That is the same plant as mentioned in the earlier entry. This shows that, because of a certain sabotage act which accidently reached Hitler's knowledge, there were two phone calls: What happened in retaliation, what reprisal measures were carried out, et cetera.
I would now like to turn to the next document which is Document 86 on page 15 of Geitner Document Book IV and this will be submitted under exhibit number Geitner 71. Of particular importance is the entry of 4 November 1942 on page 15 which says:
"Chief rejects request by Croatian Liaison officer, Captain Andric, that former Police Chief of Semlin, Redl, who has fled to Serbia, be handed over to the croats."
This seems to be a proof for the firm attitude shown by the defendant von Geitner towards requests which he believed he had to reject from his innermost feelings.
The next one is dated 5 November 1942 and this again shows the activities of the Chief of Staff: that is, Geitner who, for instance, commissioned the Chief Military Administrative Councillor Ranze to investigate the grain collection in the region around Topola and, I quote: "to what extent the population is able to supply its won needs after giving up these amounts."
This happens to be a proof how the alleged plan of Geitners to exterminate and starve the Serbian population looked in actual fact.
The next entry again is typical for the attitude shown by the generals in Southeast and I quote: "Commanding General has made decision that proceedings should not be taken against families of arrested persons."
The General in Serbia and his Chief of Staff apparently dissociated themselves from Hitler's ideas; namely, that on the basis of the order concerning the liability of the next of kin proceedings should be taken against families of arrested persons.
The next paragraph to which I would like to draw attention is one dated 15 of November 1942 and this deals with the already discussed problem of improvement of organization, unified leadership, fighting of the corps, existence of agencies, et cetera.
The entry of 18 November 1942 is on page 15 of the English document book. It says:
"Captain Karcher, Chief Quartermaster in charge of prisoners of war, reports to the Commander that no explanation was given him concerning the deported individuals Tribodjanin and Djaric, suspected of being followers of Draja Mihailovic who have now, however, escaped from the train in Zagreb."
This again is a report by which the defendant would like to show that he interested himself for Draja Mihailovic suspects so that these people simply would not be put up against a wall and shot but instead be treated as prisoners of war and transported to prisoner of war camps. The defendant asserts that just because of such an instance he came into difficulties because it became apparent through the escape of two people that they had been treated as prisoners of war.
The entry contained on the next page, page 60, dated 22 November 1942 shows the protest of the defendant von Geitner against excesses of the Bulgarians. The next entry of 25 November again deals with the transport of partisans as prisoners of war. In stead of simply shooting them, it says in this entry?
"Request" -- which is the request made by the Chief to the Commander -- "for introduction of 2nd prisoner of war transport."
This brings me to the next document which is Document 87 on page 18. This will become Geitner Exhibit No. 72. It is Geitner Document No. 87 on page 18 in the Geitner Document Book IV and it will become Geitner Exhibit 72.
The entry under the date 11 December 1942 on this page 18 shows the care for refugees taken by the defendant as, for instance, he looked after 1500 Serbian refugee children.
The entry of 19 December 1942 reads: "Commander goes on leave and is represented by Commander of 714th Infantry Division, Major General Dippold, in routine business by Chief."
The defendant wants to show through presenting this entry that what he stated on his examination is correct which is the same as was stated by General Foertsch and that as that the Commander was represented while on leave, not by the Chief of Staff, but instead by the ranking troop commander in the area.
The next entry refers to the well known Mladenovac incident which is dealt with in Document 969, Exhibit 237 in Document Book XV ** of the prosecution. This surprise attack in Mladenovac resulted in reprisal measures at the time as is known and this entry in the war diary shows as confirmation of the correctness of statements made by Geitner -- namely, that the reprisal measure taken then were ordered not by Geitner because the Commander didn't happen to be present but instead by General Dippold who deputized for General Bader. The entry reads:
"As representative of the Commander, General Dippold approves 50 shootings for 2 German officers wounded in attack in Mladenovac by Bosnian Communists."
The next entry deals with the same instance. It is dated 25 December 1942 and is contained on page 160 of Geitner Document Book IV. I quote:
"General Dippold approves the shooting of 25 Communists captured in reprisal for SS guards wounded in an attack in Krusovac."
