to present their case in the manner in which they see fit.
Now when I make that statement, I trust that it will not be, -our liberality will not be abused. We are anxious to try this case as rapidly as possible, but the trying of the case rapidly must not sacrifice the rights of the defendants, and may I suggest that the spokesman for the defense, and the defendants contact the prosecution and work it out with them, for the obtaining of such additional material as they may feel is necessary, and if you should have any difficulties in connection with that material later, then you can present it to the court.