The following entries go to prove welfare measures taken by General von Geitner for the Serbian workers. Amongst these I particularly like to draw attention to the entry of 31 December 1942 on page 18 and the entry of 5 January 1943 on page 19. The defendant von Geitner made use of every available opportunity to draw the attention of competent authorities to the needy situation of the Serbian population and Serbian workers.
I would now like to draw attention of the Court to 1 January 1943 which says and I quote:
"Decision: No hostages are to be taken from the district of Kos. Mitrovica since no cases of sabotage, etc. have occurred in this district up to now."
This entry is contained on Page 19 of Geitner Document Book 4. The defendant, in submitting this entry, wants to show that the commander with whom he is supposed to be co-responsible in this connection made every effort to be correct in his treatment of hostage problems. The next entry which I would like to read, the last entry contained on Page 19 of Geitner Document Book 4, is dated 30 January 1943. " 1 Oral report to Commander: On new arrangements for proceedings in connection with reprisal measures." If Your Honors please, this entry seems to me to be of particular importance for the evaluation of the position and responsibility of the defendant von Geitner. In his examination here, he has stated that he, as chief of staff -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I stopped at document 88, which is Exhibit No. 73, and it is on Page 19 of the English document book. I led your attention to the 30th of January 1943, where it says, "01 oral report to Commander: On new arrangements for proceedings in connection with reprisal measures." The significance of this entry for the defendant von Geitner is in the following, in his personal examination he said that with reprisal measures he had nothing to do, and that he was not competent for these measures. This was the result of the jurisdiction of the authorities, and he also said for the reprisal measures there was an officer, a special officer, an administrative officer, who was Dr. Bode, and in this case, who was in the staff of the commanding officer and who was called 01.
Now, here we see accidentally in these documents which have arrived from Washington an entry which confirms this statement, that is, not the chief of staff reported to the supreme commander concerning reprisal measures, but this 01. The next document is 89, on Page 20. It has the exhibit number 74. Here we see, apart from a few miscellaneous entries about medical care, for instance, the entry of the 10th of February 1943, "Revocation of the reprisal order for destruction of Krusevac Aleksandrovac telephone line, since it involves an ordinary theft of copper wire." Here again we see that not arbitrary reprisal measures were taken, and that it was regarded as absolutely certain to rescind such reprisal measures if their unjustifiability was proven. In the entry of 15 February 1943, and of 17 February 1943, also on Page 20 of the English document book, it says, on the 15th of February, "Chief flies to conference of chiefs with Commander in Chief for South-East in Salonika," and the entry on the 17th, two days later, "Chief reports to Commander upon return concerning conference of chiefs in Salonika."
From the quotation, it can not be recognized for what purpose this document has been submitted. The purpose, however, becomes clear from comparison with the document in the Prosecution Document Book 24 on Page 115, NOKW 1755, Exhibit 537. This document which I quote has been submitted by the Prosecution, because on the 16th of February 1943, under that date, it contains the following entry, which has been read here by the Prosecution, and I quote from this quotation, this is Document 1755, Exhibit 537, the entry of 16 February 1943, "The civilians who have been arrested after the murder of General Hensen are not to be deported for work because they are mainly innocent people concerned. As reprisal prisoners, the 400 Communists are to be shot who are now in the Camp Belgrade. According orders will be passed on to the commander of the 704th Infantry Division and to the supreme commander of the Security Police." That is the end of my quotation from this document NOKW 1755. Your Honors, this entry of 16th of February 1943 has been submitted by the Prosecution here in order to prove that the defendant Geitner was in some way or other connected with reprisal measures, took an active part in the shooting of these 400 Communists. Now, to our suprise, we see that the Prosecution deemed it correct not to mention the entry which was preceding this immediately, the entry of 15 February and the entry of 17 February, which follows, and not to submit this at all. It becomes evident from this entry, and this is why the defendant Gietner wants it quoted here, it is clear, as I say, that on the 16th of February 1943 he wasn't even present in Belgrade, but he was in Salonika. Von Geitner explained to me, and told me that he cannot understand why he should be charged with this document of 16 February, although the Prosecution saw from these quoted documents here that he was not presents.
I now come to the next entry, the entry of the 26th of February 1943, on Page 21 of Geitner Document Book IV. "Commander forbids SD counter-bands to appear in German uniform. Operations are to be stopped. Rule: Everything which increases unrest must be avoided."
The Defendant sees in this report a contribution towards the correctness and accuracy of his statement that the Supreme Commander, in agreement with him, did not confirm but actually forbade actions which were against International Law as, far instance, here the counter-action of operations of counter-bands in German uniform.
The next document is Document No. 90, on Page 22. It will receive Exhibit No. 75. It is again an excerpt from the War Diaries which have arrived here from Washington. The first few entries show the care Geitner and his Supreme Commander took for the population and the refugees. They make this quite evident. Furthermore, they also show his interest in combating black marketing, theft of harvest crops, etc. and measures against the seizure of food stuffs, etc. On the 19th of March 1943, on Page 22, you see an entry concerning dismissal of the Serbian district supervisor because of difficulties concerning the shipment of 18,000 tons of wheat, which the Defendant Geitner wanted to obtain for the population. Then, there are entries concerning the care of refugee camps; measures against Bulgarian incidents, riots, etc.; and entries which show the basic attitude of the Defendant von Geitner in a very characteristic manner. For instance, under the 31st of March 1943, "Commander approves return of 11 Serbian reserve offices from prisoner of war camp," to be free and to enter Serbia.
The next document is Document No. 91, on Page 24, which will receive Exhibit No. 76. It deals with ethnic struggles which went on between the Serbian and other population groups. Then, entries concerning attempts of the Supreme Commander of Serbia and his Chief of Staff to maintain the German troops in strong positions in order to save the population and not to have to carry out reprisal measures.
For instance, the entry of the 26th of April 1943-- and I quote: "Chief of Staff; Telephone conversation with Chief of Staff of Army Group. The Chief calls further weakening of German forces in Serbia dangerous. Chief of Staff of Army replies, Commanding General in Serbia has to make do forces at his disposal, if necessary limiting to recurring the Danube security, the main lines and Bor."
Then, the entry about the constant struggle with the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Now, I come to Document No. 92. This is a document sent from Washington, and it is on Page 25, and it will become Exhibit No. 77. Again it displays the straggle of Geitner and his Supreme Commander against ill conditions in his own ranks and files, and the care taken for the population. For instance, on the 14th of May 1943, on Page 25 -- and I quote: "Discussions about food situation with Administration Chief Keyser, Plenipotentiary General for Economics, Department Chi Boenner, Administration and Chief of Staff. Government has taken over the supply for the towns. Commander orders that assistance should be given, if necessary."
It says that the measures were taken so that in an emergency case the population would have drawn on rations of the Army, allegedly as the Prosecution says, in order to starve the population. An entry on Page 26, dated the 25th of May, at the top of the page concerns discussions between the Defendant Geitner and a number of officials, and the Defendant says: "Exchange of PW's for Serbian organizations to be approved, excepting active officers." The Defendant wants to prove with this that he, all the time, tried to have PW's released. He attaches particular value to this because now we see in Germany how much a people is to suffer when PW's are not being released.
The next document is Document No. 93, which will become Exhibit No, 78. It is on Page 27. The entry of the 18th of May 1943 is of special significance, especially under Nos. 1 and 3. It says: "Military Commander: Discussion with Chief of Staff, Standartenfuehrer Dr. Schaefer and Special Mission Officer of the Strategic and Tactical Planning General Staff (0 1) about new rulings concerning the execution of reprisal measures: 1. To retain present quota, in case of lack of hostages, central execution by Security Service (SD). (Fictitious shootings (Schattenerschiessungen)." And, then, No. 3 says: "Taking away of cattle because of economic considerations only in exceptional cases."
The Defendant Geitner points out that hare documentary evidence has been presented not only for the fact that an 0 1 -- that is a Radical Planning General Staff --was competent to deal with such measures, but that actually it attempted to carry out fictitious shootings or mock executions in order to be able to evade reprisal measures. This matter was discussed in detail when the Defendant Geitner was examined in the witness-stand. I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to this. This excerpt which has just been mentioned states under Figure 3 the care he took for the maintenance of the Serbian stock.
The next document is Document No. 94, on Page 28, which will receive Exhibit No. 79. I do not want to read the first few entries. They show the measures taken by the Defendant Geitner and his Commander in Chief against ill conditions, especially at OT (Organization Todt). That was the organization which also had to deal with mines and such conditions. The entry under the 23rd of June 1943 says:
"Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner because of reprisal measures in Krusevac, Military Commander demands District Commander to be consulted for the selection of the hostages."
Here we see on the one side the exaggerated activity of the Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner, who could hardly be satisfied, and on the other side the activity of the Military Commander Serbia in an attempt to prevent measures taken by Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner, as far as possible.
The next entry of the 24th of June 1943, again, shows the attempts of the Commander in Chief Serbia and his Staff to fortify the German unit in Serbia so much that no reprisal measures would be carried out or at least an effort to reduce them to a large division. A German division is asked for in the Army unit, but I think, without avail.
To Document No. 95, on the next page. Your Honors -- Page 30 -I shall give Exhibit No. 80. From this document we see, first of all, from the entry of the 2nd of July 1943, the special care of the generals in Serbia for the population, especially in the interest cf Serbian agriculture and in the interest of food supply for the civilian population, which had to be safely secured. The entry of the 22nd of July 1943 again makes it quite evident that the legal attitude and the legal behavior of the rioters, who attacked German medical trucks. The entry on Page 31 again shows the care the Defendant took to support the population. Measures were discussed, it says under the 24th of July 1943, "concerning food supplies for the towns of Belgrade and Nisch, as far as consumers are concerned who do not provide their own supplies."And in the same discussion you see under the term "Chief", that is, Geitner, a new proof for the resistance of the Defendant Geitner as to the exaggerated measures imposed by the Four-Year Plan. As it says here, and I quote: "He stated to the administrative chief, without the slightest doubt, that before anyone would send any food supplies to the Reich enough supplies would he kept in order to prevent riots." You see the attempts of Geitner to maintain peace and order and to supply food and bread for the population, because then it is well know that people would be quiet under those circumstances. The further entries show Meyszer again as exaggerated agitator.
On the 27th of July 1943, for instance, he asks for the arrest of the families of the rioters -- something that had been refused by the Commander in Chief and his Chief of Staff on an earlier occasion. Under the 30th of July 1943, which is also on Page 31, I may again draw the attention of the Tribunal to the passage, and I quote: "Special Mission Staff Officer calls to inquire about reprisal measures."
You will remember that in another document, which has been submitted by me today, that this 0 1 is already mentioned as a special departmental expert, and here you see a very clear entry from which it becomes evident that 0 1, not the Defendant Geitner, was responsible for and dealt with reprisal measures to be carried out and that he has to report to the Commander in Chief about reprisal measures. The entry of the 30th of July 1943 again shows a case in which a Captain of the Serbian Volunteer Corps and 18 men were killed in an ambush by partisans.
Document No. 96. on Page 32, will become Exhibit No. 81. First, a few brief reports about bandits, where you will see, under the entry of 12th of August 1943, which refers accidentally to a count in the Indictment, regarding the location Arilje, which under the Figure "d" (small "d" for David), has been dealt with in the Indictment. I want to refer to and to limit myself to this count in the Indictment. I only want to draw your attention to the same page, to the entry under the 13th of August 1943, which, again, refers to the same operation near Arilje. The Commander of the unit concerned was summoned for the reporting, as becomes evident from this entry. And that report that this Commander made was mentioned under the 14th of August 1943. From this you can see that the Commander in Chief Serbia and his Chief of Staff tried to investigate such matters. The entry of the 13th of August 1943, still on Page 32, shows you the report of the Chief of Staff, a Lieut. Colonel von Dauberschmitt, who reports that the enemy has been destroyed in three groups near Arilje. Here it becomes quite evident that it was a purely military operation. The entry of the same day concerning a General Osterkamp shows that Geitner demanded to keep the meat supplies for the Serbian civilian population in the country, and that he refused to distribute it to the Army Administration Office because he said this supply would not be possible.
From the next entry you see that there is another contribution for the maintenance of order required in the country, a decree which was to be proclaimed at the time "concerning the prohibition of the vendetta in Serbia," from this you can see what considerations and what attitudes one took in order to obtain order and quiet. Also, of great importance is the entry of the 20th of August 1943 on the next page. It's Page 33, where it says: "Chief Brigadier General Fischer 'Military Administration Headquarters Vraacka Banja) reports on the advances of the Bulgarians in the Guca area and on their demands for additional reprisal measures. The General rejects them."
Here, again you have an example in which the Defendant Geitner is able to report that the army or some other unit asked for reprisal measures to be carried out, but that his Commander in Chief refused such reprisal measures to be carried out. For this reason this document is submitted, and Your Honors are asked to pay attention to the significance of these documents.
The next document No. 97, on Page 34, which will receive Exhibit No. 82. It is the entry of the 29th of August 1943 which is especially interesting because here we see the date of the relief of General Bader by General Felber who arrived at Belgrade on the 29th of August. The date, therefore, is absolutely certain. Then, the entry of the 1st of September 1943 contains a contribution for the showing of the cunningness and maliciousness of the Serbian Volunteer Corps. I am not going to read the entry which in itself, of course, is very interesting. It merely repeats something that has been confirmed here on numerous, previous occasions. In the same entry there is a remark of General Meyszner, the Higher SS and Police Leader, who demands intensification of reprisal measures, but nothing is mentioned about the approval of such action. Instead you find a reference concerning the care that was taken for the population, Page 34, at the bottom. On the 3rd of September 1943, on Page 35 measures are mentioned against certain ill conditions on the part of the German administration. And, then, there is an entry on the 9th of September 1943, which is again on Page 35. I quote: "The Supreme Commander, after a discussion with the Higher SS and Police Chief, decides, on the basis of the new political directives for Serbia, not to carry out two ordered major reprisal measures in the districts of Kragujevac and Leskovac in order to ease the situation for the Nedic Government." Here, again, you see a contribution concerning the claim of the Prosecution that the German generals in Serbia had lined nothing better than to order reprisal measures to be carried out. Here, there are two extensive reprisal measures which were not carried out, which were withdrawn. And I draw your attention to the fact that this happened eight days after the new Commander in Chief Serbia, General Felber, had arrived in Belgrade.
This is the same General Felber who, in a former stage of the trial, was summoned as a witness upon request of the Prosecution. It is a strange feature that immediately on the next page there is another entry in which again reprisal measures are being refused by this new Commander in Chief. It is Page 36, Document No. 97, where it says, under the 15th of September 1943, "Rejection of reprisal measures in the area of the Field Kommandanture 809." That is in the first half of September the new Commander in Chief, as the Defendant maintains, under his influences, refused two or three extensive reprisal measures--at least he rescinded them. Under the 16th of September 1943 there is an entry, and I quote: "SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyszer sees the High Commander. Discussion about reprisal shootings." I attach particular value to this quotation because it becomes evident from this that SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyszner did not discuss matters concerning reprisal measures with the Defendant Geitner but with the Commander in Chief personally. That, in this case, is the just newly arrived General Felber. This is again a contribution for the investigation for the claim of Geitner that he was not competent to deal with or discuss reprisal measures.
The entry at the end of this page on the 30th of September 1943, shows that this SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner got entangled in all matters. It says here SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner opposed the fact that the Serbian state guard is to be subordinated to the Commander of Nedic -- that is the Serbian Minister. He discloses that he is ordered to report to the SS Reichsfuehrer. Here you see another example how this SS Gruppenfuehrer Meyssner tried to exercise the pressure on the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief Felber and on the defendant Geitner, in which he is threatening with the denunciation at the Reichsfuehrer SS.
The next document 98 on page 38 receives Exhibit No. 83. I draw your attention -- on page 39, your Honors, from the 15th of October 1943 the second paragraph, you see there the remark "Field Kommandantur 816 is informed that reprisal measures for casualties suffered by the Reserve Grenadier Regt. 17 during the relief operation against Ljubovija, are out of question."
I would like to remind the Tribunal of the fact that a few minutes ago on the occasion of the entry of the 13th September 1943, I read an entry "Refusal of Reprisal Measures by the Field Kommandantur 809." Here on page 39 under the entry of 15 October 1943, you see a similar entry concerning other field headquarters. In this case, it is 816 who evidently had ordered or asked for reprisal measures to be carried out, but the new General, the Commander-in-Chief Felber under the influence of Chief-of-Staff Geitner refused such reprisal measures. I do not want to read the other entries. I would like the Tribunal to take note of the next document No. 99 on page 41 which will receive the Exhibit No. 84. I shall read the paragraph under the 1st of November, 1943:
"Discussions with Ambassador Neubacher at HighCommand Headquarters.....
"Reprisal measures for offenses committed by the national insurgents are to be considerably reduced."
Here again is proof that the generals in Serbia evidently kept on investigating how far they would get and how far they would have to carry out reprisal measures and that they tried to reduce them when they were in the belief that they could be avoided.
On the next page 42, it is interesting to see the entry of 23 November 1943 here. General von Geitner asks the OKW, the administrative Department, the High Command of the Army, also to appoint Constabulary for the Croatian territory. It is the 19th of November. You see the attempts of the defendant Geitner to receive the means and the possibility to establish and maintain order and peace in the country. I should now like to read on page 42 the entry of the 26th of November. In the English version, if you happen to have that.
"Reprisal measures to be taken for the two air corps men, found shot and mutilated in the area of Bur. It will be temporarily refrained from on the initiative of ambassador Neubacher......"
Resulting from a mistake of the English translation, it is under the 28th of November, 1943. It is therefore on page 42 in the center. I should like the date 28 November 1943 to be changed to 26 November 1943. That is what it should read.
This entry therefore reads: -- I shall re-read it because it deals with reprisal measures -- it says:
"Reprisal measures to be taken for the two air corps men, found shot and mutilated in the area of Bor; will be temporarily refrained from on the initiative of Ambassador Neubacher.......
A new regulation in regard to reprisal measures, in connection with the suggestion of Ambassador Neubacher, is taken into consideration. Reprisal measures taken so far are based on orders which up till now had been given by higher authority with regard to the kind of reprisal measures to be applied.
As a result of another request by the Draha Mihailovic partisan leader, Kalabic who is staying in the area MladenovacMilanovac and in the district north of Uzice, a mutual non aggression agreement is concluded with the latter for the purpose of fighting the Communists.....
The background of these statements is very evident here. Geitner maintains that he used the appearance of a new Commander-in-Chief, in this case General Felber, in order to influence the new Commander-in-Chief in good manner. The new Commander-in-Chief therefore tried to have reprisal measures. He began with his new regulation by refusing to have carried out two reprisal measures in two comparatively significant cases.
The next entry of 29 of November 1943 says that - I quote:
"As a result of another request by the Draha Mihailovic partisan leader, Kalabic who is staying in the area Mladenevac-Milanovac and in the district north of Uzice, a mutual non-aggression agreement is concluded with the latter for the purpose of fighting the Communists."
The defendant Geitner attaches value to the fact that it becomes evident from this report that every means was used in order to avoid bloodshed and to avoid combat between population and the partisans.
The next document is Document 100; it will receive Exhibit No. 85, and it is on page 44 of Geitner Document Book Geitner IV. The entry of the 3rd of December is an interesting contribution to the cunning of the armed bands of the Cetniks and also the next but one entry of the 8th of December 1943 in which an obvious is named in order to avoid laws.
The next document 101 will receive Exhibit No. 86; it is on page 46. The entry of the 9th of January 1944 points out the special care which was taken concerning the civilian population. The entry of the 16th of January, 1944, also on page 46 shows that the new Commander-in-Chief Felber and his Chief-of-Staff Geitner attempted to avoid the quick drawing out of the 173rd Reserve Division without suitable replacement. The word for the population is mentioned by the entry of the 27th of January 1944 and the 30th of January 1944 where the defendant von Geitner complains about the dishonest attitude of the DM leaders -- that is Draja Mihailovic, the Mihailovic people who used conclusions of agreements only as means for the purpose of avoiding difficulties, and then later on were surprised when Germans drew the consequences of this, their attitude.
Document 102 on page 87 will receive Exhibit No. 87. I repeat -Document 102 on page -- I am sorry, I made a mistake there. It is on page 48 of the original and it will receive the Exhibit Number 87. The first entry again -
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think before you read from that exhibit, we will take our noon recess.
(A recess was taken.)